My Stinson advice would be to go with a -2. That tail on the -3 is HUGE.

I agree Z and that's why I got a -2. The upside to the -3, especially if you want more ponies, is an additional 170# on the GW and 10 more gallons of fuel. Life is full of difficult choices

It's too bad you're so far away or I'd take you up and let you see how mine does (Tadpole is in the same situation as you).

I personally love the classic lines of the old 108-2's. They're great a/c and I cruise at 130-135mph on 10ish g/hr, maybe get into the 9's if I fly above 12.5k. I do have the F220 and aside from finding parts it's a WONDERFUL engine. Very smooth, light and lots of power (needs 100LL though). The baggage door is nice too. I've only had mine 6 months, but I've put over 50hrs on it and can't really find a bad thing about it (maybe bigger tanks?). For what I needed, it fits the bill nicely. My strip is at 5800ft elev, so a bigger motor was on my list, g/hr was lower on the list. I had a C140 and was limited by so many things that I wasn't as concerned with g/hr as being able to go fly on a nice warm summer day. (C140 is a great a/c though).

Hanger9works and the yahoo group have amazing support. My other option was an old Maule M-4 rocket, but those are getting pricey. I had about 50 hrs in a M-4-210 and once you know how to fly it, it's also a great a/c.

You could just buy bmurrish's C180!

Matt

Whee,

For what's worth, I have owned a 1965 Cessna 172, a 1954 Cessna 180 and a 1960 Cessna 182. Now from 1994 to 2008 and routinly flew from BNO to 64S, 10 to 12 times a year. Something about Grand Parents wanting to see Grand kids, go figure.

So from 94 to 98 we flew the 145 hp O-300D powered 172. 8.1 gph for the 163 nm trip. At 8,500ft the trip was routinely was 2 hours 20/25 minutes at 8.1is 19.4 + the 1.1 for taxi and TO, 20.5 gallons. Could not make a round trip without refueling. Wasn't going to chance it with the kids anyway. So I would fly in Medford for fuel, add another 40 miles on the trip, more fuel.

From 98 to 2002 flew the 180, it had the O-470J engine, 225hp and would burn 11.3 at 10,500 ft and make the trip in 1.5 or 1.7 hours. I could get to 10,500 quicker than the 172 could make the 8,500. So 1.7 hours x the 11.5 per hour is 19.5 gallons + 1.5 for taxi and TO. So 21 gallons.

From 2002 till 2008 flew the 182, it was pretty much the same as the 180. 12.3 to 12.5 gph with the O-470L with 230 hp. Guess it's 1 gph more for the 5 hp increase between the J and L engines.

It really depends on the fixed cost of ownership. Around locally goofing off I could get the Shadin fuel flow meter down to 8.5 gph on the 182, but I was flying 172 speed. Going somewhere I'd shove the throttle to the stop and leave it there until decent time. Now I had around 150 hours tail wheel time when I got the 180, mostley Cub, Super Cub, Champ. The 180 at $50,000 hull value ran me $1800 a year premiums. The 182, same value $800 a year. $1000 difference, buys a lot of av gas, in 2002 I was paying $2.25 for 100LL.

Now I went everywhere with the 182 that I took the 180. Oh, check that. I had the 180 a couple of places I shouldn't have been, that I never took the 182 in. Like gbflyer said 182 is a good all around plane, decent speed, and there are some good buys to be had.

Just an old pilots view piont, you can always throttle back

C ya, Bub

I thought hard about a 182 and just feel like I'd be worried about the nose gear all the time. I'd imagine pilot skill and technique could take can of any real issue but there is a few gravel bars I have been eyein

those numbers you gave are helpful Skylane, makes the higher fuel burn look a little better.

1SeventyZ wrote:My Stinson advice would be to go with a -2. That tail on the -3 is HUGE.

yeah it is...but it looks kinda cool in flight.

I actually had my Dad about talked into looking at bmurrish's 180, but we'd have to sell the Luscombe to buy right now and going from 3.5gpr to 12-13 would be shocking to say the least.

STC, well I've moved to the east side of ID so half way is about Johnson Creek

whee wrote:I thought hard about a 182 and just feel like I'd be worried about the nose gear all the time. I'd imagine pilot skill and technique could take can of any real issue but there is a few gravel bars I have been eyein

those numbers you gave are helpful Skylane, makes the higher fuel burn look a little better.

1SeventyZ wrote:My Stinson advice would be to go with a -2. That tail on the -3 is HUGE.

yeah it is...but it looks kinda cool in flight.

I actually had my Dad about talked into looking at bmurrish's 180, but we'd have to sell the Luscombe to buy right now and going from 3.5gpr to 12-13 would be shocking to say the least.

STC, well I've moved to the east side of ID so half way is about Johnson Creek

I've owned 30 airplanes in my life including 4 182's . The 1956 I have now is a 180 with a nose wheel . The Stinson 108 series is a great airplane -it's just the motors that continue to be hard to maintain. The 0-360 is a perfect match but expensive to acquire Stinson airframes are reasonably priced -but watch out for corrosion in lower 8130 tubes -especially near the tail. Fabric Stinsons come out lighter than there metalized counterparts. 108-2
is ideal for power upgrade to 180hp with the service letter from Univair. Adds rudder trim under the back seat -so it's eisier to do uncovered fuse.108-3 already has the provisions for bigger motors and rudder trim . I've seen several 108-3's with 0-540 LYC.Best overall I belive is the 0-360 version with 108 -2 or 3 airframe.

Whee,

Skylane makes some excellent points about fuel costs compared to other operational costs. Insurance differences can be huge, even between similar looking airplanes. Tri Gear airplanes will always have lower insurance premiums than tailwheel types, but there are some tailwheel types that have higher premiums as well, so shop that market a bit during your brainstorming.

Maintenance costs can be a big deal, cost wise, so pay attention to the difficulties/costs of supporting some of these airplanes.

Finally, if you have a bigger engine in the same airframe, you don't HAVE to USE all that power in cruise. With many airplanes, you get to a certain point and you're really not going much faster by pushing the throttle to the stop. Back off the power a bit, run that 230 hp engine in your Stinson at 100 hp power setting, and you should be burning the same amount of fuel as a 165 Franklin burns when it's putting out 100 hp. Plane should go about the same speed, and fuel burn is similar. Or, if it makes sense to do so, open it up and maybe go a bit faster, but burn more fuel.

The O-470's are great engines, and very tolerant of low cruise power settings. So, you can have the takeoff performance, but retain the relatively low cruise fuel consumption.

Good luck in your shopping.

MTV

Whee, just a little follow up information on the Maule with 180 hp. I have no problems flying three adults but would feel very uncomfortable with four. In all honesty, I don't think I could actually squeeze two adults in the rear seat. Headroom is okay but they would be eating their kneecaps. Two kids would be no problem and I have actually flown with two adults in the front and two kids in the back.

I frequently fly with a couple other guys that have a bit slower aircraft. Since we like to stay together, I fly throttled back. I have seen just a bit over 7 GPH in that mode.

I just had my engine in for a complete overhaul, new pistons, mags, carb, starter, etc. I get it back next week and I am very curious to see if there is a noticable power difference. A number of other folks have commented that I should see a big improvement. I was very pleased with the power it had.

Two of the guys on the field have Stinsons. They are great aircraft.

One last thing. I mentioned that I graduated from a Luscombe to a Maule. Let me tell you, it is just not the power difference! The Luscombe is a sweet flying aircraft (as I am sure you know) and with those long wings will float forever when landing. On the other hand, the Maule comes in like a freight elevator! The insurance company said I needed 25 landings to solo the Maule. They were conservative. The sight picture is so different (going up and down) it really took awhile before I stopped testing the strength of the landing gear!

whee wrote:I thought hard about a 182 and just feel like I'd be worried about the nose gear all the time. I'd imagine pilot skill and technique could take can of any real issue but there is a few gravel bars I have been eyein

those numbers you gave are helpful Skylane, makes the higher fuel burn look a little better.

Can't give you first hand knowledge just book and 2nd hand. Aside from the Franks being a bit gas hungry and hard to maintain, the one downside I see with the stinson is the doors are, well, smaller than a 172 door. Cramming large items through the door could be more difficult than some choices.

Flew with a guy a couple months back who has, I think, a 108-2, maybe it was the 3 I don't remember now. He has a 220hp continental in it with a constant speed prop, 29's on the mains. We were cruising along at 120mph (could have been knots but I think mph) no problem. He said he gets about 10gph in cruise and more like 13 when going in and out of places. It's a pretty nice looking bird which he's kept hangared. He's also made noises about wanting to sell it as he just doesn't fly it much anymore. It is a little on the heavy side for a Stinson, I recall, but don't know what the weight is. I'd be happy to get you contact info if you'd like to chat with him. Sorry my memory is a bit fuzzy on this.

As far as gravel bars. The guy above flies with another fellow in a 172 with the 8.50's all around. They both go in and out of gravel bars.

Craig

I'll give you the same info somebody gave me when I was looking for a C-170 or Stinson...look at a Piper Tripacer with a tail wheel conversion; PA-22/20-150. As soon as I flew one I dumped the idea of the Cessna/Stinson.

My '59 Pacer: Full IFR panel (not certified but it has all the pieces), O320, 1130lbs empty with a 2k gross, 125mph cruise at 9gph burn rate with a climb prop, 800-900 fpm climb at 1700 lbs on an 80 degree day today, 400' takeoff roll and a sloppy 600' landing roll today (I can do it in 300' if I'm not sloppy and honk on the brakes). I have the droop wingtips that give me a 48mph(ish) stall and gets rid of the Tripacer's notorious "glides like a brick" reputation. The 8.5 tires make it very nice in the mud and wet grass. The cockpit is not as tight as some have warned. A couple of 200 pounders can fit comfortably in the front.

I'd bet my Pacer's performance against a 165 Stinson any day. The best part is that excellent examples of the 150hp Pacer are on the market for around $30k to $35k.

If you are looking for a Stinson, I can put you in touch with a mechanic that has a 108-3 with a fresh Franklin 220hp in it that he took in trade in a Maule rebuild deal. Nice airplane with a fresh motor by a known rebuilder. I love the 220 Franklin, I just sold a M-4 Maule with one in it and am currently flying a freshly rebuilt M-4 220.

I agree with MTV....I kinda wish I had put the 210HP Lycoming in my Sportsman when I built it, I was concerned about the fuel consumption. But what I learned with my IO360 is if I run it at 63% power I get 7GPH fuel burn and 110kts cruising speed. If I'm in a hurry, bump it up to 75% and you'll get there 20 kts quicker and about 2 more GPH.
So reguardless of how much HP you have, you can always throttle back. It's just hard to get more power when it's already against the firewall

I concur with the "don't fixate on the fuel burn" posters on here. Last weekend, staying behind Z in his 170B, I was burning pretty much exactly the same amount of fuel as he was at the same airspeed -- 8 GPH. This is in a pretty much bone-stock 1959 Cessna 180B loaded with full fuel, myself, my wife, two kids and all our (excessive) camping gear.

With all due respect, I tend to disagree with the argument about pulling the power back, at least a steady diet of it anyway. I tried it for a couple years when the fuel got so expensive, trying to be cheap. Cost me a session with the mechanic pulling jugs with no compression and no apparent damage. Turns out that the additional lead fouling is enough to cause issues with valve seats.

The engine shop guys say to run them hard, and I tend to agree after my experience. O470-K, by the way.

gb

gbflyer wrote:The engine shop guys say to run them hard, and I tend to agree after my experience. O470-K, by the way.

They're already quite detuned as it is.

I say go after the one that you think looks the coolest. There's way too much rational thought in this thread.

I say go after the one that you think looks the coolest. There's way too much rational thought in this thread.

You know, I was going to post something like that, but chickened out. If I can get philosophical for a moment, there's really no way to rationalize any form of airplane ownership. The only justification is that it makes your heart sing. Within reason, buy the plane that makes you happy just looking at it, let alone flying it. I drive an an old car I bought used for cash,etc, but I own a plane that gives me the chills just thinking about it, and *that* makes it all worthwhile.

I currently own a maule MX7-180B. I find it to be a pick up truck or Jeep in the sky. It is a sturdy ride and seems to reflect all that has been said. It doesn't float but and aircraft that does, does not make a great STOL aircraft. It seems to get me in and out fine.

Oregon180 wrote:

I say go after the one that you think looks the coolest. There's way too much rational thought in this thread.

You know, I was going to post something like that, but chickened out. If I can get philosophical for a moment, there's really no way to rationalize any form of airplane ownership. The only justification is that it makes your heart sing. Within reason, buy the plane that makes you happy just looking at it, let alone flying it. I drive an an old car I bought used for cash,etc, but I own a plane that gives me the chills just thinking about it, and *that* makes it all worthwhile.

Maybe for you, but for me, it is my used car and hauls me and my family to town for food, doctor, etc. Come to think of it, I guess I could move, though. But...why would I?

gb

gbflyer wrote:Maybe for you, but for me, it is my used car and hauls me and my family to town for food, doctor, etc. Come to think of it, I guess I could move, though. But...why would I?

Down here in the Lower 48 we're just hobbyists. Now git back to eatin yer moose jerky.

Ya, Sarah's comin' over tonite to play some hockey while we look at Russia.

gb