Tadpole wrote:Hangar's done. Moved the fuselage over to it today, after I temp installed the vert and horizontal for some extra weight on the back end.

Had to stop though, we ran over my 2yr old son when pushing the plane. We were pushing tail first and he got behind my wife and tripped, fell on his belly, and the right main rolled up on the back of his left leg. Pretty nastly looking road rash in the beginning. X-rays all good, he's just scraped up pretty good.

Tomorrow I drive 6hrs to Durango for a memorial service for a friend that crashed in Idaho a few weeks ago.

Monday I'll move the rest of my stuff from the old T-hangar to the new one and may even get some of my shop from the garage moved over.

Spacious!


Bright!

macktruckfarm wrote:Is your trip to Durango for Miles' service? If so, let us know any details if you can on the reasons.

Thanks, Ed

Tadpole wrote:Wow, over a year since I posted an update here. I've actually made A LOT of progress this year on the plane and it's on target to fly this year.

I took the prop to the shop a few weeks ago and they called to let me know it's trashed and unrepairable. So goodbye Hartzell. The STC for the 220 Franklin allows for one of two Hartzells or the McCauley 2A31C21/84S-4 to -8. I'm trying to find the 80" McCauley. How hard is it to find these props now days since they don't produce them anymore?

Sure wish I could get something modern and lightweight on there.

hotrod180 wrote:Refresh my memory-- what's the powerplant on your Stinson?

Tadpole wrote:....The STC for the 220 Franklin allows for one of two Hartzells or the McCauley 2A31C21/84S-4 to -8. I'm trying to find the 80" McCauley. How hard is it to find these props now days since they don't produce them anymore? Sure wish I could get something modern and lightweight on there........
Have a Field Approval submitted to put a modern McCauley prop on the plane based on some engineering data from McCauley and several other Stinsons that have had it approved already. Just waiting on that. Have a couple more to submit as well......

hotrod180 wrote:Thinking about this...I can't think of too many airplanes that had the 220 Franklin. Maule M4/M5 comes to mind, also the Socata Rallye / PZL Koliber. Don't know what props those came with, but it might be worth looking into since a field approval sometimes seems easier to get if it's based on a factory installation.

hotrod180 wrote:Curious if the Mac C201 was used with the 220 Frank in a factory application?
What prop(s) did the Maule 220's use?

McCAULEY PROPELLER SYSTEMS
PRODUCT ENGINEERING
Memopeng.doc (Rev. B, 8/2000)
SUBJECT: Stinson 108 Aerodynamic Comparison of
C21/C22 to C201
DATE:5/17/2004
MEMO:MPS-04-021-KJP
TO: McCauley Product Support
FROM: Kevin Pfeiffer
An aerodynamic comparison of the C201 to the C21/C22 propellers was initiated at the request of McCauley
Product Support on behalf of several Stinson 108 owners. This memo is a summary of the findings for the
C21/C22 threaded propellers versus the threadless C201 on the Franklin 6A-350 powered Stinson 108.
Running the performance code on cruise and climb cases for the C22 and the C201, the propellers are very
similar aerodynamically. Both propellers use RAF-6 airfoil sections and similar planforms. For differences,
the C201 has two inches more diameter, somewhat larger chords, and thinner thickness to chord ratios with
associated reductions in RAF-6 camber.
Looking at the performance numbers, two flight conditions were used for comparison, a cruise point and a
climb point. The conditions are as follows:
Cruise at 8,000'
113ktas (130mph)
165bhp (75%), 2600rpm
Climb at Sea Level
70ktas (80.5mph)
220bhp (100%), 2800rpm
Aerodynamic comparison shows that the C201 is very similar in performance to the C22 threaded propeller.
Analysis shows a small performance gain in climb (roughly 1%), and a slight performance decrease in cruise
(half a percent). These results indicate that there should be no significant performance effect on the Franklin
6A-350 powered Stinson 108 as a result of changing from the 2A31C21/84-6 or 2A34C22/84-6 propellers to
the 2A34C201/90-10 assembly.
Kevin Pfeiffer
McCauley Propeller Systems

hotrod180 wrote:Sounds like an 82" C201 would be the ticket.
I wonder if they've looked into the suitability of a C203-- very similar to the 201, but the 203 uses model DCA blades instead of DA.
There's a lot of used C203's around, not sure about C201's.
FWIW I sold a used C203 about a year ago to someone here for about $1200.

1:1 Scale wrote:I've got a C21 (or 22?) as removed from an M5 at home if you need go that route for some reason.