I am considering a Stinson for my first airplane after learning in a 172. I figure the Stinson will be docile enough for me until I get the hang of things.

I read a lot about them being Metalized.

Is this a good thing or not so good?

I imagine it helps if it is parked outside?

But how much does it take away from the useful load?

What is typically the preferred Stinson? Ragwing or Metalized?

I thought I read something about the companies who made the metal kits are all out of business. Does this make it difficult to make repairs?

Any thoughts on this appreciated.

Finally one other question... Do you think the Stinson is a better first taildragger to learn on for the money when compared to a similar cost Champ?

Thanks for the help.

JC wrote:I read a lot about them being Metalized. Is this a good thing or not so good?

Neither good or bad, just different. Its a personal thing. I personally like fabric more, but I've been looking at buying a metalized Stinson lately.

JC wrote:I imagine it helps if it is parked outside?

Sure, but modern fabrics do very, very well also.

JC wrote:But how much does it take away from the useful load?

35-75lbs depending on things. I've personally seen both ends of the spectrum.

JC wrote:What is typically the preferred Stinson? Ragwing or Metalized?

There are more ragwings out there, but that's because that's how they are normally...and STC holder can't be contacted to do it anymore...as in gone, and probably for good. Resale value seems to hold more on fabric, which tells me it's desired more. Again, it's a personal choice. I know Stinson owners that wouldn't own another one if it was fabric.

JC wrote:I thought I read something about the companies who made the metal kits are all out of business. Does this make it difficult to make repairs?

Nope, not at all. It's metal skin is all, AC43 dictates the repairs...even if the company was around, it'd be no different. You just can't go convert one to metal with an STC right now.

JC wrote:Do you think the Stinson is a better first taildragger to learn on for the money when compared to a similar cost Champ?

I think it's a great taildragger to learn in, very smooth and forgiving plane. Though, I didn't learn in one. Go fly whatever you want, learn in that....well maybe not a 540 powered Pitts I don't really feel that any of the "normal" taildraggers are any harder to learn with. If it was that big of a deal, schools would use Stinsons for tw training, but they don't. Citabrias, Champs, Cubs, Super Cubs, and so on, seem to be the norm.

I think the big issue of concern is that if the aircraft is metallized, it was probably done a LONG time ago, like 30+ years, and the consensus is that there's an awful lot of *stuff* that you can't see in a metallized aircraft, a lot of which really should be looked at over that timeframe.

All the metallization STCs came out back when the best available covering was Grade A linen, and you were lucky to get 5 years out of the fabric. Folks got tired of the frequent recovers- hence the interest in the metal STCs.

Personally, for many reasons, I would have zero interest in a metallized Stinson.

Here's some Stinson reading to get you started. I found these by searching for "stinson."

Stinson vs Maule

Which is more for the money?

Maule M-4 or Stinson 108 for training?

Stinson at High Altitude

Buying a 108-3...maybe.

I have a Stinson 108-2. Excellent plane for back country flying. Mine is fabric. It is a little lighter and the repairs are far more cheaper if you have a mishap. There are a lot of things one can do to make a good plane great.
The Stinson is one of the most over looked planes on the market today. They fly and handel nicely. Not a lot of ADs one has to worry about. They will take a beating. The thing is they do lack horse power and room. SO if you find one with more then the 165 Hp. Franklin go for it. They do Cary a load but the room is limited. Some thing to think about. I have over 25 years in flying Stinson's. I do have the parts to build another one. They are great on fuel that's a plus. Great plane and a great choice.

Ken in Alaska

By all reports, the Stinson 108 series has excellent flight characteristics and solid, honest handling. Because it is heavier than a 2 seat taildragger, all other factors equal it should be easier to learn in because it will change direction more slowly, due to higher mass if nothing else.

That said, I have not flown the Stinson so the above is an assumption.

EZFlap wrote:By all reports, the Stinson 108 series has excellent flight characteristics and solid, honest handling. Because it is heavier than a 2 seat taildragger, all other factors equal it should be easier to learn in because it will change direction more slowly, due to higher mass if nothing else.

That said, I have not flown the Stinson so the above is an assumption.

A lot of that heavier weight is behind the mains.....does that make it easier to swap ends?
I don't know.
Loaded heavy....my 180 feels like your feet better be awake compared to a light load.
Huge Stinson fan here, if mine didn't have 30yr old fabric I would still have it.

RDU and AK make great points on the reasons not to own a metal Stinson. My biggest complaint is that most of the metalized jobs are poorly done and have wrinkles on the wings and fuselage. I guess if the price is right, then go for it.

Every so often a guy on the Stinson group chimes in about converting his metal 108 back to fabric, but it's just to much work. Something about a fabric plane being covered in metal isn't right in my opinion.

JC wrote:.....Finally one other question... Do you think the Stinson is a better first taildragger to learn on for the money when compared to a similar cost Champ? ..............

I doubt there is a more docile taildragger than the Champ. But I haven't heard that a properly rigged Stinson is much of a handful. The question is, afer you master the tailwheel like all of us (haha ), is the Champ gonna fit your usual flying mission? The Champ is great for poking around in at about 85 mph while not burning much gas, but for travelling or going camping... not so much. You might be better served by a bit more airplane- a larger, faster, and/or more powerful 2 seater or a 4 seater like the Stinson offers a lot more versatility.

The great thing about steel tubes wrapped in fabric is that you can inspect them every so often when they get recovered - not so much once you wrap them in aluminum. That and metalized Stinsons, in my humble opinion, lose a bit of their lines, the fuselage especially looks weird.

Lots of good info. Thanks.

The links were good as well.

Do you have any idea what the cabin width is on the 108s?

Are they about the same as a 172 or more shoulder room?

I suppose I would like a Pacer except for it not having a pilot side door.

If you were to compare a Stinson with a Pacer and a 172, how would you rank them in terms of:
Payload
Roominess
STOL ability
Cruise speed/comfort

The only reason I threw the 172 into the comparison is because that is what I am most familiar with besides an occasional ride in a 182.

Thanks for putting up with the newbie type questions.

I appreciate the answers.

John

Has anybody in the UP Michigan area seen the-3 that has been for sale on Barnstormers off and on for at least a year and a half? The pictures sure look good, a combination of paint and polished aluminum. It looks like a recent rebuild inside and out. It also has descent airframe and engine times but either he never flies it or hasn't updated the times on his ad. He has lowered the price so I know he knows how to edit.

Yeah, that one is a real beauty. Aside from the paint and shiny alum, the inlaid wood paneling inside looks great. All it needs is a nicely painted up panel, it would certainly be an airplane I would be too afraid of ruining.

Really is nice. I'm not sure he will recover his investment of time and elbow grease.

JC wrote:...If you were to compare a Stinson with a Pacer and a 172, how would you rank them in terms of:
Payload
Roominess
STOL ability
Cruise speed/comfort
......

(Legal) payload is probably pretty close on all three, as is cruise speed.
I'd have to sat the C172 wins the roominess category, hands down. Also probably the easiest to board, at least the front seat. The Pacer's back door makes for super baggage access if you run with the back seat out for camping, as a lot of Pacer people do.
STOL is probably pretty close also, with the Pacer (maybe, maybe not?) trailing just a bit. Aircraft weight, mods, prop pitch, & (most importantly) good pilot technique have as much to do with this category as the airplanes themselves do.
I think it all boils down to which one blows your skirt up the most, and which one you can find a good deal on. Lots of airplanes, esp Pacers & Stinsons, ging for bargain prices these days. Check barnstormers out for Super Stinsons, available with Lyc O-360, Cont IO-360 or O-470, or Franklin 220 powerplants-- they seem to sell for way less than comparably- powered airplanes, esp the 470 powered ones.

JC wrote:
...If you were to compare a Stinson with a Pacer and a 172, how would you rank them in terms of:
Payload
Roominess
STOL ability
Cruise speed/comfort
......

(Legal) payload is probably pretty close on all three, as is cruise speed.

Actually, payload is one of the comparative strong points of the 108-3. With my IFR equipped -3 weighing in at barely 13-hundred-some-odd pounds and a 2400 pound gross, it's a TRUE four place airplane. Load it up with four FAA 170 pounders (or two couples), full tanks (50 gallons), 50 pounds of baggage, with room to spare.

The only caveat is that long cargo is tough because of the non-removable bulkhead aft of the rear seats.
I'm pretty sure there are no 172s or Pacers that can do that...

RDUStinson wrote:
Actually, payload is one of the comparative strong points of the 108-3. With my IFR equipped -3 weighing in at barely 13-hundred-some-odd pounds and a 2400 pound gross, it's a TRUE four place airplane. Load it up with four FAA 170 pounders (or two couples), full tanks (50 gallons), 50 pounds of baggage, with room to spare.

The only caveat is that long cargo is tough because of the non-removable bulkhead aft of the rear seats.
I'm pretty sure there are no 172s or Pacers that can do that...

A 170 won't do that. MIne is just over 1400 lbs empty with a 2200 lbs gross. 37 gals of fuel (222 lbs) leaves me with just under 600 lbs I can use for people and bags.

The Stinson over the 172.
Stinson will clear the ground faster then the 172. The 172 is a little wider then the Stinson.
Stinson is a little lighter then the 172. The 172 gets better fuel burn. The Stinson with fabric
is easier to repair then 172. Stinson is a slow flying plane and will cruse around 105 to 112 with the 165 hp. Franklin. You have more leg room in the 172 then you do in a Stinson.
The trim crank on the Stinson is easy to reach. The flaps on the Stinson are manual so they respond faster.
Easy access to the back in a 172 then a Stinson. The Stinson has been around for a long time. Mine was built back in 1947. A Stinson looks great with 31 inch Alaska Bush Wheels on it , 172 dose not. lol

Ken Stinson flyer in Alaska

As for the Pacer vs. Stinson info, please take a look at this thread:
www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4856