For Sale: Aircraft Stinson 108-2 For Sale at KFAM

Stephanie B

Stephanie B

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
152
Location
SE CT
Display Name
Display name:
Stephanie
I'm offering my 1947 Stinson 108-2 for sale. It's about 98% metallized. TTAF 4,061, SMOH 771 on a heavy-case 165 hp Franklin with an oil filter. I'll toss in a portable 2-place intercom, a set of anchors for tying down (good if you're overnighting at a fly-in [did that at Sun `n Fun a couple of times]) and a set of chocks. Annual is due 12/18. It has a Narco Mk-12D and a Narco AT-50 transponder with Mode C (but not ADS-B). It has an engine cover and a cabin cover (Bruce's Aircraft Covers). If you're going north with it, I could be persuaded to add a SureStart IV portable heater. The ask is $21.5K.

Extra would be a Garmin-195 with the accoutrements (especially extra if you want the database updated.)

It's based at Farmington, MO and is in the shade hangars there. This is what it looks like outside and inside:

http://n333c.blogspot.com/p/exterior-shots.html
http://n333c.blogspot.com/p/interior...nd-engine.html

(I know, not exactly terribly pretty. That's why I'm not asking showplane prices.)

The photos were taken before I relocated to KFAM; it was on a tiedown at 44N.

Larry McCormick is the broker, so please, contact him if you want more information. You can call (or text) him at area code 573 and then 518 daassh 4792. He's intimately familiar with the airplane. And if you come down to check it out, ask to see Trouble, his cat. He's very friendly (and so is Larry).
 
Last edited:
Nice looking bird, Steph. What’s the story, upgrading to something else, or calling it a day on ownership?
 
Good looking plane, S108s are great aircraft, took a six figure plane to get me out of mine, still miss that plane.

Good luck on the sale.
 
Ryan, I need to call it a day, for now. I have to move to a place where it's just not practical (or cheap) to keep an airplane. I would wind up having it at a place that would be an hour or more away to drive, which means even a short "tool round and warm up the oil" flight would be a half-day endeavor.

And I'm getting older and it's less and less fun to horse it around with a towbar.

I'd end up not flying it anywhere near as much as it should be flown (or I should). It's time for somebody else to have fun with it.
 
Just tagging on...

Larry McCormick is one of the A&Ps that I regularly use. Right now my plane is at his place for annual. Great guy, knows his stuff.
 
Did my tailwheel endorsement in a similar Stinson - great airplane!
 
kayoh190 said:
Did my tailwheel endorsement in a similar Stinson - great airplane!
Click to expand...

For a tailwheel airplane, they're very forgiving.

I forgot to mention that it has shoulder harnesses for the front seats, and rudderpedals with brakes for the right seat. I've seen a few that didn't have brakes on the right side.


Sent from my FBI-approved monitoring device using Tapatalk
 
Dave Arata said:
Useable load? Fuel capacity?
Click to expand...

40 gallons, 36 usable. 3.5 hours with with VFR reserves. No-wind cruise is 118mph. Been a very long time since I had to do a W&B and that info isn't close to hand. But I had 500lbs of passengers and me (I prolly was 190lbs with clothes then [I'm tall and not a beanpole]), full tanks and was 100lbs under gross.

I bought it because it could haul me, a friend, a bunch of gear and full tanks.

And it did. :)
 
Last edited:
Stephanie B said:
40 gallons, 36 usable. 3.5 hours with with VFR reserves. No-wind cruise is 118mph. Been a very long time since I had to do a W&B and that info isn't close to hand. But I had 500lbs of passengers and me (I prolly was 190lbs with clothes then [I'm tall and not a beanpole]), full tanks and was 100lbs under gross.

I bought it because it could haul me, a friend, a bunch of gear and full tanks.

And it did. :)
Click to expand...


Yup, true 4 seat plane, also handles much lighter than a cessan, and has VERY robust construction and great landing gear.
 
Stephanie B said:
Here is a writeup about the 108 series from 25 years ago.
Click to expand...

I found this quote from the article to be particularly interesting.

“ A few have been metalized, but the Stinson purists curl their collective lips at this modification, claiming it increases the weight unacceptably and creates an even greater ear-shattering din in the cockpit than the stock airplane.”

Any thoughts on that versus the fabric ones considering yours has been metalized?
 
The cabin noise is about 110dB according to my phone's meter app. Maybe 100lbs difference.

A long time ago, a guy who had flown a -2 for 30 years told me that there was a window on the fabric ones where having only two people in the airplane could put it outside of the W&B envelope. He said that wasn't an issue with the metallized ones.
 
Last edited:
Forgot to add: GEM 602 engine monitor. (After four moves, I still have the manual for it.)


Sent from my FBI-approved monitoring device using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
SkyDog58 said:
Yeah, but I would prefer a -3 and one that is not metalized though those are not necessarily absolutes. Also, I posted in this thread so I did know about it.
Click to expand...
With that level of pickiness you'll never be a plane owner. BUY IT! (I love spending other people's money) :)
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yeah, but I would prefer a -3 and one that is not metalized though those are not necessarily absolutes. Also, I posted in this thread so I did know about it.
Click to expand...

I would think the metalized would be preferred D, any specific reason? Yes, I see you posted om her post now.
 
mscard88 said:
I would think the metalized would be preferred D, any specific reason? Yes, I see you posted om her post now.
Click to expand...

You'd probably metalize a Cirrus wouldn't you. ;)

I just want a classic or vintage aircraft as close to original as possible on the outside. On the inside, I would likely go with an updated panel. Again, no absolutes but I'm not in a rush to settle on less yet.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yeah, but I would prefer a -3 and one that is not metalized though those are not necessarily absolutes. Also, I posted in this thread so I did know about it.
Click to expand...

Any reason you want the big tail?

I landed my old -1 in some gnarly cross winds without much effort, plus I always thought the small tail looked better ;)
 
James331 said:
Any reason you want the big tail?

I landed my old -1 in some gnarly cross winds without much effort, plus I always thought the small tail looked better ;)
Click to expand...

I sort of like the big tail plus the -3 has more fuel capacity and higher useful load. Not sure how often I'd need the extra gas and weight, but it would be good to have it.
 
James331 said:
Any reason you want the big tail?

I landed my old -1 in some gnarly cross winds without much effort, plus I always thought the small tail looked better ;)
Click to expand...

I've landed in some crosswinds that I probably shouldn't have, with no drama.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I sort of like the big tail plus the -3 has more fuel capacity and higher useful load. Not sure how often I'd need the extra gas and weight, but it would be good to have it.
Click to expand...

If you're going to fly IFR, that would be nice if you need to do the "fly to alternate and hold for 45 minutes" bit. The previous owner of mine flew it IFR (I've not kept up the cert). I have a dim memory of there once being a STC to add a 15-gallon tank to the baggage compartment of the small-tail ones. Truth be told, three hours in the air at a stretch for me is plenty. My longest single-day flight was KGON-KFAM, which was 9.5 hours and three fuel stops. Second was KOWD-KILM, 8.5 hours and two fuel stops. I wouldn't do the latter, now, but I was younger and dumber then.
 
SkyDog58 said:
You'd probably metalize a Cirrus wouldn't you. ;)

I just want a classic or vintage aircraft as close to original as possible on the outside. On the inside, I would likely go with an updated panel. Again, no absolutes but I'm not in a rush to settle on less yet.
Click to expand...

I know I should be trying to persuade you otherwise, since my airplane is for sale, but if what you want is an airplane that is classic on the outside and modern on the inside, then you should try to find one. It'll be cheaper than buying a beater or basket case and doing it yourself.

<Donning my Captain Obvious hat> The issue with a modern panel in a classic is the amount of area on the panel. I saw a full IFR -3 some years ago; the center of the panel was raised up in order to make room for a center radio stack. With the yoke's axis coming out of the lower third of the panel, there's not room for any sort of largish display right in front of the pilot. You'll see that a lot of the older classics have a navcomm and transponder tucked away on the lower left of the panel, with a #2 navcomm on the lower right. Best example I can think of of would be the size of the panel of an early 172 compared to a newish one. Or a Bo'.

You might get a smaller-sized display to fit and then go with the micro-sized backup instruments. If you go to Sun n Fun or OSH, you might find a plane that somebody has gone the glass panel route and you can see what it looks like. If you haven't already.
 
Stephanie B said:
I know I should be trying to persuade you otherwise, since my airplane is for sale, but if what you want is an airplane that is classic on the outside and modern on the inside, then you should try to find one. It'll be cheaper than buying a beater or basket case and doing it yourself.

<Donning my Captain Obvious hat> The issue with a modern panel in a classic is the amount of area on the panel. I saw a full IFR -3 some years ago; the center of the panel was raised up in order to make room for a center radio stack. With the yoke's axis coming out of the lower third of the panel, there's not room for any sort of largish display right in front of the pilot. You'll see that a lot of the older classics have a navcomm and transponder tucked away on the lower left of the panel, with a #2 navcomm on the lower right. Best example I can think of of would be the size of the panel of an early 172 compared to a newish one. Or a Bo'.

You might get a smaller-sized display to fit and then go with the micro-sized backup instruments. If you go to Sun n Fun or OSH, you might find a plane that somebody has gone the glass panel route and you can see what it looks like. If you haven't already.
Click to expand...
The pilots/owners that I deal with on the classic aircraft want the panel cleaned up and returned to factory issue, and simply a instrument hole radio and ADS-B compliant transponder installed, then they fly on their I-Pads
 
Ryanb said:
Nice looking bird, Steph. What’s the story, upgrading to something else, or calling it a day on ownership?
Click to expand...

With the passage of a few weeks, this has become a "medical" sale.


Sent from my FBI-approved monitoring device using Tapatalk
 
jsstevens said:
Stephanie B said:
With the passage of a few weeks, this has become a "medical" sale.
emoji35.png
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that!
Click to expand...

Which means two things: First, it's not being flown, not unless I can talk Larry into doing it. Second, there's probably more wiggle room on pricing.
 
Lachlan said:
I have a GREAT home for it... just not sure if I’m ready to take the leap. Sometimes you just gave to go for it.
Click to expand...
You are! Do it! I love ownership going on week 4 and you definitely won't regret it!
 
Mtns2Skies said:
...I love ownership going on week 4 and you definitely won't regret it!
Click to expand...

Week 4. :rofl:

"Honeymoon" is still on! Even for an airplane, that's hardly enough time to completely drain the bank account and hit your credit card limits. :fingerwag: That usually requires 6 weeks.

But I agree. That Stinson would be a lot of fun to own and fly.
 
Last edited:
Shame it was metalized as I love Stinsons as well. Would also prefer a 3. Would make a great plane for someone needing a 4 place airplane they can leave tied down on the cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top