Stinson 108-3 revisited

Tom-D said:
This is true, but when a 108-1 is given a engine upgrade to 165 horse what does it become?
Click to expand...

I think a 108-3 has a bigger tail, and also maybe bigger wing struts. So, I think it becomes a 108-1 with a bigger engine.

<edit; See that was already covered.>
 
docmirror said:
I think a 108-3 has a bigger tail, and also maybe bigger wing struts. So, I think it becomes a 108-1 with a bigger engine.

<edit; See that was already covered.>
Click to expand...

You can make a super Stinson out of most any of em, it's the rudder trim or bungies, bigger fuel lines and a few other minor things.

Again, best thing is to get on the yahoo group for all things Stinson.

Tom-D said:
You realize that the New error PZL Franklins are no longer made or supported.
Click to expand...

Nor was my 150, yet I always was able to get parts with little effort.
 
James331 said:
You can make a super Stinson out of most any of em, it's the rudder trim or bungies, bigger fuel lines and a few other minor things.

Again, best thing is to get on the yahoo group for all things Stinson.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I can't find a TCDS for "super Stinson".
 
This thread is interesting. I'm hoping Tom will share some photos of the aircraft.
 
As others have stated or surmised, if it's a 108-3 then it definitely came out of the factory with the 165 h.p. Franklin.
 
SteveCanyon said:
As others have stated or surmised, if it's a 108-3 then it definitely came out of the factory with the 165 h.p. Franklin.
Click to expand...

This one is in registry as a 1946 108-1, but when I first saw it with a 165 I assumed it was a -3, as I did my research I found it was a -1 upgraded to 165.

I asked a couple question to see what answers I would get as to what it was with the big engine. most got it right away.
 
What would the price be for a freshly overhauled to new standards 165 Franklin TT under 1000 hours.

I can't even find one for sale.
 
Tom-D said:
What would the price be for a freshly overhauled to new standards 165 Franklin TT under 1000 hours.

I can't even find one for sale.
Click to expand...

That's a tougher question and was a reason I recently let go of my last -3. The Franklin has tighter tolerances than Continental or Lycoming, and the list of "old masters" that I trusted to know the difference was rapidly dwindling.

Have you checked with stinsonclub.org?
 
SteveCanyon said:
That's a tougher question and was a reason I recently let go of my last -3. The Franklin has tighter tolerances than Continental or Lycoming, and the list of "old masters" that I trusted to know the difference was rapidly dwindling.

Have you checked with stinsonclub.org?
Click to expand...

No. I was simply curious.
 
Tom-D said:
This is true, but when a 108-1 is given a engine upgrade to 165 horse what does it become?
Click to expand...

Are you saying with the engine upgrade the 108-1 officially becomes a 108-3? So with the right engine the STCs that are limited to the 108-3 can be used on the airframes that came from the factory designated 108-1? That would be interesting.
 
Tom-D said:
That part you got right.
Click to expand...

I see, but you have the work order records, with a reference to those in the log book, correct? Since the rules state that the records must be kept, but not in which format they must be kept, I would think that the records that you hold are sufficient to provide the evidence you need to determine that an overhaul has occured in accordance with manufacturers requirements. So as long as the logbook entry was in the correct format to introduce an overhauled engine in scope and referencing that work order for the detail, I do not see an issue. If that entry is not correctly formatted, you'll likely have to create it.

As far as referencing an addendum for detail, I see no issue, it's common practice with 337s and many other forms we see on a daily basis, "You can add more information if required on separate pages." It doesn't specify "only if you can't fit it all here."
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Are you saying with the engine upgrade the 108-1 officially becomes a 108-3? So with the right engine the STCs that are limited to the 108-3 can be used on the airframes that came from the factory designated 108-1? That would be interesting.
Click to expand...

Henning, you are off track again, Univair holds the type certificate, they can add alternate engines as they please.
No STC required. like the Cleveland brake kits, Univair added them to the parts list as an authorized replacement for the standard goodyears. no STC required.
 
Henning said:
I see, but you have the work order records, with a reference to those in the log book,
Click to expand...

The Question becomes, does a work order meet the requirements of FAR 43.2?
There is no signature on the work order.
 
Tom-D said:
The Question becomes, does a work order meet the requirements of FAR 43.2?
There is no signature on the work order.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, is the work order is incomplete then? That does make it trickier, doesn't it. If everybody involved is dead, I would bake a batch of chocolate chip cookies and leave them on the cowling with the work order and wish with all my might for the Maintenance Fairy to come lead that person's spirit to the plane so he can provide the signature he forgot.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Ahhh, the work order is incomplete then, that does make it trickier, doesn't it. If everybody involved is dead, I would bake a batch of chocolate chip cookies and leave them on the cowling with the work order and wish with all my might for the Maintenance Fairy to come lead that person's spirit to the plane so he can provide the signature he forgot.
Click to expand...

What work order have you ever seen from a CRS that has a return to service entry added. Remember the overhauling facility did not totally complete the overhaul process by 43.2 requirements. so why should they sign the engine off as completed?
What I'm missing is compliance with 43.9
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Maintenance Fairy to come lead that person's spirit to the plane so he can provide the signature he forgot.
Click to expand...

What leads you to believe they forgot?
 
Tom-D said:
What work order have you ever seen from a CRS that has a return to service entry added. Remember the overhauling facility did not totally complete the overhaul process by 43.2 requirements. so why should they sign the engine off as completed?
What I'm missing is compliance with 43.9
Click to expand...

Well then why would you question it's allowability?:dunno: If the data is complete, the data is complete, and you are authorized to sign for it at your discretion. There is nothing that prevents you from signing off the overhaul of someone else's labor as long as the supporting documentation for all the parts and machine work required are there.

Just complete the log book to make it correct going forward if everything you see is up to snuff. I see all the information required to make all the determinations required to make that happen both safely and legally. If there is some small inconsequential technicality in the rules that gets violated, the worst that's going to come out of it is a discussion with your PMI to clarify it.

I'm just not seeing a conundrum here.:dunno:
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
What leads you to believe they forgot?
Click to expand...

If they didn't, and it's not required to be there, it's irrelevent at the basis. If it is a required signature and they didn't on purpose (unpaid bill) and they are dead, it's irrelevant in practice.
 
Henning said:
I'm just not seeing a conundrum here.:dunno:
Click to expand...

In your method of thinking how do you account for the missing compliance of 43.9?

Is the W/O that compliance or not ?
 
Tom-D said:
In your method of thinking how do you account for the missing compliance of 43.9?

Is the W/O that compliance or not ?
Click to expand...

Yes, why do you think it is not?:dunno:

If it is completed as required, it most definitely would be compliance in my interpretation and I would offer it as such in clear conscience, complete the log book, and continue to return the plane to service.
 
Tom-D said:
In your method of thinking how do you account for the missing compliance of 43.9?

Is the W/O that compliance or not ?
Click to expand...

Yup. I don't know the verbiage of the W/O but unless the magic words are in there, I'm not going to sign it off.

Magic words: "Tach: gggg. dd/mm/yy. Installed Franklin engine xxx SN yyyy on Stinson 108 airframe SN zzzz IAW Stinson manual blah-blah. Installed Model tttt SN jjjj prop on new engine. Ground run, checked for leaks, and verified all torques. Taxi test, flight test and recheck all connections. Signed; Vern Tubesteak, AP #nnnnnnnnnn." Or thereabouts.

<edited to include tach reading>
 
Tom-D said:
...What I'm missing is compliance with 43.9
Click to expand...

Well isn't that really up to you Tom?

FAR 43.9 - Content, Form, and Disposition of Maintenance Records

........

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
Click to expand...

You, "the person specified in paragraph (a)(4)" have the authority to approve the work, if you choose to, naming either the person or repair station on the invoice.

There's really no other way around that at this point that I can see.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Yup. I don't know the verbiage of the W/O but unless the magic words are in there, I'm not going to sign it off.

Magic words: "Tach: gggg. dd/mm/yy. Installed Franklin engine xxx SN yyyy on Stinson 108 airframe SN zzzz IAW Stinson manual blah-blah. Installed Model tttt SN jjjj prop on new engine. Ground run, checked for leaks, and verified all torques. Taxi test, flight test and recheck all connections. Signed; Vern Tubesteak, AP #nnnnnnnnnn." Or thereabouts.

<edited to include tach reading>
Click to expand...
Would this do it for ya?
 

Attachments

  • 20150311_121837.jpg
    20150311_121837.jpg
    399.6 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Would this do it for ya?
Click to expand...

"without testing" kills it. Otherwise it blows my skirt up pretty good.

Now it has to go through testing phase. See if you can find any kind of Stinson/Franklin instructions on engine install and testing. Do that, ref the manual you find, and I guess it's good enough.

Until it isn't. If the airplane is involved in an accident, the logs are going to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Gotta decide if the cost of putting your stamp in there is worth the risk.
 
docmirror said:
Says more than 30 have been converted. Pretty good showing. Still pricey, but it's better than cutting the plane in to small bits and selling it off piece-wise.

STC ~ $12,000
Engine ~ $8,000
Prop(FP) ~ $3000
misc ~ $1000
Labor(out/in) ~ $6000

$30k plus the airframe and I have a Super.
Click to expand...

Reading that web page, did you notice the last time the PZL engine was mentioned?

There are many modified 108- out there, but this one is out of the box stock, except the brake & engine upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Got attitude again?
Click to expand...

Frankly Tom I could care less, I just think you'd serve your customer much better kicking this over to someone who knows Stinsons.
 
James331 said:
Frankly Tom I could care less, I just think you'd serve your customer much better kicking this over to someone who knows Stinsons.
Click to expand...

So you believe I do not know Stinsons, that just a personal opinion formed by reading into my posts things that are simply not there.
 
Tom-D said:
Reading that web page, did you notice the last time the PZL engine was mentioned?

There are many modified 108- out there, but this one is out of the box stock, except the brake & engine upgrade.
Click to expand...

There's no way I would get invested in supporting a Franklin engine of any vintage. Heck, I'm supporting a Conti E series and there are still parts produced for that. Going Franklin anything just isn't very viable, in your case it's already done, but not by you. All you gotta do now is testing and ship it. If the insides of the engine come apart, make sure you keep testing results in the logs.
 
docmirror said:
There's no way I would get invested in supporting a Franklin engine of any vintage. Heck, I'm supporting a Conti E series and there are still parts produced for that. Going Franklin anything just isn't very viable, in your case it's already done, but not by you. All you gotta do now is testing and ship it. If the insides of the engine come apart, make sure you keep testing results in the logs.
Click to expand...
I agree I'd never suggest replacing a Franklin with another Franklin of any vintage.

It's been tested, and is ready to flight test, as soon as we finalize the annual. The owner is doing all the work under supervision and can only work part time on it, so I meet his schedule. We will probably finish up this weekend.
 
Tom-D said:
I agree I'd never suggest replacing a Franklin with another Franklin of any vintage.

It's been tested, and is ready to flight test, as soon as we finalize the annual. The owner is doing all the work under supervision and can only work part time on it, so I meet his schedule. We will probably finish up this weekend.
Click to expand...

Nice of you to keep it flying somehow.

Don't know what it would cost to fly a Hangar 9 Aero guy in and do the same work, but I'm sure it wouldn't be free. Mebee they got a guy around the PNW that would come over and give it a look-over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top