Stinson 108 vs Piper Pacer PA-20

Want an aircraft evaluating in price buy the 170 not the Stinson.
Do your home work, look at how many 108- are for sale, many have the typical rag and tube problems of corroded longhorns because Stinson did not treat the tube interior with Linseed oil as they should have.

Sorry the vid won't post it is a avi file. this page doesn't support it.
 
Tom-D said:
I have no horses simply Greg bought the 170 from me, the comment was to your valuation of the 170 for sale.
the AD was never on the 50Ci cylinders do your home work prior to running your mouth.
Your comment above certainly shows you know little of the rag wing 170.

After the comment "you can do better" show us where.
Click to expand...


Where did you mention if the cylinders were effected by the AD?

Where did I say they were???

Re read what I wrote, I said, in small simple words, "PRESUMING", and "interested in those cylinders status".



And I've already said where one can do better.



Also I'm mearly speaking as someone who owned and flew a S108 for years, and currently owns and flys a cessna taildragger, and has PICed the line cessna taildraggers, well most all minus the 195 and the 188.



Now keep in mind, not that long ago Tom didn't know the difference between a -1 and a -3 Stinson,

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/stinson-108-3-revisited.80279/page-2

Anyone who has ever heard of a voyager and spent so much a 5 minutes on google could spot the difference from 100 yards away, the HUGE tail on the -3 vs the small tail on a -1, there were a few other things too which you'll notice on that thread.

Now not really anything I'd fault a man for....except Tom was wrenching on the Stinson in question...most folks would probably expect their AP to at least know what type of aircraft they were working on, when the owner found out on another (Facebook) forum, he was less than impressed.

Just sayin' Tom knows his stuff about quite a few things, but Stinsons ain't one of those things.
 
You made the statement that the cylinders were suspect thus reducing the price and went on to say one could do better. NOW PROVE IT
 
OBTW here is the link to how 34v's doors close.

let us see how well any Stinson 108- doors close.
 
There aren't any, because no one thought to make them, since Stinson doors aren't known for having to be slammed to shut, unlike 90% of the piston cessnas.

Look, I said what I had to say, gave this dude my opinion, as someone who has PICed both, owned a 108 and a cessna (albeit the big brother of the 170) mearly pointed out that Tom might refrain from comments on Stinsons, as he doesn't have much knowledge with them, and that a good number of ECIs have a AD out, Tom said this one doesn't, I'll take Tom at his word, so fair enough on that aspect


I will bow out of this, and let Tom continue his sales pitch for his customers plane now.
 
James331 said:
Just sayin' Tom knows his stuff about quite a few things, but Stinsons ain't one of those things.
Click to expand...
The thing you like to forget and never mention, the guy went flying in a safe aircraft because I mentored him thru the first annual on that Stinson in many a year.
Plus you did not know I've worked on Stinsons long before you were born. I overhaul the Franklin, (or I did) and have re-covered more than you've seen.
I was raised in a SR-10- and flew it when I was 13. So don't imply I don't know Stinsons, or you are any expert use because you owned one.
The 108- is a typical rag and tube structure that suffers from all the problems that they all do. I built my Fairchild from the exact same materials that the 108- are made from, How about you? ever built anything? ever had to straighten out old log books for aircraft that have sat in hangars for years. that were placed in storage because of inadequate repairs ?
when you are buying old aircraft you best have an old guy like me as your mentor not some guy who believes they are great because they owned one.
 
James331 said:
There aren't any, because no one thought to make them, since Stinson doors aren't known for having to be slammed to shut, unlike 90% of the piston cessnas.

Look, I said what I had to say, gave this dude my opinion, as someone who has PICed both, owned a 108 and a cessna (albeit the big brother of the 170) mearly pointed out that Tom might refrain from comments on Stinsons, as he doesn't have much knowledge with them, and that a good number of ECIs have a AD out, Tom said this one doesn't, I'll take Tom at his word, so fair enough on that aspect


I will bow out of this, and let Tom continue his sales pitch for his customers plane now.
Click to expand...

had you looked you could have found the AD. nd noticed it does not apply to the small 50 cubic inch cylinders,, but no
 

Lol


No Tom, but I knew my 108-1 was a -1, and my Stinson mechanic, as well as I, can tell a -, -1, -2, or a ,3 from 50yards, knew about the popular STCs, like the super Stinson, which model has which engine rudder trim, etc.

Tom-D said:
had you looked you could have found the AD. nd noticed it does not apply to the small 50 cubic inch cylinders,, but no
Click to expand...

which is why I didn't state it fell under that AD, again, for the second time, re read that post I made.


Also you did not mention if you have any PIC time, or rather, let's call it "only pilot in the plane time" in a 108?
 
OBTW the Stinson owner came back this year wanting a recover because the IA this year failed the ceconite on a punch test. even tho, there is no punch test required or advised on the ceconite and dope that is on the Stinson.
We called the IA and asked why he punched it, his answer? because all fabric requires a punch test. WE asked where he found that requirement. he had no answer. I asked what he used to test it, he said the maule tester, I had him read the instructions for the test. when he came to the part where it says the tester was for cotton he stopped reading. and asked for the log back to make a correction. The owner said "Sorry no"
the Stinson will be back next year for the annual.
 
James331 said:
Also you did not mention if you have any PIC time, or rather, let's call it "only pilot in the plane time" in a 108?
Click to expand...
about three hundred hours, probably 50 in the last 5 years, I have a friend that owned one.
And yes I can and do know which is which 1-/-3 and what years each model was made. And I remember why the company went away.
for those who don't know, Consolidated Vultee bought a few companies like Stinson, Fairchild, Piper and a couple others for a dime on the dollar. because of low sales, then went bankrupt too. Piper was the only company to survive.
Believe,, I remember my Dad talking about that, because he was a Stinson ferry pilot, Eddy Stinson was a frequent visitor to my folk's house in Royal Oak Mi prior to the war. and my arrival.
 
No idea, I'm not in contact with him anymore since I 86ed my Facebook.

And I'd let you re cover mine if I still had it, not saying you're not a good rag wing wrench, just on some of the 108 specifics...

But none of this is really 100% of what the OP was asking.

You didn't know a -1 from a -3 a little while ago ;)

But OK, it's all good
 
James331 said:
No Tom, but I knew my 108-1 was a -1, and my Stinson mechanic, as well as I, can tell a -, -1, -2, or a ,3 from 50yards, knew about the popular STCs, like the super Stinson, which model has which engine rudder trim, etc.



which is why I didn't state it fell under that AD, again, for the second time, re read that post I made.


Also you did not mention if you have any PIC time, or rather, let's call it "only pilot in the plane time" in a 108?
Click to expand...
just say your sorry you made a statement about a aircraft you knew nothing about. because you've never owned one of even flew a 48 rag wing 170.
Yet you seem willing and able to criticize any aircraft and judge the price that's advertised on the net.
 
James331 said:
You didn't know a -1 from a -3 a little while ago ;)

But OK, it's all good
Click to expand...
Wrong it's my ability to convey any thing to you.
Ya know I can actually read a data plate, and have been able to do that for a long time? Did you ever stop to think as many times as these old aircraft have been wrecked and modified and returned to service you really don't know what you are seeing until you do read the logs and data plate. But there are those who can spot a -3 from 50 yards away. But it may simply a -2 with a tail transplant. so brag on about how well you can tell what's setting on the ramp.
but I must put my name on what I annual, and at first glance I may miss the obvious, but I get it right before it's over.
 
Tom-D said:
just say your sorry you made a statement about a aircraft you knew nothing about. because you've never owned one of even flew a 48 rag wing 170.
Yet you seem willing and able to criticize any aircraft and judge the price that's advertised on the net.
Click to expand...

Dude, you went on for 3 pages about a plane you couldn't identify (I posted the link) and you never said sorry, so nope.

And I do know quite a bit more about the S108 compared to the 170, I have lots more hours in the 108 then the 170, that said, my impression of the 170 is it is not as nice in the air, doesn't have the low speed and gentle stall of the 108, can't speak for the mechanics of the 170, but stalls, air and especially once the wheels touch, I really prefer the 108, I also like the back seat of the 108 more. That's my opinion and I will not say sorry for my opinion.

For the money, I'd get a decked to the nines 108, still have money left over, I've seen some 108 gems on barnstormers, TAP, ASO for the mid 30s.
 
James331 said:
Dude, you went on for 3 pages about a plane you couldn't identify (I posted the link) and you never said sorry, so nope.

And I do know quite a bit more about the S108 compared to the 170, I have lots more hours in the 108 then the 170, that said, my impression of the 170 is it is not as nice in the air, doesn't have the low speed and gentle stall of the 108, can't speak for the mechanics of the 170, but stalls, air and especially once the wheels touch, I really prefer the 108, I also like the back seat of the 108 more. That's my opinion and I will not say sorry for my opinion.

For the money, I'd get a decked to the nines 108, still have money left over, I've seen some 108 gems on barnstormers, TAP, ASO for the mid 30s.
Click to expand...
The Stinson vs Cessna argument has been going on since they both were made new. Your are welcome to your views, I simply am in a different opinion. I can support the 170 with new parts and not worry about the condition of the metal tube interiors. and my pax can set in a real seat. not a hammock.
 
20b766934eedf39c2169e93838ef2c3a.jpg


Well agree to disagree :)
 
Ah the old POA dick measuring contests...


And don't slam your plane's doors. Its not good for the latches. Even if they are Cessnas. :)
 
I have a collection of pilot reviews for each of those aircraft in three ring binders my dad put together thirty plus years ago. He loved both of them, but I don't think he ever flew in one. He ended up buying the Comanche. I love the looks of the Stinson, but a 180 h.p. Pacer would be super fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top