Stinson 108 vs Piper Pacer PA-20

N

NinerUniform

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
8
Display Name
Display name:
NinerUniform
Does anyone have real life experience with both that can provide some perspective? My usual mission looks like this:

4 seats - 2 adults and 2 kids - figure upto 600 lbs of people
1500' grass strip @ 1000' MSL (no obstructions on either end)
short weekend trips (250-300nm), 100$ hamburgers, etc
100 hour pilot with 80 Tailwheel

which one would you choose?
 
Owned my S108 for quite some time, little time in a PA20/22

The 108 is much more of a cadillac, very light on the controls, super cush landing gear, and quite pretty.

Univar has most parts, and the Franklin stuff really wasn't that hard to find on the yahoo groups.

Took the plane into everywhere from major airports to beaches and grass strips in forests.
 
Stinson. Kids have a nasty habit of growing. Not sure how long the Pacer would be useful.
 
Another vote for the Stinson. It's a whole lot more of an airplane than the Pacer in my opinion. The only downside is the Franklin engines, which are not as well supported as the Lycomings used in the Pacers. There are a number of engine STCs out there for the Stinson however, so you might find one with a different engine or might consider doing an engine swap if the search for Franklin parts gets to be too much hassle.

I currently own a 108-3, and have a little Pacer time. I personally have never been a huge fan of the short wing Pipers, and I honestly don't think one would suit your mission for very long.
 
Thanks guys! I found a nice 108-1 with a 150 Franklin. It's light so that helps it's useful load and it has a climb prop. How much difference in performance between the 150 and 165?

Just want to be sure I can safely operate it out of my strip.
 
My Stinson has a 190hp Lycoming on it so I don't have much of a reference point when it comes to stock airplane performance. Between my Stinson and the similarly loaded 150hp Pacer I flew however, there is no comparison between the two. The Stinson is more of a short field airplane. It's no Super Cub but it's not bad either. I don't think an unobstructed 1500' runway should pose too much problem.
 
NinerUniform said:
Does anyone have real life experience with both that can provide some perspective? My usual mission looks like this:

4 seats - 2 adults and 2 kids - figure upto 600 lbs of people
1500' grass strip @ 1000' MSL (no obstructions on either end)
short weekend trips (250-300nm), 100$ hamburgers, etc
100 hour pilot with 80 Tailwheel

which one would you choose?
Click to expand...
From an A&P-IA's view, Show me a new cylinder, crank bearings, or mag drive gears for the Franklin 165/150. but the 108 is a better build aircraft.
 
NinerUniform said:
Does anyone have real life experience with both that can provide some perspective? My usual mission looks like this:

4 seats - 2 adults and 2 kids - figure upto 600 lbs of people
1500' grass strip @ 1000' MSL (no obstructions on either end)
short weekend trips (250-300nm), 100$ hamburgers, etc
100 hour pilot with 80 Tailwheel

which one would you choose?
Click to expand...
Greg's 170 rag wing, 1000 pounds useful load 2 plus 2 and bags 350-400 miles per fuel stop. loves grass,

1948 CESSNA 170
He paid me more than that for it. :) not bragging, just true. I have pictures if you want them PM me.
 
James331 said:
Univar has most parts, and the Franklin stuff really wasn't that hard to find on the yahoo groups.
Click to expand...
Show me a new Mag drive gear. I'll show you chicken lips.
Be very very careful with buying a 150 horse Franklin, the early ones have a huge list of Serial numbers on a AD list for case cracks.
 
Like the 108-3 Stinson station wagon,load it up pax and camping gear ,no problem. Great handling airplane,can't really stall it.
 
Tom-D said:
From an A&P-IA's view, Show me a new cylinder, crank bearings, or mag drive gears for the Franklin 165/150. but the 108 is a better build aircraft.
Click to expand...

Tom, you really want to get into the whole Stinson thing again??
I hope you at last learned the difference between a -1 and a -3 by now ;)

Frankly the franklins arnt that hard to support, as someone who owned one I never had a issue, and don't know anyone who had any issues with being down because they couldn't get parts.
 
I've always thought the 108 was a beautiful bird. Great lines. It is one of those planes that I have never even flew but for some reason want to have.
 
I have a couple hundred hours in a metalized Stinson 108-3 with stock 165hp HC and a PA-22 many years ago. The Stinson is a decent airplane and will carry a good load. I flew it with four people and no bags several times and two and bags a few times. Slightly more room that PA-22/20 but slow. I'd hardly call it light on the controls. Neither was the -2 I flew. While I prefer the looks of the Piper, I'd give the Stinson the nod for best utility though the Piper is somewhat faster. The Stinson has greater fuel capacity by about 14 gallons...a bit more range or leave fuel behind for bigger useful load.

I liked the smoothness of the six cylinder Franklin over the Lyc O-320. The 14mm Franklin plugs were more prone to lead fouling than 18mm Lycoming sparklers. You can also put an Aeromatic prop on the Stinson/Franklin which will help, but they are getting hard to support and expensive to overhaul. Tarter was about the only one doing them and he had quit, but was rumored at one time to be getting approval to start building blades and overhauling the Aeromatics again...don't know for sure as I've not looked into this in awhile. Like the Aeromatic on the Swift way back when.
 
James331 said:
I hope you at last learned the difference between a -1 and a -3 by now ;)
Click to expand...

Other than the tail shape and 150 vs 165, what are the "real" differences between the -1 and -2 (the pretty ones, IMO) and the -3, with that monster vertical tail?
 
The Mag drive gear for a 150/165 Franklin, it drives both mags, when it fails both mags quit. and they are all worn out and none have been made since 1954.
 

Attachments

  • Mag drive gear 2.jpg
    Mag drive gear 2.jpg
    206.4 KB · Views: 35
  • Mag drive gear 1.jpg
    Mag drive gear 1.jpg
    203.1 KB · Views: 34
kyleb said:
Other than the tail shape and 150 vs 165, what are the "real" differences between the -1 and -2 (the pretty ones, IMO) and the -3, with that monster vertical tail?
Click to expand...

The -1 has a lower gross weight and Vno than the -2 if I recall correctly, and also has smaller fuel lines. The -3 had some structural improvements, a higher gross weight, a higher Vno, 50 gallons of fuel, and the ugly big tail. I'd say the only real redeeming qualities of the -3 is that you don't need an additional ventral fin when it is on floats and the higher speed and more gas.

I wish I had a -2 instead of a -3 due to the looks, but the price and equipment on the one I got more than made up for it.

The biggest downside to all the Stinsons is that they're slow. But they're extremely stable airplanes, they haul a good load, and they're easy to fly.

Tom-D said:
No need, just show me a new mag drive gear for sale.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to start an argument Tom, but how often do you need to replace the magneto drive gear in a Franklin? Is this something you would need to replace during the course of normal maintenance or would it be more of an item that might need replacement at overhaul? I have very little experience with the Franklins, so maybe there is something I can learn from this.

Whatever the case, I'd be looking at any Stinson that still has a Franklin or the old Lycoming o-435 with the idea that you're going to be doing an engine conversion at some point. I'd love to put a Continental io-360 on mine, but I don't think the STC is being supported anymore.
 
mondtster said:
I'm not trying to start an argument Tom, but how often do you need to replace the magneto drive gear in a Franklin? Is this something you would need to replace during the course of normal maintenance or would it be more of an item that might need replacement at overhaul? I have very little experience with the Franklins, so maybe there is something I can learn from this.

Whatever the case, I'd be looking at any Stinson that still has a Franklin or the old Lycoming o-435 with the idea that you're going to be doing an engine conversion at some point. I'd love to put a Continental io-360 on mine, but I don't think the STC is being supported anymore.
Click to expand...
I'd be very surprised if you can tear one down these days and find a gear that will meet backlash requirements for service limits.

You must believe you'll not be able to overhaul the franklins all you can do is repair as required. (if the parts can be found) If a used parts overhaul is good enough,, buy a Franklin. When I was a kid, the Franklin engine was the cream of the crop. too bad the company went away.
Can you find the STC # to place a IO-360 on a 108-? If you can google search the number it should show the owner's name and address. Actually the Stinson Club owns a bunch of paper for the stinsons.
 
Tom-D said:
I'd be very surprised if you can tear one down these days and find a gear that will meet backlash requirements for service limits.

You must believe you'll not be able to overhaul the franklins all you can do is repair as required. (if the parts can be found) If a used parts overhaul is good enough,, buy a Franklin. When I was a kid, the Franklin engine was the cream of the crop. too bad the company went away.
Can you find the STC # to place a IO-360 on a 108-? If you can google search the number it should show the owner's name and address. Actually the Stinson Club owns a bunch of paper for the stinsons.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured on the gear, and the state of Franklins in general. Thanks for the info.

Yes, there is an STC for the Continental IO-360. My understanding is that the company that holds the STC does not have any of the parts readily available for the conversion anymore, and it sounds like there is no intention to make more parts unless there is substantial interest (in other words, multiple people seeking parts and/or a whole conversion) in doing the swap. I've heard that there have been a few conversions that were field approved as well. Unfortunately that doesn't help me much, as the local FSDO has a reputation of doing no field approvals no matter how simple. I've thought about pursuing a new STC, but I personally do not believe there is enough interest in the Stinsons to make it worth the time or money that will likely be involved.

So that leaves the 220 Franklin or the Continental o-470 if you want something with over 200 horsepower (there is also a Canadian STC for the o-540). I currently am leaning toward the o-470 if I keep the plane that long.
 
mondtster said:
That's what I figured on the gear, and the state of Franklins in general. Thanks for the info.

Yes, there is an STC for the Continental IO-360. My understanding is that the company that holds the STC does not have any of the parts readily available for the conversion anymore, and it sounds like there is no intention to make more parts unless there is substantial interest (in other words, multiple people seeking parts and/or a whole conversion) in doing the swap. I've heard that there have been a few conversions that were field approved as well. Unfortunately that doesn't help me much, as the local FSDO has a reputation of doing no field approvals no matter how simple. I've thought about pursuing a new STC, but I personally do not believe there is enough interest in the Stinsons to make it worth the time or money that will likely be involved.

So that leaves the 220 Franklin or the Continental o-470 if you want something with over 200 horsepower (there is also a Canadian STC for the o-540). I currently am leaning toward the o-470 if I keep the plane that long.
Click to expand...

How to do this. gain the engineering for the swap of any other Field approval. copy it, then ask for a duplicate field approval on your aircraft. read AC 43-210 -c on how to get a feild approval the FSDO can not stone wall you by saying they won't do one. OKC slapped a few ASIs over doing this.
 
Tom-D said:
How to do this. gain the engineering for the swap of any other Field approval. copy it, then ask for a duplicate field approval on your aircraft. read AC 43-210 -c on how to get a feild approval the FSDO can not stone wall you by saying they won't do one. OKC slapped a few ASIs over doing this.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks for the insight! I'll have to look into this, as it seems like the Continental is really the best suited engine for this airframe if you're looking for an easily supported engine for a swap with a higher power rating and a minimal empty weight increase. I would actually guess that my empty weight would go down, power rating up, and fuel efficiency up if I did the conversion from the old o-435 to the 360. That would make me happy.
 
Also the rudder bungees, rudder trim, cargo door and a few other difference between the 108 -s


Tom-D said:
6 cylinder vs 4, I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Funny, I have always owned 6 bangers, flown them for work too, and the Franklin was the smoothest I've flown.


As far as all these issues you speak of Tom, man you're finding problems that no one in the Stinson community knew were problems lol

If I haven't bought my 185, I'd still have my 108, and I'd plan on keeping the Frank 150 in her, it's a ideal engine for that airframe and has more than enough power for a competent pilot, plus the larger engines and forward CS prop weight take away the light feeling of the plane (on fabric 108 that is), and give you a more nose heavy feeling.
 
Last edited:
We had a local banner tow operator that had a 108-3 with the 180 Lycoming and constant speed. Really good flying airplane. If it wasn't so used up when it was sold I would have bought it.
Got a 150 Pacer instead. Was very happy
with the Pacer but family was down to three at that point.
Dave
 
UngaWunga said:
Why? Is the metal heavier that much heavier than fabric?
Click to expand...

Plus that engine and prop.

The S108 is a great aircraft if you can find one in a unmoslested condition, i.e. no metal job, no heavy firewall forward, no non sense.

They are a great VFR and light IFR plane, they will do anything you ask of them with the frank, the only thing is you don't have excess power to bail yourself out of situations you should have known better than to get it, I never had a issue with gross loads and off fields ops, even with my wheel pants on, gotta keep is classy ;)

I could fly mine with two fingers on the yoke, take off, enroute and landing, ground handling is like a caddy, and stalls are a joke, it's just kinda slowly mushes down.

Now you start messing with crap, trying to turn it into a mooney or a skywagon, you fail and end up with a crappy airplane.

If I had a bigger hangar Id have kept my 108 along side my 185.
 
Tom-D said:
Greg's 170 rag wing, 1000 pounds useful load 2 plus 2 and bags 350-400 miles per fuel stop. loves grass,

1948 CESSNA 170
He paid me more than that for it. :) not bragging, just true. I have pictures if you want them PM me.
Click to expand...
Tell me about the short field performance of a 170. The info I can find online seems to indicate my strip is too short?
 
NinerUniform said:
Tell me about the short field performance of a 170. The info I can find online seems to indicate my strip is too short?
Click to expand...

If you want to go that route, save up some more $$ and get a C180

The 170 just isn't that great, not a bad plane, but bang for buck much less plane for the dollar compared to the pacer or the Stinson.


For the price of that 170
S108 (flawless), Maule, Pacer (flawless), CH801, etc
 
mondtster said:
The 170 just isn't that great, not a bad plane, but bang for buck much less plane for the dollar compared to the pacer or the Stinson.
Click to expand...
That's BS ask any 170 owner.
 
N3368K said:
170 with 180hp and CS prop is decent performer, but still not a 180.
Click to expand...
the Lycoming runs rougher, ruins the gyros quicker, and induces pilot fatigue quicker, Yes it does get off the ground quicker but it isn't a knot faster than the 145-A or a 0-300-A.
I've owned all three models of the 170, the 48 is the best of the bunch, it is lighter, thus has a better useful load, and is faster than the A or the B.
The B with a 180 horse Lycoming and constant speed will not land as short as the factory equipped B, simply because the CG is forward and it will tip up quicker.
when you fly the 170 as it should be flown, he factory equipped aircraft is a delight to fly, it is lighter on the controls, will land shorter that a 180, and loaded it will take off shorter, but the 170 will not carry the load a C-180 will, but it doesn't burn as much fuel either.
 
I enjoyed the 180hp 170 I flew. Didn't own it, just delivered it. Liked the bigger engine and CS prop taking it through the Guadalupe Pass and into New Mexico.
 
OBTW Greg's 48 C-170 is worth every cent he is asking, You'll never buy a better 170 than that one, I built it for me, and it has every STC and added equipment that you can put on one and every thing has less that 150 hours sense new.
Engine. 0-300-D with 6 new cylinders assemblies by ECI, 12 new lifters, 12 new hydraulic units, new cam, two new accessory gears, driving two new TCM mags with harnesses. Oil sump is lined for corrosion, and a baritone exhaust mod, bolted together with all new hardware.
Airframe, new glass all around, new leather and wool interior, ( by Stitch) new paint, new wing covers done in URA finishes, total new electrical system with a 60 amp alternator, new wrinkle skins on all control surfaces, Whelen strobes wings and tail kit. Whelen tail beacon mounted on rudder. Landing light in the wing, PeePonk gear mod, New Scott tail wheel & springs. main gear legs re-bowed, Instrument panel upgrade with all new instruments. Narco-Com 120-20. push to talk switches in the yokes, mode C and transponder and 4 place intercom. new wheels, tires and brake kit. Vac system up graded to C-172-D compliance with venturies removed. tail pull handles STC, BAS shoulder harness STC, 6" bubble door windows STC, basic empty 1185# (rear seat in) gross 2200# 36 gallons total fuel.
 
N3368K said:
I enjoyed the 180hp 170 I flew. Didn't own it, just delivered it. Liked the bigger engine and CS prop taking it through the Guadalupe Pass and into New Mexico.
Click to expand...
We have been to Texas twice in 145 horse powered 170s no problems crossing the rockies.

first picture, taken between Herber City Ut. and Provo Ut top of the rocks 14k"
Second picture Mt.Baker top of the rock 10,400'

the 170 will do the big rocks OK. we were at 2100# both trips.
 

Attachments

  • Texas Trip 99 035.jpg
    Texas Trip 99 035.jpg
    150.8 KB · Views: 14
  • 170 Trips 029.jpg
    170 Trips 029.jpg
    171.9 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
OBTW Greg's 48 C-170 is worth every cent he is asking, You'll never buy a better 170 than that one, I built it for me, and it has every STC and added equipment that you can put on one and every thing has less that 150 hours sense new.
Engine. 0-300-D with 6 new cylinders assemblies by ECI, 12 new lifters, 12 new hydraulic units, new cam, two new accessory gears, driving two new TCM mags with harnesses. Oil sump is lined for corrosion, and a baritone exhaust mod, bolted together with all new hardware.
Airframe, new glass all around, new leather and wool interior, ( by Stitch) new paint, new wing covers done in URA finishes, total new electrical system with a 60 amp alternator, new wrinkle skins on all control surfaces, Whelen strobes wings and tail kit. Whelen tail beacon mounted on rudder. Landing light in the wing, PeePonk gear mod, New Scott tail wheel & springs. main gear legs re-bowed, Instrument panel upgrade with all new instruments. Narco-Com 120-20. push to talk switches in the yokes, mode C and transponder and 4 place intercom. new wheels, tires and brake kit. Vac system up graded to C-172-D compliance with venturies removed. tail pull handles STC, BAS shoulder harness STC, 6" bubble door windows STC, basic empty 1185# (rear seat in) gross 2200# 36 gallons total fuel.
Click to expand...


Ahh, so it's your fiend/customers plane...



I've flown my Stinson across mountian ranges quite a few times, landed on everything from beaches to grass, to Bravo airports, flown from the east coast to the west coat, from the Canadian boarder to the Mexican boarder, she did quite well, did everything this working pilot could ask for.

BTW adding a bunch of stuff and every STC, doesn't always make for a better plane, sometimes worse, also I'd be interested in those cylinders status per the ECI AD.

It is a nice 170, presuming it won't be needing 6 new jugs per the AD, but for that price you can do better, and after flying cessna taildraggers and stinsons, and a bunch of other stuff, when it comes to cessna taildraggers it's really a C180 or better, or don't bother.

To the OP, go try to get some stick time in on both planes, when it comes to the Stinson find a fabric stock example, do steep turns, stalls and some take offs and landings, between the super dampened shock equipped gear (unlike the bouncy spring gear on the 170), the slotted wing and auto flaps (mechanically drop a little with full aft yoke) and the light airframe for it's size, the rear leaned back seat, and how you don't have to slam doors and other cessna stuff, the strength of the fuse and wings with all that metal tubing, even little things like how the cowl is hinged In half easily showing everything, you'll end up in the 108.

Unlike Tom, I got no horse in this race, I'm not selling anything and I don't have anything of my buddies to sell ether.

Go get some stick time and let us know.


image.jpg


image.jpg
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Ahh, so it's your fiend/customers plane...



I've flown my Stinson across mountian ranges quite a few times, landed in everything from beaches to gras to Bravo airports, flown from the east coast to the west coat, from the Canadian boarder to the Mexican boarder, she did quite well, did everything this working pilot could ask for.

BTW adding a bunch of stuff and every STC, doesn't always make for a better plane, sometimes worse, also I'd be interested in those cylinders status per the ECI AD.

It is a nice 170, presuming it won't be needing 6 new jugs per the AD, but for that price you can do better, and after flying cessna taildraggers and stinsons, and a bunch of other stuff, when it comes to cessna taildraggers it's really a C180 or better, or don't bother.

To the OP, go try to get some stick time in on both planes, when it comes to the Stinson find a fabric stock example, do steep turns, stalls and some take offs and landings, between the super dampened gear (unlike the bouncy spring gear on the 170), the slotted wing and auto dropping flaps and the light airframe for it's size, the rear leaned back seat, and how you don't have to slam doors and other cessna stuff, the strength of the fuse and wings with all that metal tubing, you'll end up in the 108.

Unlike Tom, I got no horse in this race, I'm not selling anything and I don't have anything of my buddies to sell ether.

Go get some stick time and let us know.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top