Photo Album

[GAHorn]

George
I think if you do your research you will find out how much Cessna thought of the Stinson. They used it for comparing the 170 design to see if it was up to snuff. Its not a 170 and then again the 170 isnt the Stinson. Both have good points and bad. The aircraft is near 65 years old and has 3 ad's. And they have been taken care of years ago. They must have done something right.

I've not neglected my research. I wasn't demeaning the Stinsons, either, although I may have made an unfortunate choice of words.
My comment was derived from my experience flying two different 108-1's. I felt like I was sitting in a bucket because that's the way those seats are situated, and the view forward is horrible if compared to a 170. A pilot sitting in a 170 looking eyes-forward has a clear view, which even angles downward at least 25-degrees or more (depending upon pilot's personal height), while the same pilot (me) sitting in the 108 looks straight ahead...at the instrument panel and steel-tubing.
The ailerons are indeed smooth...but poorly-geared relative to the rudder effectiveness...and that is one reason even Stinson made changes in the later 108-3 airplane. These are just my personal observations/impressions of the airplane. (I've never flown a -3 to see how that felt.)
I think the main attraction of the Stinson in these days is the affordable acquisition-cost and good performance of an excellent design (if you like steel-tubes and fabric) compared to it's contemporary models in Pipers or Aeroncas (the latter of which I also happen to think of with favor. I agree with Russ re: the short-wing-Pipers. I don't have the same affinity for that breed their owners enjoy.)
IMO

[mike roe]

I accept your apology. If you agree not to call my girlfriend ugly, I will do the same. The only thing that changed on the ailerons are they went to metal. And the later -3s Piper assembled had to go back to fabric because of shortage on the metals. Also keep in mind this is at the latest is 1948 technology. 4 years later the B mdl came out. One other thing on Stinsons as far as T/W aircraft they are among the cheaper to insure. Also this forum was started to post pictures. Thats all I did. If you insist on these type discussions move it to the appropriate forum. I have already been on probation once.(We love you gahorn)

[GAHorn]

As my backwoodsy Arkansas Grandmother used to say (whenever attempting to resolve any disagreement): "Ok..Well..I guess your pot is blacker than mine."

[3958v]

Its interesting to hear you guys talk about short wing pipers. I had the opportunity to fly one quite a bit while I was working on my 170. It kind of grows on you. They are quite a bit snappier than a 170 and if you are quick enough to handle it I believe it might actually handle a stronger crosswind. Performance wise the one I flew did about the same speed with a fuel burn of about 1 GPH less. But when it came to cross country comfort and smothness of controls it was a distant second to a 170. Of course there are almost no planes from the late 40s and early 50s that I would not relish the opportunity to fly. Bill K

[russfarris]

Yes, the Stinson and the 170 have their good and bad points. Stinson negatives - the Franklin 150 burned 10 gallons an hour, pretty much regardless of power settings and mixture, within normal cruise parameters. Parts for it have been iffy for quite a long time. Airframe parts are plentiful used, a available new from Univair but expensive. You do feel a little like sitting in a cave, the side windows are small but the forward view isn't that bad, better than most tail-draggers. Few airplanes are the equal in forward visabilty to the 170 and early 172s; in fact I've had more than one fellow pilot along comment it was almost distracting! And having recovered my Stinson myself, I decided then and there I liked all-metal airplanes better - not that I didn't enjoy the experience (once.) BTW, mine when I bought it had the original fabric - hangared at a ranch in Fallon, Nevada since 1947! And 320 hours total time - it was an amazing find. This was in 1992...

Russ Farris

[KG]

170AK after a fine lunch at the Pik n Pig bbq, Carthage, NC. November, 2010

[russfarris]

Nice looking 170, Keith! Glad to hear the new engine is running great. I hope to see you again at one of the NC fly-ins this summer - Russ Farris

[KG]

Thanks, Russ. I'll be in touch and we'll get together somewhere. Keith

[snellbob]

Our girl called "Sunshine"

[snellbob]

These photos taken at Heritage Airpark in La Vernia, Texas near Seguin.

[15A]

She's a beauty!

The plane looks nice too!

They're BOTH eye-catchers

[jrenwick]

I love the flowers! Where I live, it would be dandelions. Calendar-worthy, IMHO!

[LBPilot82]

I get so gealous seeing all these pictures with nice grass runways. The dirt/rock runways out here tend to beat up my poor airplane.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I get so gealous seeing all these pictures with nice grass runways. The dirt/rock runways out here tend to beat up my poor airplane.

Really, I'll show a picture of my plane on a nice grass runway that is so soft we haven't been able to move the plane since the ground was froze in January. There are always two sides to a story.

[GAHorn]

Member Bill Sargent (BHM, AL) sent me this;