I've not neglected my research. I wasn't demeaning the Stinsons, either, although I may have made an unfortunate choice of words.mike roe wrote: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.
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