Talk:Stinson 108

Military History Project
(Add: Note re the above classification - This Wiki article does not have any military content or connections) RuthAS (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but the Stinson 108 was operated by the US Military as the L-9A. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To put matters in context - eight, repeat eight, civil owned Model 108s, out of over five thousand, were impressed by the USAAF. Hardly a strong military connection . . . RuthAS (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Still a military connection, one aircraft is a military connection we dont have cut-offs for small fleets of aircraft. So one is enough and it it is only a project tag on this talk page it doesnt say military in big letters in the article. If you want to propose a figure below which military aircraft are not of interest to the military aircraft project then I would suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force. MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The L-9s were Model 105s, not the same type. 18 genuine Stinson 108s were operated by the Spanish Air Force, however, justifying the Milhist tagging.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * To describe the 108 as a military aircraft, you might as well make the same ridiculous assertion about the Piper Cub, Piper Aztec, Beech Staggerwing, Beech 18, Beech Bonanza 33, Beech Twin Bonanza, Beech Baron 55, Beech King Air, Cessna 172, Cessna 310, Cessna Skymaster, Aeronca Champ 7EC, Navion, Grumman Goose, Aero Commander 500, Aero Commander 680, deHavilland Twin Otter, Lear 35, Grumman Gulfstream jets, Schweizer 2-33 glider, etc., etc., etc. -- all of which were (or are) used by the U.S. military (nearly all with official military letter/number designations, and nearly all in vastly greater numbers than the 108 in military use).
 * And I'm not even counting all the non-U.S. military applications (which, if included, would soak up just about all the GA aircraft ever made: Every aircraft manufacturer in GA wants to ride the government gravy-train -- ours or anyone else's. And most significant GA planemakers -- and practically all helo makers -- find a way to do it, with basically stock civilian aircraft.).
 * And don't get me started on commercial aircraft so applied -- hardly any of the major models could escape that scrutiny, except by very fussy niggling differences (which often amount to nothing more than custom avionics packages and paint jobs).
 * There DOES need to be a rational cutoff, if only for Wikipedia's credibility. If, for instance, a light aircraft's production is less than 10% military, and that 10% is less than 50 aircraft, it's obviously a civilian aircraft with incidental military applications. These very small numbers are extreme examples, and actual military numbers of light aircraft should be much, much higher to clear the bar of reason. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The wikiprojects are not user facing, they are for editors, so complaining about "Wikipedia's credibility" are just silly, unless you think that for some reason conttent about military use (which is cited) should be removed, or that editors who are interested in military history shouldn't edit the articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How Wikipedia clasifies articles, on the Talk page (which is highly visible to all visitors, not just editors), reflects on the credibiliy of Wikipedia. Let me clarify this point with an even grander distortion:  What would it say about Wikipedia if this were classed as an article in WikiProject Flowers?
 * Aviation buffs and experts, alike, visit and study these Wikipedia pages, and know a civilian aircraft from a military aircraft. Incorrectly classifying an article, even in just the Talk page, raises questions about the credibility of '"Wikipedia'' (with me, too).
 * And as for the spurious remark about thinking military-buff editors should not edit general aviation articles? Whether they can or not has nothing whatsoever to do with which WikiProject the article is assigned to.  Any Tom, Dick or Harriet can edit just about any Wikipedia article, right?  Let's just agree to disagree.~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Lede 2nd Paragraph Incorrect, Deleted, Revision Pending
Today, I deleted 2nd paragraph of lede because:


 * A.) NONE of it is accompanied by supporting references;


 * B.) Nearly every specific detail is contradicted (or described differently) by one or more of the reliable sources which I just cited in the preceding paragraph (including the Stinson book by the top Stinson historian, who is widely regarded as one of the top 5 aviation historians in modern U.S. history, especially in GA), or by other reputable sources in my library or online (which will be cited subsequently).

Unfortunately, on some of these details, even from highly credible major sources, there are a wide range of numbers and dates cited for much of that content, some varying by specific description of the numbers and their meaning. For instance, there's very diverse declarations of the numbers of Stinsons at the end of production and/or end of sales -- acquired by Piper and/or produced by Piper, and/or sold (or disposed of) by Piper, varying from 125 to over 1,000 (if serial numbers are assumed to be contiguous).

To restore the general essence of the 2nd lede paragraph, some "weasel-words" will have to be used, or multiple differing data points presented. Will be awkward, and editors are encouraged to refine it -- but this time with credible references, please. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wegg gives 5260 108s built by Stinson and Piper, including ~200 complete but unsold aircraft which were acquired by Piper when they bought Stinson, and 125 built from spares by Piper. The single 108-5 built by Univair (which was also assembled from spares, but not until 1963) appears to be additional to that. The 1995 edition of Simpson also quotes a total of 5260 Model 108s, but with a slightly different breakdown of models (pp. 379–380), and has the sale to Piper taking place in November rather than December 1948 as per Wegg. The delivery numbers of all Stinsons given in Simpson (p. 10) are 1436 in 1946, 2662 in 1947 and 801 in 1948, which doesn't match apparent production.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see my revised version of the lede's 2nd (and now also 3rd) paragraph(s), and associated sources. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The detail and any debate about how many were built by who should ideally be in the body, with the lede summarising - what sources explicitly state that there was no Piper new production?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. I will attempt to revise lede, and subsequent text, accordingly, as my (very heavy) workload permits.
 * As to your question as to who indicates no further production under Piper, I'll cite two sources already noted in the article:
 * McDowell (Flying Magazine) ; and
 * Underwood (one of the two principal Stinson historians), who wrote:
 * "...New plane sales slumped to almost nothing [in 1948]. Consolidated took a hard look at the prospects and turned thumbs-down on further personal plane activity. The Stinson Division was marked for liquidation.
 * "On Dec. 1, 1948, the division assets, including 500 unsold Voyagers parked at Willow Run, were consigned to Piper Aircraft. The Voyagers were disposed of through the Piper's vast dealer network under the Piper-Stinson label. There was talk of reorganization at [Piper's factory at] Lock Haven, as the Piper-Stinson Aircraft Corporation, but a resolution to that effect was voted down by Piper stockholders.  Voyager production was not resumed, and, in January 1949, the Stinson Division ceased to be a corporate entity."
 * It's worth noting that most histories of Piper Aircraft -- including the current company website's "History" page -- make no mention of any Piper-Stinson production (only a few even mention Stinsons at all). It is possible that many have mistaken the "Piper-Stinson" re-labeling of pre-Piper Stinsons -- acquired in the takeover -- as indication that they were built by Piper, when, in fact, they may have simply been re-labeled, as various sources (some cited in the article) indicate.
 * There are indications (too busy to document, now) that Piper may have redesigned the vertical tail, slightly (the corrugations and size) for a few Piper-built Piper-Stinsons, but not seeing clear, unambiguous documentation, yet.
 * It's not inconcievable that they simply replaced the (controversial) big vertical tail on the pre-Piper Model 108-3 Stinsons that they were struggling to unload over the next couple of years, without building any new, whole Stinsons.
 * This could have led to claims or mis-interpretations of Piper-Stinson modifications as Piper-Stinson production. Aviation corporation statements and claims in that tumultuous, desperate era (as also in the merger-mania of 1929 and subsequent Great Depression) are frequently ambiguous, confused, deliberately misleading and/or highly unreliable.
 * ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Customary units of measure in aviation
Just revised Specifications Take-off run: from yards ("183 yd") to customary measurement feet ("549 ft").

"Yards" are not a customary measurement in aviation. Distance, aircraft dimensions, altitudes and elevations are customarily expressed in either feet/meters or miles/kilometers, in the aviation world. See virtually any major reference work on aircraft. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)