Stinson Reliant

[bob turner]

Commonly called a Gullwing, right? My buddy says the V-77 is an inferior aircraft - I have no idea, but sort of thought the airframes were the same between civilian and military, and only the power plants were different.

My experience is extremely limited - five hours total in a 300 hp V-77, but I may be the most experienced guy within the local area. Appreciate any hints from folks in the “know” or hobbyists. There may come a time when I shall be asked for an “expert” opinion.

[aktango58]

Inferior to what?

One of the smoothest, easy flying planes I was ever able to fly. They were called the "Cadillac of the Sky!".

Once you learn to fly them, they are incredible for STOL work. Easy to keep within 450'.

Dead simple machines with almost no a/ds. Once you get it opened up, which requires a ladder, it does not take long to see everything because there is so much room.

They are built tough.

Carry a small step ladder to make it possible to deal with preflight and windshield washing.

Plan an hour minimum at fuel stops as you will be surrounded by gawkers wanting to see the plane.

I miss mine.

[skywagon8a]

What George says! I had a 1933 Stinston SR on EDO4000 floats ... loved it. The SR was a straight wing also called Reliant. The predecessor which ceased production in 1932 was called "Junior". The series started with SR continuing through the SR-10. The SR-7 was the first "Gull wing". The V-77 was a version made for the military which had a fuselage which was 1.65 feet longer than the SR-10. Long ago a fellow at the Plymouth airport bought and had delivered a V-77. Then he asked the local instructors to check him out. They all refused, saying they had never flown one. So who am I to say no to a challenge. I told him that I would check him out, but that I would have to check myself out first. He said OK... so we did. What a great airplane. The flaps operated pneumatically. I don't know the source but there was a big pneumatic cylinder which moved the flaps. You could go around with full flaps and they would self retract as the speed increased.

This is a good source of information.

[cubdriver2]

Pete in your travels someday stop into Tunkhannock Pa and visit with Steve Gay. He has owned the same Gullwing for over 40 years. He also has 3 or 4 gullwing projects. Some of you might have met him at Oshkosh in vintage parking. He throws a big tarp over the right wing of " Big Red " and camps all week with his family. Great guy. Bob T I can PM you his # if you like

Glenn

[cubdriver2]

Years ago the SM 8A from Hampton parked over night at Cooperstown and I was in love with it. At that time my kids were young and I thought what a perfect family airplane. Sadly a dream I never got to realize

Glenn

[RaisedByWolves]

The jr sure is a sweet flying machine. Dare I say nicer than the gullwing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hotrod180]

Roy Franklin who owned Island Sky Ferries in Friday HarborWA, and who built the Friday Harbor airport KFHR,
owned a Stinson SR-10 Gullwing fitted with a P&W 985, called the Bushman conversion.
They were no slouch with a 300hp Lycoming,
but that 985 really made a different airplane out of it.
It used to be in the collection at the Port Townsend Aero Museum,
but was sold off about 10 years ago.
I think it's in Colorado nowadays.

[skywagon8a]

1933 SR on Moosehead Lake early 1980s s/n8715 Photo taken by JJ Frey from EDO's 206.

[bob turner]

Thanks. My “checkout” (fully insured!) was as a test pilot for a V-77 that had not flown since 1958. They paid me!

It was gorgeous! Brand new Lycoming, chrome steering wheels, beautiful interior, Garmin 430.

Owner wanted $80 grand. My buddy turned it down - not a “Gullwing.” He is willing to spend $50 grand more for a mid-time true SR- whatever, because they fly better. That’s why I am asking.

Some really smart guys came to town and snapped it up!

[Richgj3]

My friend’s V77 which I helped recover in the 70,s.

Rich

[Blackdog]

Bob it’s been common to say the V-77 was inferior. I like the V-77 better. I have both side by side here in the shop. SR-10 and V-77 airframes uncovered. No parts will interchange between the two airframes. When Stinson sold to Vultee they redesigned the SR-10 to make the V-77. It was totally reengineered and static tested again. Sadly over the years the quality of rebuilds of many V-77s were not what was given to the SR series airplanes. Some are fully military and others are updated with no military equipment left. All are a bit of homebuilt because of the various seats and cabin furnishings. Different brakes, different props, different weights due to solid plywood not balsa core floors being used and some with full leather heavy interiors. The original fuselage stringers are steel with lightening holes and can be corroded. There is no structural wood other than small plywood pieces on the wing nose ribs. Cabin door frames and window frames are wood. The rest is steel tube including the wing spars and aluminum square tube built up wing ribs.

The V-77 is light on the controls and flies almost exactly like a Stinson 108 just you flare higher and there is no steerable tailwheel. The R-680 powered airplane is a bit underpowered fully loaded and performs about like a 172. Stalls are gentle. It can 3 point or wheel land fine. The air operated flaps are Vacuum operated from a line to the intake above the carburetor with a reserve tank located aft of the baggage.

There has never been an airframe AD or Service bulletin on the V-77.

The R-680 can be easily hydraulic locked with the original large primer. I’ve used a smaller Kohler primer just with 14 pumps for a cold start 7 when hot. The R-680 runs very smooth in cruise and is fairly efficient. R-680 is easy going engine not supercharged. It does have an blower/impeller but not turning fast enough to make a increase in MP. The R-680 quality of overhauls have varied a lot from good to junk. Good one will go about 1000hrs between overhauls. Keep the propeller greased. The ignition rings are a real pain if you need to pull a cylinder. Separate plug wires from the mags out without the tubular rings is much better.

Both can have Jasco alternators installed but avoid the 70 amp unit on the R-985. It won’t come online until 1500 RPM and won’t make 20 amps at takeoff RPM. Avoid the 12:1 blower mod if R-985. Makes less sea level power and has lower critical altitude than the 10:1 Runs hot and at low power settings EGTs are really high even with carb heat to try to richen it up.

An R-985 converted V-77 is a quite different beast. 23 GPH cruise or 17.5 lean of peak at 8000ft and above. Great rate of climb. Fuel limited with 76 Gallon main tanks. Gross is 4000 lbs. 2650-2700lb empty weight R-680. 2900-2950 Lb for R-985 roughly.

SR-10F was the real performer and had 4 tanks 125 gallon and 4650 gross but sadly none are flying. There are some SR-9F out there. Similar

The V-77 has a longer fuselage and gear is raked a few inches forward. Less tippy on the ground. V-77 has a trim tab for elevator trim. SR uses a stabilizer jackscrew like a Cub.

We rebuilt this one as a Hybrid between the two. Last owner had crashed it and threw away all the sheet metal and bent parts. Interestingly it slows down with the Howard wheel pants installed. The speed difference between the SR and V-77 has been debated for years.

Tuft testing showed that the biggest drag producer might be the gear leg fairings. The airfoil is too short for the thickness and airflow reverses
on the gear and pants. Putting wing ribs side by side the SR is very slightly more pointed at the front of the leading edge. SR has what appears to be a lower drag gear leg setup.

Incidence angles are the same for the wings SR and V-77 with the V-77 tail fixed at the middle of the SR Horizontal tail adjustment range.

No speed change removing the cabin steps. SR-10 5900 series has retractable steps.

Also intersting was testing propellers. The 6101 Ham Standard paddle blade that everyone says is the puller slow speed was terrible. Diameter 101” and lost about 500 ft min rate of climb. Heavy. The 6167 tapered blade Ham Standard and 3 blade Hartzell had the same performance but the 3 blade Hartzell was much lighter.

Look for rear spar damage about the flap pushrod area if it has hit a wing tip. Look for corrosion in lower tubes between the main gear and lower windshield Vee. Wing strut attach bolts should be just snug tight and well greased or covered in coating like Par Al Ketone. Cleveland brakes are great addition. But the STC is the wrong wheel size and it squeezes the tire a bit.

Towbar is needed. hard on the tail to push it around a lot. You can tow with the tailwheel on smooth ground with a low hitch. Nice family airplane and not hard to fly.

[bob turner]

Yes. Thank you! I will never be an expert, but I am much smarter now.

I would have said it handles a lot like a school bus, but then my opinion of the 172 has never really been high. I love the light 180 Cessnas, but not because of their nimbleness - more for their capabilities.

And I might still have a 108-2 if it had control sticks and a 180 Lycoming C/S. But, alas . . .

[aflyer]

[skywagon8a]

Beautiful! But why does the FAA show that N number on a King Air?

[aflyer]

I don't know anything about it, just a pretty picture.

[RaisedByWolves]

The JR S sure did fly nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[skywagon8a]

This is the same T-50 which is in my avitar on floats.

[Blackdog]

Lycoming powered V-77 just performs like a 172 but flying qualities are better. Light controls with lots of rudder authority. The ailerons are interesting because if you really pull into a turning stall when it gets close to stalling the airplane will smoothly move the yoke towards wing level. Its not a jerking motion or top wing stalling but a smooth yoke movement / resistance that tries to roll back to level flight before it stalls when coordinated. Flaps down takeoff is shorter but the flaps bleed up as airspeed increases. Rate of climb is faster flaps up. The flaps are only up and down with no intermediate positions but in practice it works ok. I use about 80 mph on final loaded. It will come in slower with practice to 3 point but there is not a huge difference in landing distance. Takeoff it is better to leave it on the ground to fly off when ready smoothly instead of pulling it into the air.

Trim setting is critical. If left trimmed for landing it is a bear on takeoff but you can feel something is wrong as the tail comes up and crank the trim to fix. The long gear makes landings soft and pavement is no problem.

In the manual spin recovery is 1/8 turn and after I believe 4-6 turns it says “The airplane cannot be held in the spin due to control forces trying to recover” Stinson did a lot of work sizing the dynamic balance part of the flight control overhangs and gaps. The engineering that went into it and testing amazed me with the rush at the start of WWII and they already had a proven design with the SR-10. Yet they decided to totally redesign.

The V-77 CG envelope is narrower than needed probably for the aerobatic approval as part of the AT-19 designation or for the British. The forward CG limits can be a problem with the R-985. The SR 9 and 10 F models with the factory Wright or R-985 are quite different than the SRs with Lycoming. They have Heat treated wing spars. Heavier gear and a heavier horizontal tail surface. The Lycoming powered airplanes did not have heat treated wing spars. Only the section of the spar outboard of the strut to the tip was heat treated and the Vee structures to the rear spar were welded on after heat treating to sleeves slid over the spar during construction and packed with wet asbestos to keep the torch heat from removing the heat treatment in the spar tube.

None of the V-77s had heat treated wing spars but the landing gear legs are heat treated.

The wing has everything wrong for good stall. High taper, razor sharp leading edges at the tip and Wash In instead of wash out at the tips. Yet it works just fine
V-77 Wing strut attach has two bolts at each joint for a universal joint type of attachment on two axis top and bottom. Self aligning but it is rigid when bolts installed.

SR-9s had wing attach problem early on which was fixed with changes to the wing attach points. But bolts over tightened was part of the problem. Tight enough to be rotated with hand pressure on the end of a standard length wrench is in the SB on wing attach bolt torquing.

Ribs are built up like tinker toys or similar to wood rib design but with soft rivets spun on the shop head through rib square tubes or harder AD rivets and push. Try to rib stitch and not screw the fabric on like some have done. The stitching pulls the whole rib truss where the screws try to pull the rib cap strips off.
V-77 used Explosive rivets used on the tail surface trailing edges to attach to the aluminum ribs. They can be replaced with blind rivets now. SR used welded steel tail surfaces.

[dgapilot]

I used to fly the Jr S that the AirPower Museum (AAA) has out in IA. Really enjoyed that airplane. Flew the SMA-8 that Bud Dake had for a while and the SMA-8 that Jim Younkin had. Very similar to the JR-S. The one that was really fun was the W. Essentially a JR-S with a 985 on it. They were all great airplanes to fly. Hard to find a hangar to fit them in though. Hangar availability was part of the decision making when I bought my Howard. The Howard was not easy to fly like all the Stinsons, but it sure was fun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mot]

The US Forest Service bought it's first airplane, a Stinson Reliant, in 1939. Photo was taken near Winthrop Washington during experiments dropping Fire fighters into forest fires. The pilot is Harold C. King. The smoke jumpers may be Francis Lufkin and Glen Smith.

[phdigger123]

This is my V-77. It is without a doubt the easiest tail dragger I have flown. Control forces are very similar to the C-182 that I had. Turbulence that will knock your teeth out in a PA-18 is only an annoyance in the Gullwing. It land much easier that a Super Cub. You can really pound it into the ground and it just keeps going straight. My wife says it is the most comfortable airplane she has ever rode in. It is truly an amazing airplane.

[Mot]

Another Photo from Winthrop 1939

[hotrod180]

.... My buddy turned it down - not a “Gullwing.” .....

Looks like a gull wing to me.

[skywagon8a]

Looks like a gull wing to me.

Maybe he wanted one with a bump cowl?

[Blackdog]

For years there was a “Attitude” with antique airplane people that the V-77 was built by Vultee for the military and not a true “Gullwing” Stinson. Still persists to this day.
True it’s not a “Stinson” design. But no less than the 108 is a design when Vultee owned the company also.

Or the fact that none of them were a Gullwing SR or V-77 because the Spars are straight. Just the thickness tapers.

Corsair the spar makes some drastic angle changes.

[skywagon8a]

How about the Twin Stinson. Later to become the Piper Apache PA-23.

[bob turner]

Ercoupe dad, Aztec mom?

Yeah - now it is the bumped cowl. If an airplane flies like a 172, how can handling be an issue? Point it where you want to go, trim it, and sit back.

I never stopped being vigilant during landing - if I got fifteen total I would be surprised. Never explored its crosswind capabilities. The 108-3 ran out of rudder at exactly 13 knots - a little low, in my opinion. The dash 2 seemed a lot better.