Pilots of America Message Board

Home Live Chat
Go Back   Pilots of America Message Board > Pilot's Lounge > Hangar Talk

Hangar Talk Open forum for discussion of any topic you like, aviation related or otherwise (but no spin zone material, see below).

Virtually all topics in this forum are permitted - so long as they are discussed in a civil manner.

NOTE: Politics and religion and any other topic likely to become highly charged must be posted in The Spin Zone. To gain access to the Spin Zone, click this link and join the Spin Zone group.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:11 PM   #1
Ren dell30rb is offline
(User ID: dell30rb)
Final Approach
 
dell30rb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 5,251
Cessna 175?

What's the opinion of the Cessna 175? looks a lot like a 172... continental 300... seem to be a lot of nice ones on the market under 30K

I'm hoping to round up 4-5 people and buy a plane here sometime in 6mo - 1yr
dell30rb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:18 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #2
3934V Tom-D is offline
(User ID: Tom-D)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Tom-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,881
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dell30rb View Post
What's the opinion of the Cessna 175? looks a lot like a 172... continental 300... seem to be a lot of nice ones on the market under 30K

I'm hoping to round up 4-5 people and buy a plane here sometime in 6mo - 1yr
They are actually a great old aircraft, using the GO-300-D which has a bad reputation of not making TBO with a very expensive gear box to overhaul along with the engine.

When run IAW the POH they will serve well and the engine and gear box will reach TBO. new cylinders and engine parts are readily available, thru after market parts suppliers


They are a C-172 fuselage with a modified C-180 wing, 40 degree manual flaps, gross weigh is increased because of more horses under the hood. plus when run at cruise at 2800 RPM the prop is turning 2100 RPM which makes the quietest cabin ever made by Cessna in the 100 series.

Last edited by Tom-D; January 23rd, 2012 at 02:20 PM.
Tom-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:21 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #3
Tony tonycondon is online now
(User ID: tonycondon)
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
 
tonycondon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 15,124
Send a message via AIM to tonycondon Send a message via MSN to tonycondon
Re: Cessna 175?

with an O-470 they make a great towplane
__________________
Tony Condon
N373Y, N4653T, N6312
http://cherokeesailplanes.blogspot.com
http://www.letsgogliding.com
tonycondon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:27 PM
Posted in reply to tonycondon's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #4
3934V Tom-D is offline
(User ID: Tom-D)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Tom-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,881
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonycondon View Post
with an O-470 they make a great towplane
They probably would, and there is an STC to do that.
Tom-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:28 PM
Posted in reply to Tom-D's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #5
Tony tonycondon is online now
(User ID: tonycondon)
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
 
tonycondon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 15,124
Send a message via AIM to tonycondon Send a message via MSN to tonycondon
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom-D View Post
They probably would, and there is an STC to do that.
better rate of climb than the prototype 182.
__________________
Tony Condon
N373Y, N4653T, N6312
http://cherokeesailplanes.blogspot.com
http://www.letsgogliding.com
tonycondon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:35 PM
Posted in reply to Tom-D's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #6
Cap'n Ron Ron Levy is online now
(User ID: Ron Levy)
Taxi to Parking
 
Ron Levy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 26,266
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom-D View Post
They are actually a great old aircraft, using the GO-300-D which has a bad reputation of not making TBO with a very expensive gear box to overhaul along with the engine.

When run IAW the POH they will serve well
That's the ticket. Fine airplane as long as it's run by the book, which is rather different than what most people learned with direct drive engines. Only problem buying one is knowing how it was run before you got it. Ask the owner how to run it, and if that doesn't match the book, walk away. BTW there's an STC to replace the original engine with a 180HP Lyc O-360, and that's a really easy engine to run and one which is well-known for reliability and durability.
Ron Levy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:38 PM
Posted in reply to Ron Levy's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #7
Dan Mc dmccormack is offline
(User ID: dmccormack)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
dmccormack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,010
Send a message via AIM to dmccormack
Re: Cessna 175?

Wow -- a 175 with a O-470 would be sweet...

__________________
Dan McCormack
COMM-CFI, SEL
N24286, 1940 Aeronca Chief (65-LA)
Flight (and other stuff) Blog
dmccormack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:45 PM
Posted in reply to Ron Levy's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #8
3934V Tom-D is offline
(User ID: Tom-D)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Tom-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,881
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy View Post
That's the ticket. Fine airplane as long as it's run by the book, which is rather different than what most people learned with direct drive engines. Only problem buying one is knowing how it was run before you got it. Ask the owner how to run it, and if that doesn't match the book, walk away. BTW there's an STC to replace the original engine with a 180HP Lyc O-360, and that's a really easy engine to run and one which is well-known for reliability and durability.
Well that's good as far as it goes, you'd best get an A&P well versed in GO-300-D gear box, to have a look before making a payment.

The upgrade you mentioned is a great upgrade, when completed that aircraft will go places and carry more than a 182 or a Maule M4-235 can.

Last edited by Tom-D; January 23rd, 2012 at 02:59 PM.
Tom-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:48 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #9
Ren dell30rb is offline
(User ID: dell30rb)
Final Approach
 
dell30rb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 5,251
Re: Cessna 175?

Sounds good

What is the problem with folks running them poorly? Is it an issue with RPM ?

I'm half inclined to try and find one with a bad motor and put the 180HP motor in it. Is there a market for used motors? A bonus - a friend of mine just earned his A&P so I can get some free help.

The gearbox sounds like a PITA when it breaks but I do like the idea of the prop turning 2100 rpm..

Last edited by dell30rb; January 23rd, 2012 at 02:58 PM.
dell30rb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 02:58 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #10
3934V Tom-D is offline
(User ID: Tom-D)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Tom-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,881
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dell30rb View Post
Sounds good

What is the problem with folks running them poorly? Is it an issue with RPM ?
I thought you'd never ask

back when they were new the old radial pilots that traded their old aircraft in on them had never seen an aircraft that should be run 3250 RPM for take off, so they would run the GO-300-D the same way they ran the 0-300-D and that resulted in lugging the engine and caused much damage to the cylinders / cases by detonation. Simply put, the pistons could not travel down the cylinder bore fast enough to relieve the combustion pressures, and the resulting pressures were beyond what the cylinders were designed to with stand.

so they got to be known as a POS simply because the pilot/owners would not fly them correctly.

there are 4 models including the 1963 Powermatic C-P172-?
Tom-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:10 PM
Posted in reply to Tom-D's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #11
3934V Tom-D is offline
(User ID: Tom-D)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Tom-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,881
Re: Cessna 175?

The aircraft pictured is a 175, with the 0-360-??? 180 horse with constant speed prop. stall cuff, VGs, 210 nose gear, bush wheels.

I've flown it a couple times with 2 aboard and a half a tank of fuel.

It will get off in 150' and land shorter than my 170B.

The owner goes to all the back woods fly-ins like Johnson Creek ID, and when he does his hangar neighbor (our Maule operator) has him carry some of his camp gear, because the maule is maxed out, and it still gets off quicker than the Maule M4-235.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg what is it -2.JPG (66.9 KB, 89 views)
File Type: jpg what is it -4.JPG (63.5 KB, 76 views)
File Type: jpg what is it -5.JPG (62.3 KB, 73 views)
File Type: jpg what is it-1.JPG (64.2 KB, 77 views)
Tom-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:19 PM
Posted in reply to Tom-D's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #12
Cap'n Ron Ron Levy is online now
(User ID: Ron Levy)
Taxi to Parking
 
Ron Levy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 26,266
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom-D View Post
The upgrade you mentioned is a great upgrade, when completed that aircraft will go places and carry more than a 182 or a Maule M4-235 can.
No way 180HP will haul more than 230HP, but it will improve the airplane's performance a bit and provide a more familiar engine for your mechanic at the expense of a little less smooth operation.
Ron Levy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:24 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #13
Ren dell30rb is offline
(User ID: dell30rb)
Final Approach
 
dell30rb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 5,251
Re: Cessna 175?

Sounds like a pretty sweet airplane. Like the manual flaps.. 175hp.. tons of payload.. also don't mind the gearbox to be honest. Best part is they're cheap!

Is the Go-300 a constant speed prop or fixed pitch? Appears to be fixed pitch from the few cockpit shots I can find. So the issue then is typically owners not firewalling it on takeoff?
dell30rb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:29 PM
Posted in reply to Ron Levy's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #14
Adam Zucker AdamZ is offline
(User ID: AdamZ)
Touchdown! Greaser!
Pilots Of America Management
 
AdamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Montgomery County PA
Posts: 14,089
Send a message via Skype™ to AdamZ
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom-D View Post
...
The upgrade you mentioned is a great upgrade, when completed that aircraft will go places and carry more than a 182 or a Maule M4-235 can.
Tom, a few quetions:
1) If you put the O-360 in the 175 does that get rid of the gear box and then it gets flown like anyother 180 hp engine?

2) Does putting in the O-360 then increast the TBO from 1200 hrs to 2000hrs? I've looked at 175s but my big concern is that the TBO is only 1200 and a mid time engine in anything else is runout on a 175. The concern for me was buying one with 600 hrs on it and not knowing how the previous owner flew it.

3) I'd think that putting in the O-360 would essentially make it a 180hp 172. What you say would refute that. How is it more than a 172 with the 180hp

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy View Post
No way 180HP will haul more than 230HP, but it will improve the airplane's performance a bit and provide a more familiar engine for your mechanic at the expense of a little less smooth operation.
This was my thinking but it is just an assumption.
__________________
Adam Zucker
www.mudrickzucker.com

With reasonable men I will reason, with humane men I will plead, with tyrants I will show no mercy. Thomas Jefferson (carved on the Jefferson Memorial at the Tidal Basin)
AdamZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:32 PM
Posted in reply to Ron Levy's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #15
3934V Tom-D is offline
(User ID: Tom-D)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Tom-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,881
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy View Post
No way 180HP will haul more than 230HP, but it will improve the airplane's performance a bit and provide a more familiar engine for your mechanic at the expense of a little less smooth operation.
It's not about the power, it's about the Maule. Aircraft design is the major factor.

given the 2 exactly same airframe I'll give ya the point.

Last edited by Tom-D; January 23rd, 2012 at 03:44 PM.
Tom-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:41 PM
Posted in reply to AdamZ's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #16
3934V Tom-D is offline
(User ID: Tom-D)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Tom-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,881
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamZ View Post
Tom, a few quetions:
1) If you put the O-360 in the 175 does that get rid of the gear box and then it gets flown like anyother 180 hp engine?

Why not? but remember it is a constant speed prop, with all the considerations of the type.

2) Does putting in the O-360 then increast the TBO from 1200 hrs to 2000hrs? I've looked at 175s but my big concern is that the TBO is only 1200 and a mid time engine in anything else is runout on a 175. The concern for me was buying one with 600 hrs on it and not knowing how the previous owner flew it.

Engine TBO is Engine TBO, it has nothing to do with the aircraft.

3) I'd think that putting in the O-360 would essentially make it a 180hp 172. What you say would refute that. How is it more than a 172 with the 180hp

Pretty much true, but remember the 175 has a different wing, manual 40 degree flaps, and a heavier gross load.

This was my thinking but it is just an assumption.
not quite true, the 2 aircraft are different designs the Maule has a much shorter wing, and requires more speed to life off than the modified 175 wing with a stall cuff and VGs.
I've watched the 2 owners compete with each other, the 175 configured the way it is beats the M4-235 every time.
Tom-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:46 PM
Posted in reply to AdamZ's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #17
Cap'n Ron Ron Levy is online now
(User ID: Ron Levy)
Taxi to Parking
 
Ron Levy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 26,266
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamZ View Post
Tom, a few questions.
Not Tom, but one of my trainees had this mod on his 175, so...

Quote:
1) If you put the O-360 in the 175 does that get rid of the gear box and then it gets flown like anyother 180 hp engine?
Exactly. The prop then goes directly on the front of the crankshaft like any other similar installation of that engine, although there's a bit of a mod to the nose bowl to accommodate the change.

Quote:
2) Does putting in the O-360 then increast the TBO from 1200 hrs to 2000hrs?
It's the engine, not the airframe, which sets the TBO. That model of O-360 is a 2000 hr TBO no matter if it's in a 175, 172, 180 Cherokee, or Grumman Tiger.

Quote:
3) I'd think that putting in the O-360 would essentially make it a 180hp 172. What you say would refute that. How is it more than a 172 with the 180hp
pretty much correct, albeit a rather old-style 172.
Ron Levy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:53 PM
Posted in reply to Ron Levy's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #18
3934V Tom-D is offline
(User ID: Tom-D)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Tom-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,881
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy View Post
N
pretty much correct, albeit a rather old-style 172.
There are a few instrument panel upgrades that make it hard to tell.
the boot cowl on the 175 is the same as the later 172s. so you could fit a "N" instrument panel into the space.

that could be done on a 337 field approval.
Tom-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 03:56 PM
Posted in reply to Tom-D's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #19
Pilawt Pilawt is online now
(User ID: Pilawt)
Pattern Altitude
 
Pilawt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,295
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom-D View Post
there are 4 models including the 1963 Powermatic C-P172-?
C-175 first came out for the 1958 model year. It got the swept tail in 1960 (175A), along with an optional equipment package called "Skylark". For 1962 (C-175C) cowl flaps and a constant-speed propeller were added (175s had fixed-pitch props before 1962).

As Tom mentioned, the 1963 model was not called "175" at all. Rather, the 175C engine, prop, cowl flaps and type certificate were married to the 172D's redesigned "Omni-Vision" fuselage. The result was integrated into the 172 line and called P172D "Skyhawk Powermatic." Only about 65 were built that year, after which the GO-300 engine was retired.

The later R172K "Hawk XP" and 172RG "Cutlass RG" were built under the 175's type certificate.

Other 175 trivia ... The 175 prototype was first flown with an experimental geared, four-cylinder Continental GO-315 -- quickly rejected as a "monster" by the test pilots. Then they tried a six-cylinder, fuel-injected GIO-300, but its primitive mechanical fuel metering system did not work well with a fixed-pitch prop.
__________________
Jeff Jacobs
C172N-180
Vancouver, Washington USA / KVUO


Last edited by Pilawt; January 23rd, 2012 at 04:05 PM.
Pilawt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 04:15 PM
Posted in reply to Tom-D's post "Re: Cessna 175?"
  #20
Pilawt Pilawt is online now
(User ID: Pilawt)
Pattern Altitude
 
Pilawt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,295
Re: Cessna 175?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom-D View Post
The aircraft pictured is a 175, with the 0-360-??? 180 horse with constant speed prop. stall cuff, VGs, 210 nose gear, bush wheels.
Here's another 175. Not sure what engine is in it, but in addition to the tailwheel conversion it has a c/s prop, leading-edge cuff and VGs. This is the only one I've seen with the side window mod, that at first glance makes it hard to tell from a C-180. A close look at the tailfeathers gives it away as a 175.



Quote:
but remember the 175 has a different wing
As far as I know the differences are internal and structural only; outside and aerodynamically it's just like a 172 wing.
__________________
Jeff Jacobs
C172N-180
Vancouver, Washington USA / KVUO

Pilawt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 04:41 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #21
FlyingRon flyingron is offline
(User ID: flyingron)
Final Approach
 
flyingron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,138
Re: Cessna 175?

We had a 175 on floats of all things at our airpark.
There's one over at EZF I believe the guy pulls banners with.

Both still had the GO's in them.
flyingron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 05:33 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #22
denny Dr. O is offline
(User ID: Dr. O)
Pattern Altitude
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hemlock, MI
Posts: 1,629
Re: Cessna 175?

I've got about 60 hours in Skylarks... Good little airplane that will jump off with 4 full size adults on board... The GO engine smooth like a sewing machine... I always liked it...

denny-o
Dr. O is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 07:56 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #23
John lockeed is offline
(User ID: lockeed)
Pre-takeoff checklist
 
lockeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gaspe - Quebec
Posts: 135
Re: Cessna 175?

The 300s always been known to be very smooth engines... But I've always wondered if it's not mostly due to the prop rpm beeing so low... or is it really the engine itself...? I'd love to hear it on a test bed to compare...
lockeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 08:00 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #24
Duncan Skylane81E is offline
(User ID: Skylane81E)
Final Approach
 
Skylane81E's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 8,062
Re: Cessna 175?

Conty 6 bangers are all very smoooooooth engines. A 182 with a new 3-blade will make you wonder if it's really running.
__________________
Duncan L. A&P/IA Private S/MEL

'83 Skylane II

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me!"

Last plane to depart KISZ 7:59AM 08/29/12
Skylane81E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 08:14 PM
Posted in reply to dell30rb's post "Cessna 175?"
  #25
John lockeed is offline
(User ID: lockeed)
Pre-takeoff checklist
 
lockeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gaspe - Quebec
Posts: 135
Re: Cessna 175?

Nice one here. Close to TBO but very decent plane. How much can it cost to ovehaul a 300?




Anyone can shed some light on the wing differences between the 175 vs 172?
lockeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Home Register New Posts Today's Posts
Go Back   Pilots of America Message Board > Pilot's Lounge > Hangar Talk

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cessna 175 Opinions OkieFlyer Hangar Talk 38 March 20th, 2013 09:56 PM
Cessna 175 static port WarriorPilot Maintenance Bay 12 September 6th, 2011 12:34 AM
C-175/G0-300 poadeleted7 Maintenance Bay 10 August 27th, 2008 08:04 AM
Way to go Cessna! James_Dean Flight Following 4 April 21st, 2006 05:51 PM
Anyone never been in a Cessna? James_Dean Hangar Talk 17 May 31st, 2005 03:07 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 2005 - Pilots of America