C-175/G0-300

P

poadeleted7

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
38
Dear List,
I have a bead on a 1959 Cessna 175 Skylark . It is a clean low time always hangared plane. This is a distress sale and the price is very attractive. I have quite a bit of time in other Cessna singles but I have never flown a 175. I plan to base it at a 5000 MSL strip and fly it at gross Wt in the Fall, Winter, and Spring months. Does anyone have any familiarity with these planes or the parts availability for the G0-300 engine who might want to comment ? Thanks
Frank
 
Last edited:
Tom Downey is very familiar with them, and (if I recall correctly) has excellent things to say about them; perhaps he will chime in here. He is (you may recall) the A&P who is nearly finished (maybe now, finished) with a much-better-than-new restoration of a Fairchild high-wing monoplane. Username NC19143 .
 
A sound C-175 can be a good find. They have reasonably good performance and are surprisingly smooth and quiet (at the 3200 rpm redline the prop is turning only 2400 rpm). The one question I would have about parts availability concerns the prop gearbox.
 
F.Baum said:
Dear List,
I have a bead on a 1959 Cessna 175 Skylark . It is a clean low time always hangared plane. This is a distress sale and the price is very attractive. I have quite a bit of time in other Cessna singles but I have never flown a 175. I plan to base it at a 5000 MSL strip and fly it at gross Wt in the Fall, Winter, and Spring months. Does anyone have any familiarity with these planes or the parts availability for the G0-300 engine who might want to comment ? Thanks
Frank
Click to expand...


The 175 is a great aircraft, with a better usefull load than the 172, the GO-300-D is rebuildable, including the gear box. The old Wives tales are just that. there are 4 major manufacturers that make after market parts and plenty of machine shops to repair the major assemblies.

With time in a 172 you should not have any problems with the 175. It is the same fuselage, with an early 180 wing, manual flaps, and some have the slant tail, and rear window, the 59 doesn't.

Fly it as the POH says, do not allow the engine to be run as you would any Lycoming, or other Continental. It is geared and the prop runs 2/3rds the crank shaft speed. lower RPMs will cause engine problems.
 
Last edited:
What eats up GO-300's is when a pilot used to 2700 RPM redlines on direct drive engines gets terrified of 3000 RPM in cruise and pulls the throttle back to a "safe"/"normal" setting -- and this engine doesn't like that at all.
 
It has been nigh onto 30 years since I tore into a GO-300, but as I vaguely recall, the internals of the engine are identical to the regular old O-300, which will have parts available for it for the next century.

Check me if I'm wrong, please.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
It has been nigh onto 30 years since I tore into a GO-300, but as I vaguely recall, the internals of the engine are identical to the regular old O-300, which will have parts available for it for the next century.

Check me if I'm wrong, please.

Jim
Click to expand...

Crank is different, no prop flange. just a woodriff slot, the cam grind is different, higher RPM power curve, the Continental cyliners are a different P/N, but Superior and ECI are the same, The oil sump is different, the cases are different, for the gear box mount pad. the rods are heavier, but the accessories are all the same, except the angle starter for the -D. and vac pump.
 
Ron Levy said:
What eats up GO-300's is when a pilot used to 2700 RPM redlines on direct drive engines gets terrified of 3000 RPM in cruise and pulls the throttle back to a "safe"/"normal" setting -- and this engine doesn't like that at all.
Click to expand...

Just like dirving up a steep hill in high gear with the pedal to the metal, you get the same results as an over boost. Plus the gears in the gearbox get excessive wear at lower RPM due to chattering of the eliptical cut gears.

And remember some of these aircraft have constant speed props, = vary easy to lug the engine and shorten its life.

I run these aircraft 3000 RPM, leaned as much as it will run smooth.
 
NC19143 said:
The 175 is a great aircraft, with a better usefull load than the 172, the GO-300-D is rebuildable, including the gear box. The old Wives tales are just that. there are 4 major manufacturers that make after market parts and plenty of machine shops to repair the major assemblies.

It's rebuildable if you can find the prop shaft bearings. There are a few around. The bushing that the prop shaft rides in at the back is just not available anywhere.
Click to expand...
 
There is a 175 for sale here in VA that looks great, BUT . . . 2 TOH's, each aprox. 400 hours apart since a MOH 835 hrs. ago. Broker stated that the last TOH would have been a MOH, but the shop couldn't find a part that was required to qualify it as a MOH, so they had to call it a TOH. I have never heard anything that sounded more like BS than that story. No answer at the Maintenance facility that did the work on the phone number posted on their website.
Has anyone ever heard of anything like this? From what I've read about the 175, the need for repeated TOH's is caused by operating the engine at low rpm's as stated above, by pilots operating them like non-geared engines. The cylinders overheat to the point of being ruined in less than 500 hours - sounds like this plane, doesn't it?

I don't know why the broker would even tell anyone a story like that. I'm not interested any more. Evidently, there is a part in there that should have been replaced and wasn't. I don't have any negative attitude toward 175's - if they have been operated correctly, but I'm wondering if there is any truth to this story bout parts not being available. Anyone . . Tom-D?

BTW, I have read several times, stated by Pilot/A&P's with the chops to know, that the worst thing for the gear box on the 175 is to operate the engine at less than 1000 rpm. Which Tom-D mentioned, but I think needs repeated. Letting the gears chatter back and forth at low rpm is supposedly the worst thing you can do to the gear box other than running the wrong oil in it. The prop must always be pulling: minimum 1000 rpm on the ground and 1500 in descent, no chop and drop approach/landings. If you can find one that has been flown that way, you've found a good one.
 
QinVA said:
There is a 175 for sale here in VA that looks great, BUT . . . 2 TOH's, each aprox. 400 hours apart since a MOH 835 hrs. ago. Broker stated that the last TOH would have been a MOH, but the shop couldn't find a part that was required to qualify it as a MOH, so they had to call it a TOH. I have never heard anything that sounded more like BS than that story. No answer at the Maintenance facility that did the work on the phone number posted on their website.

Has anyone ever heard of anything like this? From what I've read about the 175, the need for repeated TOH's is caused by operating the engine at low rpm's as stated above, by pilots operating them like non-geared engines. The cylinders overheat to the point of being ruined in less than 500 hours - sounds like this plane, doesn't it?



I don't know why the broker would even tell anyone a story like that. I'm not interested any more. Evidently, there is a part in there that should have been replaced and wasn't. I don't have any negative attitude toward 175's - if they have been operated correctly, but I'm wondering if there is any truth to this story bout parts not being available. Anyone . . Tom-D?



BTW, I have read several times, stated by Pilot/A&P's with the chops to know, that the worst thing for the gear box on the 175 is to operate the engine at less than 1000 rpm. Which Tom-D mentioned, but I think needs repeated. Letting the gears chatter back and forth at low rpm is supposedly the worst thing you can do to the gear box other than running the wrong oil in it. The prop must always be pulling: minimum 1000 rpm on the ground and 1500 in descent, no chop and drop approach/landings. If you can find one that has been flown that way, you've found a good one.
Click to expand...

Is it the one listed by Lear Stevens down here?

If so, that airplane has been for sale for at least 3 years.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I wouldn't. Geared engine is the reason.
Click to expand...

The GO-300-D in the C-175 is the quietest cabin in the industry. When running 2800 turns at cruise the prop is only running 2100 RPM.

Pull your 172 back to produce 2100 RPM see what it sounds like.
 
Look at all the POAdeleteds posting in this thread from 7 years ago...
 
Fearless Tower said:
Is it the one listed by Lear Stevens down here?

If so, that airplane has been for sale for at least 3 years.
Click to expand...

That looks like a nice old aircraft.
" Who is Lear Stevens?"
 
Tom-D said:
That looks like a nice old aircraft.
" Who is Lear Stevens?"
Click to expand...
Just a broker here in the Norfolk area. They don't put a lot of effort into selling. Several of their listings have been there for 2-3 years.

I've seen that 175 on the ramp at Suffolk. I wouldn't touch it even if it was free.
 
Fearless Tower said:
J
I've seen that 175 on the ramp at Suffolk. I wouldn't touch it even if it was free.
Click to expand...

Which proves once again the cameras are kind to old aircraft.

Is it corroded or what?
 
Tom-D said:
Which proves once again the cameras are kind to old aircraft.



Is it corroded or what?
Click to expand...

It's been two years since I looked at it up close (parked next to it when having breakfast at the airport). I don't think the photos misrepresent the exterior. The paint job is/was in decent shape.

But internally is what would scare me. The airplane isn't a flyer. I would be amazed if it doesn't have some internal corrosion in the engine and airframe. This area is a harsh environment to leave an airplane sitting outside with little to no utilization. Flight schools can get away with it because their airplanes are running almost daily. But this airplane just sits.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It's been two years since I looked at it up close (parked next to it when having breakfast at the airport). I don't think the photos misrepresent the exterior. The paint job is/was in decent shape.

But internally is what would scare me. The airplane isn't a flyer. I would be amazed if it doesn't have some internal corrosion in the engine and airframe. This area is a harsh environment to leave an airplane sitting outside with little to no utilization. Flight schools can get away with it because their airplanes are running almost daily. But this airplane just sits.
Click to expand...

Then it would be a great candidate for the IO-360-K mod they fly really well with 220 horse power. They'll actually carry more and fly better than the 172XP, which they supposed to replace.
 
Tom-D said:
Then it would be a great candidate for the IO-360-K mod they fly really well with 220 horse power. They'll actually carry more and fly better than the 172XP, which they supposed to replace.
Click to expand...
I understand why a lighter 175 would carry more than an R172K Hawk XP with the same engine. But why would it fly better?
 
As an anecdote, I had a customer who had owned a 175 as a student pilot before training with me and had had TWO engine out landings (both safe) in the aircraft. He was still convinced it was a good plane, but was also convinced it HAD to be flown correctly!
 
I understand there are a few STCs out there for engine mods on the 175.
One mentioned above, and one to install an O-470, and I think there is one for an O-360 non injected.
 
Pilawt said:
I understand why a lighter 175 would carry more than an R172K Hawk XP with the same engine. But why would it fly better?
Click to expand...

They have the early 180 wing.
 
Here's a nice 175 conversion:

Img_0566e.jpg


Tom-D said:
They have the early 180 wing.
Click to expand...
Other than the cuffed leading edge, how is the R172K wing any different aerodynamically from the 175/P172D wing? Same type certificate.
 
Pilawt said:
Other than the cuffed leading edge, how is the R172K wing any different aerodynamically from the 175/P172D wing? Same type certificate.
Click to expand...

I don't know specific aerodynamics, but they will not interchange.

the 175 is a little lighter than the 172XP, thus it is lighter on the controls, but it has no bad habits, like the 1968 177, and isn't nose heavy on landing like the heavier 182.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
I understand why a lighter 175 would carry more than an R172K Hawk XP with the same engine. But why would it fly better?
Click to expand...

Likely for the same reason a straight tail 182 flies better than a later model.
 
bluerooster said:
I understand there are a few STCs out there for engine mods on the 175.
One mentioned above, and one to install an O-470, and I think there is one for an O-360 non injected.
Click to expand...


Yep, our club has a Franklin 220 hp. Not sure of the displacement but wow, she gets up and going. Basically a poor man's 182. Couple that with the fastback design and the fact that she's a '62 (swept tail) she looks fast on the ramp. She trues out at about 135 on 10gph and will haul 800lbs in the cabin with full fuel.
 
Tom-D said:
Crank is different, no prop flange. just a woodriff slot, the cam grind is different, higher RPM power curve, the Continental cyliners are a different P/N, but Superior and ECI are the same, The oil sump is different, the cases are different, for the gear box mount pad. the rods are heavier, but the accessories are all the same, except the angle starter for the -D. and vac pump.
Click to expand...

I vaguely remembered the rod and main bearings, pistons, valves, springs all being the same, but I disremembered the rods being heavier. That was a LONG time ago.

Jim
 
docmirror said:
Knots, or MPH?
Click to expand...
She'd be faster except the CG is a touch forward with the big motor. Needs a lot of up trim on short final but she's very stable when you hit turbulence. She's got a 430w with a free spinning HSI and an electronic engine analyzer, 8368T has got to be one of the nicest 175s around.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
 
I bet that is a nice performer. I assume its only got 43 gallons usable?

Fuel Capacity / HP comparison

43 gallons capacity / 220 horsepower = .1954

150 horse Cessna 150: 22.5 gallons usable / 150 = .1500

Cessna 182D 55 gallons usable / 230 = .2391
 
bnt83 said:
I bet that is a nice performer. I assume its only got 43 gallons usable?

Fuel Capacity / HP comparison

43 gallons capacity / 220 horsepower = .1954

150 horse Cessna 150: 22.5 gallons usable / 150 = .1500

Cessna 182D 55 gallons usable / 230 = .2391
Click to expand...


Yep, at least that's whats in the book, so that's what I flight plan for. You can dial it back to 23/23 and still cruise in the high 120's at around 8 gph so it has good three hour legs without worrying about looking for a place to ditch..
 
I'm shopping a couple 175s right now with the GO engine in them. Based on heresy only, they look like good off road planes, and I'm planning some off roading soon.
 
Tom-D said:
The 175 is a great aircraft, with a better usefull load than the 172, the GO-300-D is rebuildable, including the gear box. The old Wives tales are just that. there are 4 major manufacturers that make after market parts and plenty of machine shops to repair the major assemblies.

With time in a 172 you should not have any problems with the 175. It is the same fuselage, with an early 180 wing, manual flaps, and some have the slant tail, and rear window, the 59 doesn't.

Fly it as the POH says, do not allow the engine to be run as you would any Lycoming, or other Continental. It is geared and the prop runs 2/3rds the crank shaft speed. lower RPMs will cause engine problems.
Click to expand...
I know this is 10 years old, but does anyone know of a shop for a go-300 rebuild? It's a 1958, so I think early model, not a C or D.
 
Tom-D said:
The 175 is a great aircraft, with a better usefull load than the 172, the GO-300-D is rebuildable, including the gear box. The old Wives tales are just that. there are 4 major manufacturers that make after market parts and plenty of machine shops to repair the major assemblies.

With time in a 172 you should not have any problems with the 175. It is the same fuselage, with an early 180 wing, manual flaps, and some have the slant tail, and rear window, the 59 doesn't.

Fly it as the POH says, do not allow the engine to be run as you would any Lycoming, or other Continental. It is geared and the prop runs 2/3rds the crank shaft speed. lower RPMs will cause engine problems.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the last 11 years have depleted any spares we may have.
I know little to nothing about their support these days.
 
docmirror said:
I'm shopping a couple 175s right now with the GO engine in them. Based on heresy only, they look like good off road planes, and I'm planning some off roading soon.
Click to expand...
Plan on an engine upgrade soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top