Cessna 175?

Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by dell30rb, Jan 23, 2012.

  1. dell30rb

    dell30rb Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,371
    Location:
    Raleigh NC

    Display name:
    Ren
    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
     
  2. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    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: Jan 23, 2012
  3. tonycondon

    tonycondon Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    15,263
    Location:
    Wichita, KS

    Display name:
    Tony
    with an O-470 they make a great towplane
     
  4. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    They probably would, and there is an STC to do that.
     
  5. tonycondon

    tonycondon Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    15,263
    Location:
    Wichita, KS

    Display name:
    Tony
    better rate of climb than the prototype 182.
     
  6. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    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.
     
  7. dmccormack

    dmccormack Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

    Display name:
    Dan Mc
    Wow -- a 175 with a O-470 would be sweet...

    :yesnod:
     
  8. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    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: Jan 23, 2012
  9. dell30rb

    dell30rb Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,371
    Location:
    Raleigh NC

    Display name:
    Ren
    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: Jan 23, 2012
  10. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    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-?
     
  11. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    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 Files:

  12. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    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.
     
  13. dell30rb

    dell30rb Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,371
    Location:
    Raleigh NC

    Display name:
    Ren
    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?
     
  14. AdamZ

    AdamZ Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,297
    Location:
    Montgomery County PA

    Display name:
    Adam Zucker
    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

    This was my thinking but it is just an assumption.
     
  15. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    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: Jan 23, 2012
  16. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    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.
     
  17. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    Not Tom, but one of my trainees had this mod on his 175, so...

    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.

    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.

    pretty much correct, albeit a rather old-style 172.
     
  18. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    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.
     
  19. Pilawt

    Pilawt En-Route

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,069

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  20. Pilawt

    Pilawt En-Route

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,069

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    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.

    [​IMG]

    As far as I know the differences are internal and structural only; outside and aerodynamically it's just like a 172 wing.
     
  21. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    11,189

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    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.
     
  22. Dr. O

    Dr. O Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,212
    Location:
    Hemlock, MI

    Display name:
    denny
    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
     
  23. lockeed

    lockeed Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Gaspe - Quebec

    Display name:
    John
    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...
     
  24. Skylane81E

    Skylane81E Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    8,059
    Location:
    Cincinnati

    Display name:
    Duncan
    Conty 6 bangers are all very smoooooooth engines. A 182 with a new 3-blade will make you wonder if it's really running.
     
  25. lockeed

    lockeed Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Gaspe - Quebec

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

    [​IMG]


    Anyone can shed some light on the wing differences between the 175 vs 172?
     
  26. David

    David Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    199

    Display name:
    Dave
  27. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    When you get the 175 / GO-300-D here are a couple tip for operation.
    Fuel is 3 gallons of auto and 2 gallons of 100LL, never ever put 15W50 aeroshell in that engine/gear box, unless you really want to short life it.
    Cruise it at 2800 RPM leaned to best power, not LOP, there is so little difference there is no point trying to go lean of peak. It's kinda like measuring with a micrometer and cutting with a chain saw.

    never idle the Gear box, keep a load on it and it will not self destruct. allowing it to chatter at idle will short life it.

    Nice things to have in the 175, shoulder harness, Cleveland wheels and brakes, 1 piece wind screen, stall cuff, VGs, and articulating seats.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  28. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    spar spacing, they won't fit either the 180 or the 172.

    The last O-300-D was just under 13k, add about 2500 for the gear box, other wise the engine is the same. the parts for the GO are the same as the 0-300, the crank and cam re-grinds are the same, the case line bore and lapping is the same, the cylinders are a little more than the O-300.

    I charge a flat fee for labor, every thing is on your credit card, send me junk, and expect a big bill.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  29. kyleb

    kyleb En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,507
    Location:
    Marietta, GA

    Display name:
    Drake the Outlaw
    Tom, when my IA last rebuilt the GO-300 on his 175, there was a bearing or some other unique part that he had a very hard time finding. I'm not sure if the hard time was that the part was unavailable, or if the part was very expensive. He finally resolved the issue, but seemed to have lingering concerns about the *next* rebuild.

    That was about 10 years ago.

    Is the part(s) situation better, worse, or the same today?
     
  30. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    Gear box parts were difficult to find a few years ago, there are sources now.

    but the gear box doesn't always need to be overhauled if it does not exceed the clearance measurements. don't mess with it. they get overhauled as a unit and may or may not require work at the same time as the engine.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  31. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    A few thousand more than an O-360 thanks to the extra couple of cylinders plus the cost of overhauling the gearbox.

    Same airfoil, maybe some minor internal structural differences.
     
  32. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    You'll need a mogas STC for that, but anything you can do to reduce the lead content of the fuel going into an engine originally designed for 80/87 avgas is good.
    Tom has some very strong personal opinions about putting oils containing LW-16072 in engines in which it isn't required by AD. His opinions are not shared by the FAA or any engine manufacturer or engine overhaul shop I know.
     
  33. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    That's Tom's price. Go to a regular engine overhaul shop and the price will be significantly more.
     
  34. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    Charley overhauled 4, 0-360 cylinders for me a year or so ago, and they were with in a few bucks of the cost of 6 new 0-300 cylinders. no one overhauls 0-300 cylinders any more.

    your theory is an old wives tale. What you really need to buy is 12 plugs rather than 8, and 12 hydraulic units,rather than 8 and 12 lifters rather than 8. and pay the difference between grinding a 6 cylinder crank and cam.
    total cost difference is less than $1500.00

    buy from the bigger shops and pay their insurance if you like. or get your good old A&P who has been doing 0-300 overhaul for years and save your money.
     
  35. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    the actual price difference between 4 new lycoming 0-360 cylinders and 6 new continental GO-300-D cylinders is $876.72

    That is todays prices, which are up from $740 on the cont cylinders. I don't follow the Lycoming prices enough to know if there has been any increases or not.

    6 new Cont. GO-300-D cylinders are $5572.20
    4 new Lycoming 0-360 cylinders are $4704.48

    the Cont. cylinder kits come with every thing including the pistons and piston pins, they are extra in the Lycoming kits.
    So if you overhaul a Lycoming cylinder you will be paying for new pistons and rings, pins, and gaskets.
     
  36. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    yes, because you are paying a set price that affords the shop owner to give a price up front. they must spread the cost of all engines on that price even if you don't need every thing.
    you will get charged for a crank/cam re-grind even if you crank does not need it. you will get charged for new parts even if they are with in new tolerances.
    the Lycoming overhaul manual says the service bulletins must be complied with, the Cont. does not. The Lycoming overhaul manual dictates a list of parts to be replaced even if yours are good.
    Read this SB, http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-bulletins/pdfs/SB240V.pdf

    A new limits overhaul on a 0-300 will always be cheaper when done by your A&P. These engines are the simplest engine in service to overhaul, and present no challenge to the field overhaulers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  37. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    15 weight oil in a gear box? think about that Ron. those GO engines were designed to run on W100 and w120. and you think a 15 weight oil will be OK?

    My opinions are shared by Lycoming in several of their SBs that advise not to place their snake oil in some of their engines.

    The additive is specifically designed and required in only 2 of the Lycoming engines the 0-320-H2AD and the 0-360 E series.

    when you advocate the use of it in all engines you are spreading Areoshells advertising hype. and it simply isn't true.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  38. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,628

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    maybe your shop should read this, pay attention to the "Model effected" portion.

    http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-instructions/pdfs/SI1409C.pdf

    All Lycoming piston aircraft engines except for installations that utilize a friction type clutch and a common engine oil system for the transmission and clutch assembly. Check with airframe manufacturer prior to use in these installations.

    Lycoming doesn't want this additive in their engines that have friction clutches or transmissions. Let's think, the GO-300-D has both.

    yet, Ron thinks it is good to go in all engines.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  39. RotorAndWing

    RotorAndWing Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,496
    Location:
    Other side of the world

    Display name:
    Rotor&Wing
  40. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    11,189

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    You need to learn how to read. It doesn't say don't use it in engines with transmissions, it says to not use it in engines with friction clutches that share the oil between the transmission/clutch and the rest of the engine. It's not clear what a LYCOMING service bulletin has to do with a CONTINENTAL engine.

    I'm also trying to figure out what "friction clutch" you've got in your GO-300. The only "clutch" is the starter assembly and it's not what Lycoming is talking about (they're talking about helicopter engines like the VO-435).

    However, there have been issues with the starter drive and the additive, but not from the clutch plates but the spring.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2012