Continental O-300

Greg Bockelman

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
11,101
Location
Lone Jack, MO
Display Name

Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Given airframes identical in every way, times, condition, etcetera, what would the difference in value be between low, mid and high time O-300's?

I know this is a broad question, but what would typical overhaul costs be for an O-300? How much for parts, how much for labor?
 
Given airframes identical in every way, times, condition, etcetera, what would the difference in value be between low, mid and high time O-300's?

I know this is a broad question, but what would typical overhaul costs be for an O-300? How much for parts, how much for labor?


with machine work, new cylinders, bearings, up grades, shipping, cleaning supplies, and new common hardware, I have nearly 14k invested in this one.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0024.JPG
    DSCN0024.JPG
    2.1 MB · Views: 29
Does that include your labor?

That's funny, I work for free, just ask Ron.

This is My engine.

my usual fee is $2500 for labor, every thing else is on the owner's CC. I usually get half up front, and then buy small stuff from that, which gets added to the final payment.
 
It's a great example of beauty and simplicity! I am enjoying the reconstruction of 3934V...
Thanks, that's what we do, I'm building this one for me.
but I've said that before.
 
When we rebuilt ours for the '56 172, the crank was out of spec., and a replacement was hard to find. Another thing was the magnesium 'oil pan' gets interestingly corroded around the drain plug..........
 
When we rebuilt ours for the '56 172, the crank was out of spec., and a replacement was hard to find. Another thing was the magnesium 'oil pan' gets interestingly corroded around the drain plug..........
Those are two problems we face with the 0-300, the early engines in the 170 were C-145 and sat in a nose high attitude, and did not have the corrosion problems. Only the early 172 that sat in a nose low attitude have shown a greater incidence of this, the later 172s not so much. the 0-300s in the later 172s have had the problems but at a lesser rate than the early ones, and we find that those incidences may have prior use in the early aircraft.
We now have verification from FAA that welding the sump is not a major modification, but it is still a PITA.
We also have a coating that we are trying to get certified to coat the sump interior.
 
Those are two problems we face with the 0-300, the early engines in the 170 were C-145 and sat in a nose high attitude, and did not have the corrosion problems. Only the early 172 that sat in a nose low attitude have shown a greater incidence of this, the later 172s not so much. the 0-300s in the later 172s have had the problems but at a lesser rate than the early ones, and we find that those incidences may have prior use in the early aircraft.
We now have verification from FAA that welding the sump is not a major modification, but it is still a PITA.
We also have a coating that we are trying to get certified to coat the sump interior.

Yup, it was hard to find anyone that wanted to try to weld the magnesium. They couldn't guarantee success, (and I don't blame them:p). Ended up finding an airworthy one through the grapevine.
 
Yup, it was hard to find anyone that wanted to try to weld the magnesium. They couldn't guarantee success, (and I don't blame them:p). Ended up finding an airworthy one through the grapevine.

Mag, was mother of need for TIG, and has been successfully done since WWII.
 
Back
Top