Anyone know if the straight tail 175 is the same airframe as a straight tail 172 or 182?
If different than a 182, how so?
And are all 175's manual flaps?
Cessna 175
Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:54 pm
Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:12 pm
Re: Cessna 175
Gear is taller to get clearance for the longer, geared down for more power, prop. GO-300 is a geared down O-300. Prop turns about 2300 when the engine is turning 3200, if I remember correctly. Nice thing for a short guy like me is you can walk under the wing without the corrugated trailing edge putting a groove in your bald head.
- contactflying offline
- Posts: 4972
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:36 pm
- Location: Aurora, Missouri 2H2
Download my free "https://tinyurl.com/Safe-Maneuvering" e-book.
Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:04 pm
Re: Cessna 175
The straight tail 172 has a smaller cockpit and dash. The air frame is basically the same as the straight tail 182 but the horizontal stab is different. The wings are all the same basically except for the fuel tanks. The landing gear is interchangeable with the 1956 182 having the tallest gear. My 175 project plane has been accepted in the amature built here in Canada so I am picking all the stuff I want but I do not think you can do that on the certified units.
- 175 magnum offline
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:13 pm
- Location: surrey bc canada
Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:11 pm
Re: Cessna 175
I have a 58 175 and I was told that the 175 had the same fuselage as a 180/182 from the front door post back to the tail cone or stabilizer attach area. It is defiantly wider than the same age 172. The 58 and 59 are strait tails with manual flaps but the baggage door was not a factory option. 60 and on came with a swept tail and the baggage door was introduced but I'm not sure exactly what year. I'm pretty sure the 60 and 61 models still had manual flaps but when then the model was changed to the P172D in 63 and I'm not sure if the flaps stayed manual.
I have the Stoots tailwheel conversion kit with a lycoming 180hp but it is in long term project mode right now.
I have the Stoots tailwheel conversion kit with a lycoming 180hp but it is in long term project mode right now.
Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:58 am
Re: Cessna 175
So in a sense, the early straight tail 175 is basically the same airframe as a 58-59 182? Just a smaller engine, tall gear and no baggage door?
I'm not a fan of the Franklin geared engine, but many of the 175's been converted with different engines.
And then again, 175 prices don't seem too much less than straight tail 182's.
Good info. Thanks
I'm not a fan of the Franklin geared engine, but many of the 175's been converted with different engines.
And then again, 175 prices don't seem too much less than straight tail 182's.
Good info. Thanks
Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:20 am
Re: Cessna 175
Cessna 170/172/175/180/182/185 they are all the SAME width inside, 40 inches. The size of the cabin in all of these planes is virtually identical. Here's the exception, only the omni-vision 182s are wider, which started in 1962. I also believe some of the cabins in late model 180s and 185s were slightly taller towards the rear to allow more room for the 5/6th seat option. I'm not positive on that however. I have owned a 170 and a 180, they're the same inside. And I've flown 172s, a 175, and ridden in a 185. They all feel the same size inside except for the hieght of the panel and cowling which affect visibility.
Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:31 am
Re: Cessna 175
58Skylane wrote:....I'm not a fan of the Franklin geared engine, but many of the 175's been converted with different engines. .....
Not sure what you mean about Franklin geared engines.
The C175 came from the factory with a Continental GO-300,
a higher-turning version of the O-300 with a reduction drive gearbox on the nose to reduce prop rpm.
Not sure what the prop rpm or gearbox ratio is.
The GO-300 is not a highly touted engine, it's true,
but it might be because most people don't know how to operate geared engines properly.
*drift* Lycoming's series of geared engines, the GO-435 & GO-480, have seen some use.
They were factory-installed in Helios, Twin Bonanzas, Piaggios/Fockwolfe 149,
and some others. Also seen them used as conversions in Widgeons & Seabees.
Lotsa power, fairly low weight, unfortunately pretty expensive to overhaul.
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!
Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:51 am
Re: Cessna 175
hotrod180 wrote:58Skylane wrote:....I'm not a fan of the Franklin geared engine, but many of the 175's been converted with different engines. .....
Not sure what you mean about Franklin geared engines.
The C175 came from the factory with a Continental GO-300,
a higher-turning version of the O-300 with a reduction drive gearbox on the nose to reduce prop rpm.
Not sure what the prop rpm or gearbox ratio is.
The GO-300 is not a highly touted engine, it's true,
but it might be because most people don't know how to operate geared engines properly.
*drift* Lycoming's series of geared engines, the GO-435 & GO-480, have seen some use.
They were factory-installed in Helios, Twin Bonanzas, Piaggios/Fockwolfe 149,
and some others. Also seen them used as conversions in Widgeons & Seabees.
Lotsa power, fairly low weight, unfortunately pretty expensive to overhaul.
For one, I thought parts availability is or was an issue?
Two, I'm under the impression that the GO engines like to be ran at higher RPM most of the time. Not good for pilots like me that like to fly low and slow? I don't know.
Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:03 am
Re: Cessna 175
What Hotrod180 meant is that the 175 doesn't have a geared Franklin engine. I don't think I've ever heard of a geared Franklin. The 175 has a geared Continental GO-300.
Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:21 am
Re: Cessna 175
robw56 wrote:What Hotrod180 meant is that the 175 doesn't have a geared Franklin engine. I don't think I've ever heard of a geared Franklin. The 175 has a geared Continental GO-300.
Oh Ok. Yeah I was mistaking the engines then. My bad.
But still, the GO-300 engines don't like to be ran at low RPM's?
Basically, what's the pros and cons to the GO-300? Is there an STC to run pump gas/mogas?
Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:27 am
Re: Cessna 175
An unusual feature of the 175 is the geared Continental GO-300 engine. Whereas most single-engine airplanes use direct drive, this engine drives the propeller through a reducing gearbox, so the engine runs at 3200 rpm to turn the propeller at 2400 rpm. The GO-300 engine suffered reliability problems and helped give the 175 a poor reputation. Some Skylarks flying today have been converted to larger-displacement direct-drive engines[3][4] though almost 90% still retain the GO-300.[5]
The GO-300's tainted reputation was largely undeserved, since its problems were the result of pilots who were unfamiliar with gear reduction engines simply not operating the engine as specified in the C-175 Pilot's Operating Handbook. Pilots unfamiliar with the engine often operated the engine at the low RPM settings (2300-2700) appropriate to direct-drive engines, while the 175's Operating Handbook called for cruising at 2900 RPM. The low RPM caused harmonic vibration in the reduction gear between the quill shaft (that turned the propeller) and crankshaft, and the low power resulted in low airspeeds that prevented the engine's air-cooling system from operating effectively . . . resulting in chronic reliability problems for engines not operated at the recommended power settings.[3]
Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:49 am
Re: Cessna 175
Bingo.
I also understand a common mistake is to abruptly go from the prop driving the engine to the engine driving the prop. For example, a high-speed low-power descent followed by an abrupt application of full power, as in a "hey watch this" low pass at a fly-in. Causes gear lash issues, which is tough on those (expensive to fix or overhaul) reduction drives.
I also understand a common mistake is to abruptly go from the prop driving the engine to the engine driving the prop. For example, a high-speed low-power descent followed by an abrupt application of full power, as in a "hey watch this" low pass at a fly-in. Causes gear lash issues, which is tough on those (expensive to fix or overhaul) reduction drives.
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!
Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:06 pm
Re: Cessna 175
Cabin width may be the same, but my 182B has way more legroom than my 172 had. Maybe higher dash. Just feels bigger.
Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:03 pm
Re: Cessna 175
Higher dash, squared off and level across the top, on later model Cessnas reduce the forward and downward visibility so necessary in low level work.
- contactflying offline
- Posts: 4972
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:36 pm
- Location: Aurora, Missouri 2H2
Download my free "https://tinyurl.com/Safe-Maneuvering" e-book.
Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:10 pm
Re: Cessna 175
As Rob says, the early versions of all those airplanes have virtually the same fuselage.
The mistake Cessna made with the 175 and its GO 300 was putting the tach drive on the engine rather than putting it on the prop. Pilots see high rpm and get spooked, and think they're doing the engine a favor by running it at lower rpm.
I knew a gent who ran two of them in 135 operation, and put thousands of hours on them. When I asked about the engines reputation, he just laughed and said hire a pilot that don't have his head up his butt, and tell me to read the POH.
MTV
The mistake Cessna made with the 175 and its GO 300 was putting the tach drive on the engine rather than putting it on the prop. Pilots see high rpm and get spooked, and think they're doing the engine a favor by running it at lower rpm.
I knew a gent who ran two of them in 135 operation, and put thousands of hours on them. When I asked about the engines reputation, he just laughed and said hire a pilot that don't have his head up his butt, and tell me to read the POH.
MTV
Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:26 pm
Re: Cessna 175
Mine has the tailwheel and the 0-360 so no worries about the geared engine 
Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:42 pm
Re: Cessna 175
Neb12 wrote:Mine has the tailwheel and the 0-360 so no worries about the geared engine
Nice looking 175!
Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:19 pm
Re: Cessna 175
MTV,
I had a piston rod come loose and beat my GO-300 to death coming out of Santa Fe. It only had 450 hours and, even though I got it cheap, I blamed the uncommon engine. I ran it wide open, just like every airplane at high density altitude. Buddy Robinson rebuilt it at ABQ and we put it back in at the Governor's house at Santa Domingo Pueblo. He said the bearing turned and it quit getting oil.
The logs were not great and it had unloged damage and repair to a wing even I could see. So you don't think there was a baffling problem?
I traded for a Pawnee soon after.
Contact
I had a piston rod come loose and beat my GO-300 to death coming out of Santa Fe. It only had 450 hours and, even though I got it cheap, I blamed the uncommon engine. I ran it wide open, just like every airplane at high density altitude. Buddy Robinson rebuilt it at ABQ and we put it back in at the Governor's house at Santa Domingo Pueblo. He said the bearing turned and it quit getting oil.
The logs were not great and it had unloged damage and repair to a wing even I could see. So you don't think there was a baffling problem?
I traded for a Pawnee soon after.
Contact
- contactflying offline
- Posts: 4972
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:36 pm
- Location: Aurora, Missouri 2H2
Download my free "https://tinyurl.com/Safe-Maneuvering" e-book.
Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:44 pm
Re: Cessna 175
Neb12 wrote:Mine has the tailwheel and the 0-360 so no worries about the geared engine
Recognize that airframe. I believe I saw it first in Salida CO in 2007. Spoke to the previous owner last month on his 80th BD. Cool airplane. He was very pleased to see it go to your care.
Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:41 am
Re: Cessna 175
In 1962 Cessna moved the tachometer drive from the motor to the prop drive to compensate for smarter than normal pilots. They also installed a constant speed prop and cowl flaps. This turned the plane into a great performer and corrected the earlier mistakes but it was too late as the plane already had a bad reputation. Some years ago there was a fellow doing mods to these engines to take the engines with the constant speed prop system up to 230 hp. and getting 2000+ hrs out of them. These were for experiment aircraft only.
- 175 magnum offline
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:13 pm
- Location: surrey bc canada
DISPLAY OPTIONS
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
Latest Features
-
Live to Tell
A Minnesota pilot is surprised to learn that the sudden asymmetric drag of an out-of-rig ski can…Read More -
Creators
Working in some of the Yukon's most beautiful and remote environments, photographer Simon Blakesley captures aircraft in…Read More -
Aircraft Ownership and Maintenance
Upgrading to big tires can make a huge difference in backcountry performance, but with those gains come…Read More -
Tales from Yesteryear
In this tale from bush flying yesteryear, Don Cogger signs up to help Atlee Dodge Jr recovery…Read More
Latest Knowledge Base
-
Destinations
A regional guide with ideas for winter camping destinations in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona.Read More -
Aircraft
Finding an affordable aircraft that can handle the backcountry for $80K or less? A challenge for sure, but with the…Read More -
Aircraft
01.29.2018 - Zane - Updated tire diameter graphic to add 8.50x10 Guide to tires for use in the backcountry and off-airport landing…Read More -
Pilots
12.22.2013 - Initial article format Operating aircraft on skis and negotiating a snow-covered landscape is an entirely unique skillset and environment.…Read More
