I was cruising the classifieds on the web, doesn't everybody do that when they are bored, and saw a 175 with a CS prop and an GO-300E. I knew Continental made the O-300E with a governor pad but very few were made.

So how does the oil get from the crank, through the gearbox and into the prop? Also, can GO-300E be turned into a O-300E by removing the gearbox and installing a new crank? Just curious questions because I was surprised to see a a stock 175 with a CS prop.

Wikipedia lists the C-175C having a GO-300E with a constant speed prop (as well as a 100 pound increase in landplane gross weight). I do not know how they get the oil out to the prop, or if other GO-300s can be converted.

Whee,

The GO stands for Geared Opposed cylinder..... That is a very different engine than an O-300. They make considerably more horsepower than an O-300 by running the engine at very high rpm (like 3000 to 3600 or so) and using the gearbox to reduce crank rpm to a more "normal" propeller rpm. All those engines were designed to use a CS prop as well, so incorporated a governor pad and associated plumbing.

Great engines, IF you run em like they were designed to be run.

MTV

What did I do wrong, MTV? I bought a C-175 with the GO-3000 for $10,000. I liked how it set up high for the big prop. The wing trailing edge didn't cut ditches in my bald head like other Cessnas. I liked the power. One of the middle piston rods got too hot and broke coming out of Santa Fe. It kept running long enough to beat it's self to death. I bought it at 300 hrs on the engine and only got another 100. I had the engine rebuilt and traded it for a Pawnee.

contactflying wrote:What did I do wrong, MTV? I bought a C-175 with the GO-3000 for $10,000. I liked how it set up high for the big prop. The wing trailing edge didn't cut ditches in my bald head like other Cessnas. I liked the power. One of the middle piston rods got too hot and broke coming out of Santa Fe. It kept running long enough to beat it's self to death. I bought it at 300 hrs on the engine and only got another 100. I had the engine rebuilt and traded it for a Pawnee.

NEVER NEVER let the prop turn the engine!!
If these guys running the MT props who use it as a big brake when they pull the power were hooked to a GO engine they would not last very long!!
I know the big ol wood paddles on my Wilga work as a huge airbrake!!
But if I had a geared engine it would just tear it apart!!
IMHO

The last few years, 175's came w/ CS props. In looking at GO-300's in 175's, I found prop tip backlash measurements from .375" to 1.5"

M6RV6- I let that big prop turn the engine. Going home from my Guard Medevac unit in Santa Fe, I flew in lots of very strong turbulence almost every drill weekend. The gearbox made a lot of horrible sounding noise in the gusts and relative wind changes in thermals. I pulled the throttle back from full a bit trying to mitigate the abuse. But it was not the gearbox that failed. The #3 rod bearing turned, starving it of oil, and it got hot enough to break lose. That is what Buddy Robinson, the mechanic, said. Correction, that is what I remember him saying. My wife says my war stories change over the years. She has photostatic memory; really a pain.

contactflying wrote:What did I do wrong, MTV? I bought a C-175 with the GO-3000 for $10,000. I liked how it set up high for the big prop. The wing trailing edge didn't cut ditches in my bald head like other Cessnas. I liked the power. One of the middle piston rods got too hot and broke coming out of Santa Fe. It kept running long enough to beat it's self to death. I bought it at 300 hrs on the engine and only got another 100. I had the engine rebuilt and traded it for a Pawnee.

Heck if I know what you did wrong. But, did it occur to you that the 300 hours that engine had on it when you bought it might have set the course for your experience?

Seems like the biggest mistake Cessna made with those airplanes was to connect the tach cable to the engine, not the prop. Cessna said to run that engine hard, and everyone I have ever known who did that ran them to tbo and beyond. The problem is, pilots aren't used to seeing 3400 rpm on their airplane's tach, so they puuuulllll that power and rpm waaaaay back so that tach reads where "it should" in their experience with direct drive engines.

I know one guy who ran two 175s commercially, and those engines went to TBO again and again, but he demanded that the guys flying them ran the rpm up where they should be run.

Some geared engines require a VERY smooth hand on the throttle...jockeying the throttle will damage the gearbox. The Single Otter is one of those. They have a pretty bad reputation for engine/gearbox failure.

MTV

Thanks MTV. I ran it full throttle, except in rough air and on approach. My power/pitch approach was hard on the gearbox in gusts. I always thought it was a cooling problem on the interior cylinders.