I just bought a '58 175 It is out of annual, has approx. 900hrs smoh and needs a cylinder. The aircraft came with the replacement cylinder. At 5grand it seemed safe. I then found a firewall forward GO-300 setup from a recent conversion for 2200 bucks and bought it- it has approx 600smoh and also comes with a brand new cylinder as a spare.

The complicated part is that I'm in BC, Canada, the a/c is in Napa, CA and my spare engine is in Alberta, CA. My initial plan was to go to Napa, remove the wings and trailer the a/c home. Then ship and swap in the lower time engine and have the necessary inspections done to make it a CDN citizen.

My mechanic here is quoting me 50 hrs just to do the engine swap with the annual and other red tape cutting on top of that. Seems high, no?

Then I got thinking that maybe I should return the 175 to airworthy down in Napa, either by bringing the spare engine down and swapping it in or bringing the necessary parts to repair the existing engine. I could then ferry it home (after I apply and wait for my US license of course). I'll be working with a very reasonable mechanic down there that is helping me remove the wings- maybe I should capitalize on his reasonableness! He'll also let me participate in the wrenching which I prefer. Or I could find a shop closer to, or on the way home that would work with me.

My reservation lies in not knowing how that might affect the importation. I know CDN AME's are not allowed to touch engine internals so if I swap a jug in the US will it pass Transport Canada's inspection? (prob a question for them...) Swapping the whole engine in shouldn't be an issue for TC as long as it's all signed off in the logs.

Oh, and I hastily bought a trailer which I have to pick up in OR on the way down- did that before I thought about fixing it and flying it home. Hoo boy, engine in AB, 175 in Napa, trailer in OR- simple huh?

Fix it in Napa. It crosses the border in airworthy condition. 5 grand eh? Wow. Hopefully the gears are good. Sounds like a pretty good deal.

Not knowing many more details, I'd swap the jug on the current engine with one of your spares down there in Napa. Get it in annual, and fly it up to Canada as an airworthy aircraft, then figure out if you want to swap engines or not. Have the other engine shipped to you. Sell the trailer down in Oregon. Hell if the guy you bought it from still has it, sell it back at a small loss, he makes out on the deal and you get out of having to deal with it.

desmo wrote:
Oh, and I hastily bought a trailer which I have to pick up in OR on the way down- did that before I thought about fixing it and flying it home. Hoo boy, engine in AB, 175 in Napa, trailer in OR- simple huh?

Sounds like an adventure. Good luck!

I agree with these guys, fix it there & get an annual... Fly it home. Then if there's major issues you don't go thru the hassle of importing an aircraft you decide you don't want. Re sell quick

L-19 wrote:I agree with these guys, fix it there & get an annual... Fly it home. Then if there's major issues you don't go thru the hassle of importing an aircraft you decide you don't want. Re sell quick

X6 fix it here and if you can't fly it legally here in the US, I'll bet you could find somebody that would help you fly it from the US at least over the border.

Sounds like an adventure for sure. If you can get it airworthy in Napa, you run less risk of the project sliding down the priority list and not getting done in a timely fashion. Or maybe you aren't quite as overcommitted as I seem to be...

I would put as much work into the plane in the States as you intend to do before taking it across the border, parts and labor will be cheaper, that way you would not be paying the higher Canadian taxes. Importing the plane is the easy part, just pay the taxes when you cross the border, the hard-expensive part will be the hassle of re-registering it in Canada. It is an interesting project, keep us updated as you go through the steps.

Steve

Contact Al Ball, Antique Aero Engines in Santa Paula, California. He is one of the few real experts on the GO-300 engine. He has significant experience with the GO-300's gearbox, and may have information on how to maximize the life of your gears.

In short, the GO-300 is a perfectly good engine with a bad reputation it didn't really deserve. Problem is, you just cannot operate the GO-300 the same way as any chimpanzee can operate the O-300. You have to fly it differently. Same as you have to learn how to properly operate an Italian sportscar versus an American muscle car, or one type of firearm versus another.

Once you learn how to do this, you will have a very good airframe-engine combination that will get you out of places a regular 172 cannot.

EZFlap wrote:Contact Al Ball, Antique Aero Engines in Santa Paula, California. He is one of the few real experts on the GO-300 engine. He has significant experience with the GO-300's gearbox, and may have information on how to maximize the life of your gears.

In short, the GO-300 is a perfectly good engine with a bad reputation it didn't really deserve. Problem is, you just cannot operate the GO-300 the same way as any chimpanzee can operate the O-300. You have to fly it differently. Same as you have to learn how to properly operate an Italian sportscar versus an American muscle car, or one type of firearm versus another.

Once you learn how to do this, you will have a very good airframe-engine combination that will get you out of places a regular 172 cannot.

Curious..... How do you operate the GO-300 properly or differently than any other normal engine?

Thanks Mr Bill.

58Skylane wrote:
Curious..... How do you operate the GO-300 properly or differently than any other normal engine?

Thanks Mr Bill.

Geared engines operate at substantially higher crankshaft RPM. Professional pilots operating high power engines in Aero Commanders and others understand this and read the POH. Frequently, Cessna 175 pilots try to run their GO-300 engines just like they run the 0-300 in the neighborhood 172. The G0-300 don't like that.

EB

Most of us try to be "kind" to our engines and pull the throttle back as often as we can, trying to loaf along and reduce the rate at which our engines wear out. That works great on many direct drive engines, but on a geared engine it puts a lot of loads on the drive gears. Kind of like a car engine not liking it if you don't downshift, and wearing out the tranny. If you locked a manual transmission car in third gear, and simply put your foot on and off the gas pedal every few seconds to speed up or slow down, driving it like an automatic... I believe the transmission gears would beat themselves to an early death. Rapid power changes and loading/unloading cycles on the GO-300 were damaging to the gears. Then when you pull the power back to descend, and the prop "back-drives" the engine through the gearbox, it wears the gears out even faster.

The short version is that in order to avoid these problems you had to fly a geared engine like it was an airliner. Which means that using one of these engines in a bushplane can be a challenge.

That all made perfect sense to me, until I realized that the radial engines in warbirds were subjected to hellacious power changes and abuse of this type, and I don't know why they didn't break those gears on a daily basis. Perhaps one of the high time round engine guys on the group can answer this, as I have zero experience operating those engines.

Most radial engines aren't gear driven. Most warbirds weren't expected to last long and were expendable. Engines were changed out frequently in any case.

Over the years with better materials and procedures we've extended the tbo on most engines.

The big issue with the 175 is to run engine rpm where Cessna said to run it, not where other engines run.

These engines run well over 3000 rpm regularly. An old friend who ran several of these things to tbo regularly said Cessna should have put the tach drive on the prop end of the gearbox instead of the crankshaft end. Pilots would then see prop rpm, and not force the engine to run very low rpm in flight.

MTV

mtv wrote:Most radial engines aren't gear driven. Most warbirds weren't expected to last long and were expendable. Engines were changed out frequently in any case.

Over the years with better materials and procedures we've extended the tbo on most engines.

The big issue with the 175 is to run engine rpm where Cessna said to run it, not where other engines run.

These engines run well over 3000 rpm regularly. An old friend who ran several of these things to tbo regularly said Cessna should have put the tach drive on the prop end of the gearbox instead of the crankshaft end. Pilots would then see prop rpm, and not force the engine to run very low rpm in flight.

MTV

Now this makes since

Thanks for the excellent advise. Sounds unanimous, I should try and fix it there. May have a little snag. It sounds like the Napa Jet Ctr is unwilling to let an outside mechanic work on the plane except to pull wings. They're worried about liability. And, they want huge dollars to do the repairs. I'll have to make some more phone calls. Anyone have connections in the Napa area? I suppose I could pull the wings and drag it somewhere else closer to home.

On the GO-300 side of things, all I've read and heard agrees with what has been said here- run it as cessna intended. I'm into two engines fairly inexpensively right now so lots of spares. Hopefully it'll keep me flying a for while so I can save for an o-360 conversion.

Thanks again for all of the help!

Pete

Thanks for the excellent advise. Sounds unanimous, I should try and fix it there. May have a little snag. It sounds like the Napa Jet Ctr is unwilling to let an outside mechanic work on the plane except to pull wings. They're worried about liability. And, they want huge dollars to do the repairs. I'll have to make some more phone calls. Anyone have connections in the Napa area? I suppose I could pull the wings and drag it somewhere else closer to home.

On the GO-300 side of things, all I've read and heard agrees with what has been said here- run it as cessna intended. I'm into two engines fairly inexpensively right now so lots of spares. Hopefully it'll keep me flying a for while so I can save for an o-360 conversion.

Thanks again for all of the help!

Pete

If all you need is a jug swapped and an annual, it still might be worth paying the jet center to do it, and then just fly it home rather than de-wing, tow to another place, then fix it, reinstall wings, and then fly home. That's a lot more time and effort to save the extra cash they want to charge you there maybe.

Is the Jet Center the only outfit on the field? Most airports of any size have at least one independent sitting under a shade tree somewhere. If the airplane is currently in a hangar I know a couple of guys who would travel to stick a new jug on there. One of them is a regular on here. Thing is, there might be more to it. If it's still got the oil in it since last run maybe a quick oil analysis would tell you a few useful things. How long has it been sitting? What is it about the cylinder that we don't like? Is it just low? Exhaust valve? If you got a cylinder only holding 40 pounds or something but everything else is more or less ok then just start it up and fly it away. It's presumably got 5 good cylinders. That's enough to get home on. I had an O-360 Lycoming with a 38 pound cylinder that flew just fine. I was too stupid to even know it was bad until a friend pulled the prop through a few times and found it. Don't go rushing into tearing the wings off yet. There are ways to go about it that haven't even occurred to us yet.

EB

Ok, good advise again.

I'm waiting on a detailed estimate from the Jet Ctr. Apparently they want $4k or so to get it ready. That's swapping out the cylinder, installing a battery and performing an annual. All of the parts to fix came with it so that's a positive. Oh, and the a/c is not flyable right now as it blew the head off of the one cylinder- must have eaten a valve. All compressions at the last annual were in the 70's.

Pete

Your problem is that you have a Chevy that is stranded at a Ferrari dealership. I think you need to make a few phone calls to Schellville airport and Sonoma airport, which are within 20 or 30 miles of Napa. Somebody at one of those two airports will be able to help you. Removing the wings, flat-bedding it over to Schellville, installing a cylinder, and reinstalling the wings should still cost you less than $4000.

I'd have to agree with others here and say that gettig it onto the right airport is the first priority. Because the ESTIMATE from the Jet place can change once they find a pebble embedded in your upholstery, etc. There are several far more experienced mechanics on this forum, and they can all feel free to correct me, but having a Part 61 airplane annualled and repaired by a 135 or 121 maintenance facility does not strike me as a cost-effective option.

With all due respects to the professionals at most jet centers, BTW. They are very highly trained and talented people, and are focused on safety, and focused on doing a good job. It's just that their normal methods and practices are oriented for a different mission, under a different set of rules, than most small GA shops.