I'm looking at 2 old straight tail Cessna 175's. Assuming the general airframe condition, paint, interior, avionics, and price (mid to low 20's) are all roughly equal, which would be the smarter/better choice?

1- 4500 TT on airframe, 1850 SMOH on an O-360 conversion with constant speed prop, Horton STOL kit.

OR...

2- 1900 TT airframe, 100 STOH with 6 factory new cylinders 2 years ago & 900 on bottom on GO-300, NO STOL kit.

I would plan to add Landis nose fork & bigger tires, hopefully a baggage door? (See other thread under mods), to either one, and also a Sportsman STOL kit to the latter.

My vote is for a run out O360 than a fresh GO300 any day
You can overhaul that engine cheap compared to a GO 300. Easy to get parts too.

But all things are never equal. Airframes will have different levels of corrosive, different upgrades...

Having that O360 install and STC puts you ahead in my book.

Assuming all things equal, interns of paint, avionics and interior, I'd go with plane number 1 for the reason above.

Cheers!

Jim

True, all things are probably not equal on these 2 either, and I figure that if/when I actually look at them, one will stand out. Another big deal I failed to mention: the GO-300 one is 50 miles from me, the O-360 one is 1000 miles away. I really like the Lycoming idea too for the exact reasons you mentioned, just wish it was the one 50 miles away.

Maybe I shouldn't be this way, but I tend to get stuck on airframe Total Time... I know there are some 5000 hr airframes that are in better shape than some 2000 hr ones, or so I hear. I guess I got ruined back when I once made a deal to hangar a guy's plane for him in exchange for a few hour/mo flight time. It was a 6000 hr flight school 172. After 3 flights, I parked it, I was literally too scared to fly it.

My thought on the much closer and lower time (airframe AND engine) GO-300 is that maybe I could get quite a bit of good time out of that fresh topped engine, then when it does come time for overhaul, upgrade to to a Lycoming then. But I don't know how much time & money would be involved in getting the STC and actually going through the conversion vs. simply doing an overhaul on one that already has the conversion done. ??

Coming from a 175 owner with the GO-300,

If airframe conditions were similar, I would definitely go for the 0-360.

The GO-300 is not a bad engine, it runs incredibly smooth and makes great power but it is a pain to work on and parts are getting scarce. You can pretty much forget overhauling it and the values with the GO-300 are much less, even if it is low time. I'm in the middle of an O-360 conversion on mine and I figure I'll probably have between 15-20K in the conversion all said and done which isn't bad considering the engine is now 0 SMOH but it has also been a 2 year process procuring all the parts I needed.

The physical part of the conversion is very east and straight forward, but the paperwork end is not, the only way the conversion even comes close to making financial sense is getting an Avcon S/N transferred to your airframe and getting the mount, airbox and brackets sourced from a wrecked/parted out converted 175. The owners of the Avcon STC are basically unreachable so that presents a bit of a challenge even if you do get the rest of the parts and conversion S/N, it can be done though. Once those hoops are jumped through you need to use a little common sense since there is zero technical support and have a sensible IA work with you to file the 337. This is the most affordable way to do the conversion right now by a long shot.

The other conversion options that I know of for the O-360 are the Del-air and Stoots, Del-Air is north of $16K for the parts/paperwork minus the engine/prop and from what I have heard Stoots is a bit more. The physical/technical part of these conversions are the same as the Avcon but both businesses are still around and the support is much better from what I have heard. Either of these options will end up running you well over what the plane is worth alone not even considering the purchase price or what you have in the plane to begin with, depending on what you can pick up an engine/prop for you could easily be into it for $40+k

For that reason alone I'd buy the one that's already converted. There are other conversion options out there too though, probably the least expensive is the 0-470, 230hp turns them into beasts but the owners with them claim they are quite nose heavy. There's also the continental IO-360, which honestly if you were going to go the Del-air or Stoots route anyway, I'd probably do that for about the same price. You keep the smooth 6 cylinder and get 210hp.

The 175 is an awesome airframe though, they have the 40deg. manual flaps, tall landing gear legs, large fuel tanks, 1,000lb useful load if kept light and can usually be picked up for cheap. Even with the GO-300 its a good airplane, but with the o-360 its really hard to beat for all around performance and utilitarian value when it comes to the price point.

I have flow a lot of high time pipeline Cessnas. No problems with the well maintained ones. One of the best handling I ever flew had over 20,000 hours. On the poorly maintained: rivets don't line up, battery box a mess to the point of compromising firewall, seat rails and floor compromised, cowl and wingtip problems, etc. I flew for one company that painted their planes and replaced interior plastic on a regular basis, but penciled the important maintenance. I liked the 175 because I could walk under the wing without scrapeing a layer of skin off my bald head.

How about the 175 on Barnstormers with the 220 Franklin? 2602 TT, 666 SMOH for $28.5, and it's in Arkansas- roughly 300 miles away.

I've been real happy with my 220. Haven't had to buy any major parts for it, but I'm not as concerned as some seem to be about availability.

1:1 Scale wrote:How about the 175 on Barnstormers with the 220 Franklin? 2602 TT, 666 SMOH for $28.5, and it's in Arkansas- roughly 300 miles away.

I've been real happy with my 220. Haven't had to buy any major parts for it, but I'm not as concerned as some seem to be about availability.

My Dad and I are actually considering going to look at that 175. I think it would fit our mission quite well. I recently got to fly a friends 172 that had a Franklin conversion and it was a joy to fly. She climbs like a homesick angel and sounds awesome doing it.

I'm also not too concerned about Franklin parts availability, I know several Stinson owners that have no trouble getting parts on the rare occasions they are needed.

Who says an O-360 is run out at 1850 hours? Isn't it considered the most bullet proof piston engine in GA?
I mean, I would certainly cry all about the hours while negotiating the price but assuming you've got good logs and compression numbers I wouldn't be calling it DOA.

The real TT time on those planes started when saddle shoes and hair gel were a thing. If it hadn't been stored in a climate controlled hangar it's old no matter how you frame the discussion. It's a 175, which is a very unloved plane if you read about them. They don't get tucked in next to a B-17 at night. That means it has spent a long, long time sitting outside in the weather waiting for you.

I learned to fly in a C 152 that had over 11k hours on the airframe. That was twenty years ago and that plane is still on the line.

I worked at a flight school with a pile of 172s. There was one I hated to fly because it had a wool interior that smelled like a wet dog, had over 10k hours and seemed tired. It was also the fastest O320 powered 172 I've been around (cruised easily at 120+ knots). That was with no pants and a regular prop.

AftCG's points are good ^^

It's about quality not quantity of hours. Smooth air cruising across country then being stored in a hangar is pretty easy on an airframe.

Being worked off airport and then being tied down out in the rain all winter is hard on an airframe.

Zzz wrote:
Being worked off airport and then being tied down out in the rain all winter is hard on an airframe.

It is?!? And all this time I though I was just keeping them limbered up!

I like the O-360 CS 175 conversion, they are a nice plane for their place in the market. Nice to fly too.
The geared engine is a big unknown.

North River wrote:

Zzz wrote:
Being worked off airport and then being tied down out in the rain all winter is hard on an airframe.

It is?!? And all this time I though I was just keeping them limbered up!

Haha... perhaps. Maybe it keeps morale up.

My old 170 (RIP) had spent some years in the wet and had the corrosion and smoking rivets to show for it. On the other hand, a 135 aircraft is probably maintained so frequently that it's not as much an issue.

I like the frankly 220 conversion on a 175. Makes a real ripper out of the plane. Never flown a 0-360 powered one to compare with though, but an extra 40 hp must make quite a difference...

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

Some pictures of what is left of my friend's GO motor. Came apart flying through the Alaska range, was able to put it down safely on a frozen river and was recovered later.







The engine had a distinct, cool sound, but was nothing but trouble.

Chris

A1Skinner wrote:I like the frankly 220 conversion on a 175. Makes a real ripper out of the plane. Never flown a 0-360 powered one to compare with though, but an extra 40 hp must make quite a difference...

And I'd bet that for a given speed, the Frank will burn less gas than the O-360. O-360 would be a pretty safe bet, I would think, for knowing what you're getting and support if/when you need it.

Slowhawk, those are some pretty nasty pictures! It always amazes me that there never seems to be a shortage of pictures of light aviation piston engines that have kicked a jug or more

the pictures don't even begin to give a good appreciation of the extent of the damage. The mounts on the right side of the engine were totally destroyed, so the thing had 2 bolts still keeping it attached.

slowhawk wrote:Some pictures of what is left of my friend's GO motor. Came apart flying through the Alaska range, was able to put it down safely on a frozen river and was recovered later.







The engine had a distinct, cool sound, but was nothing but trouble.

Chris

Day-um.

Looks like you could salvage the oil drain plug, and possibly five of the valve covers. Distinct sound indeed.

From what I understand, the GO-300 gets its bad name from pilots not operating it properly. Gotta keep the RPMs up.

I believe its just a Continental O-300 with a gearbox. (Hence the "G" in GO-300)

I think I would be fine flying one as long as I knew how the engine had been flown. That said, I wouldn't pay a whole lot for one.

Buy it cheap, fly it til it explodes, then stick a 205hp Titan O-370 in it.


P.S. My neighbor has a 175 with a GO-300 for sale. He's an A&P. He wanted under $20,000, the last I heard.

I have a question for MTV or a mechanic that knows the GO-300. Mine had a middle rod bering turn and came apart like this one. The gearbox made the cowl taller than on the 172. There was no baffling above the cylinders. Wouldn't baffling up there make those middle cylinders run cooler?