contactflying wrote: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?

What do you mean "no baffling above he cylinders"? The baffling on my GO-300 looks to have the same design as any other Cessna single with a pressure cowl. I see a lot of them, I maintain and do annuals on quite a few 100 series Cessnas.

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.

Chris

Those are amazing pictures indeed although GO-300's aren't any more liable for this kind of failure than anything else. It appears either a rod broke or a cylinder failed leading to the hammering of the rest of it. There are many instances of O-360's coming apart in similar fashion. Not defending the GO-300 because you are right, they are kind of a pain to work on. These things are old though, I'm still currently flying mine that's never been overhauled. 59 years old and about 500hrs over TBO, it runs really good but the oil pressure is getting a bit low (hence the Lyc. conversion). You should post them up over on the 175 forum.

Scary pictures for sure, but I guess any engine could do that...? I'm leaning away from the O-360 one because in addition to it being 1000 miles from home, it's also had some damage history (been on its back), has different wings from original (not that that in & of itself is a big deal really), missing logs, etc.

Haven't looked into the other one any deeper just yet. I got interrupted by finding a sweet deal on a straight tail 182 that I tried to make a deal on, but I think I was one phone call too late. We'll see? That's what I'd really like to buy, but I have "182 taste on a 175 budget".

We've had 3 175's in the family over the years, so pretty familiar with them and not totally opposed to them, but sure would like to find a decent old 182 that I could afford. I've gone to look at 2 recently, but at my price point, they were both junk

The comments on baffling & middle cylinders running hotter are interesting. Is it common for the middle 2 cylinders to run hotter on other 6 cyl engines too? 172s & 182s? We've had to replace both middle cylinders on my dad's current 175B.

I'm not a mechanic. It just looks different on the top of the engine with all that empty space. Most cowls are tight and I have never seen inline engines run with no cowl like radials.

There is a good chance the failed engine in the pictures was not assembled correctly. The adjacent cylinder has RTV around the cylinder base. This prevents the cylinder from being adequately clamped to the case when the bolts are torqued as the RTV compresses over time allowing movement in this area. Eventually the bolts fail and the cylinder blows off.

There was a fatal Bonanza crash a few years ago, NTSB determined this was the cause. Use only the O-Ring and oil.

On the 4-cyl Lycomings there are inter-cylinder baffles that force the air through the fins instead of just freely between the cylinders. I’m not familiar with the -300 series, is this like what you’re talking about!

CamTom12 wrote:On the 4-cyl Lycomings there are inter-cylinder baffles that force the air through the fins instead of just freely between the cylinders. I’m not familiar with the -300 series, is this like what you’re talking about!

The regular 0-300 is just like the lycoming Cam. Not sure on the GO-300 though.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

I'll just leave this right here:

A friend at my home airfield has a 172 with a 180 hp Franklin. It sounds so good that every time I hear it run then go start the O-320 in my Cherokee I have a moment of panic thinking that somethings got to be wrong because this sounds like crap in comparison!

It looks like we are going to take a look at the 175 with the Frank over in Arkansas. If we like what we see we'll try and trade the Cherokee and cash for it.

Kansas Flyer wrote:A friend at my home airfield has a 172 with a 180 hp Franklin. It sounds so good that every time I hear it run then go start the O-320 in my Cherokee I have a moment of panic thinking that somethings got to be wrong because this sounds like crap in comparison!

It looks like we are going to take a look at the 175 with the Frank over in Arkansas. If we like what we see we'll try and trade the Cherokee and cash for it.

I have never heard of a 180 hp franklin in the 172. Are you sure it's not a 220hp Franklin?

A 220 hp 175 doesn't sound bad at all, assuming the engine is good. It would be kinda like a poor man's 182.

Edit: I see that someone has a 175 with an o-470 listed on barnstormers. That would be interesting.

[quote="ShadowAviator"

Edit: I see that someone has a 175 with an o-470 listed on barnstormers. That would be interesting.[/quote]

Years ago there was a member here that had a O470 C175. There is a thread deep in the archives where he talks about it being quite nose heavy and his experience flying it.

ShadowAviator wrote:I have never heard of a 180 hp franklin in the 172. Are you sure it's not a 220hp Franklin?

A 220 hp 175 doesn't sound bad at all, assuming the engine is good. It would be kinda like a poor man's 182.

Edit: I see that someone has a 175 with an o-470 listed on barnstormers. That would be interesting.

I hadn't heard of one either until I saw this 172. The engine is a 6A-335-B that makes 180 hp @ 2800 rpm and 200 hp @ 3100 for takeoff. I got a ride in it and it's quite a performer. We were close to gross with 3 big guys and mostly full tanks and she was passing through 300 ft by the time we were halfway down the runway on a 90 degree day.

Kansas Flyer wrote:I hadn't heard of one either until I saw this 172. The engine is a 6A-335-B that makes 180 hp @ 2800 rpm and 200 hp @ 3100 for takeoff. I got a ride in it and it's quite a performer. We were close to gross with 3 big guys and mostly full tanks and she was passing through 300 ft by the time we were halfway down the runway on a 90 degree day.

Hmm. Just found an article in flying magazine (1963) about it. I would still rather have the 220hp Franklin, though.

Talking about all this makes me wish I had a little more horsepower than 150hp. Maybe in time. Hopefully the Titan motors become available soon.

All that said, my 172 did pretty well in the mountains.

Edit: BTW Stoots Aviation has an STC to a Titan IO-390 (210hp) into Cessna 175A, B, and C. I am not sure on the cost, because lower 48 cost and Alaska cost are very different things.

Ok, so concerning these planes with the various conversions.... from what all I can read, it seems that the 180hp Lyc is the most popular. I've read of the O-470 being too nose heavy for the 175 airframe, and adds too much overall weight eating into your useful load, and too thirsty limiting your endurance. (Don't know how many would agree with that opinion, just digging deep into my memory for things I've read long ago). But I'm also hearing favorable comments here about the Franklin 220. Wouldn't that engine be just as heavy and have pretty much the same "personality" as a 470? One fellow says his C-175/O-470 isn't any more nose heavy than a 182...?

I wonder how much weight gain would be expected (above factory stock GO-300) with an O-360 vs. O-470 vs. Franklin 220?

NETX wrote:Ok, so concerning these planes with the various conversions.... from what all I can read, it seems that the 180hp Lyc is the most popular. I've read of the O-470 being too nose heavy for the 175 airframe, and adds too much overall weight eating into your useful load, and too thirsty limiting your endurance. (Don't know how many would agree with that opinion, just digging deep into my memory for things I've read long ago). But I'm also hearing favorable comments here about the Franklin 220. Wouldn't that engine be just as heavy and have pretty much the same "personality" as a 470? One fellow says his C-175/O-470 isn't any more nose heavy than a 182...?

I wonder how much weight gain would be expected (above factory stock GO-300) with an O-360 vs. O-470 vs. Franklin 220?

WHY YOU NO CONSIDER TITANS!?

Anyway, my personal interests aside...

According to google:

The franklin is an O-350. Its ~300lbs.

The O-470 is ~400lbs.

The O-360 is ~260lbs.

The O-300 is ~270lbs. plus the weight of the gearbox (which I can't seem to find)

The Titan IO-370 is a stroked O-360.

Personally the Titan intrigues me, but that aside, I would say the Franklin is the best for performance. (Assuming you can find parts and a mechanic for it.)
Not much more weight than the GO-300, yet the power approaches the O-470.

While 182s are nose heavy, they have the elevator authority to go with it. I don't know about the 175.

jaudette has a 172 with a 220hp Franklin in it. He seems to really like it.

I would imagine he is not considering titans because he has a $20K budget for a flying airplane.........

Does anyone know if you get a gross weight increase with any of the 175 engine conversions? An O-360 or 220 Franklin might not change the empty weight much but an O-470 conversion would put a pretty big dent in your useful load. My google foo must be weak as I haven't turned up anything.

I'm pretty sure the del-air O-360 STC can be coupled with a gross weight increase STC, but it limits your flap travel to 30deg. I don't really understand the hype behind gross weight increases, who cares what the paperwork says it can do.

An old straight tail 182 is better bang for your buck than a hod rod 172 or 175. I wouldn't recommend either of these airplanes. If the budget won't support a conversion on the GO-300, or an overhaul of the O-360 in a few years, then there could be a period of no flying in your future. If there is a budget for that, find a quality 182 and spend it there. I'm not dissing the 175. If you want a lighter, less thirsty 182, they're attractive, but they come at a fairly high price. You can convert one and never get your money back, or try to buy one from a guy who did the conversion and is trying to get his money back. Either way, it's going to cost.

If you want to fly now on a limited budget, a solid 172, even with an O-300 that has a good history and checks out, will get you flying a four seater sooner, and more reliably. Upgrade later.

Offered in the spirit of your question, and with respect for the budget you've hinted at. The 172 option should be part of this discussion.

Pinecone wrote:An old straight tail 182 is better bang for your buck than a hod rod 172 or 175. I wouldn't recommend either of these airplanes. If the budget won't support a conversion on the GO-300, or an overhaul of the O-360 in a few years, then there could be a period of no flying in your future. If there is a budget for that, find a quality 182 and spend it there. I'm not dissing the 175. If you want a lighter, less thirsty 182, they're attractive, but they come at a fairly high price. You can convert one and never get your money back, or try to buy one from a guy who did the conversion and is trying to get his money back. Either way, it's going to cost.

If you want to fly now on a limited budget, a solid 172, even with an O-300 that has a good history and checks out, will get you flying a four seater sooner, and more reliably. Upgrade later.

Offered in the spirit of your question, and with respect for the budget you've hinted at. The 172 option should be part of this discussion.

Keep in mind, those lower priced 182s usually have high time or some issue, at least from what I have seen. So the overhaul issue may still be there. That said, maybe I just don't know where to look.

I do agree that a good 172 is a good budget plane. I would try to find one with a Lycoming O-320-E2D. Those engines have a history of going over TBO. I know I like mine.

Kansas Flyer wrote:Does anyone know if you get a gross weight increase with any of the 175 engine conversions? An O-360 or 220 Franklin might not change the empty weight much but an O-470 conversion would put a pretty big dent in your useful load. My google foo must be weak as I haven't turned up anything.

Several years ago I did the 0-470 conversion for a customer... The STC allowed for a 100 lb. gross weight increase to 2450. Empty it weighed in at 1600 for an 850 useful load... The STC requires an 11 pound lead weight bolted above the stabilizer on the rear bulkhead... Only complaint the owner had was it run out of trim when firewalled at max speed...

I do not believe any of the other conversions allow for GW increases...

Brian.