PWT (Bremerton Airport) today

[N170BP]

I can vouch for that.... A good friend (he in an early 180) and I
flew across our state one time and he throttle back to stay with me.

We gassed up at our destination (we both had full tanks when
we departed) and we took on within 1/2 of a gallon of each other.

[flyguy]

I have a picture of an airplane that was called a "170" by who ever posted the pic. I don't even remember where I got it but is isn't a 170 tail for sure, and I don't think it is even a Cessna tail. If I knew how to post a pic here I would. Anyone wanting to see it do a P M to me.

It is easy to mistake a good 172 straight tail conversion for a 180 at a long distance. Up close - no way!

[rudymantel]

"It had great climb performance"- it was a 180
Rudy

[zero.one.victor]

The 10/98 issue of Private Pilot magazine has an article about N1643D-- it's a real pretty 1952 170B fitted with a Lycoming O-360 & 3 bladed prop. Let me quote the article, allegedly quoting the owner:
"Jim smiles, as he recounts the most common mistake caused by the three-bladed fan on the front. "I have a lot of people walk up and ask me why I put the small tail on the 180. Until you get a bit closer, it does appear from the front that you're looking at the front end of a 180, but then they see that the prop is shorter and that the plane has the 170 tail." "


Eric

[GAHorn]

I can vouch for that.... A good friend (he in an early 180) and I
flew across our state one time and he throttle back to stay with me.

We gassed up at our destination (we both had full tanks when
we departed) and we took on within 1/2 of a gallon of each other.

My 206, a friend's 175 and a 172 all flew from Austin, to Midland, to ABQ, and we all used the same fuel (within 1/2 gallon). But the 206 made the trip with a total time on the hour meter of 3.4 hours, and the 172 and the 175 arrived with only a few minutes between them showing 4.9 hrs. The 206 avg hourly engine cost is $11, the 172 hourly cost is about $8, and the 175 is $25 !!! (This is all based upon the Bluebook of Aircraft Values operations costs estimates, which at the time stated that the 206's IO-520A (non-turbo) costs $10.50/hr, (a TBO of 1700 hrs divided by $18K ovhl cost) the O300 costs $8/hr (1800 hrs/$14.4K) and the GO-300 costs $25hr based on 1200 hrs/ $29,900 (if you can still find someone with a thrust bearing/to overhaul one.)
So the trip from AUS/MDD/ABQ engine costs alone are: 206= $35.70, the 172 cost $39.20 and the 175 engine costs were $122.50!
Kinda gives a different perspective.

BTW- The early C145/O300 cyls could not be used on a GO-300, but the reverse was allowable. These days, all the new cyls are made to the GO-300 standard and can be installed on either engine. The problem (in addition to those already endemic the engine) is that a GO-300 must be overhauled by at least a AP/IA while the other engines may be done by an A&P. This, and the fact that some parts are no longer available, put the GO-300 engine in the obsolete category (besides the poor service history it already suffered.) If you really want an "orphaned" engine however, obtain a 1962 Cessna 175 "C" model, complete with a C-20 McCauley constant speed prop and the GO-300-"E" engine. Neither the prop nor the engine can likely be overhauled any more, and the prop governor was a strange Garwin unit, virtually impossible to support.

The C-175 was really not a bad airplane. It just suffered from an engine that most owners in that price-range didn't have the experience to operate properly. (Geared engines really don't like high-rpm with low manifold pressure, and that made descent planning an excersize that most private pilots weren't prepared for, with the result that throttles got closed at high speed and gearboxes couldn't stand for the stress and chatter. Additionally, the tach read engine rpm, although the prop ran much slower in order to keep the prop in an efficient rpm range. It made for a quiet-running prop, but the high tach reading also encouraged pilots not familiar with it to run the engine too slow. This caused piston scuffing, and premature cylinder failures. It was analagous to "lugging" the engine.) Finally, Cessna realized that the 175 didn't really fit the marketplace. It was between a 172 and a 182, where too little room existed to be a big seller, and the engine's reputation hurt sales even further. A name change (calling it a "Powermatic" instead of a "Skylark") didn't fool anyone either, so they dropped model. (Cessna marketing claimed the 175 had a 9 kt. speed advantage over the 172, but my own experience flying both airplanes was typically about a 5 kt. difference while it burned between 1 and 2 gph more fuel depending on how aggressively it was leaned. Another "gotcha" about the 175 was it's useful load. It typically carried about 55 more lbs than the 172, but....not with full fuel, because it also required 60 lbs more fuel to go the same distance, which is why Cessna installed slightly larger fuel tanks. (10 extra gals.)
It became an inexpensive airplane to purchase in later years because of it's relatively unknown status and/or reputation, and a knowlegeable buyer could get a lot of airplane for the dollar if he knew how to operate and care for it. Most owners eventually either sold it when the engine was run-out or converted it to another engine. Conversions are usually so expensive that no savings are realized despite the cheap purchase price. Nonetheless, the airframe is a good one if corrossion isn't a factor. (Cessna had poor paint quality control throughout the production run and virtually none of the airplanes had internal corrosion proofing, other than a few T-41 series produced for the military.)

[170C]

I have always wondered about this model & its engine. You still see them around and flying with the GO-300 engine, but they do seem to be fairly scarce. I have never flown or ridden in one, but have know a "few" owners. One fellow, who was a pipeline patroller, told me years ago that he had owned 2 175's, both with GO-300 engines. He said he had good experiences with both. He felt the secret to getting to TBO or better was in operational procedure. He said if the engine was operated as perscribed, it would give good service. He said the biggest mistake most pilots made was running the engine too slowly. His explanation was that those pilots were consistently "lugging" the engine with the results which George described. They make some really nice conversions if equipped with larger engines and several have been converted to larger engines and with tailwheel conversions and make a sharp looking, good preforming plane that has the extra fuel capacity that a 172 with a larger engine doesn't have. I don't know what the larger engine conversion does to useful load.

[GAHorn]

All the 175's had the GO-300A engine. The GO-300"E" engine I referred to above was even rare-er....as it had a hollow crankshaft to facilitate the constant speed prop and the appropriate facilities in the crankcase. Talk about hard-to-find parts! (Each prop has an AD note on it requiring it to be sent to Germany to have each blade's ferrule threads "truncated" at the only shop that still does that kind of work. Meanwhile no hubs are available, and only used ferrules. But there's good news. There are still two new blades in the marketplace up in Seattle. The shop want's $8750.00 apiece for them.

[zero.one.victor]

"....a GO-300 must be overhauled by at least a AP/IA while the other engines may be done by an A&P." Why's that, George?

Eric

[GAHorn]

Because of the inspection/assembly procedures regarding the gearbox.

[Tom Downey]

Because of the inspection/assembly procedures regarding the gearbox.
_________________

This is not true, The requirement no longer in the regs

Read 43.7 and 65.81

But when we read 43 "A"

2) Powerplant major repairs. Repairs of the following parts of an engine and repairs of the following types, are powerplant major repairs:

(i) Separation or disassembly of a crankcase or crankshaft of a reciprocating engine equipped with an integral supercharger.

(ii) Separation or disassembly of a crankcase or crankshaft of a reciprocating engine equipped with other than spur-type propeller reduction gearing.

WE see that "other than spur-type propeller reduction gearing."

the GO-300-? is a simple spur gear. So the conclusion must be any A&P can overhaul the GO-300

But as you stated before, there are no new bearings for the gear box, XECEPT the .010" under.