C145 allowable rpm limits

Jr.CubBuilder · Post by **Jr.CubBuilder** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:12 pm

I bet they would. That Thielert diesel 135hp with the constant speed prop would probably be perfect.

Post by **GAHorn** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:16 pm

N1478D wrote:Diesel engines have their horsepower at a much lower RPM than gasoline engines. Diesel trucks can start a big load with an engine at idle, while a gasoline engine has to rev up to generate the horsepower to move the load. Wonder if the new diesel aviation engines would make for better climbers?

Good thinkin', Joe! Just keep thinkin' about how you can do things slower!

N1478D · Post by **N1478D** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:14 pm

Well, I sure don't have to try to think slower! It just happens on it's own every year!

Now, why did I walk in this room? Where are my glasses? I was going to . . .? But, once in the 170 things seem to sharpen up, seem to anyway! Might be the fountain of youth.

It's probably more about the fun meter isn't related to the speed meter.

BloomerJohn · Post by **BloomerJohn** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 2:02 am

I know this will throw fuel on a fire, but I have run my O-300 at cruise @2700 for years and will continue to when I need to cover a lot of ground in the least amount of time. Stats:
1948 O-300, 1400TT, 600 SMOH, Steel Cyl, 100 hrs /yr, chg oil(Exxon Elite)@ 25hrs, run 100LL w/ MMO added to oil and fuel every 2 tanks. Aggressive lean at low RPM's, EGT 1425 degrees at cruise. Have oil analyzed at each change, Compressions always in the mid 70's. Engine was O/H by Buldoc in Mpls. Master tech that did my engine has O/H hundreds of O-300's. He personally has not seen any additional wear from engines running at 2700 typical vs 2350 cruise. I have a climb prop installed that nets 2350 static (brakes held, no wind std temp 1000MSL) Fuel burn is around 9.0 overall. I prefer to run at 7500 Density Alt. This allows WOT and 2700 rpm. TAS is always 127 at that setting. My uncle has used the Cont O-300 engine to power pumps for over 30 years. They run continously in season at 2700 RPM. I am trying to guestimate the TBO, but it must be astronomical.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:38 am

Bloomer John,

As a matter of curiousity, how does your uncle cool that O-300
when it is running a pump?----especially the oil!

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 7:11 am

I'm also curious about the O-300 powered pump. What's it pumping? Where? etc etc
About the only alternative installations I've heard of for aircraft engines is either GPU's (ie the Lycoming O-290G) or airboats. I saw a TV segment on a "snowplane" also, that used an engine/propeller set-up like an airboat.

Eric

Jr.CubBuilder · Post by **Jr.CubBuilder** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:15 pm

My neighbor built a snow plane when he was in highschool using an o435 for a motor. He's got some rather entertaining stories of it indluding when the battery got sucked through the prop during one of its first test runs. He used a loop of heavy chain for the brake, tossing it around one of the side skis. If he really needed a lot of brake for going down hill he would put a chain over each side ski, then apply throttle as needed.

BloomerJohn · Post by **BloomerJohn** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:07 am

I stand corrected on the pump motor. It IS a contenental, but a water cooled variety that I just learned had many variations used on tractors, generators, pumps etc.

Contenental made an air cooled engine in US and Brittish tanks and APC's during WWI. It had an engine driven fan that neearly took up the entire rear top of the tank. It had problems with cooling, but was light weight and easy to repair in the field.

Sorry if I got anyone excited about pulling thier engine to water the lawn!

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:09 am

I seem to recall someone telling me about tanks (WW-1 or 2?) powered by radial engines, but don't remember any of the particulars.

Eric

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:22 am

Continental radial air cooled engines of 670 cu.in.were used to power tanks in WW2. These were basically the same as the aircraft engines with modifications to adapt them to the job, the most noticeable one being the splined output drive on the crankshaft. Many of the parts were used to overhaul aircraft engines, post WW2, because of their cheap surplus availability.

N2865C · Post by **N2865C** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:22 pm

Continental also made engines for milk trucks, and for a while, owned Divco, a milk truck manufacturer. It's a pretty cool looking truck. http://www.divco.org/divco%20history.htm
jc

dacker · Post by **dacker** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:37 pm

Hey those are some pretty cool old trucks! I wonder how they would do with a round tail and wings?

David

Post by **GAHorn** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:41 pm

Yep, thousands of Cont. 670 tank engine cylinders/pistons/etc. were used to rebuild W-670 Stearman engines for cropdusters.

4583C · Post by **4583C** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:33 pm

Does anybody know the allowable cruise rpm of the GO-300 from the 175? Is there any difference in the GO-300 and our engines other than the case and gear drive? There is a picture in one of the "170 books" of an experimental belt drive mounted on a C145/O300 that Cessna tried on a 170. What I am thinking is that prop speed more than engine rpm is what dictates max allowable rpm.
Another huge engine market for Continental has been the portable welder market. Paul

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:32 pm

Please elaborate on the "experimental belt drive" you saw pictured. You sure that's not just one of those highly attractive retro-fitted belt-drive vacuum pump like what Dave has?