Looking for propeller paperwork

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:37 pm

doug8082a wrote:Ok... now I get it

It would be nice if we could get some info from Cessna on what actually rolled out the door regarding the C-145-2H & the Aeromatic.

At this point Doug I'm sure they'd say it meet the TCDS.

jrenwick · Post by **jrenwick** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:55 pm

"Monty the answer man" from the Swift website sent me this:

The C-145-2H and O-300B can use a controllable prop. Some 170s were delivered with the so called "baby McCauley", but to my knowledge, no Aeromatics.

The McCauley designation is 2B36C-7. It is a 60 lb. prop and not very efficient. It was intended for 170 seaplanes and may have worked to a certain degree in that application but a fairly flat Sensenich or McCauley fixed pitch would probably be a better job.

The only experience I have with that prop is we tried one on a Swift with the idea of getting it STCed. It was a complete bust. It didn't outperform a fixed pitch on takeoff or climb and overspeeded even with the prop control in full decrease rpm in level flight. Plus it made the airplane very nose heavy.

There are two types of Aeromatics, the F-200 and the F-200H. The F-200 will work on a "plain" crankshaft such as the O-300A. The F-200H is the so called "high cruise" Aeromatic and requires the C-145-2H or
O-300B for hydraulic control.

Monty also told me that there are slight differences in the cases between C145-2 and O-300A, but otherwise the two engines are identical. One difference he mentioned was that the holes for the cylinder studs are drilled through to the inside of the case on the C145, but not on the O-300A. Another was the size of the plugs in the outlets for oil cooler lines. There may be other slight differences.

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:24 pm

John, Monty brings up an interesting point and that is Cessna may never have delivered a 170 with the Aeromatic. Just because it's part of the TCDS doesn't mean they came that way from the factory.

I'm not sure Monty has the hydraulic control right in his mind. The description of the hydraulic control and parts associated from Note 3 mentioned previously doesn't add up with the -2H hydraulic control.
And it doesn't explain how the Meyer 145 TCDS could list the F200-H as usable on the -2D, -2H, 0-300-A and 0-300-B.

It would make sense that these props didn't perform any better than the fixed pitch or at least for the extra maintenance involved with them.

It's more of a search for an answer because we can and now would be better than later to find the answer to these details. Think how much first hand knowledge of these aircraft is being lost every day.