Formed to preserve and promote a truly classic airplane
https://forum.cessna170.org/forums/
At this point Doug I'm sure they'd say it meet the TCDS.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.
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.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.