Hi,
I have been watching the C-170 forum for a couple
weeks because I am
thinking about buying one. Not committed to the
idea enough yet to join the
club or group and I have a question that I hope
you would post for me on the
forum:
The 48 170 I am considering has a high time
O-300. Overhaul is not far away
and I was thinking about options. Is there an STC
to put a GO-300 on the
170? My thinking here is that it might be an easy
adaptation and maybe even
use the same exhuast and mount. Does anyopne know
of an STC of field
approval done like this or any history on it.
Thanks,
Eppoh
Thinking About A 170
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
Thinking About A 170
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
That would definitely be a step in the wrong direction. Think about it. Do you suppose there's a reason the 170 is a classic, and went on to become the most popular airplane ever produced in it's subseqent incarnation, ...the 172? But the 175, with essentially the same airframe, was a failure and went out of production?
Not only is the GO-300 incapable of fitting into the same cowling (higher thrust-line due to gearbox and prop-shaft), it is also rapidly becoming incapable of being overhauled at all. There are no thrust bearings available anymore. An A&P is not authorized to overhaul it. (Due to the gearbox it must be rebuilt either by a CRS or an IA.) Even a good example of the engine has a poor reliability record. Even if you were a millionaire and wanted a one-of-a-kind and went ahead with such a scheme, you'd have an airplane with insufficient fuel capacity to support the engine's fuel consumption. And if you've ever flown one of these things, you'll realize it's a noisy, groaning, contraption because of that gearbox (again).
Meanwhile, the original C-145/O-300 engine for the 170 is one of the smoothest, most economical to operate, and has one of the highest reliability records in the history of aircraft engines.
Not only is the GO-300 incapable of fitting into the same cowling (higher thrust-line due to gearbox and prop-shaft), it is also rapidly becoming incapable of being overhauled at all. There are no thrust bearings available anymore. An A&P is not authorized to overhaul it. (Due to the gearbox it must be rebuilt either by a CRS or an IA.) Even a good example of the engine has a poor reliability record. Even if you were a millionaire and wanted a one-of-a-kind and went ahead with such a scheme, you'd have an airplane with insufficient fuel capacity to support the engine's fuel consumption. And if you've ever flown one of these things, you'll realize it's a noisy, groaning, contraption because of that gearbox (again).
Meanwhile, the original C-145/O-300 engine for the 170 is one of the smoothest, most economical to operate, and has one of the highest reliability records in the history of aircraft engines.