You are correct in your assertion that a 6 is safer than a 4 in that completely losing power to 1 cylinder can cause a 4 to become inoperable due to the imbalance caused. With a 6 cylinder, the engine has a much better chance of continuing it's flight. That being said, there are other ways to look at what things can exerbate the situation in either engine and become catastrophic, but a non-catastropic cause can take a 4 cylinder down when a 6 would continue flying. The reverse cannot be said for the 4 cylinder......so the 6 can be safer in those failure modes.Hello all.
I am considering building a CH640 sometime in the future, and am doing a lot of research FIRST. I have been through various discussions over on the Corvair board and the Subaru board. Now I have some questions for you dedicated aircraft engine guys.
Zenair recommends a powerplant between 150hp and 240hp. You need a "high performance endorsement" to operate an airplane with an engine above 200hp, and that's not something I'm interested in just yet.
What I'm looking for is 6 cylinders with the lowest GPH burn possible. I want a Ford Explorer, not a Jaguar F-Pace.
This has sort of led me to the Conti 0-300, or the G0-300. I really don't like the idea of any gearbox, and I'm not sure if the 5HP missing from the 0-300 would be that much of a big deal?
Are there any other ideas for that range of power y'all can come up with? BTW, I'm not wealthy, so I won't be buying any new or newly overhauled engines. This would be a used engine with some time left on it.
Thanks for any input!
You know, that religiously maintained record that all certified airplane owners keep......the one you bet your life on when you buy a certified airplane and fly it. The one that makes thousands of dollars of difference in the value of an engine if a minor prop strike isn't listed. I've had experiences with unscrupulous owners and have very little faith in log books .Heres a picture of an undocumented repair on an airplane I bought. The same guy who did that also performed unrecorded engine repairs. Sold the plane to a guy who said he wanted to restore it. Turns out he was an employee of an airplane salvage business in Florida and they wouldn't send the paperwork to FAA. Tracked them down and they lied about reselling and then said they parted it out. Had a devil of a time getting the FAA to do anything to get it out of my name. Somewhere out there there is an engine with a log book thats far from accurate and someone thinks they have a safe engine.What logbook
No, I think they are good engines too. The point simply is that when I had one I found that there was one particular part that was critical to the drive system that you could not obtain a replacement for. So do owners of 175s scrap their whole $20K airplane because they can't find a certified bushing/bearing for those engines? Many convert to Lycomings, and sell their old 175 to an experimental builder. What do the other owners do ? Maybe these days someone makes a replacement? I don't know, but felt the OP might want to be aware of this possible issue before buying any engine.Ain't nothing wrong with the GO-300 as-is, .
You are right of course. I thought you misunderstood that I was referring to certified airplanes. I meant to point out that there are a lot of people out there who do things and don't document them.....and I can believe that someone who cannot afford the conversions you mentioned is also not going to be inclined to scrap a perfectly good airplane if he can't buy a $100 (?) bushing. If memory serves me, I believe the wings have larger gas tanks but fit on 172s. Guy from Canada drove down and bought the wings for more than I gave for the whole airplane. He said Cessna wanted $25K for wings so he was tickled to get perfect wings for half that.....and I was tickled to sell em.Mine was a rhetorical question. I’m the one who has had to put those books right along with the aircraft.
175 owners are in a poke and it’s sad. It’s not a 172. The T-41 and 172 Hawk XP are the only sisters to the 175; they are on a different type certificate than the 172. Not a 180 either. Engine solutions is hope the GO is good, or STC with a Continental 470 or Lycoming IO360. You have to want it bad for the Lycoming. I believe the STC costs about double an airframe would cost. Worth it if going full Alaska with Edo floats; then it, with all the conversion work, costs less than a 180 on floats. All about the end dream. One on my field can be had for less than 10k but after putting 10 in it, it’s worth what a flying one could have been had for without all the restoration work. 20k airplane all day long.
So, are you guys saying the GO-300 is the one to avoid because of parts availability, and NOT the O-300, or no on BOTH because of parts availability?Back driving the gears is the problem. No part throttle flying. High power until last part of downwind. Pull back and land. Not a good low and slow engine; flying low power just above stall, out for a sunset flight.
True on being used on a homebuilt and not requiring certified parts. Still though if you do use one, get a spare. Except for rods, pistons and cylinders, nothing is the same as the O-300. Crank is different, case different, gearbox makes it different. Last time the big money parts were made was the 60’s. It also runs a pretty big prop, so make sure it’s got ground clearance. I think a 175 uses a 80” prop. There is a 175 at my airport. Project, not all bad, but it has not been flown in a long time. Probably 30 years. The owner started messing with it and really made a mess of it. He has owned it since the 60’s.