A good engine to select for my project?

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
If you lived near me I could do it. I have access to both 172 types.

...I assumed just about everyone knows someone with a 172.

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Another thing to consider as an E-AB engine, the O-300's are very lacking in performance/efficiency parts compared to the Lyc. For example, the updraft Lycoming sump is an abortion, but looks like a work of art compared to the cludge on the O-300. And there are multiple bolt on options to fix the lyc, while the Conti would require significant custom fabrication.

Winginitt

Well-Known Member
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!
George
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.

As for the GO 300. They have some issues to contend with and that's why they went out of production instead of every manufacturer jumping on the bandwagon and building their own versions of higher HP geared engines. One particular concern with GO 300s is the unavailability of a certain bearing or bushing in the gear drive unit. Unless someone has rectified that in the last few years since I sold a GO 300, they are virtually unobtainable.

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Antique Aero Engines in Santa Paula, CA WAS the place where those GO-300 problems could be solved... if he wanted to help you )

But crotchety and hilarious old Al Ball passed away a few years ago, and his son Brad runs the shop now, and he may not supprt the GO-GO-300 anymore.

There is one dusty old FAR hiding in the far corner, which allows the owner to produce a part that is no longer available. 100% legit and legal. One of our grizzled and battle-worn old greaybeard aircraft mechanics here on HBA will probably be able to quote the actual FAR section, or 14CFR, or whatever it's called this week.

TerryM76

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
§21.9 Replacement and modification articles.
(a) If a person knows, or should know, that a replacement or modification article is reasonably likely to be installed on a type-certificated product, the person may not produce that article unless it is—

(1) Produced under a type certificate;

(2) Produced under an FAA production approval;

(3) A standard part (such as a nut or bolt) manufactured in compliance with a government or established industry specification;

(4) A commercial part as defined in §21.1 of this part;

(5) Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering that owner or operator's product;

(6) Fabricated by an appropriately rated certificate holder with a quality system, and consumed in the repair or alteration of a product or article in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or

(7) Produced in any other manner approved by the FAA.

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this section, a person who produces a replacement or modification article for sale may not represent that part as suitable for installation on a type-certificated product.

(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this section, a person may not sell or represent an article as suitable for installation on an aircraft type-certificated under §§21.25(a)(2) or 21.27 unless that article—

(1) Was declared surplus by the U.S. Armed Forces, and

(2) Was intended for use on that aircraft model by the U.S. Armed Forces.

HBA Supporter

HBA Supporter

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
You didn't seem quite that grizzled and battle-worn, but that is the rule I was thinking of

TerryM76

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
You didn't seem quite that grizzled and battle-worn, but that is the rule I was thinking of
Well...I do somehow manage to keep up my youthful appearance......except for the gray.

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
21.303 was actually the one I was thinking of, sorry for the mis-identification.

Basically, the FAA is very well aware that Continental Motors will pretty much hang up the phone on you when you call to ask about the GO-300. So if you have a Cessna 175 and want to keep it running, you will have a fairly straightforward and non-combative response from the FAA regarding an owner manufactured part. They will want to be convinced it is a good quality part that matches the original (gear, bushing, shaft, whatever), and that you did not try to use an off the shelf McMaster-Carr component that is "almost the same size". But they will more than likely let you through unscathed if you show tthem you did it the right way. Not so much if you make your own pistons for a 150HP O-320 becaue there are OEM and PMA replacements easily available.

TFF

Well-Known Member
A friend had some pistons made for his OX-5. It was not really a problem except the FAA inspectors have to jell with it. Don’t want it yesterday; it takes them about three months after submission to hemhaw into signing it. I had another friend do another owner approved part completely all wrong. Great if homebuilt, but not certified. If you want Continental to hang up on you, try a 520 Voyager. There still is the echo of the phone slamming.

Winginitt

Well-Known Member
I think the thing here is that someone would not need FAA approval to make a part for an engine being used in an experimental airplane. If thats not true, then someone please correct my statement. That said, GO-300s needing overhaul might be worth buying because people are converting their 175s and the GOs become parts for other 175 owners. Might even be a market for someone to produce these replacement bearing/bushings for "experimental only" usage. Then all the "certified" guys would buy them and secretly install them in their 175s.
Nah, never happen.....we all know log books are always truthful !

What logbook

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Ain't nothing wrong with the GO-300 as-is, you just have to operate it differently than non-geared engines. It is simply NOT an engine to use for flight training, shooting landings, or bush flying.

Use it on a XC airplane where you leave it at one pwoer setting for most of the flight, and move the power lever very slowly, and it will work just fine. Don't back-drive the gears and it will run just fine. This was told to me directly from a very very very highly respected expert on oddball and unusual engines (Al Ball, Antique Aero Engines)

It uses a little more fuel because it is making 30HP more than the O-300. It wears out a little quicker because it's running faster to make 30HP more. It's just not "bullet-proof" like some Lycoming and Continental engines.

TFF

Well-Known Member
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.

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
The Skylark 175 prop is huge. Can be up 90" on the seaplane:

[McCauley 1B175/ MFC 8467 (a) Diameter: not over 84 in., not under 82.5 in. Static rpm at maximum permissible throttle setting: Landplane: not over 2645, not under 2545 See NOTE 4. No additional tolerance permitted (b) Spinner, Cessna Dwg. 0550221 McCauley 1D200/OM 9044 (seaplane only) (a) Diameter: not over 90 in., not under 88 in. Static rpm at maximum permissible throttle setting: not over 2810, not under 2710 No additional tolerance permitted (b) Spinner, Cessna Dwg. 0552004

Page 3 of 20

II. Model 175A, Skylark, 4 PCL-SM (Normal Category) (cont'd) Model 175B, Skylark, 4 PCL-SM (Normal Category) (cont'd) *Airspeed Limits Landplane and Seaplane (TIAS) Maneuvering Maximum structural cruising Never exceed Flaps extended]

Winginitt

Well-Known Member
What logbook
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.

Ain't nothing wrong with the GO-300 as-is, .
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. TFF Well-Known Member 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. Winginitt Well-Known Member 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. 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.
I think he was putting them on a 172 on floats. This is a perfect example of why building something like a Bearhawk is a great alternative. You can use any engine you want, even a GO-300 and not have to worry about obsolescence or making a special part.

geosnooker2000

Well-Known Member
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.
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?

2