Looking for engine paperwork

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

As many here have read the 0-300B model engine is not approved specifically by the type certificate data sheet (TCDS) A-799 for the Cessna 170.

The 0-300B was approved per it's TCDS E-253 on September 27, 1955 and the possibility exists that any 170B delivered after that, specially when equipped with the McCauley 2 position controlable pitch prop, might have an 0-300B.

There weren't many 170Bs made after that date so the possibility is slim but we already have one member who says records indicate his '56 was delivered with a 0-300B.

The question is can we find any others? So if you have a late '55 or '56 please check your records and tell us what engine it says was installed when the aircraft was delivered. This information may help us get the 0-300B approved for the 170 in one fashion or another.

Respond here or to me privately if you wish.

Thanks

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

This from Dave in another thread.

Hi Bruce
I ran into this a couple of years ago with a 56' 170B model I was doing a pre-purchase inspection on in Langley, BC. I spotted the prop control on the left front engine case right away, indicating an 0-300B, and the lever lockwired in place. I had heard of this before. The engine had been overhauled not too long before and identified as an 0-300A. I had to fax over the pages from the Continental Parts Manual (shows it all quite plainly) before anyone would believe me.
I may have some records still from this aircraft so will have a look.
Cheers
Dave

Thanks Dave any info would be great. There is little doubt that this engine SHOULD be an approved engine. As Ron pointed out it is an approved engine for the 172s built side by side with the 170 in '56

The important part is to show the engine as being installed by Cessna when new as if they considered it covered by the TCDS.

[GAHorn]

...The important part is to show the engine as being installed by Cessna when new as if they considered it covered by the TCDS.

I take no different position from the standpoint of whether or not it's a safe and useful installation... but just because it's been approved for another model aircraft does not make it equivalent from an airworthiness standpoint. Until it's approved in writing, it's not legal, regardless of whether or not Cessna installed it on similar aircraft. (We've already visited the word "similar".)
It's good to pursue approval for the installation, and it certainly seems it should be a simple matter, and I hope it is, especially if based upon the Massicot/TIC170A STC. But just because Cessna installed it on similar aircraft does not provide automatic qualification for the unapproved engine to be on a 170. OEMs have been known to produce unapproved/unairworthy product before this example, and will likely do so again. It's an unconvincing argument from that standpoint. Until it's approved, the subject airplane is at risk of Airworthiness Certificate revocation, and may be at risk for other problems related to improper paperwork.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George we are hoping to show Cessna installed the 0300-B on a Cessna 170 as if they considered it to be approved.

If we could show several cases of -B engines installed by Cessna it would show a pattern of the thinking of the time and might lend more weight to the theory that the 0-300-B was just overlooked when the 0-300-A was added to the TCDS. It is entirely possible Cessna, who at about this point had all but stopped producing 170s, didn't care to update an old TCDS for something they might have thought obviously approved.

At the point the 172 TCDS was approved the C-145 was replaced by the 0-300 and so the 172 has the 0-300-A and -B as the approved engines instead of the C-145-2 and -2H.

I'm confident as I'll bet you might agree George, had Cessna continued the 170 production the 0-300-B -C -D and -E would have found it's way onto the TCDS. We are only pointing to the 172 TCDS to show this most likely the case.

Of course none of this conjecture changes the fact that the approval for the -B on a 170 is not in black and white for the black and white world we live in today.

[GAHorn]

George we are hoping to show Cessna installed the 0300-B on a Cessna 170 as if they considered it to be approved.

If we could show several cases of -B engines installed by Cessna it would show a pattern of the thinking of the time and might lend more weight to the theory that the 0-300-B was just overlooked when the 0-300-A was added to the TCDS. It is entirely possible Cessna, who at about this point had all but stopped producing 170s, didn't care to update an old TCDS for something they might have thought obviously approved....

Cessna, as a major airplane mfr (with all they have at risk) would be unlikely to make such a casual substitution relying upon an opinion such as "they considered it to be approved." They had and have experienced engineering, legal, and certification staff, and they would not likely risk violating the type certificate as a casual matter of convenience. I believe they either did so inadvertently, or they actually obtained approval and they failed to apply it to the type certificate ...or more likely,...the FAA failed to note it.
Either way, the owner of the aircraft should get it approved or locate the approval basis, if one exists.

...At the point the 172 TCDS was approved the C-145 was replaced by the 0-300 and so the 172 has the 0-300-A and -B as the approved engines instead of the C-145-2 and -2H.

I'm confident as I'll bet you might agree George, had Cessna continued the 170 production the 0-300-B -C -D and -E would have found it's way onto the TCDS. We are only pointing to the 172 TCDS to show this most likely the case....

I do not agree. Subsequently the Lycoming engines were also installed on the 172, but the TCDS was appropriately revised. That does not mean we can install Lycomings in Cessna 170's by inference.

[c421bdriver]

Hi Bruce,

I have a C-145-2H with the prop control on LH side of case, which was safety wired as well. I am overhauling the engine for owner and want to get some kind of variable speed prop, since it's already there, is the engine an 0-300-B or a C-145-2H, date is from 1948.

What are the options on prop, does anyone make a composite blade variable that is certified, even if on a field approval basis only? Does the oil only give 2 positions on blade angle and if so I have read about having to fine tune for altitude, weight and performance desired. How is the oil flow/pressure regulated, centrifugal force affects ....?

Any data on the C-85 pistons or opinions of owners that have used these to better use fuel, gain HP and eliminate lead fouling. 7 to 1 is a little low these days on 100LL. My thought is the fuel flow probably would not change, but HP would increase, counterweight c/s should be no issue as far as harmonics, a penny for your thoughts.

Thanks.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Hi Bruce,

I have a C-145-2H with the prop control on LH side of case, which was safety wired as well. I am overhauling the engine for owner and want to get some kind of variable speed prop, since it's already there, is the engine an 0-300-B or a C-145-2H, date is from 1948.

If it is a '48 you would have a C-145-2H. Continental didn't start naming their engines with the CID till about mid 1955 as I recall.

What are the options on prop, does anyone make a composite blade variable that is certified, even if on a field approval basis only? Does the oil only give 2 positions on blade angle and if so I have read about having to fine tune for altitude, weight and performance desired. How is the oil flow/pressure regulated, centrifugal force affects ....?

Your options are the 2 position McCauley prop which are extremely rare as the collective TIC170 folks seem to know of ONE being flown and of course we hear rumor of others who thought the saw one back in the day. BTW George and I just this last convention got a ride behind that 2 position prop. My impression from a fairly short flight was that it was as good as having a climb prop and a cruise prop. I'm sure more critical test might show a climb or cruise prop to slightly outperform this prop in it's matching position. But having both settings available at a pull of a knob was coooollll. I know of no other 2 position prop besides the McCauley. If you find one or somehow use a controllable pitch prop you'd be on your on for approval.

But wait. There is another prop you can use with the 2H even thought you won't hook the control up to use it. That is the Aeromatic prop. The Aeromatic prop is an automatic prop requiring no control but the TCDS says you must have a -2H engine. Few folks have these props today and those that do tend to like them and most others who no little to nothing about them don't like them. They are being sold by the current Type Certificate holder which is Tarver Propeppor. http://www.aeromatic.com/. If I had a -2H engine (my 170 partner does in his goodie stash) I'd be saving my money for an Aeromatic prop if for no other reason than it would be a conversation piece to go with our cross wind landing gear we are running.

Any data on the C-85 pistons or opinions of owners that have used these to better use fuel, gain HP and eliminate lead fouling. 7 to 1 is a little low these days on 100LL. My thought is the fuel flow probably would not change, but HP would increase, counterweight c/s should be no issue as far as harmonics, a penny for your thoughts.

Thanks.

Well here is something I can positively tell you about c-85 pistons in a C-145. They are NOT approved. My airplane isn't experimental so I haven't given it much thought. But if I did I wouldn't raise the compression for 100LL which is going to disappear at some point. Sure there is likely to be something like 100ll at least in octane level but there is just as likely to be something available in lower octane like MOGAS without ethanol.

[cessna170bdriver]

... Continental didn't start naming their engines with the CID till about mid 1955 as I recall...

Probably mid- to late-1954, for the 1955 "year model" airplanes. 98C's O-300A has a very low serial number ( 41, I think, but I'm not sure without the books in front of me), and is original to the airframe, which is the 37th 1955 "model" by serial number (26541). The original W&B is dated October 26, 1954.

[blueldr]

Sounds to me like somebody changed half a case on that engine with the oil control prop valve.

[c421bdriver]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the reply, yes no doubt still a -2H, which sounds like a good one to have as far as flexibility with respect to TCDS. The McCauley prop sounds dated as far as performance, the Aeromatic sounds good, ridiculous that the -2H is the only one approved even though it does not use oil for control.

Any chance you can call me offline 925 788 9010, west coast.

[GAHorn]

...But wait. and most others who no little to nothing about them don't like them. They are being sold by the current Type Certificate holder which is Tarver Propeppor. http://www.aeromatic.com/. If I had a -2H engine (my 170 partner does in his goodie stash) I'd be saving my money for an Aeromatic prop if for no other reason than it would be a conversation piece to go with our cross wind landing gear we are running.....

I don't know if I fit the "little or nothing" crowd or not.... I've flown two airplanes with Aeromatics and didn't like them. (Neither was a C-170, however. One was an Aeronca and the other was a Stinson.)

The Aeromatic on the Aeronca would unexpectedly shift in/out of pitch in turbulence, and that was very disturbing. The Aeromatic on the Stinson performed "OK" but that owner removed it for the same reason most others have.... it failed to pass annual inspection due to loose "Lag-Bolts" and split (plastic-laminated-wooden) blades. There is an AD note on them regarding those Lag Bolts (common, large wood-screws) which loosen and may allow the loss of a blade in-flight, which can further lead to loss of the entire airplane. The Tarver folks have not responded in 3 years to an inquiry I made regarding availability and that AD note status.

[mike roe]

I have a Stinson -1 that had the Aero-matic on it for 30 years. Replaced with a fixed wooden. I did not own the plane during that time, but someone liked the set up. They were at OSH with a display prop and had literature but it was where they were camping. Which would tell me they either could not afford a booth,or didnt want the hassle. I have not heard if they are any good or worth the expense. On the Stinson and possibly all others they dont run a spinner. Which really changes the looks.

[N4005V]

The O-300-B is listed as optional on the parts list of the Cessna installation drawing.