NTSB Cessna 175 accidents related to engine failure
(or engine failure caused by poor maintenance)
I'd be inclined to make sure I get new cylinder assemblies on overhaul,
or at the very least new center cylinders.
With new assemblies so cheap
I'm not sure why anyone would rebuild a cylinder esp on a high heat/rev
application like the GO-300. (Thinking about my cylinder experience with the
C90 which shares similar jugs).
Perhaps there is a circular effect in the decision making process. Sort of a self-fullfilling prophecy of sorts. Here's my circular theory..
0. Early GO-300 operators run engines improperly at low RPMs causing cooling problems with engine and extreme premature engine wear.
1. Rumors abound and public perceives the safety/reliabilty of GO-300 as low; C175s are undervalued.
2. Owners know C175 can't be resold for very much if it has a GO-300 because of the existing public perception of GO-300 reliability.
3. Owners rebuild engine(s) with cheapest parts and components to minimize cost
because they know the aircraft is undervalued, and the lack of availability of some new engine parts.
4. Engines then fail early; don't make it to TBO.
5. Jump to step 1 here.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X30525&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X31471&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X31559&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X26116&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X26155&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X26597&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X27462&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X28297&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29008&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29296&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X13964&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X15030&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X02237&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001207X03177&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X06872&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X10961&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11369&key=1
The intent here is NOT a witch hunt against the GO-300, in fact from all the reports I've read I don't have any concerns about the engine at all (but do have concerns about resale market value of a C175 with a GO300, fresh engine with new cylinders or not).
It just so happens I'm looking at acquiring a C175 right now so my research priorities here are a little selfish..My personal project is a cost/benefit analysis of GO-300 rebuild versus the Franklin 220hp STC. For some reason the IO-360 replacement vs GO-300 doesn't interest me very much. I guess mainly from a price/performance standpoint I see no reason to consider the IO-360 as a contender when the Franklin 220 costs less and I live in an area where franklin parts availability isn't problematic. --Eric
Misc Franklin Links
Information on Converting Cessna to 220hp Franklin
Franklin 220 install notes in stinson
The Flying pumpkin C170 Conversion
Jeff Markens C170 220 conversion
Jeff Markens 152mph C170 with a franklin 220 conversion(details)
Franklin Engines, US Distributor
Back to Engine List