I hope I'm not coming across as argumentive. That's not my intent at all. I'm also aware that not all good ideas were thought up by Cessna, so with that in mind...Dave Clark wrote:I've developed a half a dozen multiple STC's, numerous one time STC's and field approvals and have owned about 40 airplanes over my 30 year career as pilot and A&P IA. I know as the parts/maintenance coordinator you can't condone this mod and it's good for people to know the things you've mentioned for their consideration. As for resale value, I could have that mod fixed back to the stock size in about an hour.
Certainly obtaining approval for some mods can be costly, and if a problem can be solved with a relatively "minor" alteration, then I can certainly understand the tempation to just do it and forget it. With your past experience obtaining approvals then I might assume that to be the reason you've not gotten your own alteration approved. I have to admit a certain reluctance to endorse a mod you recommend as seemingly so minor, yet you've not had approved yourself. But, Dave, it IS your airplane, and I have every confidence you have the expertise to know what you are doing and why you are doing it.
In the official capacity, as you mentioned, I'd like to encourage members to comply with good mx practices, the rules, and the law. As a 170 enthusiast who truly loves this airplane in all it's variations, I must admit that I cringe a little when I see mods performed on them that are more than simple "customizations" or "personalizations" by their owners for their own pleasure and that can have dominoe effects on other mx issues.
The majority of high oil temp complaints in this airplane, whether operated in Michigan or Arizona, have been the result of one or more of the following (in my experience as Parts/MX Coord.): 1- Cowling and/or Baffling defects, 2- Exhaust leaks, 3-Gauge inaccuracy, 4-Improper operations. I have never, repeat never, found an oil temp problem that was caused by original design issues. My 2 cents.
