O-300-C/D STC donated to TIC170A

[sanships]

Well, just opened up the case and seems like the crank will be junk. Will have to get it NDT'd together with the case, cam and the rods. All the gears will have to be inspected too. It will definitely need more work than I initially expected. All cylinders will have to be replaced too.

Who has the o-300c STC conversion of the crank? How much will it cost? Any other suggestion on what I can do to replace this engine? Anyone gotta spare o-300a engine lying around?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Alvin

TIC170A has the STC. It is currently owned by member Ron Massicot who has always donated proceeds to the association. At the last mid-year meeting Ron offered to donate the STC itself to the association and it was excepted b the board. The ownership transfer paperwork in is the works.

So contact TIC170 HQ either way for the STC which is extremely reasonable for members and just very reasonable for nonmembers but I don't have the exact cost memorized.

[GAHorn]

The STC for the O-300-C or O-300-D engine and the associated EM series prop has been donated by past president Ron Massicot to TIC170A. The paperwork is not yet completed but is expected shortly.
Alvin, you are suggesting that you intend to convert your engine to a "C". This is a seperate matter than the approval basis for installing it in a C-170 after the conversion.
The conversion of the engine from "O-300-A" to an "O-300-C or D" must be undertaken in accordance with TCM Service Bulletin M75-6R1. http://www.cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2303
After that is completed, the installation of the modified engine (equipped with the EM prop and spinner of course) can be done under the STC.
Remember, you still have to get a crank and prop and spinner and perform the conversion.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Thanks George you said what I should have thought to say and that is the STC is to install the engine not convert it.

[blueldr]

Somehow or other, I was under the impression this engine was to go in a C-172, in which case the D engine would be the correct series.

[HA]

nope, not the old ones - my '56 172 was born with an O-300-A same as the one he is looking at

[GAHorn]

He has a 56 C-172 which specifies the O-300-A or B. But it does bring up another point.... the STC we have only applies to C 170, A, and B aircraft.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George I could be wrong but I seem to remember Ron saying a the mid-year the STC also covered the 172 included at the suggestion of the FAA. Ron said it didn't make sense to him as the 172 TCDS allowed the engines but he didn't argue with the Fed.

[GAHorn]

I have an original copy of the STC and it does not mention the C-172 in it's applicability. (Just because the O-300-C/D is installed in some 172's...does not make it applicable to all 172's. Consider the Lycoming O-360..... Does the fact that it's installed in a 172-Q make it applicable to Alvin's 1956 straight 172?)

[Tom Downey]

. Does the fact that it's installed in a 172-Q make it applicable to Alvin's 1956 straight 172?)

Engines are model specific. THe Type Certificate will state which model has what engines.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George you are correct, I was speaking in general terms. I was just relating what I recall from the mid-year meeting converstion about the STC from Ron.

[ron74887]

Guys. I just got on and let me see if I can straighen this out or confuse you more. The STC cover the C,D,or E engines and the Em series prop as well as the sensenich. The reason for the STC was the prop not he engines sice they were identical in every operating aspect. The prop was never approved for the 170 however it was for the 172 therefore no need to cover the 172, however I sold one to a guy changing his 172 to a D engine. The feds woul not allow him to covert since I had the STC so I guess in a sense the STC covers the 172 whether it is on the paper work of not. Cessna did the flight test for the 172 using all engines and the feds approved it (via dat sheets) and yet the would not approve it for him. However the non-flight test for my approval was the Cessna data ( not flight test was done) Believe that? and yet they would not allow him to do it. make sense? converting the engine from A to C is a matter fo changing the crank and stampin the data plate according no big deal and ten the STC will allow you to use the Em prop still makes no sense to approve engines (just props) anyway the paper work is being done as I was doing that and got on this.. Transfer paperwork should go out today CONFUSED ENOUGH? Ron

[GAHorn]

...The reason for the STC was the prop not (t)he engines si(n)ce they were identical in every operating aspect. The prop was never approved for the 170 however it was for the 172 therefore no need to cover the 172, ... Ron

Ron (joking here) ... the new EM prop is also "identical in every operating aspect".... so why the STC?

It makes absolutely no difference what the operating similarities may or may not be. The problem is that the specific engine model, and prop model, are not approved for the 170. And it makes no difference if it's only the prop, or only the engine (you can't install one without the other without some heavy-duty welding).... ... since the later engine uses a 6 bolt prop flange in lieu of the earlier 8 bolt design. In any case... it's not the operating similarities that make an approval basis necessary. It's the model designation differences....and the un-approved basis of those changes.

To all: Ron and myself (and others) have had several discussions on this matter to whit:

Ron pursued this development of this STC in order to achieve the use of the EM prop on the 170, and this STC accomodated that purpose.

Some FAA inspectors.... (hold onto your helmets...this is really gonna surprise you).... don't know their props from their engines.... And I suspect that such an inspector was involved in the 172/prop situation Ron just attempted to describe. (If anyone can sift through that earlier msg.)

Despite that goofy inspector's even goofier opinion,... the majority of FAA Inspectors do not hold the same view. The majority of them hold the view that in order to install a C or D engine in a 170, that an STC or other basis of approval must be used for the purpose. That is the real value of Ron's STC. Repeat: According to the prodominant view at FAA, you may not install a C or D engine...or it's 6-bolt prop...in a 170 without a basis of approval...which Ron's (now TIC170A's) STC covers.

The STC does not apply (in it's current version, and in accordance with the predominant FAA view) to Cessna 172's.

Just because you can get ONE inspector to sign off on something does not make it valid.

I'll give you an example: My C170B, N146YS

It left the factory for South America in 1952/53 with an O-300-A and MDM-7653 prop. It never had a U.S. Airworthiness Certificate and it spent two decades flying/sitting around El Salvador. It re-entered the US in the early 70's with an O-300-C and an EM-7655 prop. The FAA inspected the airplane for conformity with the type certificate (which applies to all 170's...and does not apply to 172's)... TCDS A-799, and it was incorrectly issued a new Standard Airworthiness Certificate. Although the FAA themselves reviewed the aircraft and it's records...it did not meet it's type certificate because it had an engine and prop that was not authorized. It made no difference that it was the FAA's own Inspector missed that tidbit. The result is the same...the airplane was not legal to fly in the U.S.
The airplane remained with that Airworthiness Certificate and no one caught the error or took corrective action upon it until it's restorer filled out a Form 337 which quoted another aircraft's Form 337 having a "field approval" (Block 3 approved by FAA.) Note: This merely documented the incorrect engine/prop. It did not make N146YS legal, because the new 337 for N146YS did not have Block 3 approved. I bought the airplane in 2000 knowing this issue existed.

I was faced with either continuing to operate the aircraft without it's documentation being legalized (and risking some FAA type somewhere grounding my airplane by revoking it's improperly-issued Airworthiness Certificate when they discovered the error), or going to the expense of re-converting the airplane back to it's original condition (..didn't want to do that since it had a 200-hour O-300-C and EM prop in it.) Needless to say, anyone who ever considered buying it from me would beat me down on price over this issue. (And I strongly suspect that's why I got the airplane favorably priced to me, ....because the restorer was frustrated by other potential purchasers.... and he had the airplane in the DAL FSDO region which had a reputation of "NO!"..when it came to any kind of field approvals.)

I had the decision to make as to how to make my illegal airplane meet the FARs. I contacted FAA-FSDO in San Antonio, OKC, and FTW and they all agreed that the airplane did not meet it's type certificate, and therefore was not technically legal for operation on the Standard Airworthiness Certificate which it had been issued improperly by their own inspector way back in the early 70's. The restorer did not agree with them, but that isn't what counts in my view, or in the FAA's. FAA took the position that I must either obtain proper field approval, or I must acquire an STC covering this alteration of the aircraft's original design.
I was under the process of obtaining my own "field approval" under the more challenging new rules, when (at the New Orleans mid-year board meeting) I became aware that past president Ron Massicot had such an STC which already covers this issue.

Summary: Despite the original intent of the STC, it's actual effect is to provide a legal method of installing an O-300- C or D engine and associated prop in a Cessna 170, 170A, or 170B. Unless further development and approval is made for it, any other use of the STC will likely be in the imagination of a mis-informed inspector. (Well, in accordance with past-prez Ron Massicot..."further development" has been found....already in accidental oversight...and if correct, the STC will apply to 172 aircraft. The queston I now have is: Which models 172?)

[ron74887]

HEYS GUYS YOU WONT BELIEVE THIS!!! on the letter from ther feds approving the admendments to the original STC adding the vacuum pumps and spinners they actuall ADDED CERTAIN MODEL CESSNA 172 AIRCRAFT!! damn if I could only read and yet I accused them So now It is FACT that the STC covers the 172. I was sending the transfer letter and with that the copy of thee approved ammendments to be sure they were included since they did not reissue the front page--finding that I reread the letter so now the assoc will be the new owner and can be recognized as ligit airplane assoc. Ron

[GAHorn]

Which "certain models" does it list?