O-300D Conversion

[dgkirk]

Can someone enlighten me on the cost of the STC for the O-300D conversion? I understand that the STC is owned by the Association. I assume the only thing I have to do is wire up the starter (either key or button) and do something about a vacuum pump, etc.

Just can't find a good crank for my C-145!

Thanks,
Dan Kirkpatrick

[mit]

You can buy new cranks from Cont.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Dan

To answer you questions. From you post I gather you have a C-145-2 or an 0-300-A that you need a crank for. And rather than continue the hunt your considering installing an 0-300-D.

Alright let me try to spell this all out. I'm sure if I get anything wrong others will chime in.

I've heard as Tim mentioned that cranks are available from Continental. If these cranks have the 8 bolt flange then buy one and rebuild what you have no conversion of anything is necessary.

If the new cranks or a newer crank with the six bolt flange is available AND you have an 0-300-A, you can install the newer crank in your -A and following Continental SB M75-6R1 ( http://www.cessna170.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2303 ) and convert it to a -C model.

You would not have to change your starter and you would not have a vacuum pad. You will have to buy a 6 bolt propeller and spinner to fit the new crank. You will need a McCauley 1C172-EM or Sensenich M74DC and there are two spinners, Cessna part # 0550228-28 or 0550236-8 and their respective back plates.

You could also just buy a 0-300-C, D or E model engine rather than make one.

If you have a C-145 I'm not sure you can, on paper, install the 6 bolt crank because there never was a C-145 with a 6 bolt crank and therefor no model to convert it to under SB M75-6R1. You would have to consult Continental as to whether the SB applies.

Once you have the 0-300-C, D or E engine you must buy the associations STC which allows any combination of 0-300-C, D or E and the props mentioned and the original or newer D model angle starter and if the D model starter is used a vacuum pump. to be installed on a 170.

The STC currently costs TIC170A members $75 and non-members $150 which is a real bargain and will be the cheapest part of this project.

[mrpibb]

If you are still looking for a c 145 crank let me know, I may know were there may be a couple.

[sutcliffe]

How do I buy the STC for the O-300D Conversion? I have a O-300D which was installed 37 years ago but do not have the STC. I understand that the Association sells the STC - who should I call?

[bagarre]

I'm in the same boat as sutcliffe.
My 170b had an O300-D installed in the mid 70's but no STC. I was told an 0300 is an 0300 so it was just a motor swap with the benefit of a vacuum pump.

[GAHorn]

How do I buy the STC for the O-300D Conversion? I have a O-300D which was installed 37 years ago but do not have the STC. I understand that the Association sells the STC - who should I call?

Contact headquarters@cessna170.org and the exec. secy Jan Billeb, will accomodate your request.

[blueldr]

If I had a C-170 that had a Continental O-300D engine installed thirty seven years ago that had gone through possibly thirty seven annual inspections without being squacked, I believe I'd ask the FAA to approve it on the basis of grandfather rights.
Why spend the money for the approval of a modification that has given airworthy service for thirty seven years.
I've heard of the same thing happening, and getting FAA approval, with the installation of C-175 wings on a C-170.

[sutcliffe]

The C170 Association has the STC for sale for $75. I have all the paperwork for the installation - so the STC from the Association makes it legal - Thanks everyone. Ian

[ron74887]

Guys, this is exactly what started this STC deal. Many airplanes had 337 that were legal and many did not. If you had a 337 stating removed 0-330-A and DM/MDM prop and instsalled 0-300-D with EM series prop your 337 is legal. However, many had on their 337 remove 0-300-A with approved prop and installled 0-330-D with approved prop. That one is probably not going to fly with the insurance co. The prop was never approved for the airplane even though the engine type (less designation) was. George and I have had many discussion on this subject--the FAA guy said the engine was the prop was NOT, therefore the STC. George said it was the engine/ prop combo. Put that in ther just to stir up George Any way for 75 dollars make your plane insurance proof. That was the reason for the reasonable cost and STC. Ron Massicot

[GAHorn]

Guys, this is exactly what started this STC deal. Many airplanes had 337 that were legal and many did not. If you had a 337 stating removed 0-330-A and DM/MDM prop and instsalled 0-300-D with EM series prop your 337 is legal. However, many had on their 337 remove 0-300-A with approved prop and installled 0-330-D with approved prop. That one is probably not going to fly with the insurance co. The prop was never approved for the airplane even though the engine type (less designation) was. George and I have had many discussion on this subject--the FAA guy said the engine was the prop was NOT, therefore the STC. George said it was the engine/ prop combo. Put that in ther just to stir up George Any way for 75 dollars make your plane insurance proof. That was the reason for the reasonable cost and STC. Ron Massicot

AS usual, Ron..you not only got it wrong...you WROTE what you thought about it wrong. (And you also got my position on it wrong.)

The bottom line is... just because something has been flying for 37 years illegally does not persuade the FAA it's suddenly legal. If you'll put yourself in the courtroom and work your way thru the arguments backward all the way to the accident.... it'll suddenly make a lot more sense why you should have bought the STC or otherwise obtained approval.

[n2582d]

Here's what I wrote in 2008 on this subject:

John,
I recently went through an IA renewal course online. On the subject of field approvals they talked about AC 43-210 which says,

"105. What are the two ways that an ASI may approve an alteration or repair?

a. Examination of data only (one aircraft). This is the most common kind of field approval. ... .

b. Physical inspection, demonstration, and testing (one aircraft). This field approval is typically used when:

(1) A major alteration or major repair has been made to the aircraft by a person or persons unknown and no substantiating approved data or maintenance record exists; or

NOTE: When an alteration or repair is made by person(s) unknown and without substantiating data, the mechanic or repair station may correct this discrepancy by creating a data package based on the installation and equipment already installed in the aircraft and submitting it to the ASI for approval. When it is approved, the ASI may inspect the aircraft. If the data package is acceptable, the ASI will sign in block 3 of FAA Form 337, approving the installation or repair based on his or her inspection or testing of the alteration or repair. If an alteration or repair is made that can be approved by a physical inspection or demonstration and testing, rather than just data, or if creating a data package is not practical, the ASI will perform the inspection and then sign off in block 3 of FAA Form 337.

(2) An alteration is installed, tested, and the ASI witnesses that test."

The course gave the example of an IA who when checking the records "finds that the (wrong model) engine has been in the airplane for 8 years and has 1100 hours on it -- this would be an example of an alteration that has been thouroughly flight tested. In a case like this testing would be complete and it would be just a matter of signing block 3 (of the 337 form) approving the alteration by physical testing."

Although the O-300B is not approved for the C-170B mine has been on my plane for years. If the FAA doesn't see that it is the same thing as a C-145-2H which is approved for the C-170 I plan on getting the engine approved going this route.

While I could have gone to the trouble of getting a field approval for the engine as it had been on the plane for decades, it was easier to get Ron's STC for it. Thanks again Ron.