Got to fly the most highly modified Cessna, Experimental 170B, amazing performance, STOL and probably its one of the safest airplanes in the world.

What category of Experimental is he operating this aircraft? Can’t be “Amateur Built”, obviously, is it Airshow and Exhibition or Market Research, or??

MTV

mtv wrote:What category of Experimental is he operating this aircraft? Can’t be “Amateur Built”, obviously, is it Airshow and Exhibition or Market Research, or??

MTV

Exhibition per FAA website.

marcusofcotton wrote:

mtv wrote:What category of Experimental is he operating this aircraft? Can’t be “Amateur Built”, obviously, is it Airshow and Exhibition or Market Research, or??

MTV

Exhibition per FAA website.

I hope he’s got a waiver…..

MTV

That is the most clapped out safest airplane in the world I’ve seen. Excellent candidate for a year long annual.

I hope he’s got a waiver…..

MTV


What would the Waiver before?

That CCs?

Always wanted to take his course

Also some braai is always good

Halestorm wrote:That is the most clapped out safest airplane in the world I’ve seen. Excellent candidate for a year long annual.

Huh?

Halestorm wrote:That is the most clapped out safest airplane in the world I’ve seen. Excellent candidate for a year long annual.

Was holding my breath waiting for this from virtually any mechanically inclined member.

motoadve wrote:Got to fly <snip> probably its one of the safest airplanes in the world.

And of course preceded by probably the most common initial response to ones first exposure to slatted or slotted airplanes.
Also equally as inaccurate. Semantics people, semantics and statistics, that's what will end the world, not politics or religion.

Motoadventure man... any flying thing is only as safe as the flier. Period. On the typical STOL man departure in your video if the high strung 10:1 mill had quit CC's subsequent arrival would have been 'firm'. Firm enough to call it lights out. Having had the opportunity to fly several slatted and slotted airplanes, I too love what you can do with them. They don' generally fit my mission profile, so nothing I currently own is configured that way. One of my projects is slated to wear slats, but those will tuck in and dissappear much like the typical air transport aircraft, and even that may change by the time we get there.

I am generally on a short leash, I don't do social media (outside of a couple forums), nor do I socialize with any of the current stol, cowboy, go fast to go slow crowd, or any of the 'alternative flightstyle' junkies but even with my Flintstone style existence I know of 2 single slot airborne separations from the aircraft. One from a pretty prominent member here, the other one of the most prominent STOL users of the things.

Incidentally, while I'm not interested in dissecting the nuts and bolts of those failures, both of those sets were CF slats on metal wings as well. I know of multiple stall / spin sequences initiated (some clear to the ground) and to date the only reason for survival in those is because the typical sequence has been nose high, tail just about touching when it all let loose and dropped a wing. And of course if you follow enough players, you will know at least a few that have had single slat hang ups, causing several users to lose confidence in the movement and pinning them open for stol use and then closed for travel.

And that's just the slats, we haven't even began to touch on any of the other idiosyncrasies like, just how comfortable you'd feel meandering around Glacier Bay at 150' AGL on your way from Skagway to Yakutat with that pumped up 10:1 tractor mill no thanks. The places my much more dangerous, less molested Cessna has travelled over and over would not be candidates for something that high strung.

For the record I am not anti slot/slat, stol, competition, nor R&D. In fact the opposite I love all flying machines, I love burning fuel to motivate things, and I love pushing envelopes in search of satisfaction. I just look at it all with eye's wide open. By the definition instilled in this video a bone stock J3 is probably the safest airplane in the world (and it probably comes pretty close) and yet more than one life has been lost in one.

I am also not intending to bash CC. I have met and watched him at several gatherings. He flies, and he teaches.... good on him. Picking apart his airplanes would be easy peasy for virtually any mechanic, but what's the point, he's doing R&D and flying competitions, probably on a budget and constrained by time as well. Are they airworthy? not my place to define, but they don't seem to be falling out of the sky. Few are the airplanes that someone else couldn't pick apart, some are just easier target and for an eagle eye top notch mechanic... well those easy targets probably shouldn't make the front page. I made that mistake once, and I think Sam took about 45 seconds to call me out on it

Lastly, Mike is right... If you're going to go the route of Youtubes, you probably oughta make sure your stuff is squeaky clean, and anything that has 'interpretation' attached to it as much as EE should probably be handled with extra care. I'd guess this flight was in the name of proficiency, where the Pax seats are generally unlimited but all that will be in his Operating Limitations which of course are all different for each EE example, and all of that is subject to a particular inspector's interpretation of the regs! Good luck with that.

Good morning,
Rob

mtv wrote:What category of Experimental is he operating this aircraft? Can’t be “Amateur Built”, obviously, is it Airshow and Exhibition or Market Research, or??

MTV

You should reach out and ask him. I would love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation.

If you’ve spent my time with him you would understand what I’m talking about….

bush master wrote:I hope he’s got a waiver…..

MTV


What would the Waiver before?

The airplane is registered in the Experimental/Airshow and Exhibition category.

First of all, Experimental aircraft cannot be used for commercial purposes, except when those purposes are specifically noted in a waiver and the exception and it’s purpose are listed in THAT airplanes operating limitation.

Waivers are allowed for flight instruction, but only for the purpose of offering training to someone to fly that type airplane. In other words, if the owner of the plane is offering dual instruction in their plane, generally, this must be so the “student” can qualify to fly another example of that type Experimental airplane. An example is Cub Crafters EX planes being used to train new CC EX airplanes they’ve bought. So, if CC is offering instruction for hire in this thing…..he needs a waiver.

And, just for fun, the argument that this is “the most highly modified Cessna” is BS as well. Good grief, my 175 is more highly modified than that thing, with the original landing gear removed and replaced with a completely different type (tailwheel), with an entirely different engine, a different prop, several wing mods, etc, etc.

That 170 has some stick on slats, a hopped up (but original) engine, some Acme struts on the stock landing gear.

Now, Kyle Bushman has an even more modified 175 than either of these.

So much for hyperbole.

MTV

Thanks to Rob and MTV for articulating what likely made many of us cringe a bit when reading and viewing the original post. No one feels like they want to be "that guy", but sometimes some things need to be questioned so those who come here can consider a different perspective. I appreciate them taking to time to comment here and view their concerns as respectful and valuable.

Anyone know what is the name of the app on that tablet?

mtv wrote:

bush master wrote:I hope he’s got a waiver…..

MTV


What would the Waiver before?

The airplane is registered in the Experimental/Airshow and Exhibition category.

First of all, Experimental aircraft cannot be used for commercial purposes, except when those purposes are specifically noted in a waiver and the exception and it’s purpose are listed in THAT airplanes operating limitation.

Waivers are allowed for flight instruction, but only for the purpose of offering training to someone to fly that type airplane. In other words, if the owner of the plane is offering dual instruction in their plane, generally, this must be so the “student” can qualify to fly another example of that type Experimental airplane. An example is Cub Crafters EX planes being used to train new CC EX airplanes they’ve bought. So, if CC is offering instruction for hire in this thing…..he needs a waiver.

And, just for fun, the argument that this is “the most highly modified Cessna” is BS as well. Good grief, my 175 is more highly modified than that thing, with the original landing gear removed and replaced with a completely different type (tailwheel), with an entirely different engine, a different prop, several wing mods, etc, etc.

That 170 has some stick on slats, a hopped up (but original) engine, some Acme struts on the stock landing gear.

Now, Kyle Bushman has an even more modified 175 than either of these.

So much for hyperbole.

MTV

Wow! A “thanks for sharing” might have been in order…

This is why many pilots fear sharing anything on this site. That’s too bad…

skyward II wrote:

mtv wrote:

bush master wrote:I hope he’s got a waiver…..

MTV


What would the Waiver before?

The airplane is registered in the Experimental/Airshow and Exhibition category.

First of all, Experimental aircraft cannot be used for commercial purposes, except when those purposes are specifically noted in a waiver and the exception and it’s purpose are listed in THAT airplanes operating limitation.

Waivers are allowed for flight instruction, but only for the purpose of offering training to someone to fly that type airplane. In other words, if the owner of the plane is offering dual instruction in their plane, generally, this must be so the “student” can qualify to fly another example of that type Experimental airplane. An example is Cub Crafters EX planes being used to train new CC EX airplanes they’ve bought. So, if CC is offering instruction for hire in this thing…..he needs a waiver.

And, just for fun, the argument that this is “the most highly modified Cessna” is BS as well. Good grief, my 175 is more highly modified than that thing, with the original landing gear removed and replaced with a completely different type (tailwheel), with an entirely different engine, a different prop, several wing mods, etc, etc.

That 170 has some stick on slats, a hopped up (but original) engine, some Acme struts on the stock landing gear.

Now, Kyle Bushman has an even more modified 175 than either of these.

So much for hyperbole.

MTV

Wow! A “thanks for sharing” might have been in order…

This is why many pilots fear sharing anything on this site. That’s too bad…

All I did is point out the regulation. And, I sincerely hope CC is following the regulation. There has been a lot of interest recently in taking certificated aircraft into the Experimental category. This is done using the Experimental Airshow and Exhibition category, generally.

A lot of these have been shared via the internet, and posts like this, which DON'T discuss the limitations that are legally placed on an aircraft that is taken into this category. The regulations governing use of Experimental aircraft can be found at FAR 91.319. But, that applies to ALL experimental aircraft. You also need to read the certification requirements for this category under Part 21. Oh, and there's at least one Chief Legal Counsel's determination that has to do with flight instruction in EX aircraft.

So, I hope that CC is doing this right, and legally. Because if not, there are folks out there who are interested in and moving their aircraft into this category. The last thing they need is for the FAA to take a harsher, more restrictive look at these categories.

Don't believe that could happen? You've never dealt with the FAA.

So, forgive me, or not....up to you.

MTV

In CCs defense , I never paid, or was charged to fly this airplane, he wanted me to try it out, and of course I said yes
So everything seems legal.
I did all the flying on a certified Cessna 170B for the Level 2 training.

No need to dig a hole to try to find problems where they dont exist, people love to do that, I dont get it.

mtv wrote:

skyward II wrote:

mtv wrote:

bush master wrote:I hope he’s got a waiver…..

MTV


What would the Waiver before?

The airplane is registered in the Experimental/Airshow and Exhibition category.

First of all, Experimental aircraft cannot be used for commercial purposes, except when those purposes are specifically noted in a waiver and the exception and it’s purpose are listed in THAT airplanes operating limitation.

Waivers are allowed for flight instruction, but only for the purpose of offering training to someone to fly that type airplane. In other words, if the owner of the plane is offering dual instruction in their plane, generally, this must be so the “student” can qualify to fly another example of that type Experimental airplane. An example is Cub Crafters EX planes being used to train new CC EX airplanes they’ve bought. So, if CC is offering instruction for hire in this thing…..he needs a waiver.

And, just for fun, the argument that this is “the most highly modified Cessna” is BS as well. Good grief, my 175 is more highly modified than that thing, with the original landing gear removed and replaced with a completely different type (tailwheel), with an entirely different engine, a different prop, several wing mods, etc, etc.

That 170 has some stick on slats, a hopped up (but original) engine, some Acme struts on the stock landing gear.

Now, Kyle Bushman has an even more modified 175 than either of these.

So much for hyperbole.

MTV

Wow! A “thanks for sharing” might have been in order…

This is why many pilots fear sharing anything on this site. That’s too bad…

All I did is point out the regulation. And, I sincerely hope CC is following the regulation. There has been a lot of interest recently in taking certificated aircraft into the Experimental category. This is done using the Experimental Airshow and Exhibition category, generally.

A lot of these have been shared via the internet, and posts like this, which DON'T discuss the limitations that are legally placed on an aircraft that is taken into this category. The regulations governing use of Experimental aircraft can be found at FAR 91.319. But, that applies to ALL experimental aircraft. You also need to read the certification requirements for this category under Part 21. Oh, and there's at least one Chief Legal Counsel's determination that has to do with flight instruction in EX aircraft.

So, I hope that CC is doing this right, and legally. Because if not, there are folks out there who are interested in and moving their aircraft into this category. The last thing they need is for the FAA to take a harsher, more restrictive look at these categories.

Don't believe that could happen? You've never dealt with the FAA.

So, forgive me, or not....up to you.

MTV

motoadve wrote:In CCs defense , I never paid, or was charged to fly this airplane, he wanted me to try it out, and of course I said yes
So everything seems legal.
I did all the flying on a certified Cessna 170B for the Level 2 training.

No need to dig a hole to try to find problems where they dont exist, people love to do that, I dont get it.

Nor I...