skyward II wrote:

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...

Sounds good, would have been good to have stated that up front to get it on the record, though. CC is in the business of flight instruction, after all….

MTV

Rob wrote:.... 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.

My concern would not be the high compression pistons--
it would be the stress put on that engine by the use of nitrous oxide.

Larry, did you use the nitrous when flying CC's airplane?
I'm curious -- with a fixed pitch (or ground adjustable) prop,
if it's pitched for use when not using the nitrous,
it would turn way way up when the nitrous was activated-- as in overspeed.
If it's pitched to be efficient when on nitrous,
it would be an extreme dog when not on nitrous.

Nitrous was low so we did not use it.
Gets in the air at very low speed, when CC told me pull on the yoke, it is ready to fly, I could not believe it.

mtv wrote:....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. ....

Never seen your 175, but just from what is posted I'd say that CC's 170 IS more highly modified--
or at least more unusually modified:
slats (on an already-cuffed wing),
rebound shocks on standard leaf spring landing gear,
extended trailing edge on flaps & ailerons,
ground adjustable prop,
high compression pistons in stock O-300,
nitrous injection system.
I'm kinda surprised he doesn't have a T3 type tailwheel apparatus, maybe that'll be next.

And "most highly modified" is pretty subjective,
just like "best airplane".

hotrod180 wrote:

mtv wrote:....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. ....

Never seen your 175, but just from what is posted I'd say that CC's 170 IS more highly modified--
or at least more unusually modified:
slats (on an already-cuffed wing),
rebound shocks on standard leaf spring landing gear,
extended trailing edge on flaps & ailerons,
ground adjustable prop,
high compression pistons in stock O-300,
nitrous injection system.
I'm kinda surprised he doesn't have a T3 type tailwheel apparatus, maybe that'll be next.

And "most highly modified" is pretty subjective,
just like "best airplane".

Yup, no doubt. “Most modified” is subjective, but look up Kyle Bushman’s 175.

MTV

I’m surprised no CS prop, especially with nitro

I still wouldn’t turn down a few laps in the pattern with CC in it, that guy actually does the stuff he talks about and doesn’t seem to be afraid to put it out there, we need more of that spirit

NineThreeKilo wrote:I’m surprised no CS prop, especially with nitro

I still wouldn’t turn down a few laps in the pattern with CC in it, that guy actually does the stuff he talks about and doesn’t seem to be afraid to put it out there, we need more of that spirit

O-300 probably can’t accommodate a CS prop without a lot of complexity, and weight. And, for what he’s doing with it, the ground adjustable makes sense.

MTV

NineThreeKilo wrote:I’m surprised no CS prop...

pro'lly had a head scratcher of a time figuring out where the prop gov fits.

mtv wrote: O-300 probably can’t accommodate a CS prop without a lot of complexity, and weight. And, for what he’s doing with it, the ground adjustable makes sense.

Two variants of this engine (C-145-2H and O-300B) had provisions for a hydraulically controlled prop.
There's a little lever up on the front of the case, as I recall on the LH side of the crankcase nose,
usually seen wired in a fixed position.
I believe the only props available were two-speed models-- all long obsolete & out of production now.

hotrod180 wrote:Two variants of this engine (C-145-2H and O-300B) had provisions…

LOL. As soon as I hit submit, I said to myself, “in 15 min someones gonna wax poetic on an 0-300 with a C/S prop.” Hahahaha

mtv wrote: Yup, no doubt. “Most modified” is subjective, but look up Kyle Bushman’s 175. MTV

I was pretty intrigued by Bushman's airplane when it was written up in AOPA magazine a couple years ago--
C175, modified to taildragger gear & with a Continental 470 with c/s prop.
I believe it had leading edge slats also.
I do think a bigger engine with a c/s prop is a more practical & safer way to add power than adding nitrous to an O-300.
Otherwise, not too different from CC's, except I don't recall any control surface mods or the shock absorber gimmick.
He may have added some more mods since then, I dunno.

I'm glad guys like this are out there, pushing the envelope to improve capabilities of legacy aircraft.
I thought Bushman's plane looked pretty capable, but not much more so than a nice light early C180--
esp if you were to add the slats.
The drawbacks of Bushman's plane are similar to CC's, with the same experimental-exhibition category restrictions.

Bigrenna wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:I’m surprised no CS prop...

pro'lly had a head scratcher of a time figuring out where the prop gov fits.

Based on his willingness to move metal around, would have thought there was some way to do it, maybe some experimental CS system?

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Bigrenna wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:I’m surprised no CS prop...

pro'lly had a head scratcher of a time figuring out where the prop gov fits.

Based on his willingness to move metal around, would have thought there was some way to do it, maybe some experimental CS system?

Couple problems: prop Governor. There are electric prop governors, bring $$

Constant speed prop cost….$$$, even for EX versions of CS props.

Constant speed prop weight: Even the composite CS props are quite a bit heavier than that ground adjustable prop.

So, the question is would the extra thrust be worth the cost and weight?

MTV