Bush Flying article in Flying

eichenberger · Post by **eichenberger** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:00 pm

I haven't yet read it; perused it only. There's an article in this month's Flying magazine about bush flying near home - stuff like landing on beaches and sandbars.
Before you try it, be sure to read your insurance policy. Many totally exclude any intentional, off-airport landings. They don't exclude emergency landings - just the kind of stuff this article is talking about.

funseventy · Post by **funseventy** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:31 pm

Before doing it you should check your sanity.

Remember we don't run 600x 6 tires and we didn't do it with out a lot of instruction about reading the terrain. I do it everyday, but that doesn't make it safe. If you don't know the terrain you should always land in someone elses tracks and make sure they are less equipped than you to be safe.

There are bush flying schools. One good one in Canada and even one here in the links section. Talk to the Punkin owners about mountain flying.

Be safe. These 170's are hard to replace.

blueldr · Post by **blueldr** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:55 am

When you get to my age they won't sell you any insurance anyway. It really simplifys those off airport landing decisions.
No more worries about insurance!

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:02 pm

I love when I get to land on little grass strips,on the beach at Copalis,or even on an old railroad grade in Noxon Montana! (thanks Kelly,that was fun!) Of course,none of the places I've landed can really be considered "bush flying",but I like to think they kinda are. But even if you're a "wanna-be" like me,you can still get yourself in trouble if you don't pay attention to what you're doing. Owyhee in Oregon & Stehekin in Washington are both pretty darn tame compared to the real back country strips,but both have claimed careless pilots before. Heck,the 3000 feet of pavement at my home airport has bit some too!

You ned to keep in mind the terrain you're flying over too,especially if it's of the mountainous or roadless type. Whatcha gonna do if the prop stops? If you survive the landing,then what? Let's all be careful out there!
Speaking of bush flying,I've checked out some books about northern &/or bush flying that featured 170's in starring roles. Bud Helmericks (of "Arctic Tern" fame) wrote several books,he started in a 140,then moved up to a 170 & finally a 180. I just saw another book about some sort of flying missionary that flew a 170 in his early days at it, two different 170's in fact. I was gonna write down the tail numbers & see where they are now but didn't. Next time I see that book I'll try to remember.

Eric

funseventy · Post by **funseventy** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:39 pm

I worked in the same hangar as Bud's 170 for a few weekends in Palmer, Alaska. There is definitely a lot of history in that bird.

It is funny to hear the stories from Cordova, AK. There was an outfit there flying Pacers for hire when the first 170's made it to Alaska. The 170 beat the 180 by a few years and while it was new the general concensus of the 170 was, "Wow, what a Fire-Breather".

Now-a-days I get ridiculed for using a 170B for my Back-country machine. I have owned a 550 powered 180, and flown 185's and 206's for hire and for my mission the 170B can't be beat.

C170BDan · Post by **C170BDan** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:22 pm

I did read the article in FLYING and thought it was good reading. Those airplanes were set up for that type of flying and the pilots obviously had some learned techniques and skills. My "City 170" is fun for grass strip flying and like the article states there are fun places to visit not far from major cities. I'll stick to the more tame grass strips and just look at pictures of Kelly's "Country 170" on the scenic strips! Anyway... good article!

N3243A · Post by **N3243A** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:32 pm

funseventy wrote:I worked in the same hangar as Bud's 170 for a few weekends in Palmer, Alaska. There is definitely a lot of history in that bird.

It is funny to hear the stories from Cordova, AK. There was an outfit there flying Pacers for hire when the first 170's made it to Alaska. The 170 beat the 180 by a few years and while it was new the general concensus of the 170 was, "Wow, what a Fire-Breather".

Now-a-days I get ridiculed for using a 170B for my Back-country machine. I have owned a 550 powered 180, and flown 185's and 206's for hire and for my mission the 170B can't be beat.

Kelly,

Since you obviously enjoy backcountry flying a whole bunch, why did you choose a C-170 over a good Supercub which you could have easily bought instead? More room? A little better x-country capability? I guess if you can operate in and out of Mile Hi with a 170 who needs a cub?

Bruce

funseventy · Post by **funseventy** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:38 pm

119 mph on 7 gph!!!

Good solid 3 place airplane in and out of under 800'.

I had a friend and I and 3/4 tanks on the top of a 6250' mountain and stepped off the Take-off run at 425'. The vis over the nose is unmatched and this helps in rocky and rutted places. It was half the price of an equal quality cub and I go to a lot of places that the average cub owner wouldn't, so I don't seem to be suffering on performance.

But mainly...
IT LOOKS D@#$ SEXY!!!

I personally like a nice round tail!

N1478D · Post by **N1478D** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:51 pm

It might have been George that was saying the difference between Texas Bush flying, and other Bush flying is that - Texans slip it in, and then taxi up, while others, taxi up, and then slip it in.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:35 pm

N1478D wrote:It might have been George that was saying the difference between Texas Bush flying, and other Bush flying is that - Texans slip it in, and then taxi up, while others, taxi up, and then slip it in.

You sure that wasn't "slip in it"?

The remark about liking round tails reminds me of the Harley Sportster rider's motto: we like big jugs & a skinny frame!

Eric

N3243A · Post by **N3243A** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:05 pm

funseventy wrote:119 mph on 7 gph!!!

But mainly...
IT LOOKS D@#$ SEXY!!!

I personally like a nice round tail!

Cruise 119 mph with a 76-50 (if I remember correctly) prop? That's fast. Is that WOT and 7500 foot altitude or what? I'm hard pressed to get more than 100mph with my 80-42 prop bangin' around here at basically sea level. Can't argue about the sexy part though!!!

Bruce

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:55 am

I'm kinda surprised that Flying magazine included something like this. Musta run a few pages short on one of the "Lear Jet buyers guide" or "Glass Panel for your Kingair" articles they seem to favor.

Eric

AR Dave · Post by **AR Dave** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:41 am

Kelly,

You would have had to tiptoe around my 170 not to see it in front of Jeffs hanger. When the wind blew I pushed it right up to the hanger door or inside. Since I hung out with Jeff, we must've met!
The wings on the Artic Tern are being rebuilt in Fairbanks. The plane is still unpolished metal. To the Helmericks, it's just an old plane. But Jeff who appreciates classics says he's going to restore it complete with wheel pants. Jeff grew up on the Artic Tundra (North Slope) and can't stand nothing to do with Bush, including flying, hunting, or camping. He fly's a twin Camanche. Jeff is the person who got me into flying!