big tires and props
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
big tires and props
Hi folks, just wondering if any one has a copy of a 337 for 26 inch goodyears, and/or a 8 bolt 80 inch seaplane prop they might part with to put on my 55 170b. It has the o-300 still. try me at kbhorsefly@verizon .net thanks karl m.
Re: big tires and props
Kenmore Air in Seattle has the STC for 80/40 prop.Karl wrote:Hi folks, just wondering if any one has a copy of a 337 for 26 inch goodyears, and/or a 8 bolt 80 inch seaplane prop they might part with to put on my 55 170b. It has the o-300 still. try me at kbhorsefly@verizon .net thanks karl m.
http://www.kenmoreair.com/
Good folks to deal with.
I don't know about the 26" tires..why not just hang 8.50 X6's. tires. They will go anywhere you really want to take a 170 with the O-300.
Pete Brown
Anchorage, Alaska
N4563C 1953 170B
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2366/2527 ... 4e43_b.jpg
Anchorage, Alaska
N4563C 1953 170B
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2366/2527 ... 4e43_b.jpg
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
I have 8:50s on now and there about due for replacement. It just so happens I have a set of goodyear 26 inchers which I'd like to put to use. currently I fly out of a thousand foot strip in duvall wa,(wa17) and it would also be nicer to have the larger foot print of the bigger tires.it can get a little soft some days. * one more thing these goodyears (I'm told) use a 8:50 tube. stop in if your in the area. karl m.
I've been in situations where I've desperately needed bigger tires. And I really wanted to take my 170 there, at least before I landed. Rocks the size of 8.50's. Don't try to land like a bush plane on the Kustatan sand strip (not the one beside the river) with 8.50's either. Then there's the strip on the Hallet River, that I operated out of for years. I loved taking my 170 in there, but it was a lot for 8.50's on the creek bed strip. Had nothing to do with my 0300. Sand, Mud, Rotten Snow, Water, Rocks, all can be difficult for such a small tire. I was told once about someone who had 22" tires. Anyone seen 22" tires? Now that would be the ticket!
Headquarters has the 337 for 29" tires, Karl! Make it a real plane!
*
Headquarters has the 337 for 29" tires, Karl! Make it a real plane!
*
-
DensityDog
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:38 am
The Alaska Bushwheels run on standard 6 inch wheels. They are truly remarkable tires, but costly. If you are really going to get serious about off airport, these are the only game in town.
They are tubeless, so no worries about running low pressure.
They flex really nicely, so rolling over junk isn't a problem.
Again, they are expensive and don't much like pavement. They are also STC'd on the 170 (the paper comes with the tires).
While they are expensive, as the man says, it may be the cheapest insurance you'll ever buy.
And they do look BAAAAAAADDD!
I personally wouldn't want to use more than the 29's on a Cessna, and the 26's would be my choice for the 170.
Did I mention they are expensive?
The Goodyears are good tires, but same diameter as Goodyear 8.50's, and just a hair wider, so no real advantage over the 8.50's, except they have no tread, so don' tthrow rocks at your stabilizer as bad.
The Goodyear 26 inch tires were developed specifically as a blimp tire, so they are designed to go on blimp wheels, as a tubeless tire. The blimp wheels are one piece. When installed on an airplane, they need a tube, and the tube specified is an 8.50 X 6.00 tube. If that tells you anything about the size of the tires.
They are not cheap either.
In Alaska, there is a specific procedure you have to do to get a field approval for tires of an unapproved size. don't know if it would convince FSDO elsewhere.
I'd stick with the 8.50's, personally, but they may not be approved either, so......
Good luck,
Mike V
They are tubeless, so no worries about running low pressure.
They flex really nicely, so rolling over junk isn't a problem.
Again, they are expensive and don't much like pavement. They are also STC'd on the 170 (the paper comes with the tires).
While they are expensive, as the man says, it may be the cheapest insurance you'll ever buy.
And they do look BAAAAAAADDD!
I personally wouldn't want to use more than the 29's on a Cessna, and the 26's would be my choice for the 170.
Did I mention they are expensive?
The Goodyears are good tires, but same diameter as Goodyear 8.50's, and just a hair wider, so no real advantage over the 8.50's, except they have no tread, so don' tthrow rocks at your stabilizer as bad.
The Goodyear 26 inch tires were developed specifically as a blimp tire, so they are designed to go on blimp wheels, as a tubeless tire. The blimp wheels are one piece. When installed on an airplane, they need a tube, and the tube specified is an 8.50 X 6.00 tube. If that tells you anything about the size of the tires.
They are not cheap either.
In Alaska, there is a specific procedure you have to do to get a field approval for tires of an unapproved size. don't know if it would convince FSDO elsewhere.
I'd stick with the 8.50's, personally, but they may not be approved either, so......
Good luck,
Mike V
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
I looked on the Bushwheels website-- the 26"ers are $2700 a pair (plus shipping)--whew! And those are the smallest/cheapest ones! Pretty spendy indeed! But then again, if ya need them, ya need them--either for flotation or for rollover-ability. How do the 26" Bushwheels stack up against, say, the 29" Goodyears (size, price, and quality)? If as you say the 26" Goodyears are only about as big as regular 850's, why bother with them-- just run some 850's with the tread wore smooth.
The Bushwheels fat tailwheel kit lists for $995- wider fork, wheel spacer & bolts, axle, and 11"x5"x4' tire.
I tried googling for GarAero, but no joy. An ad from the Dec 99 issue of Northern Pilot has an ad for Gar Aero tires: adapters & 2 new 850 x 10 tires & tubes:$1,295; adapters and 2 new 29x11x10 tires (smooth or tread): $1,500; wide track tail wheel replacements for Scott 3200 & 3400: $500. Remember these are 5 year old prices-- it'd be interesting to see how current Gar Aero prices stack up against Bushwheels.
Karl, I looked up your STOLport on Airnav. I'll have to do a "low & over", as our canadian friends like to say,the next time I'm in your area. Look for me if ya get over to Port Townsend--good airport cafe there, in case you've never tried it.
Eric
The Bushwheels fat tailwheel kit lists for $995- wider fork, wheel spacer & bolts, axle, and 11"x5"x4' tire.
I tried googling for GarAero, but no joy. An ad from the Dec 99 issue of Northern Pilot has an ad for Gar Aero tires: adapters & 2 new 850 x 10 tires & tubes:$1,295; adapters and 2 new 29x11x10 tires (smooth or tread): $1,500; wide track tail wheel replacements for Scott 3200 & 3400: $500. Remember these are 5 year old prices-- it'd be interesting to see how current Gar Aero prices stack up against Bushwheels.
Karl, I looked up your STOLport on Airnav. I'll have to do a "low & over", as our canadian friends like to say,the next time I'm in your area. Look for me if ya get over to Port Townsend--good airport cafe there, in case you've never tried it.
Eric
Having done a fair amount of reading and inquiry regarding Alaska Bushwheels and with several seasons of experience with Gar Aeros with 8:50x10 tires, I have come to the following conclusions:
The AK Bushwheels sidewalls are designed to flex much more than the Gar Aero tires, which have little flex by design. If your intended landing areas have large rocks or is otherwise rough, the AK Bushwheel are the way to go. If you need a larger tire more for soft conditions such as sand or mud, the Gar Aeros work very good as they have about the same footprint as a 26" Bushwheel. Since landing in sand doesn't require much sidewall flex as it just requires a large footprint to prevent sinking in, the Gars work fine.
Gar Aero doesn't go out of his way with advertising at all, with no website and almost no advertising. They are in Homer at 907-235-6817. AK Bushwheel on the other hand has a very progressive marketing dept. with a good website and trade show appearances.
As has been pointed out AK bushwheels are expensive but as Mike V. pointed out they may be cheap if you need a true rough field tire where the sidewall flex takes the beating instead of tranferring it to the airframe.
The 8:50x10 Gar Aero tire mounted with 12 PSI has a diameter that measures a true 23.75" so the 26" Bushwheel should be a little larger, but I have not measured a mounted 26" Bushwheel yet.
As noted by Mike V. he thinks the 26" Ak Bushwheel is probably the best for a 170 and I tend to agree. The 31" looks like way too much tire for what a 170 can or should handle. As an interesting aside, I asked my A&P at my last annual what he thought of the larger 31" Ak Bushwheels on Cessna Taildraggers in general and he said "I think their good for business....The gearbox repair business that is."
As always, your mileage on this matter may vary....
Bruce
The AK Bushwheels sidewalls are designed to flex much more than the Gar Aero tires, which have little flex by design. If your intended landing areas have large rocks or is otherwise rough, the AK Bushwheel are the way to go. If you need a larger tire more for soft conditions such as sand or mud, the Gar Aeros work very good as they have about the same footprint as a 26" Bushwheel. Since landing in sand doesn't require much sidewall flex as it just requires a large footprint to prevent sinking in, the Gars work fine.
Gar Aero doesn't go out of his way with advertising at all, with no website and almost no advertising. They are in Homer at 907-235-6817. AK Bushwheel on the other hand has a very progressive marketing dept. with a good website and trade show appearances.
As has been pointed out AK bushwheels are expensive but as Mike V. pointed out they may be cheap if you need a true rough field tire where the sidewall flex takes the beating instead of tranferring it to the airframe.
The 8:50x10 Gar Aero tire mounted with 12 PSI has a diameter that measures a true 23.75" so the 26" Bushwheel should be a little larger, but I have not measured a mounted 26" Bushwheel yet.
As noted by Mike V. he thinks the 26" Ak Bushwheel is probably the best for a 170 and I tend to agree. The 31" looks like way too much tire for what a 170 can or should handle. As an interesting aside, I asked my A&P at my last annual what he thought of the larger 31" Ak Bushwheels on Cessna Taildraggers in general and he said "I think their good for business....The gearbox repair business that is."
As always, your mileage on this matter may vary....
Bruce
Bruce,
Good information on the Gar Aeros. I don't know what their current prices are, but they are bound to be cheaper than the Bushwheels.
I fully agree with all your comments on soft vs rough.
I don't know if the Gar Aeros are STC'd, though, which may be a big rub, particularly outside Alaska, where they no speakee field approvals on wierd tires.
I ran Gar Aeros for years, and they work fine. If you buy the bigger Gar Aeros (29 inch), you can have a tire recapper scuff off most of the tread to lighten them up, otherwise they are VERY heavy. The 8.50 X 10's aren't as heavy, but I'm betting they are heavier than Bushwheels.
I never had any problems with the Gar Aeros, but some folks have not gotten the wheel halves to bond properly, and had a wheel come apart, so it pays to get someone who is willing to follow instructions when assembling these things. The tire pressure you are told to inflate to while the wheel halves "set" is pretty high, but you need to go there.
As to Gar Aero's tailwheel fork, it is nowhere the piece of work that Bushwheel's is. The Gar Aero fork does not have nearly enough clearance between the fork and the tire, and that causes a lot of problems, just with small rocks, etc. The Bushwheel baby bushwheel fork has a lot more "space" and is a superbly built unit. It is next on my list of "must haves", but this annual just pushed that list to the bottom of the pile.
Mike V
Good information on the Gar Aeros. I don't know what their current prices are, but they are bound to be cheaper than the Bushwheels.
I fully agree with all your comments on soft vs rough.
I don't know if the Gar Aeros are STC'd, though, which may be a big rub, particularly outside Alaska, where they no speakee field approvals on wierd tires.
I ran Gar Aeros for years, and they work fine. If you buy the bigger Gar Aeros (29 inch), you can have a tire recapper scuff off most of the tread to lighten them up, otherwise they are VERY heavy. The 8.50 X 10's aren't as heavy, but I'm betting they are heavier than Bushwheels.
I never had any problems with the Gar Aeros, but some folks have not gotten the wheel halves to bond properly, and had a wheel come apart, so it pays to get someone who is willing to follow instructions when assembling these things. The tire pressure you are told to inflate to while the wheel halves "set" is pretty high, but you need to go there.
As to Gar Aero's tailwheel fork, it is nowhere the piece of work that Bushwheel's is. The Gar Aero fork does not have nearly enough clearance between the fork and the tire, and that causes a lot of problems, just with small rocks, etc. The Bushwheel baby bushwheel fork has a lot more "space" and is a superbly built unit. It is next on my list of "must haves", but this annual just pushed that list to the bottom of the pile.
Mike V
Mike,
The Gar Aero's are STC'd for the 170 with some provisions though. My A&P installed them with reference to the STC number SA 4305WE. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... enDocument
I believe they want you to have the steel 180 axles installed (could have been my A&P's requirement and not the STC's though) and they want you to have or buy the Cleveland 40-75D Wheel assembly (these use the "double puck" brakes for those that are unfamiliar) for installation. The 29" tire installation on the Gar Aero adaptors is not STC'd, just the 8:50x10. I would guess all 29" Gar Aero installs are then field approved? Not sure about the weight comparison either but I think the Gar Aero's are a tad heavier than the Bushwheels. Those Gar adaptor halves aren't real light.
However, the Gar Aero Tailwheel is not STC's for the 170. I had mine field approved before the big field approval crunch. Probably the only reasonable tailwheel solution now is the Bushwheel. They are expensive kits at $995 but do include the baby bushwheel tire which is a $350 value, making the fork kit worth about $650 for comparison to Gar Aero's fork kit. AK Bushwheels is hinting that they are going to produce a complete fat tailwheel replacement using all their own PMA parts. Couldn't agree more about the quality of the Bushwheels product over Gar Aero. Bushwheels stuff is very nicely made.
I would think Gar Aero would step up his visibility in the marketplace and maybe even improve his products (or lower his prices) if he hopes to stay in business. With all of his tailwheel fork kits requiring a field approval compared to Bushwheels tailwheel being STC'd and ready to install from Super Cubs to C-170's, how many can he be selling now? He was the only game in town but in the last 2 years AK Bushwheels has things all shook up.
I recently had to relinquish my Gar Aero set-up (mains and tailwheel) to the original owner who was kind enough to loan them to me for several years. I too am saving my pennies for AK Bushwheel products not Gar Aero Products...More money yes, "but remember this is aviation, so quit yer bitchin' and just write the checks". (quoted from Aviation Consumer)
Bruce
The Gar Aero's are STC'd for the 170 with some provisions though. My A&P installed them with reference to the STC number SA 4305WE. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... enDocument
I believe they want you to have the steel 180 axles installed (could have been my A&P's requirement and not the STC's though) and they want you to have or buy the Cleveland 40-75D Wheel assembly (these use the "double puck" brakes for those that are unfamiliar) for installation. The 29" tire installation on the Gar Aero adaptors is not STC'd, just the 8:50x10. I would guess all 29" Gar Aero installs are then field approved? Not sure about the weight comparison either but I think the Gar Aero's are a tad heavier than the Bushwheels. Those Gar adaptor halves aren't real light.
However, the Gar Aero Tailwheel is not STC's for the 170. I had mine field approved before the big field approval crunch. Probably the only reasonable tailwheel solution now is the Bushwheel. They are expensive kits at $995 but do include the baby bushwheel tire which is a $350 value, making the fork kit worth about $650 for comparison to Gar Aero's fork kit. AK Bushwheels is hinting that they are going to produce a complete fat tailwheel replacement using all their own PMA parts. Couldn't agree more about the quality of the Bushwheels product over Gar Aero. Bushwheels stuff is very nicely made.
I would think Gar Aero would step up his visibility in the marketplace and maybe even improve his products (or lower his prices) if he hopes to stay in business. With all of his tailwheel fork kits requiring a field approval compared to Bushwheels tailwheel being STC'd and ready to install from Super Cubs to C-170's, how many can he be selling now? He was the only game in town but in the last 2 years AK Bushwheels has things all shook up.
I recently had to relinquish my Gar Aero set-up (mains and tailwheel) to the original owner who was kind enough to loan them to me for several years. I too am saving my pennies for AK Bushwheel products not Gar Aero Products...More money yes, "but remember this is aviation, so quit yer bitchin' and just write the checks". (quoted from Aviation Consumer)
Bruce
I did a side by side comparison with my 8:50s and the 26" goodyears and the 26 inchers look like I'll gain about 3-4". that would be nice for short field t/os since the tail doesnt go any lower at rotation. Still looking for that seaplane prop. Eric! stop in any time, I have been to pt. Townsand cafe, and like it much. maybe we can hook up some time.
karl m.
karl m.