Hey Everyone,

Is anyone running 6x800 tire on Fluidyne 3200 Wheel Skis??
I am just wondering if I should go with that tire or go with a 6x700 and what ply would you recommend. Not going to be doing much off strip landings with the wheels, mainly pavement.
ThanksTweakbox Appvalley https://vlc.onl

A little ski plane tire humor: I put on my Datum wheel skis yesterday, and as I un-mounted the Airstreaks and mounted the Air Trac 6 x 6:00's, I noted that were rated up to 120 MPH! My plane won't do that pointed straight down, much less on the ground, so I guess I have a good safety margin!

I order to reduce drag both for takeoff on snow and in cruise you can go with the smaller wheel. Once all is rigged properly you will have the required ground clearance; bigger isn't necessarily better. The skis will do their job on the snow and the wheels will get you back to the hanger when you return to the airport.

Not wanting to be the regulation police but the installation drawings only approve 6.00x6 or 7.00x6 with the C3200. The C3600 skis which call for 6x8.00 use a longer arm.

Tim

Yes, definitely stay with the smaller tires on those skis, unless (and this is a big one) someone has lnstalled longer arms on those skis.....which would not be legal.

The only down side to the smaller tires is that the tails of the skis run close to surface. If they touch, re rig the ski cables. They’ll still run really close to surface, but..... The only place I ever felt this was an issue was operating from gravel strips, which I did a lot. Replace the UHMW bottoms occasionally...

MTV

mtv wrote:Yes, definitely stay with the smaller tires on those skis, unless (and this is a big one) someone has lnstalled longer arms on those skis.....which would not be legal.

The only down side to the smaller tires is that the tails of the skis run close to surface. If they touch, re rig the ski cables. They’ll still run really close to surface, but..... The only place I ever felt this was an issue was operating from gravel strips, which I did a lot. Replace the UHMW bottoms occasionally...

MTV

Is it not legal for sure? Wips willingness to sell the longer arms for the 3200 had me thinking it was legal to do. They were too expensive so I passed before I even asked rhem about the legality of it though...

A1Skinner wrote:

mtv wrote:Yes, definitely stay with the smaller tires on those skis, unless (and this is a big one) someone has lnstalled longer arms on those skis.....which would not be legal.

The only down side to the smaller tires is that the tails of the skis run close to surface. If they touch, re rig the ski cables. They’ll still run really close to surface, but..... The only place I ever felt this was an issue was operating from gravel strips, which I did a lot. Replace the UHMW bottoms occasionally...

MTV

Is it not legal for sure? Wips willingness to sell the longer arms for the 3200 had me thinking it was legal to do. They were too expensive so I passed before I even asked rhem about the legality of it though...

Well, first of all, skis wind up in a kind of "never world" when it comes to installations. VERY few Inspectors or even mechanics could or would recognize a set of longer arms, and likely wouldn't even tumble to the fact that they are 3200 vs 3600 skis in the first place. Typically, the skis aren't installed during annual inspection either....so mechanics signing off the annual may never see the skis. Those skis are on the TC, so only a logbook entry required......how many mechanics are going to notice or measure those arms?

Now, legality: Who knows, those longer arms MAY be legal. I'd ask Wipaire that question, since they own the TC for those skis. It may be that the longer arms could be legal. Call Wipaire and ask the question.

But, as far as I know, the longer arms are not legal on the 3200 or 3000 skis. That said, my old Cessna 180 H had a set of 3000's with the longer arms.....I don't recall if there was paperwork or not.

MTV

W&B. Longer arms and different sized tires will change the range of movement of the CG as the skis are shifted to the snow or runway position. This would have to be accounted for in the W&B calculations. Not that it will significantly alter the handling, but it complicates the STC, making it less likely that it has basis for approval.

Yeah, maybe, but whatever arm you have requires two weight and balance to be shown, one skis up, the other skis down. I can’t imagine that’d be a big problem as long as the skis up position didn’t put you way out of fwd CG. Certification is done at fwd and aft limits of the approved range, so as long as both up and down fell within that range, should just be a calculation.

Maybe....

MTV