just graduated to a c182 with 8.50's on the mains, a really nice 1957, and there is no air pressure for tire inflation marked on the tires as they are not standard equipment. any help as to a reasonable air pressure for pavement and grass surfaces?

FWIW, on my 8.50 equipped '54 180, I run a max of 24psi on the mains
(easier to push around on pavement that way) and somewhere between
15-20psi for "rough surface work".

What do you have for a tire up front? A neighbor has a '60 C-182
with 8.50s on the mains and some kind of fancy 206 nose fork
up front with (I think) an 8.00 tire mounted. He can pretty much
go wherever we go, albeit at a (slightly) slower pace....

8.50 mains, and 6.00x6 nose wheel on the 57 c-182. 24-25 pounds sounds good to me as i have to push the plane backwards into it's grass stall for the nite. easy to get out, hard to get back in, and the easier it is to roll, the better my back will feel. thanks for the reply

The "fancy nose fork" is an adaptation of a Cherokee nose fork, which permits up to a 8.50 x 6.00 nose tire as well. The fork is stc'd for 206 and 182 aircraft.

Landes Airglas has one stc for this mod. It is worth doing, and I'd put an 8.00 x 6.00 nose tire on, my ownself.

MTV

mtv wrote:The "fancy nose fork" is an adaptation of a Cherokee nose fork, which permits up to a 8.50 x 6.00 nose tire as well. The fork is stc'd for 206 and 182 aircraft.

Landes Airglas has one stc for this mod. It is worth doing, and I'd put an 8.00 x 6.00 nose tire on, my ownself.

MTV

And Landes recently expanded the STC to cover 172's as well for their nosefork.

Well seems to be some different ideas out there. I have a nose fork off a 411. If I remember right the early 182 had an option of having a larger nose fork?

Anyway I am running a 600x6 on the nose now and can probably fit a 700x6 in there pretty easy. I have 700x6 on the mains. 20 to 24 psi. A rule of thumb I have used is air them up until the outside tread starts to come off the surface.

I have flow 182's with the 8.50s on the mains. Works really well off the pavement. I had 8.50s on my 180 and loved em. the 7.00s seem to be a decent trade off for good off pavement performance and still doesn't lose much speed from the 6.00s. However I figures if back country is the chosen venue, then speed is not that important.

we have a 182 on the field with 8.50-10 mains and an 8.50-6 nose wheel. it looks like it would work well in the gravel.
there are also several local 206's with 29" mains and an 8.50 nose wheel.
i even saw a cherokee the other day with 8.50's on it.... that looks trick

1954C180 wrote: .... on my 8.50 equipped '54 180......

Bela, I guess you lost the wheel panties off that beast? About time! Peer pressure musta finally got to ya....

Eric

Have a 59 182 with a T-41 nose fork with 600x6. 700x6 on the mains. I feel this is good compromise. The Y-41 fork looks the same as the early 310 fork but without the eyes for the fender.

I went with the 700's cus I still have plenty of clearance for the calipers. To go 800 on the main I would have to change the wheels. Stand the 700's next to 800's and they are about the same diameter but a bit narrower.

At the fly in we can get the rulers out and compare tire sizes.

Tim

zero.one.victor wrote:

1954C180 wrote: .... on my 8.50 equipped '54 180......

Bela, I guess you lost the wheel panties off that beast? About time! Peer pressure musta finally got to ya....

Eric

Yeah, there are 8.50s on there right now but I still have the panties
and 6.00s... I'll probably put the panties back on for the trip to Oshkosh
this year (figure I'll save $100 dollars worth of gas by putting them back
on!).

I've got a Landes nose fork sitting in my hangar. I had a Cessna Skylane with 850's all around and was going to do the same to my present plane, but alas, another thing I'll never get around to doing. A reasonable offer, or maybe a trade? By the way, with 850's it could land on a gravel bar or range land, quite well.

yellowbird wrote:just graduated to a c182 with 8.50's...any help as to a reasonable air pressure for pavement and grass surfaces?

Congratulations, John on the new bird!!!!

I run ~ 18 #'s in the 8.50's on my C172.
It's a bear to push around, though, so I mostly fly it.

The nose gear is a 206 look-alike STC'd add-on, and it sure keeps the prop out of the gravel.

Try 24 #'s & save your back. Let me know how you like it, maybe I'll switch to higher pressure, too - it'd help my t/o roll.

Enjoy, Berk

Berk wrote:[I run ~ 18 #'s in the 8.50's on my C172.

Berk -

What else have you done to the 172 for the back country? I pick mine up next week and I could use some direction.

Don

You guy's running low pressure on their tires might want to make a slippage mark on the tire to the wheel to see if it's slipping on the wheel because that will pull the valve stem out when it slips enough. I know this is old hat, but somebody may not know that. White liquid paper is good for this and will wash off and not leave a permanent mark.

KR5T wrote:...What else have you done to the 172 for the back country? I pick mine up next week and I could use some direction.

Don

Hi, Don;
Congratulations on your new bird!
My C172 spent 16 yrs in Alaska, so the 8.50 wheels were already on her.
I haven't done anything else, but my wish list for back country ops would include:
180 hp engine.
Long range tanks (to feed the 180 hp).
Stol kit
Wing covers (for those cool early morning take offs, to eliminate the waiting for frost to melt off).

What are your thoughts? Berk

Berk wrote: ... my wish list for back country ops would include:
180 hp engine.
Long range tanks (to feed the 180 hp).
Stol kit
Wing covers (for those cool early morning take offs, to eliminate the waiting for frost to melt off).

What are your thoughts? Berk

Mine's a 74, so it already has the good leading edge and the 180 hp and the Landis Fork / big tires are already on my list.

Other things include:

VG's
An anti-abrasion boot / cover for the leading edge of the horizontal stab
JPI 700FF Engine Monitor w/ fuel flow
Three position strobes
LED Nav lights and beacon

Don

Don, your wish list sounds good.
Will VG's help a 172 significantly? (Mine's a '59 straight tail).
It sure is a cheap way to achieve some results, if they work well.
What is the best place to get 'em from?
Thanks, Berk

Berk wrote:Will VG's help a 172 significantly? (Mine's a '59 straight tail).
It sure is a cheap way to achieve some results, if they work well.
What is the best place to get 'em from?
Thanks, Berk

There are a lot of happy 172 owners with Micro Aero (www.microaero.com) VG's on the 172 board on the Cessna Pilots Association forum and they sure sold like hot cakes at the Alaska Aviation Trade Show the last two years.

Don

Berk,

I have a 1952 Cessna 170, which has the same wing (and fuselage, and flap, etc) as the early 172.

I installed Micro VG's on my airplane a couple of years ago. I would not do so again. They certainly did not DEGRADE performance at all, but they also did not significantly IMPROVE performance measureably either.

The primary effect I saw from the installation was some mellowing of the stall characteristics, and a TINY bit of improved aileron effectiveness. That was it.

I had owned this airplane for a number of years and several hundred hours of flight time before the installation, and have flown it several hundred hours since the installation.

I used a GPS and accurate methods to measure stall speed change, and there was virtually none, certainly less than was measurable without a calibrated test boom. There MAY have been one knot stall speed change, maybe.

The slight change in stall characteristics is fine, but it is certainly NOT worth the hassles associated with cleaning around the VG's, the hassles with wing covers in winter, and the VG's getting in the way when fueling.

Again, I would never install a set again ON ONE OF THESE AIRPLANES.

Please note that I think very highly of the kits on Cubs, Scouts, and some other airplanes, so my comments here are limited to the Cessna 170/172 early airplanes, no others.

If I had a Scout, I'd stick em on there in a heartbeat, for example.

As "STOL Kits" go, these are relatively cheap, so they sell well, particularly with the advertising claims that are made for them. Nevertheless, when one spends this much money on a mod for their airplane, they'll generally swear that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Had to be, you spent money on it, right?

Also, I seriously doubt that most folks who install these things actually do a before and after test.

The stalling characteristics are mellower (of course, thats' assuming anyone even stalls the airplane after installation, and that's questionable as well) so it must be stalling much slower.

Not necessarily.

Again, If I were to do it again, I'd buy gas.

MTV

MTV,
I'm in the middle of VG installation on my Maule. I did get some numbers before. Not with a test boom or a calibrated A/S indicator,but they were taken at a couple of density altitudes. I'm mostly interested in seeing if there is a decrease in speed and if so how much.
My experience with aerodynamic"enhancements" like VG's and flow fences is that they can work miracles if there is a problem that needs addressing, but may not do much if there is no problem to begin with.