Does anyone know whether this Airglas STC SA02069AK is applicable for Rheims Cessna (as distinct from Cessna made in Wichita)??

Specifically we want to put bigger tires on a FR172K (the XP Hawk II). I see the 172K is listed on the STC, but I don't know whether that applies to Rheims as well?

Edit - FR172K

The EASA cites the American Cessna type certificate in their European TCDS as the holder of record, so I imagine I would err on the side of the STC being applicable. Easier to beg forgiveness and all...

Reims never built a R172K. If they did it would have been a FR172K. The 172K on the approved model list is on the 172 type certificate. It had a O-320 engine. Totally different type certificate and airplane then the R172K witch Cessna built on the Cessna 175 type certificate. So no that STC AML does not apply.

172K FAA type certificate no 3A12
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... Rev_84.pdf


R172K FAA type certificate no 3A17
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... Rev_47.pdf

Yes they did build one, it's sharing the hanger I use. I guess I unintentionally abbreviated the F - so it must be an FR172K, the XP Hawk II which I am asking about.

It's not my aircraft by the way, I am asking on behalf of a friend.

Hey your right!! Looked more into it. The FR172K is still not listed on the AML and is still on a different TC then the ones listed.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... /a18eu.pdf

That's exactly the problem I've run into many times, as my P172D is on the same type certificate as the 175 and XP, not the run of the mill 172. So although many of the after market parts and accessories are totally interchangeable and the same model number for all of the airplanes, my airplane is frequently not on their AML list, although the 175 and XP may be. It's not been a monumental hassle, as my IA has been able to get field approval each time, but it's still annoying and causes extra paperwork.

So that's the solution. Get your IA to obtain field approval, and if he has a pretty good relationship with his FAA guy, that's not likely to be a problem. But get the OK before spending the $1500 or so that the fork costs!

Cary

I realize this is an older post but for those searching for similar information on the STC for R172K Hawk XP's here's what I just posted on the HD Fork Article: https://backcountrypilot.org/knowledge- ... wheel-fork

I wanted to add to the information if you have an R172K Hawk XP as I do. I was able to obtain a field approval for the install of this STC on my aircraft w/o any issue since my model was not on the AML. The folks at Airglas were super helpful and provided all the documentation needed for my 337 Field approval. The install went without an issue except for my original tire combination of 8.50's on the main and 8.00 on the nose. With this tire configuration, the tail cone was only about 12" from the ground with the strut fully extended..which was a little too close for my comfort. I opted to install a 6.00 on the nose (actually one of my newer main tires) and the set-up has been working great in the backcountry (mostly Utah desert strips).

When I reviewed the issue a little closer I realized that my main gear sits lower to the ground than older "spring" gear thus causing the difference. One of the options that Airglas recommends is to install the AB 10" main wheels STC and 29"s on the mains (think Peterson KING KATMAI except on a 172) then the 8.00 would be fine on the front fork. I kept the 8.00 just in case I decide to go that route someday.

Kyle

Thanks for the PIREP! I am in the process of figuring out how to put some bigger shoes on my R172K right now! My mechanic is telling me I have three options.
1) Install the Airglas nose fork with 8.00x6 nose tire and 8.50x6 main tires. If we did this it would be the easiest path. There is a braking test required to ensure the standard brakes will hold the aircraft with the larger tires. I believe this would be an easy Field Approval to get.
3) We could go all out and write a filed approval to install the new brakes with Goodyear 26” tires (Less Expensive). Then install the Airglas nose fork through the STC. I didn’t quote this but I believe the cost would be between the two estimate I attached.

I am not positive that he is correct about the brakes. I spoke with people at both airglass and Airframes Alaska and neither confirmed that for me. THOUGHTS?

What do you think about the 26" ABW with 850 on the nose? That would certainly raise the tailcone a bit.
I THINK my preference would be 800 Nose, 26" GoodYears (which i believe to be 23") on the mains...Not sure if anyone is running that or not. If so, let me know! I'd like to get something ordered soon (and be ready when the FAA reopens).

New guy here. This is my first post. I have an R172K and I'm going through the field approval process for the Airglas front fork right now. I got a letter from Airglas that states that they accidentally left off the 172XP (R172K) when they did the STC and that it should have been included. It also states they have no technical objection to the mod. Th Gov't shutdown has slowed my progress but I don't expect to have to much problem getting the approval.

My Question here is: Anyone running the Airhahawk 29x11x10 on their mains with an 8.50 up front? This is the config I want to go with from Airframes Alaska. They sell the complete kit. I'll let you guys know when I get my FA and how hard it was to obtain.

SuperFly wrote:Thanks for the PIREP! I am in the process of figuring out how to put some bigger shoes on my R172K right now! My mechanic is telling me I have three options.
1) Install the Airglas nose fork with 8.00x6 nose tire and 8.50x6 main tires. If we did this it would be the easiest path. There is a braking test required to ensure the standard brakes will hold the aircraft with the larger tires. I believe this would be an easy Field Approval to get.
3) We could go all out and write a filed approval to install the new brakes with Goodyear 26” tires (Less Expensive). Then install the Airglas nose fork through the STC. I didn’t quote this but I believe the cost would be between the two estimate I attached.

I am not positive that he is correct about the brakes. I spoke with people at both airglass and Airframes Alaska and neither confirmed that for me. THOUGHTS?

What do you think about the 26" ABW with 850 on the nose? That would certainly raise the tailcone a bit.
I THINK my preference would be 800 Nose, 26" GoodYears (which i believe to be 23") on the mains...Not sure if anyone is running that or not. If so, let me know! I'd like to get something ordered soon (and be ready when the FAA reopens).

Sometime before I bought my P172D, a previous owner had installed Cleveland brakes. Without knowing much about them, I'm told that they are much better than the OEM Cessna brakes. Maybe that's the route to consider.

Cary

The 26 inch Goodyear blimp tires are only about an inch (give or take) larger in diameter than the Goodyear 8.50 x 6.00 tires. The good news is that the blimp tires have no tread, therefore throw less junk at your tail feathers....a good thing on unimproved strips.

I'd consider putting a tail skid under the tail on any of these aircraft if operating short. We used a Cessna 140 tail spring main leaf or one from a Cub, attached to the bulkhead forward of the tail cone.

Will save some damage, and possible issues if you get a bit too aggressive with the pitch on landing....or takeoff. That can shove the tail cone up into the rudder....not a good thing.

Another option, if you're considering going to the 10 inch wheels, or the 10 inch adaptors, would be to use 8.50 x 10 tires on the mains. Nice wide tires, and pretty close to 26 inch diameter. Lots lighter than the 29 x 10, and less draggy.....kinda in between.

MTV

MTV

mtv wrote:The 26 inch Goodyear blimp tires are only about an inch (give or take) larger in diameter than the Goodyear 8.50 x 6.00 tires. The good news is that the blimp tires have no tread, therefore throw less junk at your tail feathers....a good thing on unimproved strips.

I'd consider putting a tail skid under the tail on any of these aircraft if operating short. We used a Cessna 140 tail spring main leaf or one from a Cub, attached to the bulkhead forward of the tail cone.

Will save some damage, and possible issues if you get a bit too aggressive with the pitch on landing....or takeoff. That can shove the tail cone up into the rudder....not a good thing.

Another option, if you're considering going to the 10 inch wheels, or the 10 inch adaptors, would be to use 8.50 x 10 tires on the mains. Nice wide tires, and pretty close to 26 inch diameter. Lots lighter than the 29 x 10, and less draggy.....kinda in between.

MTV

MTV

I installed a tail skid on my P172D. It installed by just unscrewing the tail tie down and using it to bolt on the skid. $20 at Aircraft Spruce. That was several years ago--still no indications that it has touched the ground.

Cary

mtv wrote:The 26 inch Goodyear blimp tires are only about an inch (give or take) larger in diameter than the Goodyear 8.50 x 6.00 tires.
…….Another option, if you're considering going to the 10 inch wheels, or the 10 inch adaptors, would be to use 8.50 x 10 tires on the mains. Nice wide tires, and pretty close to 26 inch diameter.....

Here's a pic of one of my new (unmounted) 26" GY's next to my worn-down Desser recapped GY 850:



And another of the 26" GY vs an Airtrac 850 (both unmounted):



More than "about an inch" in both cases.
I can't find my notes now, but as I recall the unmounted Airtrac 850 measured out at about 21" OD,
vs the unmounted 26" GY at about 24". Didn't measure the GY 850.
I had occasion to see a Caravan on the ramp recently which had 850x10 Airtracs,
I didn't have a tape measure on me but I did check where it came up to on my leg.
At my hangar later, I checked the 26" GY the same way & it didn't seem to be much if any smaller.
On the other hand, my buddy runs shaved 29 x 10 Airhawks and they are very noticeably larger than any of the above.

FWIW if anyone is interested in buying a set of wheels with GarAero adapters,
a friend of mine has a set for sale on the supercub.org site including new 850x10 airtracs.