You guys and your double posts!!

As for the 10-10's they use the same disks as the HD brakes (199-62) on the Spring gear if you are board rob swing over and we can test fit a wheel and make sure that there are no hidden issues.

ETA on change over would be .5 hrs

So, I have been looking over my long list of planned changes to the Skywagon and have decided that one of the initial changes should be to the tires. I currently have 8.00-6 6 ply which will "work" at any strip in Idaho, although can be jarring on some of the rougher ones. I am planning a trip to Utah this spring and possibly to Alaska this Fall (may be just dreaming on that one). I fly out of Boise Class C airport, so too much taxiing to get decent longevity out of Tundra tires. I am less concerned with the cost than with weight on my already plump skywagon (1835#) My initial thought is to go with the 8.50-6 6ply. My question on the stiffer buffed 29" Airhawks is if they aren't going to suck up rocks like a tundra tire, why go with the extra weight compared to 8.5-6s. I'm not concerned with the cool factor, but more the functional factor. If I want the footprint, the 8.5-10s come in much lighter (AirTrac) or just a littler lighter depending on the tire manufacturer for 8.5-10s, but don't have the cushioning of the 29s. Would be interested in any opinions from some who ran the Gar Aero adapters with 29s and 8.5-10s and any like John who have installed the 29s after having the 8.5-6s. Not talking myself out of anything, I just like to be sure of my reasoning before making a purchase.
Talked to Wup today and will hop over there sometime soon, but wanted to get thoughts straight in my head before I am overcome by the cool factor with the equipment in front of me.

The 29 inch by ten tires are stiffer than Hogan's goat, even after they've been buffed down, which primarily removes weight, but doesnt' really improve flexibility much.

I like the 8.50 X 10 tires on a Cessna, and have run them on Cubs as well. They work okay, and are a decent tire for pavement and off airport, to some degree. They flex a LITTLE better than the 29's I think, but that's subjective.

To me, the 29's are too big, too heavy, and don't really offer much advantage, EXCEPT if you are landing in SOFT stuff, like sand. Then, footprint is king.

Otherwise, I'd stick with the 8.50 X 10, the 26 inch Goodyears, or the 8.50 X 6.00 tires.

MTV

I agree with Mike, the 8.50X10 is a great compromise on the Cessna when there's lots of pavement involved, especially since AK Bushwheels came out with the 10 in. wheel that doesn't require the glued - on adapter. There doesn't seem to be a big speed penalty with them either. Never tried the shaved 29X10's.

gb

John, you're sure right about the prop clearance with 29's. We run the AK Bushwheel 29 radials on our 180 during the summer months. Didn't take off the Goodyears until late one spring, cost us a blade due to getting stuck and sucking up a rock. Never had much of a ding with the big rubber on...yet.

I agree with you about landing in the 4" bones, too. Can be done, but a super cub on 31's is much better suited for the task. Sure wish I could afford a Jet Ranger.

gb

Matt,
Just drink the Kool-Aid already will ya?
Cut it out with all of that "functional" crap.

10-4 jm!
I'll probably have to get through the winter before gun purchases occur again. It was fun to check out your toy box though!
Thanks again for the hospitality in Reno it was fun to see you and Dave for a few minutes.
Nice shots of the Challenger too.
G-

Ok kids....

Here are some FACTS for your thinking.... The 850-10 is a 6 ply tire and on the 10 inch wheel is very splayed out bead to bead kinda giving you a short slabed sidewall effect..

The 29x11-10 tire is a 4 ply (that is two less than a 6 ply for those that are counting) on the 10" wheel that gives you that "poochy" (new word ya like?) side wall and large foot print...

Now, if you are in the look see for tires that will give you Max shock obsorbshon then the Bushwheel is the way to go, the 10" wheel was built to give people a safe option that need prop clearance and floatation and aren't needing to be on VW sized rock. Haveing had both on my plane I would choose choose the 29's over the 850's but that is me, what ever suits you and what you want to do with your airplane is what you need to go with.

Wup,

I agree fully with you. I haven't see the 8.50 X 10 tires on your wheels, so can't judge that particular setup. On the Gar Aeros, they worked fine, and afforded a much bigger footprint than the 8.50 X 6.00, or the Goodyears.

And, for those worried about the glue on adapters, I've put a lot of time on a couple sets of them and never had a problem with them coming apart. I would suspect improper installation is the proximate cause of the complaints of these things coming apart. Properly installed, they work fine.

That said, I think you'd still be better off with a one piece wheel, like AK Bushwheels is selling now.

To me, the big difference between the 8.50 X 10 and the 29 X 11 X10 tires is weight, but that depends on the plane. A few extra pounds on a 185 may not be a big deal, but on a 170 it is.

Either will work, and if you do a lot of pavement landings, they may be a good choice.

MTV

Question for Wup -

Have you tried putting some sort of tread on the 31s, etc ?

I was landing on a wet grass field yesterday and as I slid along trying not to lock my brakes it occurred to me some sort of a tread, or lugs, on the tyre may be effective. Obviously stone throw would be a problem, tho a properly designed lug pattern may minimize the problem.

We had looked at that yeas ago but the depth of any water channel that would do any good would cause more head ache than it would be good for