blackrock wrote:The time may be approaching to put put Big tires on the Bearhawk. Should I go all out with 35's?



My thoughts are that I would just swap out to 8:50's that are on it now for longer trips.

Pro's, Cons, Thoughts, Smart Ass Comments?

Go BIG

blackrock wrote:
The most challenging obstacle for the last couple of years has been the finance committee. Rose is pretty much on board now at least with 31's thanks to seeing many of you with BW's. She also told me "at least you didn't do what Matt did" - just saying...

By the way, 35's wouldn't fit in our shower.

I agree with everyone's advice, bigger is better.

Thanks Matt... I was getting an error when posting that pic using the image tags - it told me it couldn't determine the size of the photo?

GO BIG!!!

avrtist wrote:
Go BIG

How cool is that and I haven't even spent money yet!

mountainmatt wrote:By the way, 35's wouldn't fit in our shower. I agree with everyone's advice, bigger is better.

What do they say "Go BIG or go home"
A pair of 35s will fit in the back of a Maule, probably a Bear Hawk too. I'm sure you would be happy with 31s or 29X11X10 Air Hawks


Look only 279NM, 2.5 HR each way.


G'Day...Rob

blackrock wrote:

avrtist wrote:
Go BIG

How cool is that and I haven't even spent money yet!

Wup owes me BIG time if you purchase!

Glad to hear Mike! I happen to know where a new set of 31's is if you want a test spin. Won't be able (or dont want) to modify the gear legs till the hangar is finished.
Those ridges must be calling your name.

avrtist wrote:

blackrock wrote:

avrtist wrote:
Go BIG

Wup owes me BIG time if you purchase!

Hell yeah, that should be worth a down payment on a set at least! It sure made me feel better.

Maverick wrote:Glad to hear Mike! I happen to know where a new set of 31's is if you want a test spin. Won't be able (or dont want) to modify the gear legs till the hangar is finished.
Those ridges must be calling your name.

That maybe and option too once most of the snow leaves. It looks like more snow is on the way tonight and tomorrow. As a coincidence, I hiked the ridges you have your eye on today while chukar hunting. They look doable and there aren't many rocks and the ones that are there are easy to see. Some sage stubs remain from the fire; those could be an issue, but there isn't many of them. It is fairly smooth up there. Heck, it is land-able today, just stay out of the snow which is knee deep in places.

So after flying Cowdogs and Maverick's Bearhawk with 31's, I noticed braking is reduced (no surprise there). They have Matco brakes and those are quite a bit different from Cleveland's.

So I was wondering how much braking loss you notice with double puck Cleveland's (199-62) going from say 8:50's up to and including 35"s?

Also, anyone have any idea what the braking loss is between Cleveland's and Matcos (tripple puck)? The Matcos disc is inside the wheel hub and so is smaller diameter than the Cleveland's so that reduced moment arm has an effect, I'm just wondering if any one has experience comparing them? I wasn't able to keep the 31's from turning under less than full power so wasn't able to raise the tail until well into the TO roll.

So I finally pulled the trigger on 35's for the Bearhawk yesterday. Thanks for all the input on tire size everyone. They are like landing on big soft pillows, pretty cool. And of course, they look good, too!





Two of us flew to Joesph Oregon to visit ABW and have the tires installed. Many thanks to Wup and Bill for their hospitality and for showing us around. It is really impressive to see how these are made, all by hand! I'll post that trip in the "Where did you Fly Today" Thread. Thanks for all the input on tire size everyone.

AWESOME!!!

Now that Bearhawk looks like a real backcountry bush plane. Looks good!

sweet

Ha... Awesome Mike...!! She's a hum dinger..

That looks good Blackrock!

Very cool! I see you have attracted the attention of the locals.

What was the cruise speed loss? Any climb loss?

This is just too much for me.

mountainmatt wrote:Very cool! I see you have attracted the attention of the locals.

What was the cruise speed loss? Any climb loss?

It was hard to get accurate data on the way back due to turbulence and being heavier than normal.

At a normal cruise-speed power setting of 19 squared (9gph), it dropped to 115mph. To maintain 125mph, it took 1gph more fuel at 6,000 feet. The roll rate is reduced, especially above 125 mph. Below that is is less pronounced. No info on climb rate yet, but I'll be surprised if there isn't some loss there also. It seems to get off from the 3-point much shorter than on the mains, and shorter than with 8:50's. I'm guessing that is due to increased AOA.. I was light in the tail today so couldn't land as short as I'd like. Yesterday with a load, short landings were easy.

Tire pressure makes a big difference in how they handle; even in 0.5 PSI increments. The sun warming then up increased pressure by 1psi today. That was the difference between air cooling them in the air, and the tires resting on the ground for 20 minutes in the sun.