I got my Landes Nose Fork STC installed this week. I flew it home yesterday evening and gave it a good workout. Totally pleased with the mod to say the least.

I used 800-6 Michelins all the way around. I figured 800s would be the best compromise for semi-rough strips and not lose too much cruise speed. To my surprise, I had zero measurable difference in cruise speed. Trued out 135 kts at 23"/2300. Exactly what it did with the pants and little tires. I'll testify that its true..."Those old style pants were just for looks, not for speed."

Landing was surely a pleasure, too. My runways are far from perfect, but the fat tire up front made a huge difference. I'm accustomed to landing a little nose high anyways, so I didn't have to make that adjustment.

One of the biggest benefits of the whole thing is the added prop clearance. Mine went from 9" to 15 1/2". That is huge to me for not so smooth ground operations.

To any nose draggers considering this modification, I would highly recommend it....if you really need it. Its probably not the cheapest thing you can do to a plane.


The Jolly Rancher in her old configuration







The old 500-5 next to the 800-6



The new 800-6 up next to the old 600-6 mains

Sure looks cool.

Very nice!

RWM wrote:.....I figured 800s would be the best compromise for semi-rough strips and not lose too much cruise speed. To my surprise, I had zero measurable difference in cruise speed. Trued out 135 kts at 23"/2300. ......

Those bigger tires added a little weight & a fair amout of drag. I'll concede the same airspeed at the same power setting, but I wonder if you're burning more fuel to achieve that power setting. Remember, there is no free lunch.

Those bigger tires added a little weight & a fair amout of drag. I'll concede the same airspeed at the same power setting, but I wonder if you're burning more fuel to achieve that power setting. Remember, there is no free lunch.

Saying "power setting" is essentially the same as saying "fuel consumption setting." With a constant speed prop, setting the Manifold Pressure(gas pedal) and RPMs determines how hard the engine works, and consequently, the fuel flow. The resulting air speed from that setting will be variable with different amounts of drag. The prop pitch adjusts to maintain the same resistance against the horsepower. If my 182 had retractable gear, I'd have a lot less drag, but wouldn't burn less fuel....I'd just go a lot faster. In a climb, it goes slower...in descent, it goes faster...all the while, maintaining the same MP/RPM and same GPH.

Not like in a pickup going down the highway...hook up a trailer and you have to push the gas pedal in more to maintain the same RPMs or speed. A fixed pitch prop would be more like this, where added force against the plane (drag, climb, etc.) would require advancing the throttle to maintain RPMs.

So the revealing answer here is, contrary to your assumption, the tires didn't add any significant amount of drag. If they would have, it would have slowed the TAS at given power settings. Apparently the old pants were pretty draggy themselves.

A lot of room left in that nose wheel for a bigger tire. Looks like a nice ranch plane.

Nice looking bird!

Very nice. That tire should help cushion that 'glass chin' firewall that our 182s have. A very masculine look now, and I do also really like the look of the fastback. Plus better prop clearance? Win-win, all the way around....well, except the wallet.

lc

I recently installed a HD nose fork on my 66 skylane and removed the stock pants/tires. Before making the change I flew next to Dad's 180 and we noted weights, power settings, and IAS. After the change we duplicated the pre-change test and noted power settings and IAS. The conlcusion was that adding the HD fork with 7.00 nose and 8.00 main tires cost me 8-10mph from stock tires and pants. We had previsousely conducted the same test to compare stock tires versus tires with pants and found the pants gained me 4mph from no pants. I have a hard time believing your installation of the landes along with the big mains didn't slow you down. Even with the old school pants. Can you share your pre/post change data collection.

Regardless of the speed, your plane looks great with the new shoes and looks to be a great back country set up. I really like the classic straight tail Skylanes.

A lot of room left in that nose wheel for a bigger tire.

Yep, an 850-6 will fit, but difference in $$ and drag held me up at the 800s. And after using them a little, I believe they will be plenty big for where I land.

66skylane wrote:I have a hard time believing your installation of the landes along with the big mains didn't slow you down. Even with the old school pants. Can you share your pre/post change data collection.

I'm far from being a lab rat or statistician, so I didn't compile a mountain of pre/post modification data. What I do have is 250 hrs in that very plane in its pre mod configuration. I know it trues out at exactly 135kts at that setting (calculated on the E6B in my 496...many times over out of boredom on long cross countries). I did, however, double check to confirm what I already knew when on the way to the mechanic's shop because I knew this subject would come up with myself and anyone that I discussed it with. That is my pre mod data.

Leaving the shop after installation, I climbed to 4500' (elevation at airport is 1900') set up the plane for normal cruise just as I would any day. I set the power at 23" and 2300rpm and flew straight and level cruise for 20 or 30 minutes. Again using the E6B, I calculated the TAS, and 135kts. That is my post mod data.

Sure, there may be a knot error somewhere here or there....I'm looking at an airspeed indicator that is how accurate/consistent?? But I know there wasn't a 5 or 10 knot drop for sure. The frontal area of the new set up really isn't any larger than the old tires and pants. In the STC paperwork, Landes says to expect 8mph decrease going from stock to 850s all the way around. 850s are quite a bit larger (width and diameter) than 800s.

I'm an honest person and have no reason to make up stories to make myself feel good or otherwise. I really expected a little drop, but was pleasantly surprised at the results. There is actually an old post here where someone did the same mod and had similar results. I remember this quote from his post "Amazing, really."

And Amazing it is..

Nic e post RWM. A few more photos may be in order

I have some interest in early 182's and enjoy these mods. Seems like others have posted that the Landes fork runs about $2200-$2400??? Does that sound right? Certainly not chump change but manageable I suppose.

My buddy owned a stock 1960 C model 182 with wheel pants and he showed me on a few occasions (in the winter months) that his plane could true out at 140kts.
I don't think 135kts would be impossible with bigger tires but??

Love the prop clearance too.

dprathe and WSH are a couple of guys that, at one point, had the same modification and yielded the same results. The "Amazing, really" came from WSH. Just for what its worth.

Nice job Jolly!

I put the Landis nose fork on my old '58 C182 and really liked the set-up. I think I did that in about year 2000 and the cost of the fork was only $1,300 at the time. What ever you do, keep landing on those mains first to protect that glass chin. It is the right way to land a 182 in any event.

What kind of speed can you get at 10gph? Very nice looking 182. I was running the numbers with my wife last night on our old Mooney vs a straight tail 182. She prefers a high wing, I prefer the Mooney. We've had both and I don't care really except for taking care of the prop and the bigger fuel burn of a complex/high performance. We did 144kts at 25/2500 and 9.5gph in the M20C with a 940# useful. Apples and Oranges, not trying to hijack or start something I can't finish but I just can't justify 12.5gph on a retired income. What I can justify is time. I've got lots of it. So a 172 does 112k-115k on something less than 10gph. Can you run a 182 there?

I ran the Landes nose fork on my '56 182 w/8.50's on the mains and an 8.00 on the nose all over the Idaho backcountry w/excellent results. I did lose around 5-7 mph from stock, but the trade off was well worth it. Overall, I think you'll be very happy w/this mod. I'm now in the middle of a TW conversion and will be interested in seeing how much speed I add back w/the nose gear completely gone. Will report the findings.

I'm not really qualified to have a very strong opinion on aerodynamics, but here is my point of view on the "not much difference in frontal area" statement that I made.....it makes sense in my feeble mind.

The new, larger tires alone aren't much (nose), if any (mains), larger than the old tire and wheel pants combined size. Both seem about equally as aerodynamic, and therefore essentially the same drag results. Just like trying to make one faster...it seems to take more change than you might think to get much result.



Not a lot of difference.


Or maybe its fast because I have so much extra horsepower available.

Emory Bored wrote:What kind of speed can you get at 10gph? Very nice looking 182. I was running the numbers with my wife last night on our old Mooney vs a straight tail 182. She prefers a high wing, I prefer the Mooney. We've had both and I don't care really except for taking care of the prop and the bigger fuel burn of a complex/high performance. We did 144kts at 25/2500 and 9.5gph in the M20C with a 940# useful. Apples and Oranges, not trying to hijack or start something I can't finish but I just can't justify 12.5gph on a retired income. What I can justify is time. I've got lots of it. So a 172 does 112k-115k on something less than 10gph. Can you run a 182 there?

You are right on at the 12.5 gph at the higher-power cruise setting. That's spot on with what I burn. However, you can slow it down and burn less. I've slowed it down and flown with a friend of mine in his 172 (105-110kts), but never did a fuel calculation. I would think you could still get around the 120kt mark on 10 gallons??? I bet there is someone here that would have a more definitive answer than me.

In my opinion, the 182 is a great choice because of the load capacity and horsepower advantages....they're there if you need them, but don't always have to use it if you want to save gas $$$. In the 172...they're just not there.

Insurance savings (retract to fixed) can buy you lots of avgas per year. My premium is about $750/yr.

RWM wrote:You are right on at the 12.5 gph at the higher-power cruise setting. That's spot on with what I burn. However, you can slow it down and burn less. I've slowed it down and flown with a friend of mine in his 172 (105-110kts), but never did a fuel calculation. I would think you could still get around the 120kt mark on 10 gallons??? I bet there is someone here that would have a more definitive answer than me.

In my opinion, the 182 is a great choice because of the load capacity and horsepower advantages....they're there if you need them, but don't always have to use it if you want to save gas $$$. In the 172...they're just not there.

Insurance savings (retract to fixed) can buy you lots of avgas per year. My premium is about $750/yr.

I've always considered the 182 to be about the best utility type airplane out there. And it can live outdoors for awhile. $60mo vs $500mo around here. Your's is very appealing all the way around. Correct of course on the wheels up premium. I don't know how folks can belly land a Mooney. They are very hard to slow down, but folks GU all the time.

Nice set up, good looking plane...

So is the horse picture at the Alvie Cole ranch?