I'll add to the the 8.50 nose crowd. I put the desser smooth tires all the way around and love them. Filmed just about all my
Landings from the tail tie down and no problems keeping the nose wheel off the ground. The light weight and softness of those tires was the biggest noticeable improvement. Only downside I've found so far is it's a little harder to steer in pavement. I will add though that I had planned on this improvement from the get go and have always done nose high landing to protect the firewall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hotrod180 wrote:

EastTexasPilot wrote:...BTW it's taking forever for my grass to grow but I finally figured out why so it's not an issue.....

Forgot to throw the grass seed down?

You're joking but the consensus is that the damn company sold my neighbor fertilizer instead of grass seeds !! She's going to use my runway so she's in charge of the grass part of the project. I mean we spread some rye grass before winter and in 5 days we saw green stuff growing. It's been 2 weeks and the little blue pellets she said were seeds covered in some protector and fertilizer, hasn't done anything. I think it's a really good seed protector to the point it doesn't let it out into the world !!

Troy and A1, maybe it makes a difference for the lighter taildraggers than for the 172 tri-gear?

88 - I did see some pilots saying 850s were great but they hadn't used 800s so it was harder to give those reviews higher ranking. Thanks for your insight ! I was only considering 800 or 850 for the mains.

Let me clarify, I found a few pilots who said 850s were an improvement over the 800 ( from pilots who had used both 850 & 800 on the mains on on the same airframe ) but in the end the majority agreed the additional expense wasn't a good "cost vs reward" thing. *** Like all polls, this one was slanted toward my type of flying, so the results could be totally off for flying in Alaska for example.

I mostly use the 8.50s on the C182 and C180, so not light tail draggers. We have a 182 with 8.50s all around and I'm not a fan. I'd prefer an 800 on the nose. But I definitely like 8.50s on the mains. For a 172, I'd be putting smooth 8.50s on the mains. I think that's a great tire and good match for the 172.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

A1Skinner wrote:I mostly use the 8.50s on the C182 and C180, so not light tail draggers. We have a 182 with 8.50s all around and I'm not a fan. I'd prefer an 800 on the nose. But I definitely like 8.50s on the mains. For a 172, I'd be putting smooth 8.50s on the mains. I think that's a great tire and good match for the 172.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

Yep, the 182 is heavier and more powerful. It's like everything I guess, I could buy one of those Alaskan Tundra tires, but for where I'm landing if I thought I really needed something bigger I'd probably buy a 182 or a 206 or a Cub and start adding stuff there. Mine is a simple 172H with 180hp to have fun, I'm done flying for a living. I'll be landing on my dirt (soon enough grass) runway and hopefully start camping on the side of riverbeds in our state. Nothing compared to Alaska bush flying so I'm sure the 800s will do more than I need. I really wanted to make the nose tire a 600 and that's how I got into the 800s on the mains.

Thanks for the comments, that's what this is all for.

Old thread...has anyone been able to get an FA for the 206 nosewheel fork on the early model 172's? Found that the early models never had HD forks on their parts list and am getting conflicting information on whether I can get this approved on my early 172A.

WWhunter wrote:Old thread...has anyone been able to get an FA for the 206 nosewheel fork on the early model 172's? Found that the early models never had HD forks on their parts list and am getting conflicting information on whether I can get this approved on my early 172A.

Some FSDO's will laugh out loud at you for even asking. If you do not mind flying your plane to McCall Aviation to get it done it is pretty easy. They have done several lately on strait tail 182's. Give them a call https://www.mccallaviation.com/

qmdv wrote:

WWhunter wrote:Old thread...has anyone been able to get an FA for the 206 nosewheel fork on the early model 172's? Found that the early models never had HD forks on their parts list and am getting conflicting information on whether I can get this approved on my early 172A.

Some FSDO's will laugh out loud at you for even asking. If you do not mind flying your plane to McCall Aviation to get it done it is pretty easy. They have done several lately on strait tail 182's. Give them a call https://www.mccallaviation.com/

Thank you sir! I'll have to wait until next week now.
Mine has the earlier style piston ( chromed strut?) and from what I understand, it is lighter made than later models. Mechanics are saying FA's are difficult to get.

WWhunter wrote:

qmdv wrote:

WWhunter wrote:Old thread...has anyone been able to get an FA for the 206 nosewheel fork on the early model 172's? Found that the early models never had HD forks on their parts list and am getting conflicting information on whether I can get this approved on my early 172A.

Some FSDO's will laugh out loud at you for even asking. If you do not mind flying your plane to McCall Aviation to get it done it is pretty easy. They have done several lately on strait tail 182's. Give them a call https://www.mccallaviation.com/

Thank you sir! I'll have to wait until next week now.
Mine has the earlier style piston ( chromed strut?) and from what I understand, it is lighter made than later models. Mechanics are saying FA's are difficult to get.

Your original fork for the 500x5 is exactly the same as the one on an early 182. Your tube diameter is the same size as my 182 and the other 182's I have gotten FA's for. Your mechanic is correct. Just call McCall Aviation. They have a great relationship with the FSDO in Boise.
There are several on this sight that have gotten FA's for what you want.

qmdv wrote:

WWhunter wrote:

qmdv wrote:

WWhunter wrote:Old thread...has anyone been able to get an FA for the 206 nosewheel fork on the early model 172's? Found that the early models never had HD forks on their parts list and am getting conflicting information on whether I can get this approved on my early 172A.

Some FSDO's will laugh out loud at you for even asking. If you do not mind flying your plane to McCall Aviation to get it done it is pretty easy. They have done several lately on strait tail 182's. Give them a call https://www.mccallaviation.com/

Thank you sir! I'll have to wait until next week now.
Mine has the earlier style piston ( chromed strut?) and from what I understand, it is lighter made than later models. Mechanics are saying FA's are difficult to get.

Your original fork for the 500x5 is exactly the same as the one on an early 182. Your tube diameter is the same size as my 182 and the other 182's I have gotten FA's for. Your mechanic is correct. Just call McCall Aviation. They have a great relationship with the FSDO in Boise.
There are several on this sight that have gotten FA's for what you want.

Called McCall Aviation and the guy gave me the number to the place that does the work. He basically talked me out of using the 206 fork. The mechanic explained the final cost would be almost the same as it would be if I bought the Airglas fork.

Getting back to the revised Airglas STC . . . . .

On some Cessnas, the original nose fork has to be cut off before installing the Airglas fork, thus shortening the tube by 2-3", and effectively leveling-out most of the nose high angle with an 8.50-6 installed on the nose. While on other Cessnas, the original fork is simply removed and the tube remains at its original full-length. When the Airglas fork is then installed onto the bottom of that full-length tube with an 8.5-6 tire on the nose, those aircraft sit so nose high that they resemble taildraggers! (unless you also install 26's or 29's on the mains)

There are some C172's around here with Airglas forks & 8.50's all around, that have their tails sitting only a few inches off of the ground. I can't imagine attempting to flare within that extremely tight window between hitting either the nose or tail first! Some of these aircraft feature bent tail tie-down rings and scraped rudders, which indicates that I'm not alone.

I wonder if these two different outcomes, caused by either cutting or not cutting the nose tube, are why some folks are happy to just learn how to land "a little nose high", while others feel a definite need to reduce the size of their nose tire and/or add larger main tires, in order to avoid wheel-barrowing the nose or hitting the tailcone?

Yet, when I asked the very nice folks at Airglas (and a local A&P) about shortening my full-length tube, they both got kinda squeemish about saying that would be OK. Why? (when it is required on some installations) I would much rather cut off a couple of inches from my tube (just like the folks that must do this to remove their factory forks), than be forced to either reduce the size of my nose tire, or increase the size of my main tires, or both.

Thanx, Dave.

BluNosDav wrote:Getting back to the revised Airglas STC . . . . .

On some Cessnas, the original nose fork has to be cut off before installing the Airglas fork, thus shortening the tube by 2-3", and effectively leveling-out most of the nose high angle with an 8.50-6 installed on the nose. While on other Cessnas, the original fork is simply removed and the tube remains at its original full-length. When the Airglas fork is then installed onto the bottom of that full-length tube with an 8.5-6 tire on the nose, those aircraft sit so nose high that they resemble taildraggers! (unless you also install 26's or 29's on the mains)

There are some C172's around here with Airglas forks & 8.50's all around, that have their tails sitting only a few inches off of the ground. I can't imagine attempting to flare within that extremely tight window between hitting either the nose or tail first! Some of these aircraft feature bent tail tie-down rings and scraped rudders, which indicates that I'm not alone.

I wonder if these two different outcomes, caused by either cutting or not cutting the nose tube, are why some folks are happy to just learn how to land "a little nose high", while others feel a definite need to reduce the size of their nose tire and/or add larger main tires, in order to avoid wheel-barrowing the nose or hitting the tailcone?

Yet, when I asked the very nice folks at Airglas (and a local A&P) about shortening my full-length tube, they both got kinda squeemish about saying that would be OK. Why? (when it is required on some installations) I would much rather cut off a couple of inches from my tube (just like the folks that must do this to remove their factory forks), than be forced to either reduce the size of my nose tire, or increase the size of my main tires, or both.

Thanx, Dave.

What did you end up with?

D.