Russ7:00 x 6'' tires
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
-
russ murri
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 3:44 am
7:00 x 6'' tires
What are the opinions about going to 7:00s I do a fair amount of back country and grass strips. ................ Eric.................... Iam the shorter one and we did have a talk with the guy that followed us in and wrote the article... you just don't talk about your good fishen hole. Russ
Russ-
funseventy
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:46 pm
My opinion is that diameter of the tire is what makes rough places smoother. I don't think you'd notice anything going to 700's. 800's are OK for the backcountry, but depending on where you go it might be wise to think of 850's. I run 850's on my 170 and the best part of it is the change in Angle of Attack. I bet I cut off 200 feet from my take-off run. That is a better improvement than a STOL Kit or VG's.
My 2 cents, which is probably worth half that.
Kelly
My 2 cents, which is probably worth half that.
Kelly
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
Russ:
I would vote for 800's,that's what I run. I thought about 850's but went for 800's instead becuz:
1) 800's are approved on TC,no field approval BS required
2) 800's are cheaper --$148 a pair vs $212 for Airtracs,per latest Spruce ad, I think tubes are cheaper too
3) 800's are lighter
4) 800's are less draggy
5) 170 is light enough for 800's to work well but if I had a 180 I'd use 850's
I did notice when I first switched to 800's that it was harder to get the tail down when landing,I tended to hit on the mains first resulting in porposing. Wheel landing was no problem. I still have to really work at 3 pointers unless there's some weight in the back of the airplane.Seems like 850's would just make that worse,but I've never flown a 170 with 850's so can't say.
Kelly,I've heard the bit about angle of attack before,but I don't get it. I generally hold neutral elevator after I get rolling,when the tail floats ups I know she's about ready to fly so I start easing back the yoke. I'm actually taking off from a tail-low attitude. So do most other 170's I've watched,most other taildraggers for that matter.I don't think the higher angle of attack on 3 points would do much for me.
How about elaborating on that comment?
Eric
I would vote for 800's,that's what I run. I thought about 850's but went for 800's instead becuz:
1) 800's are approved on TC,no field approval BS required
2) 800's are cheaper --$148 a pair vs $212 for Airtracs,per latest Spruce ad, I think tubes are cheaper too
3) 800's are lighter
4) 800's are less draggy
5) 170 is light enough for 800's to work well but if I had a 180 I'd use 850's
I did notice when I first switched to 800's that it was harder to get the tail down when landing,I tended to hit on the mains first resulting in porposing. Wheel landing was no problem. I still have to really work at 3 pointers unless there's some weight in the back of the airplane.Seems like 850's would just make that worse,but I've never flown a 170 with 850's so can't say.
Kelly,I've heard the bit about angle of attack before,but I don't get it. I generally hold neutral elevator after I get rolling,when the tail floats ups I know she's about ready to fly so I start easing back the yoke. I'm actually taking off from a tail-low attitude. So do most other 170's I've watched,most other taildraggers for that matter.I don't think the higher angle of attack on 3 points would do much for me.
How about elaborating on that comment?
Eric
I went with 850s on my B model but if I had to do it again,
I'd probably get 800s. Got a field approval for the 850s so
I could always mount 'em when I wanted to....
I bet there's a significant drag increase going from 600s or 700s
to 850s, but I don't think you'd notice much difference between
800s and 850s....
They are draggy though.... with the 850s and Cleveland
double-puck brakes hanging out in the breeze, I see 110mph
indicated at 2450rpm.
I 3-point my 170 unless the winds are howling. I have no trouble
flaring to the 3-point attitude and can easily plant the tailwheel
1st if I want to (not that I'd want to!).
Switching subjects, doesn't the early C-180 gear have the same
axle location as the 170s? I don't remember what year it changed,
but they moved the axle 2 inches forward for the 180s. I've flown
180s with both gear and I like the originals better (tail comes
up easier, and there's less weight pounding on the tailwheel
assy).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
I'd probably get 800s. Got a field approval for the 850s so
I could always mount 'em when I wanted to....
I bet there's a significant drag increase going from 600s or 700s
to 850s, but I don't think you'd notice much difference between
800s and 850s....
They are draggy though.... with the 850s and Cleveland
double-puck brakes hanging out in the breeze, I see 110mph
indicated at 2450rpm.
I 3-point my 170 unless the winds are howling. I have no trouble
flaring to the 3-point attitude and can easily plant the tailwheel
1st if I want to (not that I'd want to!).
Switching subjects, doesn't the early C-180 gear have the same
axle location as the 170s? I don't remember what year it changed,
but they moved the axle 2 inches forward for the 180s. I've flown
180s with both gear and I like the originals better (tail comes
up easier, and there's less weight pounding on the tailwheel
assy).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
russ murri
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 3:44 am
7:00 // 8:00
I compared a set of 7:00 and a set of 8:00 goodyear flight custom two tires each and the differance was about 1/2'' taller in the 8:00 and a lot wider . That is why I was thinking the 7:00 a little less drag. My buddy in his B on stock gear legs gets some vibration in flight with 8:00 . I have 1956 180 legs on mine the early 180 (1953-54) 180 legs were called aft gear legs, from what I hae been told. The install moved my axels 3 3/4'' forward and I love them . My wife was ready to quit flying with me because our plane was so floopy on the ground she was afraid of it. now its not a problem except she says why didnt I do that earlier,,,, she controles the big bag of money that I must use for my plane. Russ
Over the years I've flown my old '52 B model on three different landing gears---original ,lady legs,and now axle forward 180 gears. I have tried all four tire sizes on each type of gear. My personal preference is the 7:00s. I found the 8:50s to be draggy and my airplane was real squirrely
on pavement landings.You have to watch for brake calipers rubbing the tire on both 8:00 and 8:50s. A spacer may be required. The 7:00s seem to be best for me flying on the back country fields that are somewhat rough but not real hairy. If there was a requirement for a lot of relatively soft
surface operations, I would probably try the 8:50s at a reduced pressure to enlarge the footprint.
i THINK THIS INFORMATION IS WORTH A DAMN SITE MORE THAN 2 CENTS!
on pavement landings.You have to watch for brake calipers rubbing the tire on both 8:00 and 8:50s. A spacer may be required. The 7:00s seem to be best for me flying on the back country fields that are somewhat rough but not real hairy. If there was a requirement for a lot of relatively soft
surface operations, I would probably try the 8:50s at a reduced pressure to enlarge the footprint.
i THINK THIS INFORMATION IS WORTH A DAMN SITE MORE THAN 2 CENTS!
BL
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
Bela,ya musta finally got that prop repitched! No more 180-like takeoffs! 
Gear legs: my 337 sez "installed later model Cessna 180 gear legs" and lists the part numbers. I guess I could track down the p/n if I needed to know what year 180. The 337 notes that the moment of the gear legs (for W&B) moved forward over 3". I can really get on the brakes if I have to without any hint of impending nose-over,kinda nice sometime. But,the tail is pretty heavy,as I found out when I got the tailwheel bogged down in the sand swinging around to park at Copalis!
From my 180 info off Joe Stancil's site,in 1955 the 180's main wheels were moved 3" forward for improved braking & ground handling by increasing the rake of the gear legs. I have heard that this was done because the heavier weight of the O-470-J over the earlier O-470-A engine caused problems.(like nose-overs?).
800 vs 850's: I physically compared a new 800 up against an 850 and the difference (size AND weight) is more than ya might think.
3-pointing: I always land with full flaps--that's not saying much with a ragwing! However,when ya pull full flaps the nose pitches down,big-time. I trim all the way nose-up and with nobody/nothing in back,I still have to hold a little back pressure to fly final at 65. I don't have much B model time,but I seem to recall that the nose pitches UP as you add flaps. This is maybe one reason why ya don't have trouble planting the tailwheel first. I can do that,I just have to work at it.
Eric
Gear legs: my 337 sez "installed later model Cessna 180 gear legs" and lists the part numbers. I guess I could track down the p/n if I needed to know what year 180. The 337 notes that the moment of the gear legs (for W&B) moved forward over 3". I can really get on the brakes if I have to without any hint of impending nose-over,kinda nice sometime. But,the tail is pretty heavy,as I found out when I got the tailwheel bogged down in the sand swinging around to park at Copalis!
From my 180 info off Joe Stancil's site,in 1955 the 180's main wheels were moved 3" forward for improved braking & ground handling by increasing the rake of the gear legs. I have heard that this was done because the heavier weight of the O-470-J over the earlier O-470-A engine caused problems.(like nose-overs?).
800 vs 850's: I physically compared a new 800 up against an 850 and the difference (size AND weight) is more than ya might think.
3-pointing: I always land with full flaps--that's not saying much with a ragwing! However,when ya pull full flaps the nose pitches down,big-time. I trim all the way nose-up and with nobody/nothing in back,I still have to hold a little back pressure to fly final at 65. I don't have much B model time,but I seem to recall that the nose pitches UP as you add flaps. This is maybe one reason why ya don't have trouble planting the tailwheel first. I can do that,I just have to work at it.
Eric
Nope, I cruise at 110mph with my old (shaky) POS 51 pitch
prop. My 48 pitch prop is sitting on a couch at home.
I need to get that thing in the shop (Christmas shopping and
who-knows what else has brought that project to a screeching
halt!).
My bad on the axle rake for the 180 gear legs (thought it was
2 inches, but I see it's more than that....
You know Gnarly Dude.... well that thing has the original '53 gear legs and an O-470J. I didn't do it, but word has it, it *is* easy to get
the tail *way up in the air* on that thing with aggressive braking!!!
Having flown both gear legs (aft and forward), I just prefer the "feel"
of the aft legs. To me, the forward legs make the airplane feel a bit
heavy on the ground.... Just a personal preference of course....
No doubt your airplane is substantially lighter than mine... + our
CGs are no doubt different. I end up having to dial in pitch-up
trim with the 1st notch or two of flap but after that, everything
just settles down. I fly final at 55-60mph (thanks to that Sportsman
leading edge kit). The airplane quits flying at 35-40 mph.
Russ, I also get some vibration in the gear legs in flight with the
850s (can't recall exactly, but I wanna says it's at around 90mph
or so....).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
prop. My 48 pitch prop is sitting on a couch at home.
I need to get that thing in the shop (Christmas shopping and
who-knows what else has brought that project to a screeching
halt!).
My bad on the axle rake for the 180 gear legs (thought it was
2 inches, but I see it's more than that....
You know Gnarly Dude.... well that thing has the original '53 gear legs and an O-470J. I didn't do it, but word has it, it *is* easy to get
the tail *way up in the air* on that thing with aggressive braking!!!
Having flown both gear legs (aft and forward), I just prefer the "feel"
of the aft legs. To me, the forward legs make the airplane feel a bit
heavy on the ground.... Just a personal preference of course....
No doubt your airplane is substantially lighter than mine... + our
CGs are no doubt different. I end up having to dial in pitch-up
trim with the 1st notch or two of flap but after that, everything
just settles down. I fly final at 55-60mph (thanks to that Sportsman
leading edge kit). The airplane quits flying at 35-40 mph.
Russ, I also get some vibration in the gear legs in flight with the
850s (can't recall exactly, but I wanna says it's at around 90mph
or so....).
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
I don't know which 180 legs I have but lots of people claim it's hard for them to wheel land or that it's hard for them to three point so I suspect all the various gear legs might be the cause of the differences.
As far as a heavy tail I rarely have a back seat or cargo load and when I do I'm on asphalt so I don't care if the tail is a little heavier. On the 195, (and I suspect on the small flap 170s), I can land much shorter by wheel landing and heavy braking because of the weight you can put on the tires for effective braking. But on the 170B maybe full flaps three point would be shorter. Last year I landed no wind at Stuart from the East and turned off at Brunkows entrance no brakes three point Eric, (about 300ft?). I was alone and pretty light but since I reallly wasn't trying I was rather surprised.
I use a power off approach and by doing that there is no trim change on application of flaps and about 60mph indicated on my probably erroneous airspeed indicator. Pretty neat really plus there is not much trim change for a go around unlike the 180 where you have to spin the wheel a lot to ease the very hard pressure forward that comes right away.
As far as a heavy tail I rarely have a back seat or cargo load and when I do I'm on asphalt so I don't care if the tail is a little heavier. On the 195, (and I suspect on the small flap 170s), I can land much shorter by wheel landing and heavy braking because of the weight you can put on the tires for effective braking. But on the 170B maybe full flaps three point would be shorter. Last year I landed no wind at Stuart from the East and turned off at Brunkows entrance no brakes three point Eric, (about 300ft?). I was alone and pretty light but since I reallly wasn't trying I was rather surprised.
I use a power off approach and by doing that there is no trim change on application of flaps and about 60mph indicated on my probably erroneous airspeed indicator. Pretty neat really plus there is not much trim change for a go around unlike the 180 where you have to spin the wheel a lot to ease the very hard pressure forward that comes right away.
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
Russ, yesterday, I flew up to Bromont in the Eastern townships on a very clear -8ºC day; felt like Montana, except you could only see for a week (not 2) at 3500'. We counted over 30 white tails on and around the runway; I digress... A flock of 7 planes landed just before we reached the pattern; guys from St-Hyacinthe (RV6A, C120, Citabria, Ercoupe, Tayleorcraft, Champ and a 53 C170B). The 170B I had seen before, has 180 gear legs with 850's. I have 180 gear legs on mine with 800's; huge difference in size and without P-Ponks, steel (180-185) axles and double pucks, I would not fly out of pavement on a regular basis with 850's. And on drag, I have to agree, they are big puppies. Then we talk about technique, wheelies, 3 points, etc. Before buying a 170B, I was told, it had a heavy tail, hard to land in a X-wind, never use more than 30º flaps, don't try X-wind in 3 point landing, do this, don't do that..... I have found this airplane and any modification done to it, a very pleasant ride. I can put her in short, do wheelies, 3 points in heavy X-winds, almost always use 40º flaps, etc. I think its a matter of your own personal comfort, experience and technique level. AND, I could not say enough about proper rigging. Sally was scary at times with a bad alignment. Now, with the 180 (sturdier) gear, proper alignment, 28 psi in the mains, good overhauled single puck (wish I had double) Cleveland brakes and master cylinders, she tracks straight in taxi and lands, takes-off straight (most of the time). Long winded to say, you'll have to see and try different sizes to find the best for you and your style of flying. JD
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
About time for a big heated discussion regarding landing techniques:
"I never wheel land" versus "I never 3 point"! I know people on both sides of that fence,and I think that whatever works for you,works for you! I try to keep current on both,but usually go to a wheel landing as my "default" setting when in doubt. The exception being soft field,I almost always go for 3 point.
Eric
"I never wheel land" versus "I never 3 point"! I know people on both sides of that fence,and I think that whatever works for you,works for you! I try to keep current on both,but usually go to a wheel landing as my "default" setting when in doubt. The exception being soft field,I almost always go for 3 point.
Eric
-
Curtis Brown
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:47 pm
Okay, I'll bite!!!
I like a slight tail low wheel landing most of the time. With a slight flair this allows me to slow it down and save a bit of the rubber on the tires. Usually using full flaps. I do not recall checking the airspeed at this I am looking out front. I would guess I must be flying about 60 mph maybe a little faster. Once the mains squeak in (hopefully) I release a bit of the back pressure. Then I hold the tail off longer with more forward pressure. This saves the tailwheel wear and tear and eliminates some of the possibility of tailwheel shimmy. If I hit it in too hard it will bounce. Usually I can manage the situation with a second and softer contact with a better flair attempt and continue with the wheel landing. If not, I will end up with a 3 point that is acceptable, but not beautiful. However, on grass/soft field I will most likely select a 3 point full flap landing. With more flair holding it off longer. If the wind is gusty I will fly it onto the mainwheels a bit faster and pin the mains down with slight forward pressure using rudder and braking as needed. I usually use two notches of flaps. If I have a strong cross wind I will set up a cross control situation allowing me to keep the fuselage aligned with the center line of the runway/strip and my direction of flight. I sometimes use no flaps. This way I fly it on to one mainwheel holding it there as long as necessary then let the other a main and tailwheel come down as the plane slows.
If forced down into the trees or rough terrain, I think I would fly into the wind full flaps and nose high. With the doors unlatched, seatbelts and shoulder harness full tight and the fuel selector off. Passenger with his seat full back and the pillow held in front.
Not to sure what I would do if I was force to land in the water.
Once talked with friend about perhaps sitting up into the wind full flaps, hold it off as long as possible. Then dip a wing and use rudder to initiate a turning or spinning effect, like a ground loop. Not sure if that would be better than flipping over forward or not. Hope I never have to make this decision.
Curtis N1256D
'50 C170A
I like a slight tail low wheel landing most of the time. With a slight flair this allows me to slow it down and save a bit of the rubber on the tires. Usually using full flaps. I do not recall checking the airspeed at this I am looking out front. I would guess I must be flying about 60 mph maybe a little faster. Once the mains squeak in (hopefully) I release a bit of the back pressure. Then I hold the tail off longer with more forward pressure. This saves the tailwheel wear and tear and eliminates some of the possibility of tailwheel shimmy. If I hit it in too hard it will bounce. Usually I can manage the situation with a second and softer contact with a better flair attempt and continue with the wheel landing. If not, I will end up with a 3 point that is acceptable, but not beautiful. However, on grass/soft field I will most likely select a 3 point full flap landing. With more flair holding it off longer. If the wind is gusty I will fly it onto the mainwheels a bit faster and pin the mains down with slight forward pressure using rudder and braking as needed. I usually use two notches of flaps. If I have a strong cross wind I will set up a cross control situation allowing me to keep the fuselage aligned with the center line of the runway/strip and my direction of flight. I sometimes use no flaps. This way I fly it on to one mainwheel holding it there as long as necessary then let the other a main and tailwheel come down as the plane slows.
If forced down into the trees or rough terrain, I think I would fly into the wind full flaps and nose high. With the doors unlatched, seatbelts and shoulder harness full tight and the fuel selector off. Passenger with his seat full back and the pillow held in front.
Not to sure what I would do if I was force to land in the water.
Once talked with friend about perhaps sitting up into the wind full flaps, hold it off as long as possible. Then dip a wing and use rudder to initiate a turning or spinning effect, like a ground loop. Not sure if that would be better than flipping over forward or not. Hope I never have to make this decision.
Curtis N1256D
'50 C170A
"...dip a wing and use rudder to initiate a turning or spinning effect, like a ground loop. Not sure if that would be better than flipping over forward or not. Hope I never have to make this decision. "
Such a manuever would largely negate all the engineering/testing/certification of shoulder harnesses which protect against straight-ahead forces. A side-ways or turning moment would expose you to greater chances of neck and spine injuries and would also throw you against the doorpost, door, etc., instead of using the "crush" of structure to cushion the impact.
Such a manuever would largely negate all the engineering/testing/certification of shoulder harnesses which protect against straight-ahead forces. A side-ways or turning moment would expose you to greater chances of neck and spine injuries and would also throw you against the doorpost, door, etc., instead of using the "crush" of structure to cushion the impact.
-
Curtis Brown
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:47 pm