The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Also have a citrabria 7gcaa with 850 and double pucks ! I am going to move them to my 170B. Looks more like a MAN plane. Citrabria was great with them.

delete

Are single puck brakes enough when using 8.50X6.

Single pucks on my 170 with 8.60 x 6s are plenty adequate. I can still land shorter than I can takeoff.

I would think that any brake that will hold under a full power static run-up, using a reasonable amount of pedal pressure, would be adequate for the tire size in question.
I, personally, preferred the double puck brakes on all occasions and tire sizes, possibly due to my diminished braking effort available, in all likelyhood due to my advanced age and diminished physical strength.
Truthfully, double puck brakes must be used very carefully since they have the capability of applying more stopping effect than the airplane can handle without very judicious application.

My single pucks / 8.50 x 6 combination had proven less than adequate when attempting to taxi in strong cross winds.

My principal reason for the double puck calipers was as noted by "fishdoc" above, ---- Strong cross wind taxiing.

Single puck is adequate (and safer from a nose-over possibility) on 99.44% of all days one would want to fly. But it's true...taxying in a 30+kt crosswind can be a challenge with single puck, and I'm not certain it's fun with double-pucks.
It's easier to tow it or to make a 270-degree turn the opposite direction...but not much can help a really gusty 40-kt tailwind except a hangar or strong tie-downs.

Re: 8.50x6 tires

Single puck is adequate (and safer from a nose-over possibility)

You got to be kidding George...If you believe this, would you define the difference of the 1953 Cessna 180 and later models to include the Cessna 185.. It would be hard to prove that a nose over problem has been caused by double puck brakes installed.

Green Bean wrote:Re: 8.50x6 tires

Single puck is adequate (and safer from a nose-over possibility)

You got to be kidding George...If you believe this, would you define the difference of the 1953 Cessna 180 and later models to include the Cessna 185.. It would be hard to prove that a nose over problem has been caused by double puck brakes installed.

Firstly, I was addressing a Cessna 170, not a 180 (which is more tail-heavy and which is more likely to have larger tires) .. and secondly..I have personally nearly nosed-over my own '53 170-B while taxying too fast and suddenly realizing I'm about to cross a forbidden taxiway. Now, to be certain, I was in a fwd-C.G. situation with only myself and full fuel...and taxying faster than I can walk, ...and taxying downwind for takeoff... BUT...it damn near went-over on me.

A 170 with double-puck brakes and standard tires would have certainly ended up on it's nose that day.

I guess you defined the problem, "Taxiing to Fast, with a Tail Wind".

Is this really true? So i have double puck brakes and i nose over its the fault of the brakes. Or the pilot who stomped on them too hard???

I'm not saying it isn't/wasn't operator-error.... but, of course most taxying accidents ARE, right?

(In my case, it was a sudden-overreaction to inattention while taxying too fast, no question about it. But my point is that single puck brakes can nose-over a 170... and double puck brakes can do it with far less effort.)

Hey G-Man if you weren't such a big strapping man and that "that fast taxi" you would have been ok

I just finished my 4 hour of dual in a taildragger so by no means am I speaking with any degree of experience ......however my CFI just turned 70 .......he would like to take the brakes out of a taildragger all together .......just use them to turn and runup


W.

As my first instructor used to say, "Just enough but not too much". Easy to say and excellent advice! However, who hasn't been in the same spot George was in and had something similar happen? I know I have and I have to agree with George, double pucks on anything less than 29" tires on a 170 is not necessary or desired in my opinion. Singles will still stop it shorter than it will take off. Now, on a 180, different story, again as George said. The 180 is heavier but double pucks are still strong enough to nose one over.