The International Cessna^® 170 Association

AR Dave wrote:.........................................
I've got news about my airport. Because of some law, they are going to peel up 6000 ft of taxiway and move it 200 ft further away from the runway, or something like that. Anyway I think I've got the Airport Council talked into, putting topsoil back on the old spot and sodding it for an unofficial grass runway.

Good on ya, Dave! I'd love to have even a "winked at" grass strip at my home airport. We allegedly had the distinction of being the last grass runway'd "international" airport (US Customs Service airport of entry) in the lower 48. The current paved runway was built back about 1990, and the grass strip abandoned & eventually partially built on. Whenever anyone even mentions "grass runway" to the Port, they about go into shock-- their eyes glaze over, and their heads start this strange shaking motion.....

Eric

N9149A wrote:Well Doug other than the 6:00x6 look ridiculously small.

About the only thing you may gain besides people ogling your big tires is a slightly better angle of attack at a 3 point attitude which could lead to a slightly shorter ground roll on take off.

Well then, I guess I have two things riding against me... 600-6 tires AND wheel pants. I'll be sure to have my thick skin on if I ever make it to a Convention or Petit Jean event. Don't nobody go making no comments about the size of my equipment or how its dressed, now...

Well, here is another two centavos worth... I personally take a dim view of running 15+ year old tires on the main landing gear of a conventional geared airplane. Michelin says it best: "There's just too much riding on your tires." Now, I know there are ATP rated pilots with umpteen thousand hours out there who believe they can handle a MLG blowout on a 170, but this mere mortal ain't so confident. Besides, tires aren't that expensive. FWIW, my 170B is shod with the smallest tires I can use for both drag and weight considerations, but they are only about two years old. Regards, Chuck

I was talking to my local advanced tailwheel/bush instructor before the winter discussing the limiting factors of tire size of my aircraft when there is snow or muddy conditions prevalent at our field. He felt in his opinion that as long as I held to a quarter rule (.25 of the diameter) I would be ok, being that I had 700X6 I should ok with 1.5 to 2 inches of tire obstruction such as rocks, mud or snow. As for grass It would be dependent on the way the field was maintained, a close cut field 600X6 would be fine but as the grass grows it gets a little draggy on the takeoff but I see aircraft all day use the grass strip with standard 600X6 tires. Being I have no intention right now to use my wheel pants I'll be using 700X6.

600x6 tires have better braking power than larger diameter tires because the moment arm from the disk to the outside surface is less. They are also lighter and have less drag. It's a no-brainer, unless you need the larger tires for soft/unprepared surfaces or just love the look.
FWIW,
Rudy

Just had to post a picture of a me in my 170 with 8:00x6 tires just as it touched down on those early springy gear. Now doesn't that look good?

N9149A wrote:

How do you get the prop to turn so slowly? Engine braking?

John

That's no big deal, Bruce! We ALL can include a little airplane pic just like yours.

Yeh George but it will have cool big tires.

The prop isn't turning slow, it's turning so fast you can't see it in every position.

I like the blinking beacon-- nice touch! can you do one of Dave's 170 with a little belt-driven vaccum pump, er, I mean supercharger?

Eric

Bruce, how about I just send you the Petit Jean 170 Website passwords, files, paths. Then you can put that plane back where it belongs, with the modifications of course.

N9149A wrote:

Just had to post a picture of a me in my 170 with 8:00x6 tires just as it touched down on those early springy gear. Now doesn't that look good?

I don't know Bruce. They look kind of puny to me, but hey, beauty is in the eye of the beer holder

That's a neat picture Bruce! But, it does look like someone reflected sunlight on to the windshield too many times, can't see George in there hollering "GettyUp Ol Red, GettyUp!"

I can't take full credit for the plane as the basis for the the conversion can be found on AR Daves Petit Jean Web site http://members.cox.net/laseter/. If you've looked there you'll see a 172

I could hardly stand it so I swiped the image and made a 170 out of it by removing nose gear and repositioning the mains. Of course we put the nicer 8:00x6 on it and added the strobe to cap it off. We spent about 4 hours trying to rev up the engine but decided what I have was the best illusion.

And Dave if you want to send me the necessary info I'll fix the web site.

Looks like an A model to me-- no dihedral.
How about another one, Bruce, with some Alaska Bushwheels?

Eric