The International Cessna^® 170 Association

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.

Do 8.50x6 tires require changes to Cleveland single puck brakes (kit 199-46)? Is there a sidewall clearance problem? Do I have to change the brake disc?

Dave F,


No and No.

All I've done is the same shopping as you, so I'm no authority on big tires, but I've never seen 4-ply 8.50x6 tires.

4-ply 8.00x6 tires are only rated for about 1300 lbs., vs. 2000 for 6-ply, so I'm not sure I'd want 4-ply 8.50s.

I have been using double puk brakes on my old girl for several years now and would never go back . Where they really shine is when taxiing long distances with a howling cross wind . The Goodyears used to fade and gave me all sorts of directional problems . The biggest problems they cause is when you jump into another type of aircraft and the brakes are next to useless. Eg super decathlon . Or even a Cessna 172. Plus double puks ,they do not wear out as quick . Just be light footed when applying the brakes .

delete

bigrenna wrote:We used the "letter" this week and upgraded a friends C170 from 600x6ers to a sweet set of 8.5x6's. Every time I looked at the airplane I just cringed with those little silly tires on it... (sorry "originality nuts,") but now I feel much better.
....

Compensating for something..???

Here are the 8.50-6 4 ply tires I have been looking for. And a good price! I'm curious to hear the thoughts from this group on running these tires on a 170.

That's great, they finally got the TSO! I'm going to buy a set as soon as they're available.

DaveF wrote:That's great, they finally got the TSO! I'm going to buy a set as soon as they're available.

No. They didn't.

Firstly, ...you don't "get" a TSO. A TSO is a Technical Standard which a manufacturer must MEET in order to make the claim.

Secondly...THIS PRODUCT is not yet mfr'd to that standard according to the advert. They hope to do so by late Feb. (The question is... Will they?)

One more thing about Desser Tire. I like them. But do not recommend their 90-degree brass Schrader-valve inner tubes.
I ordered two of them. They both damaged my Cleveland wheels by creating a sharp edge at the Schrader-valve opening which subsequently cut ordinary inner-tube valves causing the regular tubes to leak and fail in an unrepairable fashion. Also, the 90-degree angle does not exit the wheel as advertised/anticipated/promised. Instead, the valve lays hard against the wheel-rim making it almost impossible to re-service the inner tube with air because a common air-chuck cannot fit upon the valve due to interference with the wheel. Even a moderate effort to fill the tube with air SNAPPED the brass Schrader valve completely at the mid-point bend! (In my disgust, I reverted to the installation or regular rubber Schrader-valve tubes, ...the first of which immediately leaked due to a cut valve. Further disgusted (and not discovering the sharp edge caused by the failed brass tube) I removed it and installed another, ....which promptly was also ruined with a cut. The cut was virtually invisible, as if made by a razor at the base of the Schrader valve.
Upon very close examination, the sharp edge was discovered on the inside-surface of the wheel's Schrader port. Careful dressing of the wheel with a small Swiss file was necessary to remove the damage within the passageway.
A third inner-tube was finally installed with success.

Moral: The 90-degree brass Schrader inner tubes are not suitable with Cleveland wheels as they do not properly exit so as to be re-inflation serviceable, and their design can create a sharp edge which could seriously damage the wheel.

(the above info is also posted under it's own thread)