The International Cessna^® 170 Association

delete

Which is which?

delete

Would I be right to assume you still need the wide yoke for the 400x4?

delete

delete

Before the Bushwheel tire and fork was available that was the tire everybody was running only using the Gar Aero fork. The Gar Aero forks had a terrible problem with shimmying. The geometry on the BushWheel fork is a big improvement and helped a lot with the shimmying problem. A word of caution though, make sure you don't let that tire get low on air at all because it with shear the valve stem off. If you keep it properly aired up and don't get too agressive off airport it will probably work fine for you. Most of the guys that do a lot of off airport flying with that tire cary a spare tail wheel tire with them all built up and ready to bolt on because of how easily that happens even when they are propery aired up. Thats the benifit of the Bushwheel tire, its a dounut, no tube to shear the stem off on. But you are right, asphalt takes its toll on them. If the airport we fly into doesn't have a gravel strip then we usually land in the grass just short of the asphalt if that is an option. However if its a controled airport they tend to get a little excited about that. Good luck.
Shawn

I've had a couple of flats on Scott 3200 tail wheels but I've never worn out a tire or found the footprint of the stock size too small for any of my flying.
I believe that before I spent a thousand dollars or more for a fat tailwheel fork, I'd invest a bunch money in pigs ears to see if I couldn't produce some silk purses.

Thats true Dick, for the flying that most pilots do its not nessecary. Where the fat tail wheel is needed is in soft sand or just plain soft soil, other wise its like your trying to plant corn with your tail wheel. Soils that your stock tail wheel would be sunk in all the way up to the axle the fat tail wheel will still be right on top. The drag from the stock tail wheel in a situation like that can double your take off run or make it completely impossible. Another area the fat tail wheel helps in is if the ground has ruts in it or large rocks. With the stock tail wheel when you turn around and drag your tail through all the ruts or rocks side ways that transmits a huge amount of twisting force to the tail section. Many of the Cub guys bend a specific diagonal brace in their tail this way. With the fat tail wheel it floats over the ruts or rocks much better, you still have to be extremely carefull though. I know many of you are thinking why would you operate in soil that soft or on a strip with ruts or large rocks. Well that is the nature of off airport operation. We don't seek out those conditions but if we come across them we are prepared. Off airport operations is not for everybody.
Shawn

I would guess that if you were in a situation where you needed big tundra tires to operate, the fat tailwheel tires might be necessary. When I was up in Alaska, my Stinson L-5 had stock 800x6 tires and a Stinson tailwheel that I don't remember the size of. I was not flying down on the coast hear the sandy beach or mud flats so I never had a need for a larger footprint on the mains or tail. I flew into some pretty rocky braided places below some glaciers and a lot of river sand bars but the tires I had seemed to suffice. This was about sixty years ago and to the best of my memory there were not any fatter tires in those days.

blueldr wrote:I would guess that if you were in a situation where you needed big tundra tires to operate, the fat tailwheel tires might be necessary. When I was up in Alaska, my Stinson L-5 had stock 800x6 tires and a Stinson tailwheel that I don't remember the size of. I was not flying down on the coast hear the sandy beach or mud flats so I never had a need for a larger footprint on the mains or tail. I flew into some pretty rocky braided places below some glaciers and a lot of river sand bars but the tires I had seemed to suffice. This was about sixty years ago and to the best of my memory there were not any fatter tires in those days.

Thats back when you were a young know it all.....not an old experienced pilot like some.

The baby bushwheel sure is nice in the soft stuff, I've gotten the standard 3200 stuck before, but not this one. It's also much better in the rough and rocky areas. The 400x4 will give you the same flotation. It won't be quite as good in the rough spots, still much better than stock though. When mine wears out I might consider giving the 400x4 a try just because of the price difference. I still have to operate on asphalt sometimes (but I try to keep that to a minimum) so the 400x4 would last longer.

Referring to the picture above in Robw56's post, my experience with the difference in floatation between the stock Scott 3200 vs. the BBW/4.00x4 is when the BBW/4.00x4 sinks to the axle bolt as in the picture, the stock 3200 would be sunk up to the gooseneck.

I think that I'd just make a home made tail ski like I used on my L-5 in the winter in Alaska. I believe a steel ski would have less drag in that loose sand than the fat tire.

blueldr wrote:I think that I'd just make a home made tail ski like I used on my L-5 in the winter in Alaska. I believe a steel ski would have less drag in that loose sand than the fat tire.

And less likely to suffer sand in the bearings.