TUNDRA TIRES

[NC Bill]

What are the reasons to have them instead of regular tires?

 

$1500 seems like an expensive upgrade? Worth it?

[Roger Lee]

If you had a choice right up front when the plane was new then it was worth the decision. If you already have the smaller tires it isn't worth it. Keep what you have.

[NC Bill]

Why is it worth the $1500 to include them on a new plane?

[Roger Lee]

Good question and I don't have a good answer.

 

The only thing I can think of is larger wheel pants. In the olden days   the front wheel was different size between the larger and smaller tires. If you had small mains you had a 4.00x4 on the front. If you had the larger mains then you had a 4.00x6 on the front. This meant a different suspension and different wheel pants. The new planes today all have the 4.00x6 front tire regardless of what mains you have.

[sandpiper]

Roger - on the early planes, around 2006, didn't the Tundra upgrade also get you beefed up gear legs and attach points? 

[procharger]

 I have the tundra tires on mine.

[Ed Cesnalis]

tundra gear = normal

standard gear = mini

[FlyingMonkey]

Tundra = slow

 

Normal = fast

 

5kt or so difference.  Some say more.

 

[gbigs]

Tundra = slow

 

Normal = fast

 

5kt or so difference.  Some say more.

 

 

My plane flys just as fast as your plane...and it has tundra tires.

[gbigs]

Your airplane would be faster if you had standard gear, rather than Tundra gear. Now . . .  why would that be?

 

My plane can fly 120ktas cruise which is SLSA standard.   I have gone faster in level cruise but I don't need or want to waste the fuel or rev the engine at max RPM.   I also have more torque than an SW carb'd plane which makes for faster climbs...no doubt the 912iS with sport upgrade more than makes up for slightly more drag from a fractionally larger wheel pant.

[Roger Lee]

"5kt or so difference."

nope. just wishful thinking.

 

The early 2006 and before had a little lighter gear legs and front suspension. Then it was changed for all of them no matter what tires. Then the LS's came out with the composite gear legs.

problem was you still smash them when you drop it from 8'. Look at a 2005 and you can really see the difference.

Nothing was wrong with the gear, just the people landing them.

[FlyingMonkey]

"5kt or so difference."

nope. just wishful thinking.

 

 

I've heard you say that.  I've also heard other CT experts say otherwise.  Opinions vary.  There is certainly some difference.  You can't add area without adding drag, and the tundra wheels and fairings are quite a bit larger.

[FlyingMonkey]

My plane flys just as fast as your plane...and it has tundra tires.

 

What basis do you have to say this?  We've never flown together in identical conditions, which would be the only way to measure that.

[Ed Cesnalis]

You can have bigger gear / farting without adding drag.

 

All tundra set ups are not larger.

 

I have yet to see a CT faster than mine and I have tundra.

 

 

When new my main pants where wrapped in aluminum tape and then painted yellow. This reduced the size of the opening to be only slightly larger than the tire.

[FlyingMonkey]

 

You can have bigger gear / farting without adding drag.

 

All tundra set ups are not larger.

 

I have yet to see a CT faster than mine and I have tundra.

 

 

 

When new my main pants where wrapped in aluminum tape and then painted yellow. This reduced the size of the opening to be only slightly larger than the tire.

 

 

You kind of make my point.  What your custom fairings do is reduce the frontal area to the minimum possible, given the size of your tires.

 

If you come to Page this year it would be a good excuse to fly together,  and we could find out our relative speeds as a side benefit.    

[Ed Cesnalis]

You kind of make my point.  What your custom fairings do is reduce the frontal area to the minimum possible, given the size of your tires.

 

If you come to Page this year it would be a good excuse to fly together,  and we could find out our relative speeds as a side benefit.    

 

5 kt gains are hard to come by.  If I fly without my wheel pants my speeds seem the same.

[FlyingMonkey]

5 kt gains are hard to come by.  If I fly without my wheel pants my speeds seem the same.

 

If the difference is in the size of the wheel, then you would not see a difference; if most of the drag is in the pants, you would.  But I don't know which is true.

 

Honestly, I only have experience flying any distance with one tundra plane, Wm.Ince's.  I was quite a bit faster, but we don't think his plane was set up ideally.  He's got that mostly sorted out, so I will report back next time we get to fly together.

[coppercity]

I've heard you say that.  I've also heard other CT experts say otherwise.  Opinions vary.  There is certainly some difference.  You can't add area without adding drag, and the tundra wheels and fairings are quite a bit larger.

My LS came with the smaller tires then I upgraded to Tundra to have more tire options.  I bought the larger wheel pants and didn't see any difference in cruise speed.  Prop pitch setting (able to reach 5500+ at WOT) is the biggest improvement for speed.

[FlyingMonkey]

My LS came with the smaller tires then I upgraded to Tundra to have more tire options.  I bought the larger wheel pants and didn't see any difference in cruise speed.  Prop pitch setting (able to reach 5500+ at WOT) is the biggest improvement for speed.

 

I definitely agree prop pitch is the #1 performance difference between CTs.  My comments on wheels were based on my limited personal experience and some info from trusted sources.  Sounds like maybe folks in the wild are not seeing a big difference.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Andy,

This discussion on tire & wheel pant size and prop setup has been a big discussion point since a CT forum has been established.

 

 

I have months and months of testing and research with approximately 14 different props on the CT's and have flown all those props (2 blades, three blades, long, short, stiff and flexible) and both tire/wheel pant configurations side by side with 3-4 CT's at the same time. We take off in pairs side by side. All flights, speeds and flaps are all decided on prior to take off and strictly controlled. No guess work between owners on prop setup, no differences in winds, OAT, DA, rpm and speeds. No one else in the world has done that type of testing. If someone has let them come forward and show us the data. My data was sent to each involved entity. 

Not a single entity has 6-8 CT's at one field that fly 2-4 side by side for its testing.

 

So all single aircraft testing becomes more susceptible to errors in data because the human's can never be that exact on individual flights, instruments aren't that exact, winds, OAT's and DA's change with individual flights. Even controlled flights with multiple aircraft has a human flying it so every error can not be removed.

 

Bottom line for a CT with a ground adjustable prop was rpm dependent performance and the BEST BALANCED performance was 5600-5650 rpm WOT and that should be set for your average altitude. This made no difference with wheel configuration. If you have a special need for a flatter pitch then up to 5800 rpm for better climb characteristics. 

 

Within a single flight and trying to adjust for prop setup, winds, OAT, DA, rpm and speeds and last, but not least instrument inaccuracy anyone that says they can tell the difference in 2-4 knots is wishful thinking. You want it to be there and be better so it will be.

[Tom Baker]

Back to the original question. There seems to be less tire and tube problems with the larger tires on the tundra gear. That being said, there really shouldn't be that much of a cost to upgrade the CTLS over the standard gear. The tires are a little more expensive. The larger wheel pants could cost a little more. I have not seen the Matcos with the 600x6 tire, but seem to remember someone saying there is a spacer between the wheel halves. My guess is the price for the option is a hold over from when there was a bigger cost to change to the tundra gear.

 

In my opinion, it is not worth the cost, but if you want them that is what you will have to pay.

[FlyingMonkey]

Hi Andy,

This discussion on tire & wheel pant size and prop setup has been a big discussion point since a CT forum has been established.

 

 

I have months and months of testing and research with approximately 14 different props on the CT's and have flown all those props (2 blades, three blades, long, short, stiff and flexible) and both tire/wheel pant configurations side by side with 3-4 CT's at the same time. We take off in pairs side by side. All flights, speeds and flaps are all decided on prior to take off and strictly controlled. No guess work between owners on prop setup, no differences in winds, OAT, DA, rpm and speeds. No one else in the world has done that type of testing. If someone has let them come forward and show us the data. My data was sent to each involved entity. 

Not a single entity has 6-8 CT's at one field that fly 2-4 side by side for its testing.

 

So all single aircraft testing becomes more susceptible to errors in data because the human's can never be that exact on individual flights, instruments aren't that exact, winds, OAT's and DA's change with individual flights. Even controlled flights with multiple aircraft has a human flying it so every error can not be removed.

 

Bottom line for a CT with a ground adjustable prop was rpm dependent performance and the BEST BALANCED performance was 5600-5650 rpm WOT and that should be set for your average altitude. This made no difference with wheel configuration. If you have a special need for a flatter pitch then up to 5800 rpm for better climb characteristics. 

 

Within a single flight and trying to adjust for prop setup, winds, OAT, DA, rpm and speeds and last, but not least instrument inaccuracy anyone that says they can tell the difference in 2-4 knots is wishful thinking. You want it to be there and be better so it will be.

 

Roger, I definitely agree with you about props.  I think this is pretty much a settled debate here.  

 

The tire thing seems to have some differing opinions.  Some folks with a lot of CT experience claim bigger differences between tire types.  But I'm guessing you are right, that nobody has more testing experience than you and your crew in Tucson.

[gbigs]

What basis do you have to say this?  We've never flown together in identical conditions, which would be the only way to measure that.

 

What basis do you have to assume your plane flys faster than the other CTSWs?  or the sporty CTLSis?

[FlyingMonkey]

In my opinion, it is not worth the cost, but if you want them that is what you will have to pay.

 

I would agree.  I have the standard gear and have landed a lot on grass, including some fairly rough fields, with no problems.  You just have to be careful with your nose wheel landing and taking off, and hold the stick back to taxi.  Now there are some fields I don't want to land in, but I'm not sure I'd land in them with tundra wheels either, the difference just isn't that great.

 

It would be cool to see a CT with some 26" tires, and maybe reinforced gear, to see what it could do.  A CT tail dragger would be sexy as hell, and with fat tires could be a pretty good bush plane.

[Roger Lee]

I completely agree with Tom.

I do think the larger tires have more options to buy, a little less maint issues. It rides smoother on rough ground with cracks and bumps.

 

 

Andy,

There was a point in very early 2006 if memory serves on the time frame that the leg gear on the SW's were beefed up from the 2003-2006 models.

 

"The tire thing seems to have some differing opinions"

 

Sorry I over reacted on my post, but my point was the tire/wheel pants makes no detectable difference. There are too many uncontrollable variables.