I'm thinking about trying out a Michelin tire. Of the three options for 6.00x6 trying to understand if there is a real need to go with an 8-ply tire or the 160mph tire. Can't seem to locate any helpful into. I really hate to bring up the tire argument again but trying to make an informed decision here... thanks!
Yes I do. In fact and judging from your comment about about "another tire argument" I sense you already know which one to buy. The "ply" that your maintenance manual calls for.
Actually I was hoping for some discussion on the construction difference in the various tire choices. The maintenance manual for my aircraft is over 60 years old and does not offer much guidance on tire selection.
FYI: one reason is usually there's only one tire size/ply strength option. Using any other size/ply tire is typically considered a major alteration. But if you're looking for differences between manufacturers on the same tire then there are a number of articles out there that go through that include the differences between new and retreads. Desser Tire once had a few docs on their site that explained this as well.
I went through the tire decisions a few years ago. It’s not a lot, but the higher ply are slightly heavier. I ended up matching my OEM requirements, lower ply option. I got a Desser retread, no problems since. I figure it’s better to keep psi proper then change out periodically, opposed to just going with the $200+ option.
Inter-tubes are often overlooked. It's worth investing in quality inter tubes since they hold the air and not the tire.
Exactly. But look at any 172 or similar size plane and you’ll probably see a 6 ply tire mounted when it really should be a 4 ply.
And the actual plies in the tire will be something less than the "rating." Tires originally had cotton plies, and that was replaced a long time ago with much stronger nylon, so a six-ply rated tire might have only three or four plies.
Is this the TCDS for your airplane? https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_...6e273453f3d57df86256c24004c4acc/$FILE/1a3.pdf Item 202 under "Equipment" calls for a 6-ply tire.
Yes, correct. I am aware of the specs in the TCDS. Perhaps my original post was not worded properly. I was trying to understand the difference in the construction of the Michelin 6.00x6 tires. If there is a good case to be made for moving to an 8-ply tire I would consider doing this and seeking the necessary approvals. I was trying to understand why the manufacturer builds an 8-ply tire or a "160 mph" tire and what the difference is between these options. My question (as are many of my posted questions) more about gaining knowledge than seeking clarification what is approved for my aircraft. I do appreciate the feedback.
Really doesn’t matter Airhawk vs Goodyear vs Condor, all are fine. No need to go to a higher ply, and I wouldn’t recommend it either. Run what your TCDS advises. The heavier tire will spin up slower due to the increase in mass, so they’re more prone to flat spots where it skids during landing as it tries to come up to speed. As for tubes, go with airstop’s.
To deal with the additional weight and landing speeds of a larger aircraft. An 8-ply tire would be what you’d use for a Piper Seneca size aircraft. If your TCDS says to use a 6-ply just use that. A 6.00x6 size 6-ply tire is about the most common GA tire around. If you ever get a flat away from home most likely a shop will have one on the shelf, an 8-ply maybe not. You probably won’t find much difference between manufacturers but there may be some differences in tire compounds. I currently run Goodyear Flight Special 2’s all around and I haven’t found them that great for sidewall weather checking. In the past I’ve run Condors manufactured by Michelin and they don’t seem to look old nearly as quick.
I went through this exact decision process as well. Over time I wound up with an emergency replacement here and a tube there. I feel very good about ultimately replacing all the tires and all the tubes with one brand. In my case, I selected Michelin after doing research but I'm sure others would be just as good. Ultimately the quality of the tube is my primary concern.
I used Condors on the flight school airplanes. Their tread is a bit shallower than the Goodyears, but students flat-spotted it off anyway whether they were Goodyear or Condor, and the Condors were far less expensive. For the PPL who stores his airplane outside, Condors will still be a good deal since the tires usually weather-check before they're worn out. Condors are made by Michelin. The worst tires were the McCreary. Now known as Specialty Tires of America. Terrible tailwheel tires, too. Their tire carcasses are really thin and you're into the cord plies by the time the tread is barely gone.
All tire manufacturers have to build their tires to a TSO specification. This includes all retreads. The materials used, the manufacturer process used, the tread depth, etc. are internal to that specific manufacturer provided they meet the TSO. What tire ply-strength rating is required for a specific aircraft is determined by the aircraft manufacturer not the tire manufacture. Aircraft tires are technically part of the aircraft landing gear design and the tire ply rating is based on the requirements of that specific type landing gear action, performance, etc. It's the aircraft certification requirement that drives the 8-ply/6-ply/4-ply or 160 mph rating not the tire manufacturer that arbitrarily determines the type tire they produce. So for example, if you wanted to install a tire with an 8-ply rating in place of say a 4-ply tire, legally, part of of your approval process will be to determine if the stiffer tire could damage or prematurely fail your landing gear assembly. In some designs the tires are part of the shock absorption performance.
This is an excellent point I had not considered! Thanks to everyone that contributed - I did learn a few things which was my goal in the first place. I'm going to try the Michelin's and see how they last and how they feel. I have Goodyear FC III on my other plane so I can do a little comparison testing as time goes by. Appreciate the feedback!
I had a bad experience with Desser Monster retreads. I installed a set on my C182K with wheel pants on the mains. We adjusted the mud scrapers fully aft. On the first take-off roll after the installation, as I accelerated down the runway, suddenly there was "butt puckering" noise coming from under the plane. I immediately pulled the throttle back, slowed down, and turned off the runway. On close inspection, what apparently happened is that even though the mud scraper was adjusted as far aft as it would go, as the plane picked-up speed the tire expanded enough to hit the mud scraper. (Picture attached.) I called Desser and they stepped up and gave me a full refund on the Monster retreads, and a discount on new (not retread) replacement tires. Now, with all of that said, I now run my plane without the wheel pants and thus the mud scraper is no longer an issue. When I need new tires, I will likely try another set of Desser's Monster retreads.
I ended up not going with the ‘monster’ retread, just the regular retread. There was a mention about use on certain retracts, the slightly larger tire. My retread is going on about 4 years, still looks great, nose tire.
regular retreads, FTW. 2 different retracts now. much better rubber composition; much longer life. (But Rob knows my experience on this)
I'm thinking whoever that happened to is just making excuses for having their feet on the brakes before landing. I can't imagine this happening I'm willing the weight difference is negligible, the tire will spin up just as fast if proper landings are done. I don' t own, I rent, but I would look for a tire that will last longer and be reliable. More plies = stronger construction and better life, within reason.
SoCal 182 Driver's experience aside... The mud scrapper needs to be back 1/8-3/16" as the Desser Monster retreads are slightly larger diameter with a deeper thread. Very likely the mud scraper has the standard set-back for original tire size for most installs. Clearances need to be inspected when changing tires, good reason the scrapper is adjustable. I put a set on my plane last year based on a recommendation, and works great. Did need to move the mud scrappers aft 1/8".
Dave - As I mentioned, we adjusted the mud scraper aft as far as it would go, and still had the problem.
That's an interesting heresy. Mind telling us where you came up with the data on this assertation? Jim
Some good articles on tires here. https://www.aviationpros.com/aircra...of-aircraft-tire-construction-and-maintenance https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/p/aircraft-tires-and-tubes-aircraft-tires.html https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/p/aircraft-tires-and-tubes-aircraft-tires.html
Heard a rumor a few days ago, and would like to get opinions. What is the recommended inflation pressures for a 4-ply Desser Monster retread and a 6-ply Desser Monster retread?
Thanks. Here's the story: Guy puts a 6-ply Desser Monster on a Symphony. Shop inflates to 28 psi. He experiences a number of tube leaks. He calls Desser. Desser tells him the tubes are spinning/squirming in the tire and to inflate to 50 psi. I found a Symphony SA-160 POH (online). It specifies nose inflation of 41 psi, and mains 36 psi, same 5x5 tires, no ply specified. Guy did not specify which tire, so if it was the nose, I'd say the story is plausible, particularly if he misspoke "50" rather than "40".
I would go by the POH, but while I had the tire guy on the line I would have asked about the POH numbers. Opportunity lost, but he can always call back.
Tire pressures are specified by the airframe manufacturer and will be found in the POH and the maintenance manual. Pressures are directly related to aircraft weight. Incorrect pressures will result in uneven wear of the tire.
