Wheel pants

D

David K

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
4
Display Name
Display name:
David K
Two questions about wheel pants.
Does their effect on performance justify their cost/maintenance? (are they more than just pretty?)
Do they interfere with a proper pre-flight check on tires & brakes (do they tempt you to overlook anything?)
 
I see several knots loss with the pants off. Doubt the cost would ever pay off. Maintenace isn't bad but don't paint a dark color. Chips show more on dark.

Yes, they do interfere with checking things. Air pressure is difficult both to check and add. And you can't really inspect the brakes and tires without removal.

Most FBO Chocks don't fit.
 
Last edited:
They can get in the way. They do add some speed, don't know if enough to justify their acquisition. I think my airplane would look naked without them.
 
I've had them on three taildraggers. 1. Look good. 2. Keep mud off underside of wings if landing at wet grass strip. ( you simply flush them out with a hose if they get grass, dirt up inside them.) 3. To add air in tires, you roll the plane till the valve stem shows up at the bottom near the grass or pavement. Usually, with modern tires this is seldom. 4. When working on brakes they must come off and need to come off at annual anyway, to check bearings, etc. it takes little time for a mechanic to get them on or off. in the thirtys they were very popular and many aircraft had them. Tricycle gear aircraft seldom have them as they look a little weird and don't land in grass strips as much.
 
It depends on the airplane. The pants only add a knot or two on my CTSW, but the airplane looks dorky without them, so I leave them on unless I'm flying onto grass.
 
I took them off my Cherokee because it was too much of a pain to check the tires and put air in them. Not impossible of course, but not worth the fairly negligible speed gain. In my case, you have to roll the airplane until the valve stem is in exactly the right place in order to be able to reach it. It also gave me an extra 12 lbs or so of load, not that that really matters too much.
 
deyoung said:
I took them off my Cherokee because it was too much of a pain to check the tires and put air in them. Not impossible of course, but not worth the fairly negligible speed gain. In my case, you have to roll the airplane until the valve stem is in exactly the right place in order to be able to reach it. It also gave me an extra 12 lbs or so of load, not that that really matters too much.
Click to expand...

12lb! :yikes: I think the pants for my CTSW are less than a pound each.
 
I was surprised at the W&B update too - they are the old original 1973 ones though; both fairly heavy and not very good at adding speed; I think they are probably worth about 3kt... :)
 
12 lbs!? What kind of aircraft. A vega?! I always flew them off grass. No problem. I was based on a grass field. Mine were glass reproductions, light. Looked good!
 
I have them on my Cherokee and these are the fiber pants so they are extremely light. I concur about the tire valve stem access, not easy. Though there is a quick fix: drill a 2" hole and add a 2" plug and you can get to your valve stem easier. (you still need to roll the plane a little)

And yes, they do get into the way of inspecting brakes so I check brakes twice a year, not on every preflight. (I do check the fluid in the reservoir and test the brakes before every flight)

Never managed to notice any significant difference in KIAS with or without the pants but that is definitely due to the inaccuracy of the instrument readings and interpretation. If anybody has good speed difference data, I would be very interested, please, I have never seen anything conclusive and would be very curious as to what the actual measurable difference is.
 
I would venture to say that without them, neither the Cirrus or Columbia or all the experimental fixed gear speedsters would be anywhere near as attractive performance-wise.

For a fast, efficient single you either have to retract them or put pants on them.

Maintenance-wise on Cirrus/Columbia class machines, compare the extra care required with retracts.

On my RV10, there is a 15-18 knot TAS increase with pants and streamlined struts installed. For break-in, the recommendation is to leave the pants off to keep temps up for engine break-in purposes. When you put them on, it's like 'wow'!

The impact is smaller on slower aircraft. The impact is smaller if the pants are poorly designed or ill fitted.
 
1) Paint a white stripe on your tire that aligns with the valve stem. This makes it easy to roll the tire until the valve stem is in the proper location to check pressure (straight down).

2) Experiment one day with tire pressure by lowering the pressure and then looking at the tire itself and measuring the distance 'twixt the wheel pant and the ground (I use the axle nut for this measurement). This way you can get a very good idea of the tire pressure without actually using a pressure gauge.

3) Get stop leak tubes. I only have to put air in my tires once or twice a year with them.

4) I too have never had an issue with wheel pants on grass except for spider web cracks due to the vibration of rough surfaces.

5) I too have regularly flushed mud out of them when I was based on grass.

6) I learned to repack my wheel bearings twice a year when I was based on grass and when I was regularly flushing mud out of the wheel pants. If I didn't, I'd have ruined bearings and races by the time the annual rolled around. Felt seals aren't very effective.

7) My brake inspection is unencumbered by my wheel pants...only the tire pressure check is a challenge.

and most importantly:

If you're going to have wheel pants on your tricycle plane then please have all of them. A nose pant without main pants looks dumber than sh*t. And main pants without a nose pant looks more idiotic yet...especially since the nose pant is the most important for airspeed...being directly behind the prop wash (at least that's what I've been told and it makes sense...but a lot of stuff that makes sense isn't necessarily true)

It reminds me of the old commercial "don't you drive no ugly truck!"

"Don't you fly no fugly plane!"

:goofy:
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
1)

If you're going to have wheel pants on your tricycle plane then please have all of them. A nose pant without main pants looks dumber than sh*t. And main pants without a nose pant looks more idiotic yet...especially since the nose pant is the most important for airspeed...being directly behind the prop wash (at least that's what I've been told and it makes sense...but a lot of stuff that makes sense isn't necessarily true)

It reminds me of the old commercial "don't you drive no ugly truck!"

"Don't you fly no fugly plane!"
Click to expand...

I can't speak to all types, but some PA28s are required to have the nose wheel pant in place unless a centering spring is installed. I'd need to look up the details, but I know of several that remove the mains for various purposes but keep the nose pant to avoid needing a modification.
 
I think (fixed gear) low wing airplanes look kind of goofy without them, but then again, I'm not the one having to check air pressures and such during a preflight.
 
bullwinkle said:
12lb! :yikes: I think the pants for my CTSW are less than a pound each.
Click to expand...
Remember, an empty cherokee weighs more than your max limit. I took the wheelpants off mine years ago and get an additional 21 # .
 
I tried wheel pants on the Navion but they kept getting knocked off when I retracted the gear.
 
murphey said:
Remember, an empty cherokee weighs more than your max limit. I took the wheelpants off mine years ago and get an additional 21 # .
Click to expand...

Sure, but I don't think an airplane with 2x the weight should have wheel pants weighing 12x as much... :D
 
Last edited:
Mine are worth 7 kts. But then I'm doing 175 kts. on 6.5 gph. Wouldn't be caught without them!
 
Other than the folks flying retracts, wheel pants are an improvement to almost every plane. Tim's post covers most of the important considerations (but paint lines to find valve stems ?). I wouldn't have my taildragger w/o them just because they look so NICE !

If you need to justify them on their cost/performance basis, I think your chances are better in the lottery. can't beat sex appeal though.
 
bullwinkle said:
Sure, but I don't think an airplane with 2x the weight should have wheel pants weighing 12x as much... :D
Click to expand...

It depends a lot on the design of the pants. The stock pants on my Cherokee 180 are 3.7 pounds per main and 3.4 pounds for the nose. I've seen Cherokees with smaller pants, and some of the STC speed mod ones are gigantic. I don't have the weights, but having removed aftermarket pants from one of the speed-mod shops I can easily see them totaling 20+ pounds.
 
Edgefly said:
Other than the folks flying retracts, wheel pants are an improvement to almost every plane. Tim's post covers most of the important considerations (but paint lines to find valve stems ?). I wouldn't have my taildragger w/o them just because they look so NICE !

If you need to justify them on their cost/performance basis, I think your chances are better in the lottery. can't beat sex appeal though.
Click to expand...

The 2 or 3 kts isn't worth the aggravation on a cherokee.
 
TUPilot said:
It depends a lot on the design of the pants. The stock pants on my Cherokee 180 are 3.7 pounds per main and 3.4 pounds for the nose. I've seen Cherokees with smaller pants, and some of the STC speed mod ones are gigantic. I don't have the weights, but having removed aftermarket pants from one of the speed-mod shops I can easily see them totaling 20+ pounds.
Click to expand...
Yep, like engine cowlings, wheel pants require empiricism and (wind tunnel) data to optimize. What works best isn't necessarily obvious to the eye.

I remember facing up to the work required to finish fabricating and mounting the fiberglass pants and fairings on my RV10. Aesthetics and performance kept me on the job but the temptation to just go fly the thing was strong.

Actually the builder feedback suggesting that it was a WHOLE lot easier fabbing and aligning the pants before the wings go on was the clincher.
 
Well as you can see on my avatar, it makes her LOOK faster. In that area she needs all the help she can get.:)
 
Centuries ago I made a fairly accurate test of the wheel pants on an AA5 Grumman. I had them off for annual, and did a test at 2500', then again at 8500' running WOT (leaned at 8500). Put the pants on and redid the test and I found the Grumman gained 7MPH at 2500' and only 4MPH at 8500. These were IAS because it was way before GPS. I always kept them on, except for annual. The Grumman also has a tight brake fairing which makes a diff.
 
Sounds stupid, but I keep them on if they look good and I don't need the clearance.

Isn't enough of a performance difference to try to blow smoke that way.

On my stinson I kept them on, they looked good and i managed grass and beaches with them on.

On school planes, keep them off, too many students doing dumb stuff and flat spotting tires.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top