Wheel skis. Opinions please [Archive]

Dave Calkins

09-23-2006, 01:43 PM

Straight skis are always!!!! better. If you want to go on wheel/skis simply for convenience, maybe a set of dolly's would be a better compromise.

Schneider wheel-penetration.....heavy, inexpensive
Fli-lite hydraulic sliding plate wheel-skis......heavy, draggy in the air when 'wheels' down, but decent glide on snow, expensive
Aeroskis spring-loaded wheel-skis......light, relatively inexpensive, not enough surface area unless modified, must run tiny tires
Landes wheel-penetration....relatively light, relatively inexpensive, plenty of surface area, possess the wheel-pen.-ski problem of the tire dragging on sloppy wet snow or crusty snow, still okay in powder
Fluidyne hydraulic wheel-skis.....relatively heavy, but acceptable, expensive, good allround performance if given extended decks
Federal AWB hydraulic wheel-skis.....same advantages as the Fluidynes

There are lots of little details to add to this list.

Also, I left out a couple of brands that I have little experience flying or maintaining.

I'm sure you'll get plenty of comments to your question.

PA-12 Lover

09-23-2006, 03:20 PM

I have the Landes LW 2500 and love them, they perform as intended. They definitely take longer to get off thaqn a straight ski, but are more than acceptable. Definitely low hassle for putting in and out of the hangar, taxing up to the pumps for gas and even landing at the occaisional airport. Tey are very easy on and off. The folks at Landes were great to deal with. Some modification of the gear is required, but is included in the price. You must run 8.00x6 with mine although I believe some requir 8.50's. Also, Iwould recommend a Borer prop. With 8.00's, you will need a 3" extended gear to run the 82" prop.

mvivion

09-23-2006, 04:16 PM

I agree with Dave Calkins on all points. I would emphasize that he is being a little conservative, though when he describes the hydraulic retractable skis as "relatively heavy". Actually, they are heavier than all get out, like 122 pounds additional weight. The Schneider penetration skis aren't much lighter.

If you have a "normal" Cub, you are going to have a hard time keeping it legal weight wise, with these skis, unless you always fly alone.

Where are you, and do HAVE to have wheel skis? Like most combinations, these things are truly a compromise, so unless you HAVE to have them, I'd go with straight skis.

I have only found one wheel ski that even comes close to straight ski performance, and that ski isn't approved on the Super Cub.

MTV

behindpropellers

09-23-2006, 06:31 PM

Give Landes a call.

I know they were debating on building a retractable wheel ski for the supercub like their 180/185 version.

Tim

wlt

09-23-2006, 06:53 PM

Remove the tail wheel on them and you'll gain performance(replace w/a wear strip of plastic). I have Aeroski 2800's set up for 2 aircraft. Are ok depending on conditions and limitations. They (wheel skis) offer opportunities that straight skis don't, but I''d never get rid of my Fed. 2000 & 2500's.

ground loop

09-23-2006, 07:24 PM

I am hoping to see the new Landis wheel skiis approved. Does anyone have any updates?

gander

09-23-2006, 08:27 PM

the only thing harder on a set of gear legs on skis is wheels skis. unless it was necassary like for spring bear hunting i would not put my plane through the abuse.

N5126H

09-24-2006, 12:59 AM

awb 2500 with extended bottoms are the way to go right now, if you can find a set. Yes they do add 100#, but the colder temps make up for that. You can even run up to 29" tires on the AWB 2500, but I use an old worn set of 8:50's on mine.

mvivion

09-24-2006, 08:20 AM

26H,

Without some sort of approval basis, you cannot LEGALLY run any tires larger than 8.00 x 6.00 on AWB 2500's, I believe. The AWB 2500 A's specifically permit 8.50's, and there are some other installations around that have been field approved, but I believe the notion that you can run any tire that'll fit is a bit misguided.

And, since when did cold weather exempt us from the laws of gravity?

:roll:

MTV

N5126H

09-24-2006, 02:56 PM

Mr. Mike, with all due respect, I have seen lots of AWB 2500 on 8:50's, mine are approved via 337 and I have seen several sets on 26" goodyears and 29" bushwheels. I do not pretend to think that one could put whatever they wanted, but the above have been done legally. On 8:50's I take my ski plane clam digging every year, and set down on gravel bars all the time. I would use a bigger tire, but the skis won't work quite as well.

As for gravity, I think there must be less of it when it is cold outside because my cub sure does get off the ground better.

mvivion

09-24-2006, 04:52 PM

26H,

My AWB 2500's are also field approved with 8.50 x 6.00 tires. My point was that, when posting that sort of information, it's worth noting that the skis are NOT approved for that tire size, but that perhaps you can find a benevolent FAA guy who will approve them.

Good luck with that nowadays by the way. The day and age of the "easy" field approval is pretty much done.

As to gravity--yes, your engine will make more power when it's cold.

The point is: The wing doesn't care whether the engine makes five times as much power. You still face the same issues regarding load factors.

The airplane flys on the WING, not the motor. Unless you're flying an F-15, of course.

And, we continue to screw a lot of these little airplanes into the ground at least in part due to our basic neglect of our understanding of the forces of gravity.

MTV

kase

09-24-2006, 05:28 PM

removed

N5126H

09-24-2006, 06:29 PM

Come on Mike...... The wings produce more lift, the motor more HP and the prop more pull the colder it is the better...... I would much rather take off in a 2200lbs cub when it is -30F than when it is +80F and it is not just the motor.

mvivion

09-24-2006, 07:06 PM

Keep telling yourself that.

It's a lot more complex that that.

But, if you think you can get away with aerodynamically dumb stuff just cause its cold, go for it.

The NTSB records are full of these kinds of stories.

MTV

ground loop

09-24-2006, 07:25 PM

Kase,

There are just too many cool things, all together, on that one photo. Do you ever look at that picture and feel like the luckiest man alive?

N5126H

09-24-2006, 07:55 PM

Density altitude is more than just a thought, and temp does make a difference. But nothing makes up for being dumb, you are correct on that.. The point of this is a 100lbs is not the same when it is +85F as it is when it is -30F and if I had a handy dandy chart I could tell you the difference, but I just don't have one handy, but maybe you do?

kase

09-24-2006, 08:08 PM

removed

N5126H

09-24-2006, 08:14 PM

The difference between +80F and -30F is about the same as the difference between 6600 feet MSL and MSL. I don't know about your airplane, but mine works a whole lot better at MSL than it does at 6000 feet.

An accurate rule of thumb (usually any error will be less than 300 feet) for determining the density altitude is easy to remember. For each 10-degrees Fahrenheit above standard temperature at any particular elevation, add 600 feet to the field elevation. (And, conversely for each 10-degrees F below standard temperature, subtract 600 feet.)

Standard temperature at sea level is 59-degree Fahrenheit. For elevations above sea level, subtract 3.5 degrees per thousand feet of elevation from the sea level temperature of 59 degrees. For example, at Jackson, Wyoming the elevation is 6,444. Multiply 6.444 times 3.5 for 22.55. Subtract this from 59 (59-22.55) for 36.45. The standard temperature at Jackson is 36.5 degrees. If the existing temperature is 80 degrees, subtract (80-36.5 = 43.5). Divide this difference by 10 degrees (for each 10-degrees F above standard), and multiply 4.35 times 600 (600 feet per 10 degrees) equals 2,610. Add 2,610 to the field elevation (6,444) for a density altitude of 9,054. Under the existing conditions (of our example), the airplane will perform as it would on a standard day at 9,054 feet elevation.

Density altitude not only affects the takeoff distance and rate of climb, but also applies to the service ceiling of the airplane while en route.

mvivion

09-24-2006, 08:34 PM

And, just as importantly, density altitude does NOT change indicated stall speed one whit.

But operating 450 pounds in excess of legal gross weight sure does.

THAT is what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing performance here, I'm arguing basic physics.

A Cub at 2200 pounds is a dog in any case. Granted, it's a smaller dog at cold temperatures, but nonetheless, its not a nice airplane.

Operate there all you like, and keep telling yourself that cold temperatures will somehow reverse the force of gravity and aerodynamics all you like.

Just don't try to convince me,

Thanks,

MTV

StewartB

09-24-2006, 09:25 PM

To the original question.....

I run Fluidynes on my Cessna. Sure they reduce performance by adding weight and drag, but chip your plane's skis out of several inches of frozen overflow a dozen times in one winter and the penalty of wheel skis seems acceptable. Not to mention those thaw weekends where there's 3-4" of standing water on the ice. The gravel runway looks pretty good on those days.

I'm unwilling to invest in Fluidyes or AWB's for the Cub until Airglas calls the thermoplastic Cub ski project a bust, which I hope they don't. I'll run my Airglas 3000's on the 12 until Airglas gets their retractables approved on Cubs, then I'll switch as soon as I can get my hands on a set. The inconvenience of dealing with overflow is much easier with a Cub than with a Cessna. But if the new Airglas skis are as good as they're anticipated to be, the penalty of retactable skis will be greatly diminished. There's another feature often overlooked with retractables. If your surface is hard enough, land tires down and enjoy brakes and steering. You can't do that straight skis unless you have ski brakes, which I do.

I'm not the least bit interested in penetration skis, but that's just me. I have friends that think the compromise such skis offer is good for their uses. Whether you like them or hate them depends on what you're doing and the snow conditions you're doing it in.

Ski flying is a gas. Just do it if you can. And Mr. Bill is 100% correct in that your airplane performance is noticably improved in cold temps. Denser air provides more horsepower, better prop thrust, and more lift for your wings. Couple that with slippery skis.... :D :D :D

SB

aktango58

09-25-2006, 03:47 AM

Typical winter day for my flying: take off at 36 deg. F, Land at 10 deg. F.

Or reverse. I leave Juneau in rain, or return, and go up rivers into my cabins or trapline. Lots of times I transition from all out rain with no snow to a real winter in miniutes. strait skis are not good for this.

With wheel skis, it is easy to go inside and keep warm, dollies wold do this also. Better steering on tires, breaks etc.

BUT: if I am trying to find some strait skis for thoes few weeks of strait cold, and am willing to put the plane outside, pre-heat every day just to have the great performance.

When will Airglass be done?????

Presently I fly Aero Skis. Been stuck good with them also. Been stuck on strait skis. if you can not get the tire out of the snow, you will be stuck in the crusty snow, and spring wet snow. that is a given.

Spend your time and dollars on a Wiggys sleeping bag, winter tent and snow shovel, they will beat the hydraulic stuff any day.

cabinflyer

09-25-2006, 12:15 PM

I've had hyd skis on my C170 and now Fed 2000's on my cub. In a larger plane with a bigger engine the hyd skis were worth the hassle. Was never taking the 170 into something tight anyway (cause you couldn't get out)

But don't most of us fly Super Cubs to take advntage of the STOL capabilities and the planes light weight? It sure is hard to beat the simplicity, cost, and especially weight of straight skis.

Steve

Matt 7GCBC

09-26-2006, 01:40 AM

Can any of you point me in the right direction for information on how to best alter the Aero ski R2800s. I live in Boise, so I don't think many of the mechanics here will have the familiarity of the Alaskans. I do not have them in possession yet, but my understanding is that the mechanism can be adjusted so that the tires can be pulled completely out of the snow in the up position. Is this an obvious adjustment, or does it take some actual modification of the fittings or replacement of some of the hardware? Dave also mentioned that they do not have enough surface unless modified? Do you extend the plastic bottoms with larger UHMW plastic? My other query would be regarding the 2800 model. Doesn't this mean that they were designed to support 2800 lbs on "standard" snow surfaces. I think the same model is used for the Maules. I would think that this would then be excess floatation on a 1700 lb ship. Looking forward to my first season of ski flying. I have plenty of warm clothes and a warm sleeping bag. Hopefully won't have to use these too frequently. :lol: thanks in advance for the further advice.
Matt

mvivion

09-26-2006, 07:00 AM

Matt,

First--there is no such thing as "excess floatation" when it comes to skis :lol: .

Ski designations may or may not really mean anything at all. The Aero 2800s are the 3000 design, cut up to fit the wheel mechanism in there, so I suspect they simply chose a lower number, but there may be more science to it.

Aero Ski changed the design of their 2800 retraction mechanism a couple years ago, and, while I've not flown a new set, I have been told by some folks that the newer models perform better, by getting the wheels further up out of the snow.

Having the wheels penetrating through the ski is an issue, and will degrade performance (which is why penetration skis don't work as well) somewhat, so the less they penetrate, the better. If I were you, before I started going to a lot of work, I'd fly the brand new skis a winter and see how they work.

What folks are doing with some regularity is pulling the UHMW off the bottoms and attaching wider UHMW, with the edges braked up slightly. This increases ski surface area, and will help floatation some. Just be aware that there are FSDO guys out there who would consider that a MAJOR alteration. Some wouldn't even notice. Some mechanics wouldn't bat an eye either, so just do some homework before you start modifying things.

Start out conservative, ALWAYS be prepared to spend the night or two ANYWHERE you land, and have a ball.

MTV

aktango58

09-26-2006, 09:35 AM

The ski adjustment for getting the tire out is only on the attach fittings.

Wish I had a picture, but the newer attach fittings all have a hole about an inch below the original, this puts less tire down to start, (harder on skis if you are on rocks), then you can pull the tire completly out of the snow.

I have drawings I think of the full plastic mod from aerro. Call them guys, they are helpful as all get out.

They began making the holes behind the tire to reduce buildup of snow on the back of the ski.

Dave Calkins

09-26-2006, 11:55 AM

....on increasing the surface area, ditto what Mike and Tango said.

....on the retraction mechanism update, ditto what Mike and Tango said.

....on the notion that "...no such thing as excess floatation..", agreed!!

I quote Matt7GCBC: "...Doesn't this mean that they were designed to support 2800 lbs on "standard" snow surfaces." NO. That means that the structure was designed to handle that load. It has nothing to do with the suitability of the ski to float you on a certain snow-type. I'd sure love to have 'Landesskis' to chime in here so he could fill us in on the design stuff and how they determine a ski's model number.

Anyway, if you don't fly skis, you're missing some good fun. And if you need assistance, both Landes Airglas Engineering and Aeroskis support their product with joy and pride, don't be afraid to contact either one, they both help me whenever I call.

dirtysidedown

10-03-2006, 11:18 PM

Thanks for all the info
Anybody have a phone number or web site address for Aeroskis?
I tried "Googling" several ways and no luck.
Thanks

StewartB

10-03-2006, 11:40 PM

Aero Ski
Ph: (320)346-2285
PO Box 58
Brooten, MN 56316

SB

munro

10-04-2006, 01:31 AM

Has anyone had any experience with the Kehler wheel skis?

I know they are stc'd in canada and have been told they perform well.

Anyone seen a set on a 206 in Alaska?

StewartB

10-10-2006, 08:50 AM

A week or two ago I called Airglas to see what the status was of the new hydraulic Cub ski project. Sadly I was told it would be at least a year before the project will be complete. I was reminded by them that this time frame is exactly what they told me last year when I asked. I appreciated the honesty.

They say the project is still a viable one and that the lack of progress has been the result of workload from other products. Good for them. No sarcasm intended, I sincerely wish them success. But....I'd like a pair of hydraulic skis, too!

SB

cabinflyer

10-10-2006, 12:24 PM

I got the same answer for the second year in a row too. :(

I think the reality is there are what maybe 50-75 pilots who regularly fly super cubs on skis? Some already have Hyd skis. Out of what's left, how many can justify the $15,000 price tag for a new pair? And you have to share the market with Whipline. business wise it makes little sense to do it :( :(

TrapAK

12-26-2006, 12:41 AM

I recently called to add my name to the waiting list. I'm around number 60. They told me a year and a half. Anyone who is planning on getting a set and is not on the list should be. I'm not sure if 60 sales is worth the effort for Airglas. Everyone who is planning on getting a set should make Airglas aware. Maybe its 100 and 40 people are just waiting. Maybe 80 sales is the break even point for Airglas.? Just a thought.

Crash

12-26-2006, 01:54 PM

delete

Louis

12-26-2006, 07:45 PM

[quote="munro"]Has anyone had any experience with the Kehler wheel skis?

Flown both a 172 with them and a 206. On the 206, it was marginal because the POH supplement was asking for a ski retracted position for landing. Not a good experience. With the ski down, contrary to the poh supplement, the experience was less dramatic and almost acceptable.

On the 172, it was performing very well with a good fun factor. You can see some photo here: http://natmongeau.com/

They do also have the capability to be change of configuration on the ground, and i have use this feature to jack myself out of the slush with their own power

Louis

cabinflyer

12-26-2006, 10:56 PM

I agree with the first part of Crash's message. It does seem we buy these Super cubs and then try to make them into something else. I had AWB 2500's with my C170. Although they were convenient they were not very good in deep snow. The skis weighed 120lbs and that didn't include the pump. That's a small passenger....

Anyway, after I got my SC I ended up buying a really nice pair of fed 2500 straight skis. After one season I doubt I would go to a hyd setup again. Straight skis are about 1/2 to 1/3 the weight counting all the plumbing hyd skis have. I swear on a cold day I can get airborne in a couple hundred feet, and that's with standard gear, prop and a 150hp. The C170 with a 180hp couldn't come close!

After all it's a Super Cub not a Beaver.... I say keep it light and simple...
:D

TrapAK

12-26-2006, 11:12 PM

I agree with keeping things light and simple. The only problem I have is not being able to spring grizzly hunt. Even being the 2nd to last person to get off the lake last spring, I still gave up a good month the hunting. If it wasn't for spring grizz, I would not even consider wheel skis. If Airglas comes out with the cub version, they will not be two or three times heavier. Wes figures around 7 pounds heavier per ski. Thats not bad. For that I may sell the straight 2500's!

Rick Discher

12-27-2006, 08:36 AM

I have been working on Getting FAA approval for my "TrickAir" wheel through skis for quite a while. The concentration has been on the 3000 series for strut type suspension. TSO approval was granted July 5th 2006. We just recieved TIA (Type Inspection Athorization) Dec. 12th 2006.The formal flight test has to be conducted by a DER Test pilot and his report written and approved. At that point the STC should be granted for Maules with Oleo Strut suspention.The target completion date is the end of January 07! We have in the mean time developed a 3000 series ski for spring gear suspention, 2250 series for both strut and spring gear and 1500 for both styles of gear. I have been told that the first STC is the hardest to get and the following STC's will come quicker. I sure hope so. By January of 08 we should have several more.
The skis are a fixed penetration ski. They go on and off the plane in 15 minutes, you don't have to lift the plane up to install or remove them. It is a one man job.
The skis them self are a carbon fiber e-glass composite with a crome moly internal support. The 3000 weigh 57 lb.each, 2250's are 35 lb.and the 1500's are20 lb. each. As far as perfomance, the skis really work nicely. I have gone places with my Maule M4 that you normally wouldn't
but we wanted to see how the skis worked. Six proto-types later, we are happy with this design. There are guys flying with our skis on their experimental airplanes all giving us good feed back.
As things develope I'll post some more information.

behindpropellers

12-27-2006, 08:47 AM

Tim

12-27-2006, 01:27 PM

Rick
I live in northern New York state and have an experimental, Wagaero sportsman 2+2. I would love to try a pair of your skies. I woun't charge you a penny. Actually I would like to see what they look like, maybe I'll buy a pair, keep us posted.

Tim

Gary Reeves

12-27-2006, 05:29 PM

Tim,,

I was on Crescent Lake last weekend in the Ryan 180 on Amphibs and plan to have a float plane there next winter.

Florida is still nice in the winter.

Gary

behindpropellers

12-27-2006, 05:47 PM

Tim-

www.trickair.com

Tim

Tim

12-27-2006, 06:44 PM

Tim
I found it. Thanks

Gary

I was down there last month, and will be back down by the end
of Jan. I'll contact you when I get there

Tim

willyb

12-27-2006, 07:33 PM

I have seen Rick's skis they look good.I believe on a cub type app there is one small bracket that is welded on in front of the axle for a thru bolt.I am waiting for approval for my plane. Bill

Matt 7GCBC

12-28-2006, 12:41 AM

Received my Aeroskis and wanted to answer my own previous question. The skis I bought were a '97 model and they already have the larger bracket allowing the ski to go lower minimizing wheel penetration. The empty bolt hole level with the axle is where the original brackets had you attach the pivot bar for the ski. These "new" brackets have the additional structure and slightly lower hole. Aeroski will take your old brackets and make the modification (to all 4 brackets) for under $300 and offers new ones for under $500. It looks from the wear marks on the brackets that the guy I bought them from used the "old" ski position and would've had more drag from the wheel penetration (maybe that's why he gave me such a good deal??!!) Thanks again for all the help. Matt

http://sparky.supercub.org/photopost/data/513/medium/Ski_Rigging_009.jpg

Paul Heinrich

12-29-2006, 10:26 AM

I've flown Fli-lite 3000's on my pa-12 and can't say enough in support of them. They are slick, not sticky, and rugged. The high floatation is critical in powder and being able to avoid freeze-in by being on wheels overnight and having the option to land at improved airfields where there is gas and services far outweighs the penalty of their weight.

Also with Fli-lites, the CG does not change when you pump them down or up.

A friend has Kellers on his 12 and also has a set of Aeros. He says the Aeros have awful sticky characteristics which lead to "painfully long" takeoff runs. He loves the Kellers but with Kellers the skis are pumped straight up and down with no plate sliding under the wheels like the Fli-lites. Therefore, there is less ski area and less floatation.

With a tailski you can turn on a dine in almost all snow and ice conditions. With just a tailwheel, you sink and plow until your airspeed is great enough to lift the tail which can be a long, long time in deep snow. The biggest problem with a wheel penetration tail ski is slush. When you take off it will freeze the tailwheel to the ski and you will end up with a flat spot if you then land on asphalt. (bouncing the tail on landing most often will not break off the ice no matter how hard you land).

mvivion

12-29-2006, 04:15 PM

Obviously you've not been exposed to some of my arrivals.... :o

MTV

superchamp

12-29-2006, 10:22 PM

I am currently adapting a set of Fli Lite 3000's that came off a PA-12 to my Stinson, and hope to report on performance in the next few weeks if we get enough snow and I finally have all the parts I need. I have found that getting parts for these things is like finding chicken teeth. Ending up making some, scavenging for others. I will have the better part of 10K into them when done. Wip holds the STC, and is no help, other than selling me the paperwork for $400. Kelly Vrem in Alaska has been the biggest help in getting parts. Hoping it is worth it. I didn't sell my Federal 2500 straights just in case. If I didn't "need" to get into a hard runway to clear Canadian customs sometimes, I would stay with the straights. Lots of BS and cost to the wheel skis vs. the straights. My 2 cents is, if you can get by without, go with the straights. The weight penalty on my 220 Franklin powered Stinson probably isn't as important as it would be on a cub. But it does all add up no matter how much power you have.

harneymaki

12-29-2006, 10:38 PM

Russ, if you decide to sell your 2500's, please give me a chance to purchase them. I have some personal attachment to that set.

Rick Discher

03-18-2007, 03:42 PM

Better late then never, I received my first STC for our skis. The 3000 ski for Maule models Bee Dee M-4, M-4, M-4C, M-4S, M-4T, M-4-210, M-4-210C, M-4-210S, M-4-210T, M-4-220, M-4-220C, M-4-220S, M-4-220T, M-5-210C, M-5-220C, M-5-235C, M-5-210TC, M-6-235,M-7-235, MX-7-235.
We are already working on more STC's.

mvivion

03-18-2007, 04:51 PM

For anyone who is interested in a retractable wheel ski for an experimental Cub type or?? Get in touch with me. There is a German made retractable wheel ski that is MUCH lighter than anything on the market, even lighter than most fixed skis.

The TOTAL additional weight of a set of these skis on a Husky I flew was 76 pounds, including the hydraulics. The maker of the skis now tells me that he has them 18 pounds lighter yet in the latest versions.

I've been in neck deep powder with these things, and they are pure magic as skis go.

They are STC'd in Germany on the Husky, which is how we got them approved here on that airplane (bilateral). They are not STC'd on the Cub in Germany, though there are a number of Cubs flying them, including at least one member of this list.

Get in touch, and I'll forward to the owner of the TC.

MTV

Rick Discher

12-28-2007, 08:36 AM

We build the TrickAir wheel trough ski. We are currently working on the 2250's for the superCub. Does anyone have thoughts on the tire size we should use? On the Maule we use 8.50 with the 3000's skis. One suggestion was to use 6.00 because they are smaller and lighter and will do basically the same thing as a larger tire and that is carry the plane on hard surfaces.

behindpropellers

12-28-2007, 08:39 AM

superchamp

12-28-2007, 09:38 AM

An update to my post of 12/29/06 - finally got the Fli Lites on the Stinson. I am very happy with them. We have some pretty deep powder this year and they will lift right up on top and go. Work well on the blacktop too. One thing I really like, with a heavy plane (compared to a two seater), you can pump the wheels down and roll it around on compact snow. It would be damn near impossible to turn that Stinson around by hand on straight skis. When all was said and done with the rebuild on the ski's, I have closer to $15,000 into them - so it wasn't cheap. Nothing is with airplanes.

mvivion

12-28-2007, 11:21 AM

Superchamp,

Glad to hear the skis are working well. I've always liked those skis myself.

As to "pretty deep powder", that would be when you step out of the plane, and dissappear. Minnesota isn't there yet, Dude :angel:

MTV

Pat

12-28-2007, 03:57 PM

Thinking about wheel skis for the Cub.
How about chiming in with opinions/experience with the various ones available.

Have a friend who has a set of Kehler (Think that's the correct spelling) wheel penetration skiis on his Super Cub, works great! Last time I checked they were located in Winnepeg, MB. about $5000 U.S.

superchamp

12-28-2007, 08:52 PM

MTV - I'd agree, we don't have powder like Alaska and some places out west-or the UP. But for us flatlanders, we're off to a good start. I don't think I'd want to try a good size 4 seater in four feet of powder. Could turn a good day into a bad one real fast. Slush is still real bad over this way. Dragging the skis and taking off again doesn't always work to find it. There is enough of a ice layer covering some of it that you won't break through till you're down to taxi speed.

mvivion

12-30-2007, 03:57 PM

Superchamp,

Try 147 inches of snow and a 185 on Fluidyne 3600's. THAT was a dumb idea.

Annual recurrent checkride. Fortunately, a VERY understanding and experienced check airman. When we were finally back in town, and he was doing the paperwork, he asked when my next checkride was. I replied in July--floats.

His response: I'll be sure to wear my swim trunks....

THAT was cold :lol: .

MTV