need advice of pros on skis

hello everyone !!


my question is is it better to have 12" or 15 " wide
my skis are aero 2000 fit on a pa-12 115 hp

in my mind wider will go on top of the snow but it will need more horses powers because we push more snow
what is the answer :roll:

i will put uhmw bottoms 3/16 thick :-?

More Ski the better go with the 15", if you sink down in it will take more power to move.

Wider is almost always better, and unless you'll be on really hard, packed snow, the PA 12 is going to want bigger skis.

MTV

mvivion said:

Wider is almost always better, and unless you'll be on really hard, packed snow, the PA 12 is going to want bigger skis.

MTV

Click to expand...

Wider skis are great if you have the hp to get them to pack down wet packy snow in front of the ski. It' s just like a wheel chock if you don't have the power to overcome it. I had a little Lyc ( 55 hp) Vagabond that was happy on 6" 1500 Fed skis and would not move an inch on 8" 1500As. You 0320 guys won't understand. A lite 12/115 is a great performer. I would rather have a lite 115 hp 12 then a 200lb heavier 0320 12.

Glenn

I have experience with both wide and narrow skis. It all depends on the snow conditions. I think that the wide ski is best suited for spring time snow, that gets soft in the afternoon from the sun. I have been running Landis 2500's for about 2 years now, and I would say that they out perform the wider ski in the deep deep snow. The wide ski tends to plow in the deep, and if you dont have the horsepower, your going to be going around for another try (Ive done it). The shorter wider ski is better for ground handling for sure, but I believe that the longer narrower ski comes out of the snow quicker. BTW, my Atlee board skis are 19 inches wide, and my 2500's are about 14 inches. Ron

How much snow are you talking about?

If you are only in 6", it might not matter. If you are landing around here, it is not uncommon to find three feet of soft snow, and the ski is an issue. I had my first cub laying on the belly in deep snow one time, I wished I had bigger skis that day.

I seem to remember that part of the ski certification/approval process involved; what width ski the aircraft could handle in flight with "the broken front cable/ tip of the ski pointing down in flight scenario"... Too wide of a ski at some point represents too much drag to overcome in flight. In other words "a loss of control in flight"... Not a pretty picture to consider landing an aircraft that won't stay in the air on a ski pointing down....

16-bravo said:

I have experience with both wide and narrow skis. It all depends on the snow conditions. I think that the wide ski is best suited for spring time snow, that gets soft in the afternoon from the sun. I have been running Landis 2500's for about 2 years now, and I would say that they out perform the wider ski in the deep deep snow. The wide ski tends to plow in the deep, and if you dont have the horsepower, your going to be going around for another try (Ive done it). The shorter wider ski is better for ground handling for sure, but I believe that the longer narrower ski comes out of the snow quicker. BTW, my Atlee board skis are 19 inches wide, and my 2500's are about 14 inches. Ron

Click to expand...

i dont necessarily disagree with this point, but i thought what he ASKED was what width bottoms to put on a particular ski, not what SKI to choose. Total bottom area is more important than width in DEEP snow, and one of the reasons the Landes skis are such great skis is because they are very large skis, when it comes to total bottom area.

if he's working with just adding plastic, he may be able to get them a bit wider, but longer isn't going to happen, and in DEEP snow, those little 2000s are going to be pretty small.

But, maybe I misread his question.

MTV

Nanook i would not be to shure about that part of the certification prosess , i dont think any aircraft would be able to fly with any of the wheel skis out there with a broken front cable, and regarding how wide you need to find a good balance with the horsepower ,a wide ski is hard to move at 35 mph in wet snow but keep you on top of the snow, there is no perfect anwser ,for support you need more surface the opposite for drag (narrow and long would be perfect if it was alway in strait line).

Skis are great for ground ops but they aren't great in the air. Wide skis are worse in the air than narrow skis. Wide skis MAY have some advantages in some snow conditions but for the most part a moderate width ski that's longer will be better for all-around ops. If you're a typical ski flyer who operates from groomed strip to groomed strip it makes better sense to use narrower skis and not suffer the drag from wide skis in the air. Like all mods, the "best" answer is subjective and depends on your intended use. Very few guys use skis in the extreme conditions they refer to in ski discussions.

Skis are an interesting topic. Deep fluffy, deep crusty, thin crusty, thin fluffy, heavy plane, light plane, small horsepower, high horsepower, etc., etc. It is enough to tear your hair out trying to decide what configuration to make your ski. Has anyone ever made a wide ski with a narrow ski below it in order to utilize the advantages of both types? Would this work? or not?

I am toying with the idea of making my own wheel penetration skis out of wood to fit over the 26" Goodyear tires. These clearly would be quite wide. Perhaps a narrow strip under the center would help lift out of deeper snow? Maybe I am all wet and this is a dumb idea?

skywagon8a, i think Trickair would probably fit your need without to much problem because they fit 8.50x6 with 24 in dia and there is room for a bigger tire and they go pretty good in snow.

beaver18, That is a thought. My plan is to make my own simply because I need a project. After 12 years of retirement my bucket list is getting very small.

beaver18 said:

skywagon8a, i think Trickair would probably fit your need without to much problem because they fit 8.50x6 with 24 in dia and there is room for a bigger tire and they go pretty good in snow.

Click to expand...

the important difference in this case is the WIDTH of the Goodyear 26 in tires, not the diameter. I've experimented with these ties with two different models of wheel skis, and the slight width difference of these tires precluded their use. Try em before you buy em.

MTV

sierra bravo said:

Skis are great for ground ops but they aren't great in the air. Wide skis are worse in the air than narrow skis. Wide skis MAY have some advantages in some snow conditions but for the most part a moderate width ski that's longer will be better for all-around ops. If you're a typical ski flyer who operates from groomed strip to groomed strip it makes better sense to use narrower skis and not suffer the drag from wide skis in the air. Like all mods, the "best" answer is subjective and depends on your intended use. Very few guys use skis in the extreme conditions they refer to in ski discussions.

Click to expand...

Skis and their rigging are MASSIVELY draggy. I seriously doubt a slightly wider ski is going to significantly increase drag on one of these planes.

Ive run Aero 3000 skis on a number of different models of airplane, and, while they are very wide compared to other popular skis, I've found them to be great skis in a variety of conditions.

there is no doubt that wide skis work better in some conditions, while narrow work better in others. But again, total bottom area is always pretty important in deep snow.

too many different snow conditions to suggest that any one design is best for all.

MTV

Mike is there a big disadvantage to making a wide ski that would go around the outside of the 26" Goodyears? Such as being just too wide to be practical? My current thinking is that I would need to attach the ski to the axle area both inside and outside of the wheel for structural stability.

While total bottom is a big factor, we have found that long narrow boats will get up on step with less hp than the wide short boats. Talk to marine architects and they will explain that length of boats will make a big difference in the turbulance of the water...

another advantage of longer skis is that the will bridge over more bumps and offer a smoother ride in washboard.

But that said, if you have skis that work, no reason to get to deep into the 'should I get better'. If I were going to improve, it would be with wheel skis to make life easier.

I have seen AWB's on a PA-14 with Goodyears. Took a bit of sheet metal work to make them fit the guy said.

sierra bravo said:

Skis are great for ground ops but they aren't great in the air.

Click to expand...

From PA-11's to Cessna 185's I have found my fastest gear configuration is straight skis. Airglas vs. Aero doesn't seem to matter. (narrow vs. wide, respectively doesn't matter).

(a short-term installation of 8.00 x 6 tires were the fastest on a 185. They were only on there for a few flights to rig and test a rebuild, but what a hoot to go that fast......for an Alaskan boy accustomed to 20 MPH slower cruise with the normally installed Tundra tires on that fine airplane.)

Floats on Cubs the second fastest configuration. (on 180/185, Bushwheels and GarAero's second fastest)

Bushwheels on Cub the third. (180/185, floats third fastest)

Wheelskis the slowest configuration for Cubs and 185's, in my experience.

...I suppose your mileage may differ.

Dave i have to agree with you on this one , i flew my cub in 3 different ski configuration, the fastest is straight ski, second Trickair (- 3 mph ) and the slowest one and heaviest Fli-lite 3000 (- 12 mph ), and but i would not go back to straight for ease of use and versatility.

I had this experience in the mid 80s when we had several high snow years in the interior. Flying a PA-20/150 with a 82x41 borer prop I landed at our homestead in the Kuskokwim mountains on a beautiful February day. I stopped in a quick mush with snow rubbing the belly only to find the door was a foot below the snow surface, probably six feet of deep snow there. After struggling to just get out of the plane and shovel my way out from under the wing I packed an area flat so that I could put my snowshoes on. I'll never forget the work it took to stomp out a trail in front of me so I could take off. Sweating profusely at -20F requires special care to stay dry.

It took a major effort to shovel and hard-pack a steep ramp out in front for the plane to ride up and onto the softer runway ... a real pain as I didn't have time to spend the night and let the whole thing set up and get hard. We have what many call corn snow in the interior and it doesn't pack well in any kind of rapid manner. Letting it set over night or even five or six hours will allow some structure to form and better support weight on the surface. Luckily I had Aero 3000 skiis which are considerably wider than the 2000s. The width is important here as a wider ski rides up and over a weak snow ramp instead of plowing or cutting through it in a situation like I was in. Of course it makes little difference which ski you fly if there is very little snow. Thankfully I only had two or three other experiences like this one. Two times were in a PA-14 and on rivers where the snow drifts in to make similar deep powder situations. Another was in the Alaska Range on the side of a mountain where I had no business being.

You may consider speed in the air and equip yourself for that phase but getting into the air is more important to me. Got snow? Go wide!

I know that some people are stuck with them...but wheel skiis suck big time in any kind of deep snow. The interior is straight ski country. Dry snow is a pain when it gets deep. Some up here prefer the longer narrower landes/airglass ski. Some prefer the Federal/aero type wider ski. I like the wider single center skag federal type ski. I think the airglass is over-skagged and too flat. Whatever works for you....you are still held to the rule of only 10% over the certificated size if you are trying to get it approved.

Beaver18 there have been many instances of broken cables with a ski sticking up or down. They will fly, the worst is the tip down obviously. An 800 helio landed in SCC with one sticking down....

When I bought my Atlee Dodge skis I called Atlee himself. Sure do miss him. It was great when you called and he answered the phone. He asked me if they were his 12 or 14 inch skis. I told him they were the 14's. He said they were worth about twice what his 12's were and I should buy them because the 14's were better. I got the 14's for $400 used. Money well spent.

And, that's the point: Different snow conditions in different parts of the world will favor one ski shape over another. There is no perfect ski, but I agreed (note the past tense) with Nanook regarding the terrible performance of wheel skis UNTIL I started flying the Rosti Fernandez wheel skis. Those will outperform most straight skis, and at 76 pounds total additional weight, they don't hurt your useful load as much as others. Otherwise, wheel skis are a serious compromise.

Pete,

The question I'd ask is this: Where do you plan to operate where you'll need BOTH big tires and skis? For years, we ran modified Fluidyne 2200s with long rigger arms and installed them with the old Goodyear 25 inch Airwheels (not to be confused with Bushwheels). REALLY heavy, and, unless you were landing on ocean beaches AND occasionally snow, pretty useless in my opinion. The one I flew mostly where there wasn't much good snow in any case.

I think you could design a ski to fit around the Goodyear 26 tires. Question is: Why? There may be a mission out there, what's yours?

MTV

nanook said:

Beaver18 there have been many instances of broken cables with a ski sticking up or down. They will fly, the worst is the tip down obviously. An 800 helio landed in SCC with one sticking down....

Click to expand...

back in Late 80's, big tall Allen Tibbets in Naknek broke the front cable on his Tcraft, so he gets his LONG leg out the door, stalls it, tips ski back up with his leg, then has to stay like that till he landed....

Nanook.
Where is the "rule" for 10% over certified size to get approival?
thanks.

nanook said:

I know that some people are stuck with them...but wheel skiis suck big time in any kind of deep snow.

Click to expand...

On a Cub? FliLite 3000s work very well in the snow. Surprisingly well. I suspect Scooter will enjoy them a lot on my old PA-12. Especially when dealing with maneuvering in and out of a hangar. On my Cessna I'm still pleased with my Fluidynes. They work well for my needs but I don't plan on landing in remote places where they just had 5 day snow storms with tons on new snow. I don't need to. I'm not at all afraid to land in average unpacked snow after a few passes to lay a track. Simple stuff. Not unlike what I used to do on straight skis. It must have been 12 years or more that I've had hydraulic skis. I've never had any desire to install my straights since.

mvivion said:

Pete,

The question I'd ask is this: Where do you plan to operate where you'll need BOTH big tires and skis? For years, we ran modified Fluidyne 2200s with long rigger arms and installed them with the old Goodyear 25 inch Airwheels (not to be confused with Bushwheels). REALLY heavy, and, unless you were landing on ocean beaches AND occasionally snow, pretty useless in my opinion. The one I flew mostly where there wasn't much good snow in any case.

I think you could design a ski to fit around the Goodyear 26 tires. Question is: Why? There may be a mission out there, what's yours?

MTV

Click to expand...

Mike,
Around here we don't get much snow anymore. If the past several winters are any clue to the future, I will not have any use for skis at all. Last winter there was a skim coat of ice on the lake for only one week. In the past it has been a foot thick for most of the winter. In fact, the 26" Goodyears are likely overkill, though the extra diameter is attractive. There are not that many places where we can land without getting in trouble, or at least stirring up a commotion, that a set of 8:50-6s won't do the trick. To answer: Why? The idea is to simplify the process with just one set of tires and a set of skis that can be just slipped on for the rare occasional use. I also believe that skis might be a safety factor when transitioning across thinner ice near the shore to the parking spot on land.

We don't need to address thin ice out in the middle under thin snow, been there, done that, don't need to do that again.

Is there an equation for the number of square inches of ski area for the gross weight of the airplane? How many pounds per square inch?

"The question I'd ask is this: Where do you plan to operate where you'll need BOTH big tires and skis?"

Some of the best flying in South Central Alaska is in the spring on wheel skis with large tires. I had 26" and AWB2500. I could land on the sand bars of Polly Creek and go clam digging in April, Land on spots up the Knik and the Su, land on the snow fields in the mountians and sun bath and return to the paved runway of Anchorage.

AWB with 26" tires allow you to operate on sand bars without damage to the skis. If you live in Western Alaska and want to beach comb after the big spring storms AWB with 26" tires are the way to go.

Bill

Ditto for Fluidynes with long arms and 850s. Ground clearance is nice to have even for pushing the plane around in the tie down. But that's hydraulic skis. I took the earlier question to be aimed at putting 26s on fixed penetration skis. That makes no sense to me but maybe I misinterpreted the post.