ground loop
Registered User
Anchorage
Anybody here any rumors about the 35' BW's? Are they pursueing the approval process? How far along they are? Any problems with the guys who have been using them exp?
35" Bushwheels
- Thread starter ground loop
- Start date
ground loop
Registered User
Anchorage
mikeo,
Thanks for the reply. Do you feel the extra weight? Does it effect take-off roll distance?
Thanks for the reply. Do you feel the extra weight? Does it effect take-off roll distance?
Luke_theDrifter
Registered User
Dillingham, Alaska
I went Sheep hunting this past Fall with a fellow who was trying a set of the 35's.
Overall I think he liked the tires, however he had two complaints; 1) they are heavy, 2) they throw bigger rocks at the tail ( in rocky conditions) causing more damage than normal to the tail-feathers.
I haven't tried a set yet, however I suspect I'll have a set this coming summer to try. It'll be good to give them an honest try on the tundra.
good flying..>Byron
Overall I think he liked the tires, however he had two complaints; 1) they are heavy, 2) they throw bigger rocks at the tail ( in rocky conditions) causing more damage than normal to the tail-feathers.
I haven't tried a set yet, however I suspect I'll have a set this coming summer to try. It'll be good to give them an honest try on the tundra.
good flying..>Byron
Luke_theDrifter
Registered User
Dillingham, Alaska
Greetings Mikeo,
I noticed a couple of your comments; like 20% less resistance, "better" angle of attack, and shorter take-off roll than the [31"] radials.
Based on these comments, how much shorter do you think you're taking of now, versus when you ran the 31" tires? Would you go so far as to say you can out perform a Cub on 31" tires, short field take off? Or maybe you could say that YOU can take off shorter now, than when you had the 31"'s?
In your view does the "20% less resistance" directly relate to 20% less ground roll?
For example if you are working an area, consistently, at about 300 feet take off roll; with these tires are you now working the same area at 60 less feet?
Have you done a true apples-to-apples comparision? Try the 31" tires, measure the take off distance. And then change to the 35" tires and do the same test, under the same conditions. If so, what was the take off distance(s)?
I really like the 31" radial tires and view them as the best tire ever made for a Cub. However, I can't help but think that sonner or later, bigger isn't always going to be better.
No doubt they look cool, but taking ALL factors into consideration do they REALLY offer better performance? If so, in what specific area's?
Good Flying...>Byron
I noticed a couple of your comments; like 20% less resistance, "better" angle of attack, and shorter take-off roll than the [31"] radials.
Based on these comments, how much shorter do you think you're taking of now, versus when you ran the 31" tires? Would you go so far as to say you can out perform a Cub on 31" tires, short field take off? Or maybe you could say that YOU can take off shorter now, than when you had the 31"'s?
In your view does the "20% less resistance" directly relate to 20% less ground roll?
For example if you are working an area, consistently, at about 300 feet take off roll; with these tires are you now working the same area at 60 less feet?
Have you done a true apples-to-apples comparision? Try the 31" tires, measure the take off distance. And then change to the 35" tires and do the same test, under the same conditions. If so, what was the take off distance(s)?
I really like the 31" radial tires and view them as the best tire ever made for a Cub. However, I can't help but think that sonner or later, bigger isn't always going to be better.
No doubt they look cool, but taking ALL factors into consideration do they REALLY offer better performance? If so, in what specific area's?
Good Flying...>Byron
I have been running the 35s for a while now on my experimental cub and I do have to concur, they do seem to displace rocks easier than the 31s. One rock hit the side of the fuselage, cut the fabric and bent my top aluminum stringer. I also have the obvious tail cuts and bends, but I got those with the 31s as well. I have been running around 3-3 1/2 psi tire pressure, they really take a load off the airplane. I have seen guys land their 31s in the BIG BIG rock, but I never did until I put the 35s on. They might be throwing up rocks more because I am landing rougher places. The 35s absorb much more energy than the 31s, obviously due to the larger diameter. The 35s use a 10" custom wheel rather than the 6 " wheel used on the 31s so the actual cushion depth (tire OD-wheel OD/2) is about the same. In my opinion it is the larger rolling diameter that makes them shine, they just roll over bigger stuff. I have not played in soft sand enough, but I would be surprised if the larger footprint did not drastically help in the soft sand. I am still a little gun shy on the soft sand after an unfortunate incident, but I am slowing getting my confidence back again. Just my observations
Luke the Drifter,No the 35s don,t reduce the take off roll 20%it takes 20% less enrgy to make the air plane roll vs bias tires,I have had a set of 31s great product but I would not have spent 6000 for 35s with wheels if they were not better.Thats My opinon which we all know what thats worth.
ground loop
Registered User
Anchorage
Any word from the BW people on whether they are pursuing this option for STC?
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Anyone know how much cruise speed the 35's rob?
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Lose less cruise speed than the Alaskan BW 39"ers? WOOHOO, there's 39's out!!
Just jokin'
So the 35's make you faster?
Faster than the 39's, kinda like 8.50's are faster on the Cherokee than these Gar-Aero's??
Are they makin' 39's now?. I can't keep up!
Just jokin'
So the 35's make you faster?
Faster than the 39's, kinda like 8.50's are faster on the Cherokee than these Gar-Aero's??
Are they makin' 39's now?. I can't keep up!
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Apples and apples question:
Radial 31 vs. Radial 35- which rolls easier at the same tire pressure?
I can see where the length of a 35 would absorb a certian amount of bump more than a 31, but you now have LOTS more weight it looks like, and think of that landing on asphault with that much surface area and weight to get turning....
I think that Bushwheels needs to bring up a set on a cub and let all of us fly it around, at least a week each so we can see for ourselves :lol:
I have the next month available!
Seriously, my friend has them on his beaver, and loves them. There is a grass area off of the runway he lands on, and is in sand lots. Great for that plane.
Radial 31 vs. Radial 35- which rolls easier at the same tire pressure?
I can see where the length of a 35 would absorb a certian amount of bump more than a 31, but you now have LOTS more weight it looks like, and think of that landing on asphault with that much surface area and weight to get turning....
I think that Bushwheels needs to bring up a set on a cub and let all of us fly it around, at least a week each so we can see for ourselves :lol:
I have the next month available!
Seriously, my friend has them on his beaver, and loves them. There is a grass area off of the runway he lands on, and is in sand lots. Great for that plane.
I have the 35" radials and have had the 31" bias tires. I have not done a side by side test on 35" and 31" radial rolling resistance, but logic should convince you that the larger rolling diameter will have less rolling resistance. With that said, the 35" take more energy to spin up on landing than the 31" (due to added inertia). The 35s are a little more grabby on touch down than the 31s, but it is hardly noticeable. I have landed on asphalt with my 35s and did not experience any thing unfavorable. The 35s with there larger rolling diameter have a lot more rubber so they should theoretically last longer for guys running on asphalt. I think you will like the 35s, if they get certified, they will be the next must have Super Cub mod.
Doug
Doug
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
"....next must have..."
I can understand your enthusiasm, Doug.
On the other hand, so, sooooo many guys are running around with big tires that would have done themselves a favor by running 8.50's and burning gas for a couple of seasons before hopping on a tire so forgiving as the ABW radials.
Practice, practice, experiences.......you just can't buy 'em.
I can understand your enthusiasm, Doug.
On the other hand, so, sooooo many guys are running around with big tires that would have done themselves a favor by running 8.50's and burning gas for a couple of seasons before hopping on a tire so forgiving as the ABW radials.
Practice, practice, experiences.......you just can't buy 'em.
Mauleguy
MEMBER
Beaver tire
Just a note that this is not the Beaver tire, it is over 20lbs lighter (average tire weight 38-39lbs). It comes out of the same mold but the tire is built like a 31" only is 100% kevlar and the 31" is nylon and kevlar, so is a stronger tire then the 31". If I have any of this wrong jump in Wup. The tire pressure thing is not a good comparison because if you were use to running 5 PSI in your 31" you will probably drop to 3 PSI in the 35" for the same feel. To be honest I think there is more rolling resistance but you are running less pressure and the tire can absorb a lot more. I would rather give a little up in my take off roll (10-15 ft big wup)as this is usually not the issue with landing a spot. It might be for the low HP guys so that is something to consider.
You gain some angle of attack and if there is some rolling resistance you can get in shorter!
Greg
Just a note that this is not the Beaver tire, it is over 20lbs lighter (average tire weight 38-39lbs). It comes out of the same mold but the tire is built like a 31" only is 100% kevlar and the 31" is nylon and kevlar, so is a stronger tire then the 31". If I have any of this wrong jump in Wup. The tire pressure thing is not a good comparison because if you were use to running 5 PSI in your 31" you will probably drop to 3 PSI in the 35" for the same feel. To be honest I think there is more rolling resistance but you are running less pressure and the tire can absorb a lot more. I would rather give a little up in my take off roll (10-15 ft big wup)as this is usually not the issue with landing a spot. It might be for the low HP guys so that is something to consider.
You gain some angle of attack and if there is some rolling resistance you can get in shorter!
Greg
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Ok, I'll ask:
If the tire is 38 lbs each, compared to a 31 at 31 lbs each (mine in particular), you now have 16 lbs added. Wheels now need to be larger, means more aluminum, more weight....
anyone want to give me a true Radial 31 to radial 35 comparison in true field conditions? :lol:
Pretend Is from Missouri
If the tire is 38 lbs each, compared to a 31 at 31 lbs each (mine in particular), you now have 16 lbs added. Wheels now need to be larger, means more aluminum, more weight....
anyone want to give me a true Radial 31 to radial 35 comparison in true field conditions? :lol:
Pretend Is from Missouri
Luke_theDrifter
Registered User
Dillingham, Alaska
Re: Beaver tire
I would rather give a little up in my take off roll (10-15 ft big wup)as this is usually not the issue with landing a spot. It might be for the low HP guys so that is something to consider.
You gain some angle of attack and if there is some rolling resistance you can get in shorter!
Greg[/quote]
_________I'm not an ace computer geek, above suppose to be a quote.
Mauleguy, I take this to mean that you're saying you can generally take off better [shorter] than landing. Is this correct, or did I not understand you correctly?
I don't have much time in a Maule, however I do have some time in a Cub. I can consistently land shorter than take off. Espesially in rough field conditions. In fact the spread between take-off distance & landing distance has the greatest disparity in rough conditons. When landing-taking off on a smooth surface the distances are closer to being similar, however I'm always landing shorter, or CAN, land shorter than I can take off.
Good Flying...>Byron
I would rather give a little up in my take off roll (10-15 ft big wup)as this is usually not the issue with landing a spot. It might be for the low HP guys so that is something to consider.
You gain some angle of attack and if there is some rolling resistance you can get in shorter!
Greg[/quote]
_________I'm not an ace computer geek, above suppose to be a quote.
Mauleguy, I take this to mean that you're saying you can generally take off better [shorter] than landing. Is this correct, or did I not understand you correctly?
I don't have much time in a Maule, however I do have some time in a Cub. I can consistently land shorter than take off. Espesially in rough field conditions. In fact the spread between take-off distance & landing distance has the greatest disparity in rough conditons. When landing-taking off on a smooth surface the distances are closer to being similar, however I'm always landing shorter, or CAN, land shorter than I can take off.
Good Flying...>Byron
Mauleguy
MEMBER
Distance
Actual weight difference 31" radial= 37lbs, 35" radial= 53lbs. (total weight added to airplane 32 lbs.) Is it worth it to most guys?
I can without a question get out shorter, (not at gross weight). Just screwing around (Me, full fuel, survival gear, tools). If it is rough I can get out shorter then if it is smooth, this almost always throws me into the air before I would be airborne on a smooth surface. My airplane will fly alot slower then I am capable of landing because the angle of attach is so great (feels unnatural its so steep), you can't see where your going so you can't land this way but if you are blasting out of somewhere and you get thrown into the air you can use this rather insane angle to leave. Not sure if this makes sense but I tried!
My airplane with me and half fuel at sea level can get out in 100 ft but I need 150-175 ft to land and come to a stop. This is play.
If I was working the airplane I would still want the 35" even if they cost me a small amount on the take off roll. I would be happy to do some takeoff rolling resistance testing if Wup will send me a set of 31" tires. I can get the actual skinny on what the minor difference would be. My guess at gross weight it will be so small a difference it's not a concern. It may even favor the 35".
Greg
Actual weight difference 31" radial= 37lbs, 35" radial= 53lbs. (total weight added to airplane 32 lbs.) Is it worth it to most guys?
I can without a question get out shorter, (not at gross weight). Just screwing around (Me, full fuel, survival gear, tools). If it is rough I can get out shorter then if it is smooth, this almost always throws me into the air before I would be airborne on a smooth surface. My airplane will fly alot slower then I am capable of landing because the angle of attach is so great (feels unnatural its so steep), you can't see where your going so you can't land this way but if you are blasting out of somewhere and you get thrown into the air you can use this rather insane angle to leave. Not sure if this makes sense but I tried!
My airplane with me and half fuel at sea level can get out in 100 ft but I need 150-175 ft to land and come to a stop. This is play.
If I was working the airplane I would still want the 35" even if they cost me a small amount on the take off roll. I would be happy to do some takeoff rolling resistance testing if Wup will send me a set of 31" tires. I can get the actual skinny on what the minor difference would be. My guess at gross weight it will be so small a difference it's not a concern. It may even favor the 35".
Greg
