View Poll Results: So was this helpful and will you use it in the future?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • No way your crazy - get new tires!

    10 22.73%
  • Possibly - but I'm not sure now..

    8 18.18%
  • Most likely, Thanks!

    12 27.27%
  • Heck YES! Save me the $2,200!! Thanks Dave!

    14 31.82%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 75 of 75

Thread: 26" ABW Airstreaks, repairing with bedliner material - Herculiner Brush / Roll on

  1. #41
    SC3CM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    658
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lefoy84 View Post
    If it works for you that is great. i wouldnt do it on a bet.

    Eddie
    A month ago you would never have shut the engine down in flight either

  2. #42
    cubpilot2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just to stir the discussion....
    If this stuff is put on a tire that is not in need of repair, on a certificated airplane it would then become and alteration.
    Question is. Would it be a minor? (log book entry) or a Major? Needing approval?
    Ed

  3. #43
    Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Petersburgh, NY
    Posts
    3,540
    Post Thanks / Like

  4. #44
    Fat Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nome
    Posts
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anything that does not fit the criteria for a major alteration (FAR 43 Appendix A) is a minor alteration - log book entry.

    As far as recapping your bushwheels with auto motive truck bed liner. There is no way the Feds would buy off on this being a preventive maintenance action. As a practical mater it isn't going to make **** all difference if you put truck bed liner on your bushwheels. As long as you and your IA are willing to take the heat if you ever get caught.

  5. #45
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    3,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by davidv.lewis View Post
    ......43.13 Para 1-36 is section 1 paragraph 36 defining what a repair is.
    "The basic standard for any aircraft repair is that the repaired structure must be as strong as the original structure and be equivalent to the original in rigidity and aerodynamic shape. Repairs should be made in accordance with manufacturers specifications whenever such data is available".
    There is no data available from ABW.
    It's pretty much anything goes with regards to experimentals, but when it comes to certificated airplanes I'd say the bedliner repair job falls into the "don't ask, don't tell" and "BI" (between inspections) categories.
    The other way of looking at "there is no data available from ABW" is that there is no manufacturer-approved repair for a worn out bushwheel.
    I'm not saying bedliner doesn't work or that a lot of people aren't doing it, just don't expect the FAA (or your IA) to buy into it if it comes to their attention.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  6. #46
    courierguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,799
    Post Thanks / Like
    Leaving aside the legalities, as I am as mentioned EXPERIMENTAL, the use or non use of bedliner may be more called for, if you spend a lot of time on rocky shale as opposed to manicured grass strips, dirt, or rounded small river rock. What precipitated my use of the Herculiner (better then RhinoLiner in my experience) was seeing the cuts in my virgin tire after a few landings at some sites that "feature".......rocky shale. These sites are local to me and I visit them often. One cut was so deep I slapped a patch on it as soon as I got home, even though it was on the wear surface, and I was afraid I would feel it when taxiing on paved surfaces. Which I did, "calumph, calumph" etc. Good thing I rarely find myself on asphalt, ( about 10 landings last year in over 200 hours) and when I do I use mid field take offs/landings to keep the time spent to a min. After my first full can of Herc liner, the patch "went away". Like feathering out a drywall patch, the surrounding area was built up enough to fair in the tire patch, making it a non issue. Is my tire out of balance? Maybe. Do I FEEL any imbalance, is it an operational issue,? No. Taking off and landing every time, as others as said, below 40, helps a lot. To me, using bedliner is like using cheap rubber boots to protect your dress wingtips (been a few years since I wore them), hen the cheap boots wear out, throw them away and buy another pair, meanwhile the wingtips keep on looking sharp.

    I worry much more about getting the stuff OFF anything it unintentionally gets on them it unexpectedly flying off in a big piece. Short of a cold chisel, my experience with it has been it sticks like glue to anything it touches, one of my hubcaps being proof of that. It especially sticks well to itself, so subsequent coats are not going anywhere. BTW: I run down to 2.5 psi, but the plane only weighs 750 lbs empty, and I once folded a tire IN HALF on a steep side hill I got too slow and low on (low as in 1.5 psi), still, the Herc shrugged it off.

    I guess I feel the same about not buying Avgas ever, just mogas. There are enough of you cert guys worried about the Feds and your insurance carriers that can, or at least may have to, support the industry. Others can prop up the Avgas infrastructure, and hopefully keep ABW solvent, (and I will happily cough up up the dough for another pair of 29" Airstreaks when I absolutely have to, gladly, but not until I HAVE TO), if I can find a way to severely limit my participation I'll do so, and buy more mogas.

  7. #47
    Jim 4WF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    anchorage
    Posts
    62
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like bushwheels--are they cheep--no
    will they last forever-no
    are they the best tool for the job and my flying style--hell yes
    Like it or not every part on these planes has a life limit and stretching that limit usually leads to trouble of some sorts sooner or later. I have 35s and run from 3-4 psi and unfortunately land on pavement every time I come home. Now at 600+ hours the tires are still looking good. I limit my landing speed, and taxi distance, and do the best I can to get them to last as long as possible. The pounding these tires take is incredible---gravel bars, logs, stumps, volcanic rocks, shale are the norm. They have saved my plane at least twice due to poor prep of landing sites by me and hidden logs in tall grass. Right now if I need new tires today these have cost $6.60 per flight hour. I will hate it, but find a way to go to Airframes and get new tires when I need them, as they are the only tool for the job and I know how hard it is to get anything certified these days. When my engine starts making metal I am not going to NAPA for engine fix in a can either.
    As an IA coated tired on a certified aircraft is a NO-GO.

  8. #48
    algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Seldovia,Ak
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't think I would sign this repair off, that's just me, nothing personal against it just wouldn't want to ans. questions to the Feds. It's not so much the the Bedliner, if a tire was to blow out on landing the aircraft did the nose over and someone got killed or injured , I wouldn't want to be the sign off guy. Please note from experience a Piper can go over at 10mph and cause injury, so your thoughts of 40kts what could happen is not valid. Again this is just me.

  9. #49
    Super Dave
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by N86250 View Post
    Being the owner doing preventive maintenance on a certified airplane doesn't let you ignore the FARs. From 43.13--
    (a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in Sec. 43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices.

    Is coating a tire with bedliner described in a maintenance manual?
    Is coating a tire with bedliner acceptable to the FAA administrator?
    Is coating a tire with bedliner described in an Instruction for Continued Airworthiess?
    Is coating a tire with bedliner an accepted industry practice?
    I don't see the FAA acceping a yes to any of these.

    (b) Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness).

    If the bedliner flakes off or otherwise separates from the tire, does it meet the "original or properly altered condition"? Does the "tread" of bushwheels flake off before bedliner is applied?
    I don't see a yes here either.

    The one thing I am having difficulty finding is about the non-airworthiness of a bias tire when wear, cracks, or cuts expose the underlying fabric. Would we agree that a bushwheel worn to the cord no longer meets the FAA's definition of airworthy? Does applying bedliner make an nonairworthy tire airworthy again? Is there even an accepted industry practice of recapping a tire that is worn to the cord showing? As much as I sympathize with the desire to extend the life of a very expensive tire, I think this a losing argument for all but the experimental guys and maybe a loser for them too, unless they are documenting coating tires as an experiment. That might depend on just what it says in the operational limitations and how it's interpreted. jrh
    Is coating a tire with bedliner described in a maintenance manual?

    Nope, there is nothing of any type of "repair" to include patching a leak.


    Is coating a tire with bedliner acceptable to the FAA administrator?

    Is painting your airframe acceptable? This is by all accounts a thick paint.

    Is coating a tire with bedliner described in an Instruction for Continued Airworthiess?

    There are no MX items in the CA document.


    Is coating a tire with bedliner an accepted industry practice?

    Dont know - Where are all the accepted industry practices located? I would bet there not written down anywhere and change on a regular basis.

    If the bedliner flakes off or otherwise separates from the tire, does it meet the "original or properly altered condition"? Does the "tread" of bushwheels flake off before bedliner is applied?
    I don't see a yes here either.

    Properly applied bedliner wont "Flake" off. Period. Bedliner will wear just like the tire tread. This is from my experience as a contractor in the bedliner business. I can understand the questions but your guessing based on ideas that you have. I have over 12 years in the coatings industry and I know that will not happen.



    The one thing I am having difficulty finding is about the non-airworthiness of a bias tire when wear, cracks, or cuts expose the underlying fabric. Would we agree that a bushwheel worn to the cord no longer meets the FAA's definition of airworthy? Does applying bedliner make an nonairworthy tire airworthy again?

    Yes, just like applying a patch.


    Is there even an accepted industry practice of recapping a tire that is worn to the cord showing?

    Not sure but I bet yes.


    As much as I sympathize with the desire to extend the life of a very expensive tire, I think this a losing argument for all but the experimental guys and maybe a loser for them too, unless they are documenting coating tires as an experiment. That might depend on just what it says in the operational limitations and how it's interpreted.

    Thats your opnion, I on the other hand have a different one. I am very comfortable with my decision and work.

  10. #50
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,992
    Post Thanks / Like
    OK guys,
    I have been following this discussion with interest. This is not a procedure which I would consider since my Cub doesn't have wheels or tires. All of the comments have some validity which brings to my mind a solution to satisfy all of you. Dave Lewis has qualified himself. He has described, in detail, a procedure which to me sounds very valid. The naysayers have some valid comments as well. If I were Dave, I would put everything, which he wrote (including the pictures) in his first post, on the back of a 337 form. Then I would take it to his friendly FSDO representative and talk him/her into signing a field approval for a major repair procedure for his "XYZ" tires on his airplane. Field approvals can be issued which are valid on multiple airplanes. Dave could then sell each of you naysayers a copy for your use which would now make all of you legal.

    (Gee, maybe he could then write off his tires on his taxes as a business expense to off set what little income he gets from the sale of copies of the 337? )
    N1PA

  11. #51
    algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Seldovia,Ak
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    Now there is a constructive response , if David were to get the approval, or even better a repair station authorization. Could be a nice little nich business.

  12. #52
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,992
    Post Thanks / Like
    The repair station idea would require that all the tires be sent to David with him doing the work.


    ps. The repair station idea would also expose David to some additional liability issues. Personally I would not do this.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 04-02-2015 at 01:27 PM.
    N1PA

  13. #53
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    10,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    I don't think I would sign this repair off, that's just me, nothing personal against it just wouldn't want to ans. questions to the Feds. It's not so much the the Bedliner, if a tire was to blow out on landing the aircraft did the nose over and someone got killed or injured , I wouldn't want to be the sign off guy. Please note from experience a Piper can go over at 10mph and cause injury, so your thoughts of 40kts what could happen is not valid. Again this is just me.
    I like the plastic on the ski bottoms analoge as to coating tires with bedliner. The plastic on the ski bottoms can crack sideways ( mine has ) on a ski and trip you up also. How many of you nay-sayers to bedliner are running plastic on your skis. Don't some of you also run homemade gap seals on control surfaces. So...... running tires with cuts that could have been avoided is safer then protecting them from damage? Makes no sense at all. So a Cub flips over from a flat tire that had a slice in it it got while taking off and hurts someone and it ends up in court. Your were the IA for the plane and the plaintiff's lawyer says, " so there is a coating that could have been on that tire to prevent the cut but you wouldn't let the owner use it? "

    Glenn
    Last edited by cubdriver2; 04-02-2015 at 08:36 AM.

  14. #54
    Super Dave
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    OK guys,
    I have been following this discussion with interest. This is not a procedure which I would consider since my Cub doesn't have wheels or tires. All of the comments have some validity which brings to my mind a solution to satisfy all of you. Dave Lewis has qualified himself. He has described, in detail, a procedure which to me sounds very valid. The naysayers have some valid comments as well. If I were Dave, I would put everything, which he wrote (including the pictures) in his first post, on the back of a 337 form. Then I would take it to his friendly FSDO representative and talk him/her into signing a field approval for a major repair procedure for his "XYZ" tires on his airplane. Field approvals can be issued which are valid on multiple airplanes. Dave could then sell each of you naysayers a copy for your use which would now make all of you legal.

    (Gee, maybe he could then write off his tires on his taxes as a business expense to off set what little income he gets from the sale of copies of the 337? )

    UUMMMMMM I think I will do that.....

  15. #55
    algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Seldovia,Ak
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    The plastic bottoms are an approved repair and also done by OEM ski manufactures, with tested and approved materials. This is a legal repair to a ski. David has all the data and knowledge to do the coating but it isn't approved and simpliy not legal. If he were to go thru the effort to get it approved and to get a repair lic. He would have a good deal going, I hope he does as we need this type of innovation in the business. Materials and adhesives have made tec advances that are fantastic.
    Now as far as being sued in court the ans is " I gave Mr. X a letter of discrepancy telling him the tire in question didn't meet airworthy standards and needed to be replaced, when that was done and inspected the aircraft would be in a airworthy condition" per FAA

  16. #56
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    10,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    The plastic bottoms are an approved repair and also done by OEM ski manufactures, with tested and approved materials. This is a legal repair to a ski. David has all the data and knowledge to do the coating but it isn't approved and simpliy not legal. If he were to go thru the effort to get it approved and to get a repair lic. He would have a good deal going, I hope he does as we need this type of innovation in the business. Materials and adhesives have made tec advances that are fantastic.
    Now as far as being sued in court the ans is " I gave Mr. X a letter of discrepancy telling him the tire in question didn't meet airworthy standards and needed to be replaced, when that was done and inspected the aircraft would be in a airworthy condition" per FAA
    Where do I get a copy of that approval to make my 65 year old skis legal? I'm pretty sure when I bought the plastic back in 1996 ftom Federal/Aero that he told me it was a grey area putting the plastic on. So....its ok to drill 300 holes in a certified part but not protect a certified tire?

    Glenn
    Last edited by cubdriver2; 04-02-2015 at 10:08 AM.

  17. #57
    algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Seldovia,Ak
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't made the rules, AC 43-13 or call F Atlee In ANC they will have the infro. I had the discussion with a Fed and he told me that I had to screws and nuts not rivets, that I have no idea of where that came from other than this fed.

  18. #58
    cubpilot2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    I don't made the rules, AC 43-13 or call F Atlee In ANC they will have the infro. I had the discussion with a Fed and he told me that I had to screws and nuts not rivets, that I have no idea of where that came from other than this fed.
    We are dodging the major repair thing with skis by not riveting or welding which specifically puts it into that category.
    What is ignored is that it is an alteration no mater how you look at it..... but it is one that is not only accepted as "minor" but viewed as a good practice and also come to be expected . I have yet to see a log entry for putting plastic on skis.

    I have no need or intentions of putting this stuff on my tires; but the concept is interesting due to how we are viewing it.

    We are not accustomed to seeing bedliner on tires as a practice therefore it is not readily accepted.

    If you call this a "repair" it will not "fly" as there is are no approvals or data for using it, and could only apply to Experimental.

    But if someone wants to install this stuff on a tire that is in good condition / not needing repairs then maybe it could possibly be viewed differently....

    Under Preventative maintenance definition:

    (10) Applying preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good practices.

    If a person thinks that this coating will some how preserve or protect the component (perhaps from UV damage) then why cant it fall into this category? Is it prohibited somewhere? Is it a good practice? (yet to be determined) Does it somehow compromise the integrity of the tire that is put on? Not to my knowledge.

    I suspect that the first set of UHMW that was screwed onto a set of skis may not have fit into this view either.

    So if you don't wait until the tires have a problem perhaps.....
    Ed

  19. #59
    NimpoCub's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nimpo Lake, BC . . . AKA "the Floatplane Capital of BC"
    Posts
    3,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lots of guessing here as to what the fed's would say. Why not submit all the data (Dave's), and ask what they do say?

  20. #60
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,992
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubpilot2 View Post
    ....We are not accustomed to seeing bedliner on tires as a practice therefore it is not readily accepted.

    If you call this a "repair" it will not "fly" as there is are no approvals or data for using it, and could only apply to Experimental. ....
    Ed,
    If you follow the procedure which I described above in post #50, Dave's process would become an "approved" repair for the specified tires. It would be legal on a certified airplane when accomplished in accordance with the procedure. If Dave wants to be able to allow others to use the procedure, he needs to be sure not to have anything written into it which says words to the effect "when accomplished by Dave".
    N1PA

  21. #61
    cubpilot2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Ed,
    If you follow the procedure which I described above in post #50, Dave's process would become an "approved" repair for the specified tires. It would be legal on a certified airplane when accomplished in accordance with the procedure. If Dave wants to be able to allow others to use the procedure, he needs to be sure not to have anything written into it which says words to the effect "when accomplished by Dave".
    I hate to feel pessimistic but to the best of my knowledge getting a "multiple use field approval" like those that Dans Aircraft has, is a thing of the past.

    If Dave wants to sell this system I would expect the current FSDO to send him through the STC engineering route. He would have expensive testing to do to prove the adhesion of the product and prove that it does not impact the original composition; along with anything else they can dream up.

    I have a friend that have lately tried to get an approval on his T-craft for a C-150 exhaust (which was already installed when he bought it) using prior field approvals for data. Juneau said that wouldn't work as that they wanted proof testing of the carb heating along with flight testing. He luckily found an engineer in Texas who had the engineering specs to satisfy the feds. $$
    Ed

  22. #62
    Super Dave
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by NimpoCub View Post
    Lots of guessing here as to what the fed's would say. Why not submit all the data (Dave's), and ask what they do say?
    Ok so Im game anyone what to help? PM me.

  23. #63
    Fat Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Nome
    Posts
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    So does anybody know what the best procedure is for flying a down wind turn to landing?

  24. #64
    Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Petersburgh, NY
    Posts
    3,540
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Kid View Post
    So does anybody know what the best procedure is for flying a down wind turn to landing?
    It depends, if you have Herculiner on your tires, and if it's put on even

  25. #65

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Hunter Lake NB, Canada
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is getting kind of funny. Lawyers, liability, nose-overs, what the faa thinks, and 337s. All over applying sticky stuff to big tires on slow moving planes. Some tires only reaching a scorching 35mph. This despite the fact that ABWs, by their very design, are intended to be used in real rough places. Places that'd make your mother cringe if she knew what her boy (or girl ), was up to. So, "ya check the things that'll kill ya first and the other stuff second". Will delaminating bedliner kill ya? Very, very slim chance. So you don't worry about that. But what about a little bit of misjudgement during the course of getting the most out of your ABWs in a place that doesn't even remotely resemble a runway? That really could kill ya.

  26. #66
    bigrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Texas
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like
    Before you spend any $$$$ on approval from the FAA you might want to get an approval from the manufacturer. After the first lawsuit that they get drug into and then they label their cans "not for use on aircraft", game over.

  27. #67
    algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Seldovia,Ak
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    Roddy you live where it's diferent , the lawyers are so bad it's hard to explain. The case being made was an aircraft accident not relating to the coating , what ever it may be pilot error etc, and you have a coating signed off the lawyer will sue you. The shop i work in got sued for $100,000.00 because we had installed a starter on the aircraft that lost the engine a short time later, nothing to do with the starter. The reason we were insured. The insurance company's don't fight right or wrong and just offer a settlement. When working for myself I don't and can't afford insurance so there you have the state of the art aviation cover you butt in the states.

  28. #68

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Hunter Lake NB, Canada
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    Roddy you live where it's diferent , the lawyers are so bad it's hard to explain. The case being made was an aircraft accident not relating to the coating , what ever it may be pilot error etc, and you have a coating signed off the lawyer will sue you. The shop i work in got sued for $100,000.00 because we had installed a starter on the aircraft that lost the engine a short time later, nothing to do with the starter. The reason we were insured. The insurance company's don't fight right or wrong and just offer a settlement. When working for myself I don't and can't afford insurance so there you have the state of the art aviation cover you butt in the states.
    I understand you're position totally. We operate a small business and liability is a concern always and being properly covered is a must. It's too bad it's that way. We seemed to have done it to ourselves somehow.

  29. #69
    Super Dave
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrock View Post
    Before you spend any $$$$ on approval from the FAA you might want to get an approval from the manufacturer. After the first lawsuit that they get drug into and then they label their cans "not for use on aircraft", game over.
    I don't think ABW is interested in this, its a loss of sales. If they wanted this it would be in the COCA under repairs. Im not going to live my life based upon some conceived notion of getting sued. Thats why we have corporations for aircraft ownership. That line of thinking stifles new ideas.

  30. #70
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,992
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by davidv.lewis View Post
    Ok so Im game anyone what to help? PM me.
    PM sent.
    N1PA

  31. #71
    bigrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Texas
    Posts
    286
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by davidv.lewis View Post
    I don't think ABW is interested in this, its a loss of sales. If they wanted this it would be in the COCA under repairs. Im not going to live my life based upon some conceived notion of getting sued. Thats why we have corporations for aircraft ownership. That line of thinking stifles new ideas.
    I was referring to the manufacturer of the bed liner not ABW.

  32. #72
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    3,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by davidv.lewis View Post
    ... Im not going to live my life based upon some conceived notion of getting sued. .....
    I wouldn't worry too much about being sued, unless a big slab of bedliner flew off and killed someone.
    My concern would be more about getting it signed off at annual time.
    If your IA's good to go with it, great. If not, put some other tires on for the inspection.
    Like I said, don't ask don't tell.
    You seem mad because very few other people are buying into your "it's approved" argument.
    But the only person you have to convince is yourself ------ and your IA.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  33. #73
    marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Boise,IDAHO
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was a guy last year at Johnsoncreek that did it to his 26in Aw. Marc
    t-cart n43643

  34. #74
    Super Dave
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    I wouldn't worry too much about being sued, unless a big slab of bedliner flew off and killed someone.
    My concern would be more about getting it signed off at annual time.
    If your IA's good to go with it, great. If not, put some other tires on for the inspection.
    Like I said, don't ask don't tell.
    You seem mad because very few other people are buying into your "it's approved" argument.
    But the only person you have to convince is yourself ------ and your IA.
    No, not mad just disappointed in the overall "Im afraid because I might (enter your tragedy here)" tone that is coming over here. I'm OK and the IA is ok with this but its a hot button issue and I think I might go the field approval way first and see what happens.

  35. #75
    Super Dave
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrock View Post
    I was referring to the manufacturer of the bed liner not ABW.
    OK thanks!

Similar Threads

  1. STC for 30" goodyear Airstreaks
    By gunnerhodgson in forum Modifications
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-12-2019, 02:37 AM
  2. Bedliner on ABW Airstreaks
    By courierguy in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 02-24-2018, 07:26 AM
  3. 26" Airstreaks on a PA-11
    By T. Parsons in forum Products, Purchases, Reviews & Prices
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 07:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •