• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

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

So was this helpful and will you use it in the future?


  • Total voters
    52
. I doubt very seriously that any of these coating applied to Bushwheels would pass the FAA's test. If you think applying these coatings is covered by "preventive maintenance" I would have to guess wrong as well. I can't quote chapter and verse but I bet if you called the FAA they would not agree with you.

Thanks Steve, If I was in your position I would most likely make the same decision. but with all the information that was talked about above - 43.13 and FAR 43 Appendix (A) Paragraph (C) I feel comfortable with my decision. I am not in the business of repairing or selling aircraft nor am I an A&P. Again this can be discussed over and over and opinions will vary - even with the FAA.

I had to answer several questions for myself. 1. Is it allowed in the letter of the Regulation - I believe yes. 2. Is it safe and would I put my family on the aircraft - yes. 3. Does this make sense? Yes.

I am not looking to put ABW out of business or harm them and I have nothing but good feelings about Bill and ABW. I called and asked if they retread the tires like Dresser, the answer was no and I was told to purchase new ones. Well that I thought was not a good answer as other tire manufactures do retread tires and offer that service. So I did my research and coated them. I offered this experience here so others can learn and make that decision for themselves. It would be great if ABW did start to offer a trade in program or recapping service, if that was available I would most likely taken advantage of it.
 
I agree with Steve. Dont think bedliner on a certified plane's tires will pass the smell test. Your insurance carrier would probably faint.

IMHO, YMMV

Eddie

Again, there is nothing in FAR 43 that states what you can and cant repair your tires with. I don't see how this doesn't pass a "smell" test and I don't see that the repair needs to pass a test that the manufacturer must pass when they make the tires.

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.
 
I am not following the connection between owner preventative maintenance and the repair using Rhino liner. Can you expand on that?
Its a repair that you as the owner can do. Like painting a cowling or adding oil, you or someone on your direction can do that for you, its allowed under part 43.
 
All I know is dropping $3-4K for a set of tires is a one time deal for me. I've been to the factory and have a great appreciation for the work that goes into the ABW. They are a fine work of craftsmanship. However, when mine start to show wear it's bedliner time. No mas dinero.
 
All I know is dropping $3-4K for a set of tires is a one time deal for me. I've been to the factory and have a great appreciation for the work that goes into the ABW. They are a fine work of craftsmanship. However, when mine start to show wear it's bedliner time. No mas dinero.

Ha, looks like Buggs hit the nail on the head from here
 
Its a repair that you as the owner can do. Like painting a cowling or adding oil, you or someone on your direction can do that for you, its allowed under part 43.

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
 
If it works for you that is great. i wouldnt do it on a bet.

Eddie




Again, there is nothing in FAR 43 that states what you can and cant repair your tires with. I don't see how this doesn't pass a "smell" test and I don't see that the repair needs to pass a test that the manufacturer must pass when they make the tires.

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.
 
I view adding a protective layer of whatever product you choose to your tires sort of similarly adding a protective layer of UHMW to the bottom of a pair of skis. Remember that your skis are also a TSO'd product and modifying them with plastic may be questionable also. Not one member here would give a second look to a pair of skis with plastic on them, in fact if you don't have plastic on them people would give them a second look. Adding a protective layer of Herculiner to extend the life of a $3500+ pair of tires seems reasonable to me. Doing it under owner preventative maintenance, well, that might be a grey area. Jim
 
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?
 
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.
 
......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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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? :lol:)
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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? :lol:)


UUMMMMMM :roll::lol: I think I will do that.....
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.....
 
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?
 
....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".
 
Back
Top