Let's talk about tires...

[Raptor05121]

Didn't Aviation Consumer do a cost benefit analysis on all tires and come out and say the Dessers retreads are the best bang for your buck?

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Raptor05121 said:

Didn't Aviation Consumer do a cost benefit analysis on all tires and come out and say the Dessers retreads are the best bang for your buck?

Would love to read about it because it will certainly disapprove expensive = better theory. 

[Raptor05121]

26 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Would love to read about it because it will certainly disapprove expensive = better theory. 

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/34_6/misc/5341-1.html

" We burned a lot of rubber to find out. Top picks are from Goodyear and a retread called the Monster. "
 

[jetdriven]

I see. But did you land heavier on one side than the other? The Aerotrainer might be the tire that took most of the brunt? Other possibilities include and certainly do not limit to: 

1) FCIII might also blew and resulted in the same amount of damage if it was placed on the same side when subjected to the same force because the donuts weren't as fresh on that side?

NO, the donuts were the same age, 8 years.

2) Maybe that aerotrainer was one of those rare ones that escaped a good QC? 

NO, it was airworthy and conformed to its type design.

3) Was the aerotrainer a much older tire than FCIII on the other side?

No if anything it was newer.

4) The runway surface, maybe it was not paved evenly or had rough patch-up areas?

No, freshly paved, runway 17 KLBX.

So many possibilities / uncertainties.

Only in your mind.  Nothing will satisfy your shifting and ever increasing requirement and burden of proof. It was a wings level hard landing where the side that incurred damage was the same side as the cheap tire.

With regards to the sidewall thickness and stiffness. How do you know thin and soft automatically translate to poor durability / safety? I can equally argue that thinner and softer tires are better because they cushion the impact more than a strong and stiff tire? I know your gear door was damaged but it sure beats bending the wing (causing fuel leak) or dinging the prop with a very stiff tire (big bounces)? Of course I am just speculating but come to think of it you were too, weren't you? Because neither of us are specialist in rubber / tire technology.

Ive cut strips from both tires to make the exhaust hangar. the Goodyear FC3 and similar tires have a 1/4" thick sidewall. This isnt for looks, its to carry more weight.  Ok, well if you think you are going to snap a wing spar on a Mooney becuase the tire is too stiff, well thats your fantasy.  I wasnt speculating, I was flying in the airplane when it happened.  I was also the one who repaired the gear door then changed the tire.  the tire pressure was identical. However, lowering both to 25 PSI, the 15 PSI, then 10 PSI the Goodyear looked inflated, the Aero Trainer would sag lower each time.

 

I did look up some tire data for you. the McCreary Aero trainer has a 1750lb load rating, same as the FC2 and FC3.  However, I could not find the bottoming load for the Aero trainer, which is what mattered in my instance. the Goodyear is 4700lb.  Actually I have the 6.00-6 8-ply retreads from Desser on my plane now. Their bottoming load is 6300lb.  I dont worry about gear doors hitting the ground anymore.

It really doesn't matter to me what you think or do. But you throw out these strange hypotheses, not backed by anything other than feeling, and demand others prove you wrong with data that doesn't satisfy you, ever.  the burden of proof is on you, not me.  And worse yet, someone reads your expert advice and follows it, not knowing the difference.

http://www.stausaonline.com/tires/aero-trainer-aircraft-tires/

https://www.goodyearaviation.com/resources/pdf/databook_4_2015.pdf

[201er]

Someone's had a bit too much Red Bull.

[Tommy]

2 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I see. But did you land heavier on one side than the other? The Aerotrainer might be the tire that took most of the brunt? Other possibilities include and certainly do not limit to: 

1) FCIII might also blew and resulted in the same amount of damage if it was placed on the same side when subjected to the same force because the donuts weren't as fresh on that side?

NO, the donuts were the same age, 8 years.

2) Maybe that aerotrainer was one of those rare ones that escaped a good QC? 

NO, it was airworthy and conformed to its type design.

3) Was the aerotrainer a much older tire than FCIII on the other side?

No if anything it was newer.

4) The runway surface, maybe it was not paved evenly or had rough patch-up areas?

No, freshly paved, runway 17 KLBX.

So many possibilities / uncertainties.

Only in your mind.  Nothing will satisfy your shifting and ever increasing requirement and burden of proof. It was a wings level hard landing where the side that incurred damage was the same side as the cheap tire.

With regards to the sidewall thickness and stiffness. How do you know thin and soft automatically translate to poor durability / safety? I can equally argue that thinner and softer tires are better because they cushion the impact more than a strong and stiff tire? I know your gear door was damaged but it sure beats bending the wing (causing fuel leak) or dinging the prop with a very stiff tire (big bounces)? Of course I am just speculating but come to think of it you were too, weren't you? Because neither of us are specialist in rubber / tire technology.

Ive cut strips from both tires to make the exhaust hangar. the Goodyear FC3 and similar tires have a 1/4" thick sidewall. This isnt for looks, its to carry more weight.  Ok, well if you think you are going to snap a wing spar on a Mooney becuase the tire is too stiff, well thats your fantasy.  I wasnt speculating, I was flying in the airplane when it happened.  I was also the one who repaired the gear door then changed the tire.  the tire pressure was identical. However, lowering both to 25 PSI, the 15 PSI, then 10 PSI the Goodyear looked inflated, the Aero Trainer would sag lower each time.

 

I did look up some tire data for you. the McCreary Aero trainer has a 1750lb load rating, same as the FC2 and FC3.  However, I could not find the bottoming load for the Aero trainer, which is what mattered in my instance. the Goodyear is 4700lb.  Actually I have the 6.00-6 8-ply retreads from Desser on my plane now. Their bottoming load is 6300lb.  I dont worry about gear doors hitting the ground anymore.

It really doesn't matter to me what you think or do. But you throw out these strange hypotheses, not backed by anything other than feeling, and demand others prove you wrong with data that doesn't satisfy you, ever.  the burden of proof is on you, not me.  And worse yet, someone reads your expert advice and follows it, not knowing the difference.

http://www.stausaonline.com/tires/aero-trainer-aircraft-tires/

https://www.goodyearaviation.com/resources/pdf/databook_4_2015.pdf

 

You really need to go and take a course in  philosophy 101. Burden of Proof is on you when you say expensive tires like FCIII is better than cheap tires like Air Trac or Aero Trainers AND that thicker and stiffer tires are better. Yes you did provide evidences and opinions - YOUR OWN and nothing else. Maybe, what, 3 or 4 sets of tires you changed on your Mooney? This is precisely why I said to the OP, take it with a grain of salt because for every person who vouched for FCIII there will be another dissing it. 

So, unlike you, Alex @Raptor05121 and I went on and did some researches. I couldn't find anything I considered to be objective but Alex might had something. 

Where is yours? NONE... except your own...

[jetdriven]

You're hopeless. Good day sir.

[Tommy]

3 hours ago, jetdriven said:

You're hopeless. Good day sir.

ps. the thickness of the tire!?  The thicker the better. WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

ps. would you be surprised if Aero Trainer has EXACTLY the same bottom load rating as FC3? If that's the case, does it mean your theory is wrong? And even if it's lower, HOW MUCH LOWER IT NEEDS TO BE BEFORE YOU CONSIDER IT AS IMPORTANT AND MAKES A DIFFERENCE? Do you know? Well I don't. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't see  Mooney specify bottom loading requirement in their maintenance manual. So is there something you know that Mooney doesn't?

[jetdriven]

Find me the bottoming load rating on the Aero Trainer. 100$ to you via paypal if its the same as the FC3 6.00-6.  If its less, you go away from this board and never come back.  Deal?

Edited July 26, 2017 by jetdriven

[Tommy]

"It was a wings level hard landing where the side that incurred damage was the same side as the cheap tire."

There is no such thing as perfect wings level landing. One tire will always touch down first even if it's a nano second difference. That's just science. Would that nano second make a difference? I don't know but I am willing to bet that you don't know either. That itself is enough to counter your theory. 

What I am trying to say is this, mate. There are so many possibilities and variables. One hard landing does NOT have the power to give you any statistically significant amount of data to draw outrageous claim such as expensive FCIII is definitely better than Aero Trainer. 

That's why GOOD DILIGENT scientists carry out thousands of experiments before drawing conclusions. 

[Tommy]

3 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Find me the bottoming load rating on the Aero Trainer. 100$ to you via paypal if its the same as the FC3 6.00-6.  If its less, you go away from this board and never come back.  Deal?

I will double down. Find me a GOOD research paper that says the bottoming load rating matters - specifically, when and under what circumstances, for eg. the surface of the runway, the force of the landing, the force differential, the side-load etc and with what difference in rating before it can be considered significant in GA aircrafts with MTOW < 5700kg? 

200$ to you via paypal if you can find it. If you can't, you are still more than welcome to come back so I get to enjoy watching you eating the humble pie.

Because if it doesn't matter (again, Mooney DID NOT SPECIFY IT IN ITS MANUAL), then what's the point of me looking up Aero Trainer's bottom load rating?

ps. google "How to read a paper" to see what constitute as a good paper.

pps. I could've gone even harsher with my criteria to say " in a Mooney" but I honestly want to give that $200 away because if it exists, it sure will change how I buy tires from now. Small price to pay.

[jetdriven]

Again, requirements so specific and strict that they can never be met.  Thats how you operate.  There is no paper that specific.  I made a simple bet, and the bottoming load does certainly matter when the tire bottomed out and allowed part of the airplane to strike the runway. I dont need a paper to tell me that the tire compressed enough to allow that to happen. We inspected the airplane thoroughly after that and even later, completely rebuilt all the landing gear with new donuts etc.

Edited July 26, 2017 by jetdriven

[Tommy]

4 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

the bottoming load does certainly matter when the tire bottomed out and allowed part of the airplane to strike the runway.

Okay. Show me the evidence.

5 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

 I dont need a paper to tell me that the tire compressed enough to allow that to happen.

Oh dear, here we go...

My requirements are so specific and strict?? A beg of your pardon? The question was framed PRECISELY to what you have claimed. In fact I was lenient not to say "in a Mooney" or even went as far as asking "in a Mooney with the same air frame time and same landing gear condition, landing with identical force differential on a runway that has the same characteristics as the one you landed on." 

Because when it comes to tires what applies to a Cessna may not apply to a Mooney and what applies to your Mooney with the conditions on that day may not apply to the OP or any one else.

That, my friend, is the humble pie you need to have some time...

 

[Tommy]

I don't mind when someone makes an extraordinary claim like "more expensive tire = better tire" based on their own individual experiences. After all that's what MS is all about BUT TRY NOT GETTING ALL DEFENSIVE AND RUDE (asking people to leave the forum etc) WHEN ALL I DID WAS ASKING FOR SOME HARD SOLID EVIDENCES OTHER THAN YOUR OWN OBSERVATION. If you don't have it, you can just say "no I don't have it" then move on or, better still, do a bit of research and come back with interesting facts and articles that we love to know and read. 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan couldn't be more right. 

[Raptor05121]

Cmon guys, we're all on the same team here. Let's keep it a friendly debate and not make it an argument.

[201er]

2 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Find me the bottoming load rating on the Aero Trainer. 100$ to you via paypal if its the same as the FC3 6.00-6.  If its less, you go away from this board and never come back.  Deal?

Come on, how could an ATP, CFI, A&P, owner pilot have anything useful to add to this discussion???

[carusoam]

It's possible....

1) to have the background and experience...

But who would he go to to check his answers...

 

2) he would need an aeronautical engineer as really close partner... somebody that races their plane for fun.

probably has that too...  

 

3) I am honestly very biased. I needed a Mooney CFI to give me hand flying a XC. @201er set me up with @jetdriven and we flew to a really cool Mooney fly-in event.

 

4). Both are genuine real people.

 

5) use caution: on the internet, the information comes at a measured pace.  In real life, the information is delivered as quickly as you can receive!  

 

Tommy,

Did you see Brian Lloyd flying through the outback in his M20K the other day?

Best regards,

-a-

[Tommy]

32 minutes ago, carusoam said:

It's possible....

1) to have the background and experience...

But who would he go to to check his answers...

 

2) he would need an aeronautical engineer as really close partner... somebody that races their plane for fun.

probably has that too...  

 

3) I am honestly very biased. I needed a Mooney CFI to give me hand flying a XC. @201er set me up with @jetdriven and we flew to a really cool Mooney fly-in event.

 

4). Both are genuine real people.

 

5) use caution: on the internet, the information comes at a measured pace.  In real life, the information is delivered as quickly as you can receive!  

 

Tommy,

Did you see Brian Lloyd flying through the outback in his M20K the other day?

Best regards,

-a-

No he didn't land at Brisbane where I'm based. Would've liked to buy the guy a nice meal and see how he set things up. Probably something I will do if I win $50 million power ball or after I retire, whichever comes first. Hopefully the first because the second won't be too far off...

"But who would he go to to check his answers..." - this is when complacency comes in.

My retired A&P: 45 years in the business, logged 4000 hours as a pilot, half of which was in crop dusting(!), ran a shop with 15 A&Ps doing airframe, engine, and avionics. Wonderful guy. When I raised the issue of using CICs on joints etc, he immediately said that he will take a look at the paper and, if it is as bad as what the paper said, he will personally get on the phone and ring every owner that had maintenance done in his shop the last 10 years. 

My engine workshop CEO: also in the business for 30+ years (his dad started it back in the 60s) still regularly attends engine management courses like Advanced Pilots Seminars to get the latest information. 

None of them are afraid to be challenged. Always keep an open mind. 

That is professionalism. 

And that's why I have 40 medical journals sitting on my desk right now to put me to good sleep. 

[carusoam]

The internet medium makes it an extra challenge...

Best regards,

-a-

[Tommy]

Agree but this is what online forum is all about. Yes,  things do get heated very quickly when opinions differ. Yes, facts can and will be checked almost instantaneously. Yes, one's ego gets beat down quite a lot. But the upside is you get to participate and get to learn lots of facts in a very short time. 

Now if you want to be a tyrannical buffoon, hurling insults at people who disagree, may I suggest starting a blog or a website where you can get to be the biggest self-appointed orator on the soapbox. From Merriam-Webster:

• Definition of forum

plural 

forums

1. ...c :  a medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

[PMcClure]

com·mu·ni·ty

kəˈmyo͞onədē/

noun

 

1. 1. 

   a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.

   "Rhode Island's Japanese community"

   synonyms:

   group, body, set, circle, clique, faction; More

2. 2. 

   a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals.

   "the sense of community that organized religion can provide"

[Tommy]

On 27/07/2017 at 10:22 PM, bluehighwayflyer said:

The persistent debate troll

This type of troll loves a good argument. They can take a great, thoroughly researched and fact-based piece of content, and come at it from all opposing discussion angles to challenge its message. They believe they're right, and everyone else is wrong. You'll often also find them leaving long threads or arguments with other commenters in community comment sections, and they're always determined to have the last word – continuing to comment until that other user gives up. 

 

troll

verb

Definition of troll

1. transitive verb

2a :  to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.

You're not my friend. Like I said, you're hopeless.

Its easy to see what kind of person you are. 

One final couple of questions, then I'm hitting the ignore button. Do you even have a pilots license? Do you own an airplane? 

You are the one with the controversial statements. I merlely called bullshit on them. And I'm still calling bullshit on them.

I don't think you're a pilot  or an aircraft owner 

Im through explaining heaven to bears. 

Leave me alone. Go antagonize someone else.  Enjoy your world.

Find me the bottoming load rating on the Aero Trainer. 100$ to you via paypal if its the same as the FC3 6.00-6.  If its less, you go away from this board and never come back.  Deal?

You're hopeless. Good day sir.

Yes that does sound like a troll for sure...

[kmyfm20s]

Dictionary

crazy×

 

cra·zy

ˈkrāzē/

informal

adjective

1. 1. 

   mentally deranged, especially as manifested in a wild or aggressive way.

   "Stella went crazy and assaulted a visitor"

   synonyms:

   mad, insane, out of one's mind, deranged, demented, not in one's right mind, crazed, lunatic, non compos mentis, unhinged, mad as a hatter, mad as a March hare; More
2. 2. 

   extremely enthusiastic.

   "I'm crazy about Cindy"

   synonyms:

   passionate about, (very) keen on, enamored of, infatuated with, smitten with, devoted to; More

3.  

adverb

NORTH AMERICAN

1. 1. 

   extremely.

   "I've been crazy busy"

noun

NORTH AMERICAN

1. 1. 

   a mentally deranged person.

 

[Raptor05121]

Tell ya what

I'm going to just buy some retreads. I'll let you guys know if I live after the first landing.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, Raptor05121 said:

Tell ya what

I'm going to just buy some retreads. I'll let you guys know if I live after the first landing.

Make sure you take off with no flaps, run Aeroshell 100W with no Camgaurd and run LOP for a while. Perhaps a touch and go would be a good test?