Tire Recommendations

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Niko182 said:

The suspension on a cessna is probably a decent amount more durable than on the mooney. I wouldnt run 10 plys on a mooney. I dont think the suspension would handle it very well since theyre a lot stiffer.

You would think they would be stiffer, they certainly are thicker, have to be, but I can feel no discernible difference in the Cessna, or the Maule I had before.

‘Maule did have short throw Oleo’s, but the Cessna has only spring steel “legs”.

‘I think it really boils down to neither the Mooney, Cessna or Maule has any need whatsoever for the increased load carrying ability of the 10 ply tires, and the increased weight whatever it is and the greater expense just isn’t justified, but it doesn’t hurt anything.

‘Funny thing is that I was sure that on the light weight Cessna that I would need to run lower pressure, but if anything I need to run higher to lift the edge of the tire from pavement

[RobertGary1]

10 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Hold your breath for that. 

Going to higher ply tires is a “minor” alteration

how it can be minor when it modifies the type certificate.

[Niko182]

I wouldnt do it, and if you would do it, i would probably avoid commenting on it further on an online forum and would also remove your tail number from your profile.

[McMooney]

Condors, it's what the flight schools use, good enough.  Besides, getting the goodyears was turning out to be a pain as no one had them locally in stock.  Mechanic gave 0 thought to NOT reusing the tube.

[EricJ]

8 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

how it can be minor when it modifies the type certificate.

So does installing an AGM battery, but people do that all the time without a 337.   Modifying the type certificate isn't part of the definition of a major alteration.

That said, changing the tire type might be considered an alteration of the landing gear, which does qualify as a major alteration.
 

[Hank]

1 minute ago, EricJ said:

So does installing an AGM battery, but people do that all the time without a 337.   Modifying the type certificate isn't part of the definition of a major alteration.

That said, changing the tire type might be considered an alteration of the landing gear, which does qualify as a major alteration.
 

My Concorde battery, like my LED landing light, came with paperwork stating that it could be used. Bet the 10-ply tires come with nothing but a packing slip . . . .

[A64Pilot]

For the aviation lawyers.

First look up who is responsible for determining whether an alteration is minor or major. I’m certified to make that call.

 

So far as hiding my identity etc, 10 ply tires pale in comparison to what I read daily about what you non certified people are doing under the guise of “hanger elves.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

My Concorde battery, like my LED landing light, came with paperwork stating that it could be used. Bet the 10-ply tires come with nothing but a packing slip . . . .

You say these things and likely don’t understand them.

‘The Concorde battery is a TSO’d part, originally the LED light wasn’t, there was no TSO for landing.ignts.

‘So Floats Alaska got an STC, Whalen bought the STC from them for their Parmethius landing light, after that I lost track due to getting out of aviation for awhile. but I feel pretty sure that finally, hopefully the FAA came out with a TSO that covers landing lights

Edited March 17, 2021 by A64Pilot

[EricJ]

9 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

For the aviation lawyers.

First look up who is responsible for determining whether an alteration is minor or major. I’m certified to make that call.

Part 43 App D says replacing tires is Preventive Maintenance, so any owner can do it.   And since the installer makes the call on major/minor, that suggests that pretty much everybody here is qualified by that measure.

 

6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

You say these things and likely don’t understand them.

‘The Concorde battery is a TSO’d part, originally the LED light wasn’t, there was no TSO for landing.ignts.

Of the batteries that Concorde lists as applicable to Mooneys, only the RG24-15 is TSO'd.   The RG35-A. RG35-AXC, and RG24-11M are not TSO'd, nor is there an STC available for them.

 

[A64Pilot]

3 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Part 43 App D says replacing tires is Preventive Maintenance, so any owner can do it.   And since the installer makes the call on major/minor, that suggests that pretty much everybody here is qualified by that measure.

 

Of the batteries that Concorde lists as applicable to Mooneys, only the RG24-15 is TSO'd.   The RG35-A. RG35-AXC, and RG24-11M are not TSO'd, nor is there an STC available for them.

 

 

3 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Part 43 App D says replacing tires is Preventive Maintenance, so any owner can do it.   And since the installer makes the call on major/minor, that suggests that pretty much everybody here is qualified by that measure.

 

Of the batteries that Concorde lists as applicable to Mooneys, only the RG24-15 is TSO'd.   The RG35-A. RG35-AXC, and RG24-11M are not TSO'd, nor is there an STC available for them.

 

 

8 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Part 43 App D says replacing tires is Preventive Maintenance, so any owner can do it.   And since the installer makes the call on major/minor, that suggests that pretty much everybody here is qualified by that measure.

 

Of the batteries that Concorde lists as applicable to Mooneys, only the RG24-15 is TSO'd.   The RG35-A. RG35-AXC, and RG24-11M are not TSO'd, nor is there an STC available for them.

 

I’m going to bet that All Concorde batteries are manufactured under a PMA to meet a TSO, their Lifeline batteries aren’t, but I bet all Concorde’s are.

[philiplane]

Goodyear Flight Custom III with Michelin Airstop inner tubes is the best value. They will outlast anything else, making them the most cost effective. The Michelin Condor is the next best, it is similar to the Michelin Air but made in a different plant with lower costs, so they are less expensive.

I wouldn't put an Airhawk on my wheelbarrow. They are flimsy.

[RobertGary1]

8 minutes ago, philiplane said:

Goodyear Flight Custom III with Michelin Airstop inner tubes is the best value. They will outlast anything else, making them the most cost effective. The Michelin Condor is the next best, it is similar to the Michelin Air but made in a different plant with lower costs, so they are less expensive.

I wouldn't put an Airhawk on my wheelbarrow. They are flimsy.

Yet many of us get 10+ years out of AirHawks. Flight schools get thousands of landings out of them. 

[PT20J]

We argue about so many things that are easy to look up:

https://concordebattery.com/batterytsoexplained.php

http://concordebattery.com/faa2.php?id=300

Skip

[jaylw314]

Do batteries have TSO's?

Concorde RG-35A and RG-35AXC are authorized to be sold as aircraft parts (PMA'd).

AC 23-27 provides guidelines for replacement parts for older planes with the idea that there may be availability problems with the original TC'd parts, and provides guidelines as to how to decide that.  They specifically call out batteries as an example.  If it's a standard replacement for a TC'd battery that's PMA'd (even if not for your aircraft), that is sufficient to install it with just a logbook entry (minor alteration).  And since installing batteries is authorized specifically under preventative maintenance allowed, it's (probably) a slam dunk to do it that way.

Tires have no specific reference in that AC, so it's up to the installer to determine if the part qualifies.  I'm no lawyer, but:

• If 10-ply tires are functionally different by being stiffer or something
• If it's not accepted practice to replace tires with different ply tires
• If it violates the intent of the AC because 6-ply tires are not in short supply

I suspect that it would not qualify as a minor alteration based on AC 23-27 (and I suspect all of the above are true statements)

FWIW, I've been using cheapo Air Hawk tires and Aero Classic tubes for about 3 years now, and haven't run into any problems.  I have to add 5 psi once every couple months or so.

Edited March 17, 2021 by jaylw314

[201er]

40 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Yet many of us get 10+ years out of AirHawks. Flight schools get thousands of landings out of them. 

I dunno. Either the planes are different or those flight schools are much better at landing than I am. I don’t get more than a few years and 500 landings tops before it starts showing core and needs replacement. That said the Good Years definitely didn’t last double despite double price.

[philiplane]

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Yet many of us get 10+ years out of AirHawks. Flight schools get thousands of landings out of them. 

I've been in the commercial maintenance business for three decades, and that goes contrary to the experience of a few hundred thousand landings on a variety of planes.

Flight schools will use the Airhawk because they'd rather have a student flat spot a $90 tire instead of a $200 tire.

Edited March 17, 2021 by philiplane

[PT20J]

OK, try looking at it this way:

I want to replace the battery in my airplane. I decide on Concorde because the spelling reminds me of the retired SST and Gill sounds like a part of a fish, or perhaps somebody I met at the pub told me Gills bad/Concordes good. The reason is unimportant. How do I determine what battery to buy? I look at Concorde's FAA approved application list and find that for my M20J I can install either a RG24-15 or a RG24-11M. Hmmm. The 15 means higher capacity than the 11. The M means manifold. Can I install a RG24-15M. This isn't academic: I asked both Mooney and Concorde and the answer from both was that the RG24-15M is not approved and would require an FAA field approval. Sounds like a minor mod. But both manufacturers say it's not. Could an IA sign it off? Would that be smart? 

Now I need a tire. I look on Goodyear's approved list for Mooney's and find only 6-ply tires. The Mooney TCDS says 6-ply tires. The IPC says 6 ply tires. Can I put 10-ply tires on it? Is that a minor alteration? Should an IA approve it? Do I sense a trend here?

I have an attorney friend. I once thought I found a loophole in a particular matter and asked her about it. She looked me in the eye and said, "You know what's the right thing to do."

Skip

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I’m going to bet that All Concorde batteries are manufactured under a PMA to meet a TSO, their Lifeline batteries aren’t, but I bet all Concorde’s are.

If you look at Concorde's application guide online here:

https://www.aircraft-battery.com/knowledge-base/application-replacement-guides/aircraft-application-guide.html

you'll find not only the specific batteries for the various Mooney applications in the Eligibility List, but if you scroll to the bottom you'll see their list of batteries approved under the relevant TSO.   None of the batteries listed for Mooney applications appear in the TSO tables except the RG24-15 in the bottom-most table for TSO-C173a.  None of the other batteries, including neither of the RG35  12V batteries, appear in the TSO list.

If you go back up to the eligibility list and see the column for "Certificate Number (or FAA Design Approval)", you'll see some applications have STCs but for the Mooney applications it says, "Identicality per 14 CFR § 21.303".     If you follow the link Skip included,

http://concordebattery.com/faa2.php?id=300

which provides more detail on the Mooney applications, most of the entries under the "TC/STC" column just says "Design Approval", with a couple of STCs available for specific cases of J and K models.

When I put a RG35-AXC in my early J, I noticed all this, that that particular battery has no relevant TSO and does not require an STC, but is produced with an FAA-PMA under "design approval" and "Identicality per 14 CFR 21.303" for that PMA.   Perhaps an aviation lawyer or FSDO manufacturing oversight staff can provide more detail, but I took that to mean that it was okay to install.   My IA has been fine with it.

 

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

OK, try looking at it this way:

I want to replace the battery in my airplane. I decide on Concorde because the spelling reminds me of the retired SST and Gill sounds like a part of a fish, or perhaps somebody I met at the pub told me Gills bad/Concordes good. The reason is unimportant. How do I determine what battery to buy? I look at Concorde's FAA approved application list and find that for my M20J I can install either a RG24-15 or a RG24-11M. Hmmm. The 15 means higher capacity than the 11. The M means manifold. Can I install a RG24-15M. This isn't academic: I asked both Mooney and Concorde and the answer from both was that the RG24-15M is not approved and would require an FAA field approval. Sounds like a minor mod. But both manufacturers say it's not. Could an IA sign it off? Would that be smart? 

Since it's not on the mfgr's Eligibility List, I'd think it'd require a 337 with Approved Data from somewhere.   The RG24-15M does show up in the TSO-C173a authorization table, and there's an AC about being able to use like-TSO-for-like-TSO, but I don't know of anything from Mooney saying that TSO is sufficient to qualify installation.    Since the RG24-15 and RG24-15M both comply with the same TSO and the RG24-15 is eligible for Mooney installation, perhaps that could be used as path for demonstrating Approved Data?   Hmm...   

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

Now I need a tire. I look on Goodyear's approved list for Mooney's and find only 6-ply tires. The Mooney TCDS says 6-ply tires. The IPC says 6 ply tires. Can I put 10-ply tires on it? Is that a minor alteration? Should an IA approve it? Do I sense a trend here?

I'd tend to agree that it would be a stretch to put 10-plies on a 6-ply airplane, but I've also seen discussion that over the years the ply technology and carcass designs have changed enough that (iirc) a 4-ply today would be equivalent to a 6-ply back when the TC was done, so are the modern 6-ply tires overkill?

I don't personally see any reason to deviate from putting 6-ply on, but back in ancient times when I was a lineboy overseas helping to maintain a fleet of Cessna 150s and 172s for a military flying club, we couldn't get tires shipped from the US or from European suppliers without breaking the bank, but we could get (while forbidden to ask questions about how), 10-ply tires that happened to also fit O-1s and O-2s, in whatever quantity we needed just for asking.   So that was what we always used and nobody died, and I do remember at least one case where somebody did manage to drag a locked wheel all the way down the runway and wore through a whole bunch of plies.   I don't think it would have still held air if it were whatever was supposed to be on the airplane. 

 

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Since it's not on the mfgr's Eligibility List, I'd think it'd require a 337 with Approved Data from somewhere.   The RG24-15M does show up in the TSO-C173a authorization table, and there's an AC about being able to use like-TSO-for-like-TSO, but I don't know of anything from Mooney saying that TSO is sufficient to qualify installation.    Since the RG24-15 and RG24-15M both comply with the same TSO and the RG24-15 is eligible for Mooney installation, perhaps that could be used as path for demonstrating Approved Data?   Hmm...   

 

AC 23-27 I referenced above provides guidance on that.  While not regulatory, I imagine abiding by it will keep the FAA out of your hair.  

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_23-27.pdf

"2. BATTERIES. If one type of series 35 battery ( e.g. a Gill 35) is approved as original equipment or a PMA part, and another type of series 35 battery ( e.g. a Concord 35) is PMA approved for some aircraft models but not your model aircraft, you may install the alternate type of series 35 battery and document the installation with only a logbook entry. This applies to all series 35 batteries. This philosophy also applies to other series, such as series 25 batteries. However, this part substitution is permissible only as long as the batteries are the same weight, within plus or minus one pound, and have such similar physical characteristics as to enable the use of the same securing or attaching devices, mechanisms, or containers. Approval: This is a minor alteration and you may document it by a logbook entry. The logbook entry must reference the original and replacement manufacturer's identification or the performance specifications of the original and replacement battery."

[Seth]

I ran goodyear flight custom III's on my mains from  prucahse in 2011 to 2017. I replaced one at purchase (no need to do the pair at once) and the other was older. I am on my second set of Flight Custom III's for the mains (again, replaced 2017) and plan to run them as long as i can. Never really have to worry about the tires. The nose was getting worn and was from well prior to 2011 so I replaced the nose with a Goodyear flight special II (lighter and takes less wear).

All tubes replaced with tires. Yes, they are expensive and well worth it. Never had a flat and often lose very little if any air. The nose more than the mains (higher PSI).

-Seth 

[Raptor05121]

15 hours ago, 201er said:

I dunno. Either the planes are different or those flight schools are much better at landing than I am. I don’t get more than a few years and 500 landings tops before it starts showing core and needs replacement. That said the Good Years definitely didn’t last double despite double price.

I agree. My AirHawks and Condors didn't last 2 years/300 landings before the were bald. They were flimsy when they were put on and flimsy when they were taken off. I don't know how true it is, but I heard the ply rating on them is defined WITH an innertube, whereas the VERY thick Goodyears aren't. I can stand on a GY tire by itself and it holds me up. The cheapies,well, dont.

My next set of tires will be Desser Retreads. Aviation Consumer did a test and you get more landings per dollar out of those versus any other tire.

[PT20J]

11 hours ago, EricJ said:

I've also seen discussion that over the years the ply technology and carcass designs have changed enough that (iirc) a 4-ply today would be equivalent to a 6-ply back when the TC was done, so are the modern 6-ply tires overkill?

I believe a lot of tires now are labeled #-ply rating which means that the actual number of plies may differ from the number stated, but they have the same characteristics as older tires with the stated number of plies.

But as Anthony would say, I'm not a tire expert 

[EricJ]

10 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I believe a lot of tires now are labeled #-ply rating which means that the actual number of plies may differ from the number stated, but they have the same characteristics as older tires with the stated number of plies.

But as Anthony would say, I'm not a tire expert 

I have a Goodyear that will be coming off at some point as it is getting worn down.   I'll try to remember to put it on the grinder and see how many plies it actually has.

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

I agree. My AirHawks and Condors didn't last 2 years/300 landings before the were bald. They were flimsy when they were put on and flimsy when they were taken off. I don't know how true it is, but I heard the ply rating on them is defined WITH an innertube, whereas the VERY thick Goodyears aren't. I can stand on a GY tire by itself and it holds me up. The cheapies,well, dont.

My next set of tires will be Desser Retreads. Aviation Consumer did a test and you get more landings per dollar out of those versus any other tire.

What does "flimsy" mean?

 

-Robert

[201er]

4 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

I agree. My AirHawks and Condors didn't last 2 years/300 landings before the were bald. They were flimsy when they were put on and flimsy when they were taken off. I don't know how true it is, but I heard the ply rating on them is defined WITH an innertube, whereas the VERY thick Goodyears aren't. I can stand on a GY tire by itself and it holds me up. The cheapies,well, dont.

My next set of tires will be Desser Retreads. Aviation Consumer did a test and you get more landings per dollar out of those versus any other tire.

Things is, the Goodyears don't last as much longer as they are more expensive. Let's say the Airhawk lasts you 2 years/300 landings. That's an $88 tire. The Goodyear Flight Custom III is $234. That's 2.7x more. It won't last double, I can say for sure. From my experience, if the Airhawk lasts 2 years/300 landings, the Goodyear might last 5 years/500 landings. You do save on labor changing the tire, but you still win with the Airhawk. And you don't feel as bad when you flatspot it.

On 3x tires, that's $264 vs $702 worth of rubber (not accounting for nosewheel price difference). Goodyear is a better tire. Airhawk is a better value. You change them more often but you still end up spending less.