SonexBuilders.net

The 5.00-5 tires were a no brainer for me, since I need the prop clearance. Since the Onex can't be full stall landed due to the short main gear, the extra height at least helps with that too. Considering the damage that can be done with a flat on landing, I feel better having a real aircraft tire as well. The extra weight is a small price to pay in my opinion.

Who was it who once said......."if you're considering adding something to your airplane and you throw it up in the air and it comes back down, it's too heavy". Someone notable but I don't recall who.

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261

builderflyer wrote:Who was it who once said......."if you're considering adding something to your airplane and you throw it up in the air and it comes back down, it's too heavy". Someone notable but I don't recall who.

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261

Rutan I think.

Bryan Cotton wrote:In defense of the small tires, I will say I flew to a couple of 2100' grass strips this weekend. Of course to do it, had to pick the right conditions. Cold, windy down the runway, and solo. Took more power to taxi and takeoff roll longer than hardtop, but it was fine. I can't see going with big tires to optimize the airplane for a mission that it is not really suited for. It will never be a super cub.

Me thinks that your comments, favouring "hardtop" - "airplane for a mission that it is not really suited for", fails to appreciate that Sonex around the World are probably operating of grass.

Skippydiesel wrote:Me thinks that your comments, favouring "hardtop" - "airplane for a mission that it is not really suited for", fails to appreciate that Sonex around the World are probably operating of grass.

Fair enough of a comment. The mission I was thinking of was short grass. I tend to view the airplane through Aerovee glasses and I perform a lot better off of hardtop!

This limited performance from the 80HP mill is also the reason I see the extra 6 lbs as a deal breaker for the bigger tyres.

Bryan Cotton wrote:Can anyone tell me what the weight of the 5.00x5 tire and tube is?

I have ....

Airhawk 5x5 4 ply with a Leakguard tube 3.8 + 1.16 = 4.96 #

peter

This may be of general intersted:

In Australia we have a number of plants that produce tough spiny seeds capable of puncturing bicycle tyres & some foot wear.
Many, if not all, are introduced species and can be found in many parts of the World, with similar hot dry climates.
They have all sorts of common names, usually reflecting the shape of the seed eg Cathead, Goathead, Bullhead, Three Cornered Jack, etc.
In Australia these plants are often found inland, in grassed areas eg taxiways, aircraft parking areas, grass runways, etc.
It is not uncommon for them to cause punctures in small aircraft tyres.
The most vulnerable part of a tyre, to puncture, is the relativly thin sidewall.
Low tyre pressures causes the side wall to bulge more than higher pressure.
The bulge may come close to the ground, particularly when additional load (landing, uneven ground) is encountered - this is when the seed is most likely to penetrated a tyre.
There is no full proof solution, other than solid tyres, however having your tyres at the correct pressure will minimise sidewall bulge and the chances of penetration by one of these seeds (or FOD).
Most Australian pilots, venturing far inland, will carry a spare tyre and or tube and I have also heard of temporary repair "green gloop/slime" to address the chance of a flat tyre.

My tube is 0.414 lbs. That puts my tire at 2.75ish lbs.

Bryan Cotton wrote:My tube is 0.414 lbs. That puts my tire at 2.75ish lbs.

I do appriciate the weight comments on the tires. That being said, most Sonex I have seen have a lot of extras, extra avionics, extra auto pilots, extra interior pieces, extra paint, extra fuel tanks, extra lightining, extra electronics, extra alternators, and the list goes on.

Tires are important to me and my mission, I imagine most people who take the weight penalty are in the same boat, autopilot/avionics, for me, not so much. To each their own when it comes to compromises in weight.

Regarding toe in. The plans called for toe in is set with the aircraft in a level position. But for a tailwheel aircraft, the tires actually experience a minor toe out condition when the tailwheel is lowered to the ground. So if one only taxis and makes 3 point takeoffs and landings as I do, the tires never experience any wear brought about by a toe in condition. For the tailwheel aircraft, that would only occur if one raises the tail on takeoff or when making wheel landings. Just a thought that some may have not considered.

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261