According to the Piper Archer III (PA-28-181) manual you lose a whole 3 kts by removing the wheel pants. Frankly, gaining 3 kts isn't worth the extra weight and the loss of access to the tires, brakes, etc. I'm one of those people who think that the aircraft looks better with the wheel pants, but not better enough to outweigh the disadvantages.
Another pro and con: Pro: Those dings on the front of your wheel pants mean the wheel pants have protected the wheel and brake hardware from getting hit by something... maybe rocks. That means possibly less damage to the more expensive parts of the plane. Con: The wheel pants are bigger than wheels alone. I have tripped over them a few times whereas I have never tripped over the wheel on a plane that does not have wheel pants..
Agree with your Con, Will. A 152 is awkward enough already. The wheel pants (aren't they called Spats?) are freakin' inconvenient and annoying when moving to and from the aircraft.
Something I recently discovered the hard way is when taking off of a runway that has melting snow or ice, it quickly refreezes inside the pant adding weight and other problems.
Me: I've never watched a video from this guy, I wonder if I can watch his videos. You: Cracks a beer within the first minute. Me: Okay. I guess we're best friends now.
You nailed it on the visibility of the landing gear. Small problems become big problems when they go undetected and uncorrected. In order for a wheel pant to be truly effective, it covers several critical systems. Up here in Alaska, we often install mud flaps though, which is a practical solution to dents, dings, and corrosion encouraging mud on the lower wing, flaps, and even the tail. Great video, I always enjoy your videography. I enjoyed your Alaska series immensely, it's my back yard and you flew all around and even over us on your trip. The scenery here never gets old though, and no matter how often I've seen it for myself, I enjoy seeing outsider's perspectives, views, and reactions to our awesome state. Thanks again, good video!
Added 26 inch bushwheels to my 182Q after removing the wheel pants. I love em’. Lost about 2Kts in cruise with the bushwheels, but gravel runways are softer, plane sits up higher a little further away from grass on the runways. Looks cool too 😉
3 mph on full tanks could mean the difference of making your destination non stop or not. Depending on tank size (~39 gal) and fuel burn (~8 gal/hr) you get ~15 extra miles with wheel pants. Multiply that 15 by how ever many stops you need to make for a long flight and it could be significant, especially if you are flying over ocean or other terrain where you wouldn't want to make an unscheduled landing if your fuel ran out.
I had a 140A back in the 70's and those slippers were nothing but a pain. 1 out of 10 flights were on paved runways. I flew out of our local grass strip airport mostly to other grass/dirt/gravel strips. It was a constant job making sure they were clean internally and a pain inspecting the gear. One year when I was having the annual done by our local field mechanic I asked him to just take the damn things off. He explained to me that wasn't a good idea because the plane had fabric wings and more than looks they worked as debris flaps to keep anything from flying up off the wheels and impacting the wing or any control surfaces, especially because it was a tail dragger and more of the wing surface was exposed to potential debris. That plane was built during the days that most fields were just that fields and was fairly high performance, including flaps, for it's purpose at the time as opposed to something like Cubs or T-Crafts. I wonder if they were originally a safety feature but as time went on became a cosmetic feature, especially to identify with Cessna, that was no longer required but just made the planes look good like nice looking wheels on a new car.
In 84 when I had my primary training in 172s at KTOA..i recall the FBO had about 7 skyhawks from a 79..a 84 and the rest 80/81 models...none had pants..my instructor showed me a storage room where boxes of them where stored and said wheel pants on a trainer with the frequency of tire and brake changes..tire pressure checks..students using them as steps etc..made it far easier to leave them off...I've owned a cpl skyhawks and I agree...maybe 3 to (on a good day) 5 knots faster in cruise with pants..
@@MikeBrown-ex9nh I recall a captain I once flew with told me that he and his female FO once had an empty repositioning flight and they dared each other to fly it in their undies.
I have a Piper Warrior and keep wheel pants on the mains. They weigh around 3lbs each. Without them I found the underside of the wings just get slapped with crap kicked up by the mains. It has made it a lot easier to keep the underside of the wings clean. Not a problem with high wings to be sure.
I can relate to this video ! I had a 172 in the late 80’s, that we wound up removing the pants for a time for repair. After reinstalling them, I always wished I had just just left them off. But, unlike most, I actually like the look of “no wheel pants”, not to mention the pants hide so much, that really needs to be visible. Great video Josh ! BTW - A friend removed wheel pants from his 152 Areobat and put really nice polished aluminum wheels on all around. Looked great !
thanks for your videos, from an old retired pilot. back when, grass strip and winter (snow), wheel pants became a big slush scoop. The flight school where i taught, the 150s and 172s had the pants removed during the winter so cleaning the brakes would be much easier.
I was wonder why you had never put the pants back on after painting 80991. After your explanation, pro's and con's, now I know and I fully agree with your decision! Keep up the great work and fantastic videos!
You probably don't worry about this in Texas but farther north, you have to take the pants off in the winter because they can collect snow and slush during taxi, then freeze once airborne. Could make for an exciting landing
Hey. Thanks for making these videos. You really keep me motivated to get my PPL and go fly! I'm on my 20' hour atm, and are really looking forward to fly with my family/friends. Please keep making flying videos, they are really amazing!
Reduced drag from wheel pants is also gonna improve your total flight time (slightly). Reduced drag means you are going to be at a slightly lower throttle/rpm to fly at a given speed, so you get slightly better fuel burn at a given flight condition. That said, if the drag is only enough to barely change your top-end speed, the throttle/rpm/fuel burn rate change will probably be barely noticeable at cruise, if you notice it at all. The faster you fly, the more benefit you'll get.
I took them off my 150M 2 years ago and have zero regrets. For me it was a no-brainer, and for exactly the reasons you highlighted here. On a 150, they add 1-2 knots of airspeed max, at a cost of 18 lbs gross weight with pants, fairings, and mounting brackets. That's 3 gallons of gas I was leaving on the ground just to gain 1-2 knots of speed. The Skyhawk I trained in didn't have them, and I hated not being able to see the brakes & calipers, and especially the condition of the tire treads and sidewalls, like I could on the Skyhawk during preflight.
We removed the wheel pants off of our Tiger last year during our annual inspection for the same reasons you did... well, except we didn't have a paint job done. It was a pain in the arse to put air in the tires, do any brake work, etc. And, for some reason, we had a string of flat tires within a six month period thanks to FOD that we had to deal with. So, the decision was made to take them off. And I am glad we did. Our cruise speed is down about 6 knots and we gained about 27 lbs in useful load. She still flies like a champ.
Keep up the good work - from way “down under” at Ballarat in Victoria, Australia. At our Aero Club flying school, we have taken the wheel pants off the ab initio trainers - basically for the reasons you have espoused; teaching new pilots to check brakes, tires, tire pressures; to be able to handle short field landings and take-offs, gravel and grass runways, etc. The Piper Warrior still has its pants - but they are fixed; and we have left them on the C172SP - but it is used for pre PPL navs, PIFR and IFR training and fly-aways. We must agree - according to our measurements, wheel pants are worth at best 5 knots - but for 6kgs = 13 lbs on the smaller aircraft, and 9kgs = 20 lbs on the 4-seaters. Love the “beer o’clock” talk - but gotta keep that MINIMUM 8 hours from bottle to throttle!
Great analysis Sir. I totally agree. If the pant is going to protect the aircraft from damage, I would rather spend the money on the repair not the pant. You have the purchase price, any minor repairs before the big damage & the money spent after the big damage. I am in your camp I think no pants make it look like an aircraft. Of course you made it clear, top speed also plays into it, if you are flying a 250 kt aero. I would still question what the drag is at that speed. If its 5-7 kts, I am still going with the less wt factor. Not to mention, the whole point of fixed gear and ignoring the 7 to15 KT difference from RG.
On the Cessna 172S NAV III POH/PIM it states that increase true airspeed about 2 KTS for wheel pants which is completely negligible in the grand scheme of things. In addition I think the practicality like you mentioned is the main reason for removing them. Upkeep on the mains and nose is so much easier, weight reduction even if a few pounds, easier visual preflight inspection, able to "kick the tires", less issue with getting grass and dirt in them etc. Just so many pro's to the 172 not having wheel pants
I agree about 3kts. That’s what I see on my M model 172. Correct on work of installing and removing, also the brake fairings. I’m in northern Michigan and I pick what days I use the plane in the winter with the pants on. But I think the plane looks better with a matched paint job on them. Great video.
May I add as a motorcycle enthusiast who has run at Bonneville and other motorcycle racers, we've all ditched the front wheel cover even some of the Busa turbo bikes at over 200mph gs. We all had some gain in speed or performance. The physics suggest less turbulent drag. But, its also not quite the same with in the air with out some surface contact... Im sure you've heard all the arguments. I think it looks better without pants and functionality of inspecting landing gear far out way the aesthetics...my opinion as well.
I took off in a glider with a shrouded mainwheel. As we climbed out behind the tug I could smell burning. That was very puzzling. I immediately returned and ,after pulling the aircraft off the field I discovered heavily impacted dead grass jammed in the wheel shroud. It took the rest of the day to pull all of this grass out of the shroud because I would have had to pull the aircraft to pieces to remove it . Back in 1963 I was in an emergency landing in a 172 and the field chosen to land in was extensively waterlogged. If we had wheel pants I’m sure that we would have flipped over because of the depth of the mud. Cheers from Downunder👍🇦🇺🇺🇸😷😷😷
I took my wheel pants off my experimental Rutan Long EZ to help cool the brakes on multiple full stop landings which heat the brakes. The LongEZ differential braking is how the EZ is steered too. Its about 5 mph slower in cruise w/o pants. But way easier to check the tires tread and inflation psi on preflight.
I have a 172G and am leaning towards taking them off. My only pro for leaving them on and this will sound strange at first, is for grass strips. The nosewheel pant can act as a fender to protect the prop. Piper Tri-Pacers and Colts have a little fender, I wish there was an STC for one on the 172.
Personally I don't like Wheel Pants, I think airplanes look better without them. I don't think you mentioned what I thought was the main reason to have them on, and that is to protect the aircraft from mud and water splashing from the ground, up to the under wing areas, fuselage and side windows, specially on gravel/dirt runways, when they are wet. I like your airplane, it´s nice one. 😊👍🏼
As director of maintenance for the Oregon State Flying with 3 C-172's, we have removed all of the the wheel pants so that student pilots can learn to see and inspect for tire/brake wear. We also save about 1.5 hours of labor every 100 hours with our A&P's by not having to take them off and putting them back on for inspections. When you have an airplane flying 600 hours a year that savings adds up fast. I can also point out to the CFI's that are allowing their students to brake to hard and making flat spots on new tires, or that they are side loading when landing.
I have a 1967 C-182 Skylane and I took them off because when I bought the plane it only had two. One on each main gear nothing on the nose. I lost about the same on speed that you said about 1 to 2 knots. I am from North Dakota and the wind here will change your speed more than the wheel pants will. Like your videos. Keep up the great work.
Good Point - in the South you did not mention mud. It will cake and add weight. In the North there is slush and snow. It will lock the wheels and add weight. Wheel pants in winter. You have to do a touch and go. You tap the wheels on the runway to break the ice and check wheel rotation. Then fly a circuit before full stop. Flying schools up here remove the pants.
I own a Challenger 2 CWS and its a low power aircraft with a 65 hp Hirth 2 stroke engine. With wheel pants on I cruise at 80-82 mph, without, I cruise at 75-76mph. I currently don't have them installed because I operate from a grass strip that is very wet and mud/snow get up in the pants. When it dries out, I'll put them back on.
Speed advantage is not worth the cost. Useful load gain on 172s and 150/152s is worth keeping them off. Another con is having to worry about people stepping on them and busting/scratching them. One last con.....if you fly in winter conditions (snow and slush) they can accumulate that material and freeze.
Fun, informative video, Josh. Have been flying various Cessnas (both fixed and retractable) since 1981, including instructing for a number of years. The biggest reason I prefer no pants is definitely the (in)ability to fully inspect everything around the wheel/tire. Always feels like I need to take a second or deeper look, but there's not way to do it... Fly safe everyone.
I've also heard the same comment that they only add a couple of knots of airspeed. We have a 172 exactly like yours. Same year and model. Putting air in that nose wheel through that too small of an access door is a real major pain. The round access door on the nose wheel pant needs to be an inch bigger. I think that if we ever take ours off they are going to stay off. If you were to get snow and ice built up in them I'll bet that you would then have a real problem. We usually aren't able to get ours out of the hangar in the winter due to low ceilings and visibility in freezing fog and/or blowing snow or a sheet of ice on the alleyways.
For 12 years my father has had a 46' Cessna 140 and after he bough her we found some original wheel pants. At 85-90 knots I really don't think they do anything but it adds to that classic aircraft look.
Great vid. Answered the wheel pant question. If your fixed plane goes less then 150mph, don't need. Above 150mph, probably helps plus usable load is not a problem.
Even if you don’t go full Alaska bush tires, some slightly larger tires for grass fields may not fit std wheel pants. (182 for me with 8.5” tires on the way) +1 for removal for my preference and ease of maintenance.
Hi Josh, at least two advantages are they protect the tail from rocks thrown up from the tyres on gravel strips and when operating from wet muddy strips they keep under the wing clean from mud. Two cons are they can fill up with freshly cut grass and you can get debris caught between the Tyre and the scraper which can jam up the wheel. Personally I prefer the panties look over the naked tyres. Nothing like a little mystery and anticipation looking there!
Con. Snow I learned to fly in northern Indiana. It was a best practice for the FBO to remove wheel pants in winter. Packed snow from the runway would pack into the wheel pant on the runway. This happened to me when I was about 17 years old and on a solo flight. Shortly after landing the left main locked up and the next thing you know I’m facing another plane on final (they did a go around). As a student I assumed I had done something catastrophic like breaking the gear. I shut down the engine jump out and inspect the gear. No obvious issues I push the plane backwards the wheel skidded a couple inches then pushed out a load of packed snow. Freeing up the wheel immediately. Relieved that I hadn’t rode the plane I taxied back to the FBO. (FYI uncontrolled airport, Valparaiso Indiana and about 40 years ago.
I always had this crazy idea of having "wheel tails" instead of "wheel pants". The wheel tail would be like the back end of the wheel pant, when looking from the side and top the wheel tail would very closely contour the wheel and would be barely narrower and less tall than the wheel. Couple it with a smooth wheel cup, and it looks to me that you would retain most of the aerodynamic advantage with a fraction of the wight and you have the whole wheel and brake exposed to check condition, inflate, etc... and it doesn't get hit by stones in the front because it doesn't have a front.
Great and practical episode! Keep these coming and mixed in with your flights!!! I just put pants on my 172M and saw about 3 knots difference in speed in similar conditions. Like you, I do a fair bit of grass ops and am a little concerned, but figure on trying it out and seeing. As I see it, 3 knots on a 4 hour flight is negligible.....on a trip from Texas to Osh and back, maybe that saves you a bit....does it add up in the long run? Probably not.
I own a 79 Archer with wheel pants. The plane does look nicer with them on. But, we recently had some wind damage to the right main wheel pant: A big heavy box came flying across the tarmac, hitting the back of the right main and poking a hole through it. )-: At the time, all I had was a shade port. Good thing it didn't hit anything else! When I got to looking at the main wheel pants, they both needed some fiberglass work; Dzus screws and nuts missing. Makes me wonder if I should even bother with them anymore. They are a pain to take off and put back on every annual, too. Especially the front! Think I'll just repair them and leave them in the hanger for when I sell it.....
Josh I totally agree with you! My 172 currently has wheel pants and they're probably coming off at next annual. It drives me crazy trying to air up a tire and you really don't get a good look at everything during preflight. Nice video!!
25 year old pilot just south of you in San Antonio. We took our pants off our 182... living in Texas with dirt strips it just seems to make more sense. Have also thought about increasing tire ply or going full bush tires as well🤷🏻♂️ appreciate your channel, hope to see you in the sky!
According to the POH for the 172 Skyhawks I fly it states: "Cruise speeds are shown for an aircraft equipped with speed fairings. Without fairings, decrease speeds shown by 2 knots". So pretty much what Josh experienced when he tried it himself.
The manual for my Jabiru says Wheel Covers on for long grass and off for sand or soft surfaces. This makes sense as the covers are open around the wheel and would fill up with sand ect while in the long grass they part the grass and prevent "wrapping" around the wheel/axle /brake gear ect. I believe they make about 2-3 kts difference at cruise speed. This is not very significant for short flights by may make a difference on longer ones. Mine spats are in good condition so I have left them on as I do not land on sand but do operate from grass strips. Looking at the spats in the video, i am surprised that they cannot be repaired. Fiberglass is usually very repairable by cutting out damaged areas and putting back new glass fiber. no doubt you have looked at the options, so I guess you know your aircraft better than i would. I guess the labour could be expensive. Intersting video though.
you some ideas right but the other reason for wheel pants is, if you get count flying in rain the tires aren't slowing water and mud all over the place. It also keeps the tires from throwing hard debrie like a bolt or a rock through the bottom of your wing were if I'm not mistaken your fuel Tank is.
There is no debate, any wheel pants fitted to any plane will increase airspeed (albeit negligible) on fixed undercarriage aircraft. If you think it’s negligible on a 172, it’s even less so on a Beechcraft Skipper, which is why they never even bothered making it an option. Good video.
I can't recall flying any Cessna with wheel pants. Maybe the 182 I did my mountain checkout in. I like being able to see the brakes, bolts, etc. during preflight.
Josh, I have a 1980 172N with the same paint scheme. It is low time, always hangared, and good original paint. My wheel pants are in good condition so I’ll probably just leave them on. The problem I have is that Cessna, in their infinite wisdom, removed the valve stem doors on the later models and replaced them with 2” round plastic plugs that make it almost impossible to put air in the tires. If you are planning to discard your wheel pants, I would be happy to buy the doors, hinges, and latches from you. The metal structure behind the plastic was not changed so they could be easily mounted to do away with those ridiculous plugs. Let me know if you are interested.
I just watched this video again and I think I will remove my wheel pants. They are nothing but a pain in the ass. The main problem with removing them is that I’ll have to repaint the wheels and brakes assemblies. They’ve been under those wheel pants for so long that they look terrible. I think I’ll be glad when they are off though.
We don't use wheel pants on our Ottawa-based C182 primarily because of build up of ice and snow during winter operations. We don't have a hangar for the plane, making matters worse.
I was working on my PPL for 3 years at 2 different flight schools and the first school I was at none of the skyhawks had pants and then my second school did and working with them to see the tires and breaks for preflight sucked. So now with my PPL I am a proud member of the "nopants" team
Hey Josh! Been watching your videos since you were "Mr. Aviation" years ago! I finally got my first logged flight hour out at KBAZ earlier this week even though I've had flights in a RV7 and a T38. I'm headed off to Air Force pilot training in the coming month so I'm just trying to get ahead. Your videos are very inspiring and a ton of fun to watch! It's crazy to think that you live not more than an hour away too. Keep up the good work!
I think the wheelpants help keep a bit of debris from hitting the horizontal stabilizer. I don't use them, though I use to have them. Flying into grass strips and gravel often I find more nicks on the stabilizer I believe from gravel chipping up off the back wheels. I don't keep them on because of tire accessibility and because mud and ice can clog them up and make you even heavier.
Add, better brake cooling without, but everything underneath is more prone to stone damage as well, they are not only an aerodynamic aid, but also a mudguard, stone guard and water deflector. They also keep the sun off rubber components and reduce dry rot. Maintenance difficulty should not be considered a factor.
The slightly less obvious thing about anything that affects aerodynamics is that it also affects fuel economy (such as it is). But the counter that "every ounce counts" means that you have to weigh the gains. I recall, right after the new paint job, you noticed slight (but appreciable) performance gain (with the old engine IIRC) that you attributed to the cleaner aerodynamics of the new paint. It may have been shedding those 17#! But if there's no need, why tinker? 991 is fine as-is.
Wheel Pants pro - all that gravel and debris hits the wheel pant as opposed to your wheel surfaces and brakes, etc - I.e protection (although I agree with your points regarding weight and utility) Great video!
I use to be in the pro wheel pants club. Had them on my Cherokee and loved them, but was always a bit nervous landing on grass fields, especially here in Florida where grass grows 1 inch a day in the summer. Recently I was renting a Cessna 152 and I had an engine failure on a cross country flight. After making an emergency landing, I discovered a new use for wheels without wheel pants. The left wheel made a perfect seat for me to sit on in the shade of the wing while I was waiting for help to arrive..
it,s almost 3 gallon of fuel , and you are spot on 2 to 3 knots on a good day , even if you fly long cross country leg the saving is negligible the useful weight is more valuable in my mined , keep up the good work Josh and thanks for sharing .
When I was building race cars, aerodynamics didn't play a noticeable factor below 100mph. If your 172 doesn't go much faster than that, don't worry about it. Wheel pants on my Long EZ gave me 5-6kts. It trims out better, climbs better, etc, but it goes a bit faster than 100mph. It's also a small plane, so small changes make more noticeable results.
Last time I had to add air to the tires in my SR22, after fighting for what must have been half an hour to get everything lined up through that little access hole on the first one and still not getting it finished, I just removed the wheel pants to add the air. Hey, 15 screws with a cordless screwdriver, for each, not too bad, took about an hour for all three off and back on. Definitely would be a lot easier without the pants. A 172, fine without pants, but on a Cirrus -- I want the pants installed. BTW, that's a nice paint job on your 172. And, another great informative video from a talented pilot and entertaining speaker.
I have an SR20 that was missing it's front wheel pant when I bought it. I have replaced it and can attest that I gain a little speed. I can now do 130+kts at LOP where before it was more like 125kfs. The look is also much more balanced for a Cirrus. It is a very aerodynamic design and a missing WP looked very much out of place. For a C72 I can understand your point, especially if you do bush flying. I agree with all you points about practicality and safety, this is indeed a big down. One last thing I wanted to say is gravel projected on wings and other parts of the plane without WP, that must also be one reason for their existence
Real pilots fly without pants! :D And your estimate of 2-3 knots is pretty spot on for a 172. On a 182 you get about 4-5kts. Still not a huge difference. Of note on a PA-28 Cherokee/archer/warrior, etc you should not remove the nose pant as it has a small aerodynamic “rudder” built in and helps with rudder authority. For us northern pilots you should remove the pants in the winter or they’ll fill with snow!
It's so common to see saggy tires when wheel pants are installed. Pilots get frustrated with the pain of topping off the tire pressure which leads to a general blowing off of the "castle nut to brake caliper" part of the preflight. I personally like to see everything. He's right about the performance loss on an RV or similar type, but for the older legacy singles: KISS.
Pro: gravel and rainwater are not thrown up against the belly, flaps, bottoms of the wings, and horizontal stabilizers with the pants on. Con: everything you mentioned plus operating in snow and slush in the winter can cause the wheels to freeze
Did you ever finish teaching Brooke how to fly a plane and get her license or did you two go separate ways? I would love to see you with more students in the cockpit as well as more trips around the USA and Canada!
Figuring this video was shot just prior to the 27th. At sunset in Michigan our hangars would have been in the upper 20's with sleet & slush on the ramp and ice in the air. Enjoy San Marcos Josh, someday you may be living the dream up here in the Snowbelt.
Hate to say it, but I love that 70s brown. The new paint is pretty, but the original just looks right. I took mine off, as well. Two reasons: 18 lbs saved and easier to check tire condition.
In my personal opinion, the biggest Pro for having wheel pants is to protect the tires from FOD. But the downside as you said is you really can’t do a good visual inspection on damage particularly to the side of the tires.
There is another reason to have wheelpants: grass landing strips. If you use grass strips you'll inevitably run into suboptimal conditions at some point, meaning rain and mud. The dirty water and mud will fly up from the wheels. The belly and the wings will look accordingly. How I know? Been there, done that ;-)
No wheel pants for me. Back in the early sixties my dad had a forced landing into a plowed field somewhere in the Blue Mountains. He landed the Stinson and on rollout the mud and straw packed into the wheel pants, locked-up the wheels and the airplane flipped onto its back. Fortunately dad was the only occupant. The next plane we had with pants was a Cessna U-206. We were surrounded by thunderstorms, VFR, and racing a storm to get on the ground. Just as the mains touched we got hit by a severe downdraft and the nose wheel slammed down, bursting the nose tire. The fairing on the nose gear got shredded to pieces. We used our airplanes like most people used a station wagon. We took long trips around the country every summer. All of the planes after the 206 were retractable. Aesthetics and performance had nothing to do with the choice.
I think your speed numbers are probably right on for Cessna pants, there are other suppliers, (I think knots 2 U) have a better design, especially for the nose gear. Piper when it brought back its piston singles line actually did some aerodynamic upgrades, Cessna just hung a bigger motor on them. Bigger is not always better. The nose gear is the biggest drag, that's why the convention gear (tailwheel) is faster than the tricycle gear. There is a fairing for Cessna's stupid exhaust location, it supposedly gives you one mph BUT it gives you lower oil temps and CHTs, on a hot day in FL this might be nice.
@@airwipe1639 I was making an (admittedly weak) joke about how many times Josh said "wheel pants" in this episode. Nothing really to get. You're not missing anything.
According to the Piper Archer III (PA-28-181) manual you lose a whole 3 kts by removing the wheel pants. Frankly, gaining 3 kts isn't worth the extra weight and the loss of access to the tires, brakes, etc. I'm one of those people who think that the aircraft looks better with the wheel pants, but not better enough to outweigh the disadvantages.
Another pro and con:
Pro: Those dings on the front of your wheel pants mean the wheel pants have protected the wheel and brake hardware from getting hit by something... maybe rocks. That means possibly less damage to the more expensive parts of the plane.
Con: The wheel pants are bigger than wheels alone. I have tripped over them a few times whereas I have never tripped over the wheel on a plane that does not have wheel pants..
Agree with your Con, Will. A 152 is awkward enough already. The wheel pants (aren't they called Spats?) are freakin' inconvenient and annoying when moving to and from the aircraft.
More “beer in the hanger” videos please. Love it!
AGREED!
Something I recently discovered the hard way is when taking off of a runway that has melting snow or ice, it quickly refreezes inside the pant adding weight and other problems.
Dude‼️ exactly... never dawned me.... Alaska‼️🥶
Great Point, im so sad I didn’t think of that🥶🍪🍪🍪
Me: I've never watched a video from this guy, I wonder if I can watch his videos.
You: Cracks a beer within the first minute.
Me: Okay. I guess we're best friends now.
As long as its 8 hours bottle to throttle, but that's just the minimum.
>mfw that was an o'douhls
You nailed it on the visibility of the landing gear. Small problems become big problems when they go undetected and uncorrected. In order for a wheel pant to be truly effective, it covers several critical systems. Up here in Alaska, we often install mud flaps though, which is a practical solution to dents, dings, and corrosion encouraging mud on the lower wing, flaps, and even the tail. Great video, I always enjoy your videography. I enjoyed your Alaska series immensely, it's my back yard and you flew all around and even over us on your trip. The scenery here never gets old though, and no matter how often I've seen it for myself, I enjoy seeing outsider's perspectives, views, and reactions to our awesome state. Thanks again, good video!
“I can’t say I haven’t thought about it” 😂
Haven’t we all?
Curious how that would work with the front fork... Bush tires normally go on tail draggers.
i.b. hemp check out Josh’s Alaska series. That 172 has some bush tyres fitted
Added 26 inch bushwheels to my 182Q after removing the wheel pants. I love em’. Lost about 2Kts in cruise with the bushwheels, but gravel runways are softer, plane sits up higher a little further away from grass on the runways. Looks cool too 😉
"Potato with butter on top" cracked me up. :)
Snow and ice in WI -- We remove pants in the winter as to avoid slush and ice accumulating inside the pant causing damage. PA 28-235.
We do the same in Manitoba. But we like the look so throw them back on in late spring!
Ditto...177B
Same here. C182T
Was thinking the same thing for 172N
We do the same on our PA-28-180, mains come off at the first snow and stay off until spring.
3 mph on full tanks could mean the difference of making your destination non stop or not. Depending on tank size (~39 gal) and fuel burn (~8 gal/hr) you get ~15 extra miles with wheel pants. Multiply that 15 by how ever many stops you need to make for a long flight and it could be significant, especially if you are flying over ocean or other terrain where you wouldn't want to make an unscheduled landing if your fuel ran out.
No matter if it's aviation related or pertains to life in general whenever one wants to have fun it always includes removing the pants.
Nothing like some good brew and simple hanger talk 👍🏼
And I’m with you... NO PANTS!
I had a 140A back in the 70's and those slippers were nothing but a pain. 1 out of 10 flights were on paved runways. I flew out of our local grass strip airport mostly to other grass/dirt/gravel strips. It was a constant job making sure they were clean internally and a pain inspecting the gear. One year when I was having the annual done by our local field mechanic I asked him to just take the damn things off. He explained to me that wasn't a good idea because the plane had fabric wings and more than looks they worked as debris flaps to keep anything from flying up off the wheels and impacting the wing or any control surfaces, especially because it was a tail dragger and more of the wing surface was exposed to potential debris. That plane was built during the days that most fields were just that fields and was fairly high performance, including flaps, for it's purpose at the time as opposed to something like Cubs or T-Crafts. I wonder if they were originally a safety feature but as time went on became a cosmetic feature, especially to identify with Cessna, that was no longer required but just made the planes look good like nice looking wheels on a new car.
In 84 when I had my primary training in 172s at KTOA..i recall the FBO had about 7 skyhawks from a 79..a 84 and the rest 80/81 models...none had pants..my instructor showed me a storage room where boxes of them where stored and said wheel pants on a trainer with the frequency of tire and brake changes..tire pressure checks..students using them as steps etc..made it far easier to leave them off...I've owned a cpl skyhawks and I agree...maybe 3 to (on a good day) 5 knots faster in cruise with pants..
I save weight and always remove my pants while flying!
Hopefully not on the airlines.
@@MikeBrown-ex9nh I recall a captain I once flew with told me that he and his female FO once had an empty repositioning flight and they dared each other to fly it in their undies.
ha made me smile ! 😀
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
homertalk I always take them off to save weight, they are in the baggage compartment if I need them.
"Why did the plane get arrested for indecent exposure?" Because he took off his wheel pants
@callum wilkinson plus he sprayed oil ALL over the tarmac
This joke is wheely bad. Just plane terrible.
Oh gosh these unfunny jokes
I have a Piper Warrior and keep wheel pants on the mains. They weigh around 3lbs each. Without them I found the underside of the wings just get slapped with crap kicked up by the mains. It has made it a lot easier to keep the underside of the wings clean. Not a problem with high wings to be sure.
That beer looks like a Spotted Cow if I've ever had one ;) Freshly made in my home state of Wisconsin!
I caught that right away too!
One of the reasons I go to Oshkosh from NC!
It’s a lovely drive from Chicago 😊😊.
Have a few in my fridge now. (Than again I live in WI so it’s the law)
Also grab Karben4 Fantasy Factory ! Out of Madison WI (KMSN) with brewery within 0.5mi of the airport.
I can relate to this video ! I had a 172 in the late 80’s, that we wound up removing the pants for a time for repair. After reinstalling them, I always wished I had just just left them off. But, unlike most, I actually like the look of “no wheel pants”, not to mention the pants hide so much, that really needs to be visible. Great video Josh !
BTW - A friend removed wheel pants from his 152 Areobat and put really nice polished aluminum wheels on all around. Looked great !
Good to see you are Normal and enjoy a beer from time to time, Josh!!!
thanks for your videos, from an old retired pilot. back when, grass strip and winter (snow), wheel pants became a big slush scoop. The flight school where i taught, the 150s and 172s had the pants removed during the winter so cleaning the brakes would be much easier.
I was wonder why you had never put the pants back on after painting 80991. After your explanation, pro's and con's, now I know and I fully agree with your decision! Keep up the great work and fantastic videos!
I spy a Spotted Cow being consumed. There is no finer beer on Earth!
You probably don't worry about this in Texas but farther north, you have to take the pants off in the winter because they can collect snow and slush during taxi, then freeze once airborne. Could make for an exciting landing
You needed an excuse to have a beer. Good decision lol
Wheel fairings collect dirt and muck when operating from dirt airstrips which add more weight to the aircraft.
They stop wet runway spray from coating the underside of the wing, strut, nose etc. It’s basically an aerodynamic mud flap
Try washing them once in awhile
Hey. Thanks for making these videos. You really keep me motivated to get my PPL and go fly! I'm on my 20' hour atm, and are really looking forward to fly with my family/friends.
Please keep making flying videos, they are really amazing!
Reduced drag from wheel pants is also gonna improve your total flight time (slightly). Reduced drag means you are going to be at a slightly lower throttle/rpm to fly at a given speed, so you get slightly better fuel burn at a given flight condition. That said, if the drag is only enough to barely change your top-end speed, the throttle/rpm/fuel burn rate change will probably be barely noticeable at cruise, if you notice it at all. The faster you fly, the more benefit you'll get.
I took them off my 150M 2 years ago and have zero regrets. For me it was a no-brainer, and for exactly the reasons you highlighted here. On a 150, they add 1-2 knots of airspeed max, at a cost of 18 lbs gross weight with pants, fairings, and mounting brackets. That's 3 gallons of gas I was leaving on the ground just to gain 1-2 knots of speed. The Skyhawk I trained in didn't have them, and I hated not being able to see the brakes & calipers, and especially the condition of the tire treads and sidewalls, like I could on the Skyhawk during preflight.
Agreed! Weight loss, maintenance/safety, less damage.
We removed the wheel pants off of our Tiger last year during our annual inspection for the same reasons you did... well, except we didn't have a paint job done. It was a pain in the arse to put air in the tires, do any brake work, etc. And, for some reason, we had a string of flat tires within a six month period thanks to FOD that we had to deal with. So, the decision was made to take them off. And I am glad we did. Our cruise speed is down about 6 knots and we gained about 27 lbs in useful load. She still flies like a champ.
My C172S POH says to reduce TAS by 2Kts without Speed Fairings in all conditions for what it's worth.
Noticed a Spotted Cow beer....only in Wisconsin, must be an Oshkosh souvenir haha
Dinger Mike I thought the same thing.
Yep. That caught my eye too. Best beer out there
Either that or he lives in WI, or close to. They don't sell outside Wisco.
Yeah I didn’t think new glarus brewing sold outside of our state
@@ericsundell9978 he is down in Texas but he and his father come up to AirVenture every year
Keep up the good work - from way “down under” at Ballarat in Victoria, Australia. At our Aero Club flying school, we have taken the wheel pants off the ab initio trainers - basically for the reasons you have espoused; teaching new pilots to check brakes, tires, tire pressures; to be able to handle short field landings and take-offs, gravel and grass runways, etc. The Piper Warrior still has its pants - but they are fixed; and we have left them on the C172SP - but it is used for pre PPL navs, PIFR and IFR training and fly-aways. We must agree - according to our measurements, wheel pants are worth at best 5 knots - but for 6kgs = 13 lbs on the smaller aircraft, and 9kgs = 20 lbs on the 4-seaters. Love the “beer o’clock” talk - but gotta keep that MINIMUM 8 hours from bottle to throttle!
That bottle opener is wicked! Now I wish I had one, or two or fifty! 🤔
You should totally fit N80991 with bush tires! 😀👍
Unless your always flying into grass or gravel pavement is very unkind to those and chews up the tires and for 1200 for a good bush wheel yeah
"totally fit with bush tires"? As opposed to maybe one or two tires?
Great analysis Sir.
I totally agree. If the pant is going to protect the aircraft from damage, I would rather spend the money on the repair not the pant. You have the purchase price, any minor repairs before the big damage & the money spent after the big damage.
I am in your camp I think no pants make it look like an aircraft. Of course you made it clear, top speed also plays into it, if you are flying a 250 kt aero. I would still question what the drag is at that speed. If its 5-7 kts, I am still going with the less wt factor. Not to mention, the whole point of fixed gear and ignoring the 7 to15 KT difference from RG.
On the Cessna 172S NAV III POH/PIM it states that increase true airspeed about 2 KTS for wheel pants which is completely negligible in the grand scheme of things. In addition I think the practicality like you mentioned is the main reason for removing them. Upkeep on the mains and nose is so much easier, weight reduction even if a few pounds, easier visual preflight inspection, able to "kick the tires", less issue with getting grass and dirt in them etc. Just so many pro's to the 172 not having wheel pants
I agree about 3kts. That’s what I see on my M model 172. Correct on work of installing and removing, also the brake fairings. I’m in northern Michigan and I pick what days I use the plane in the winter with the pants on. But I think the plane looks better with a matched paint job on them. Great video.
May I add as a motorcycle enthusiast who has run at Bonneville and other motorcycle racers, we've all ditched the front wheel cover even some of the Busa turbo bikes at over 200mph gs. We all had some gain in speed or performance. The physics suggest less turbulent drag. But, its also not quite the same with in the air with out some surface contact... Im sure you've heard all the arguments. I think it looks better without pants and functionality of inspecting landing gear far out way the aesthetics...my opinion as well.
I put hubcaps painted white on my 172 for added look. Agree with you wheel pants at non paved airports !
I took off in a glider with a shrouded mainwheel. As we climbed out behind the tug I could smell burning. That was very puzzling.
I immediately returned and ,after pulling the aircraft off the field I discovered heavily impacted dead grass jammed in the wheel shroud.
It took the rest of the day to pull all of this grass out of the shroud because I would have had to pull the aircraft to pieces to remove it
.
Back in 1963 I was in an emergency landing in a 172 and the field chosen to land in was extensively waterlogged. If we had wheel pants I’m sure that we would have flipped over because of the depth of the mud.
Cheers from Downunder👍🇦🇺🇺🇸😷😷😷
I took my wheel pants off my experimental Rutan Long EZ to help cool the brakes on multiple full stop landings which heat the brakes. The LongEZ differential braking is how the EZ is steered too. Its about 5 mph slower in cruise w/o pants. But way easier to check the tires tread and inflation psi on preflight.
I have a 172G and am leaning towards taking them off. My only pro for leaving them on and this will sound strange at first, is for grass strips. The nosewheel pant can act as a fender to protect the prop. Piper Tri-Pacers and Colts have a little fender, I wish there was an STC for one on the 172.
More Hanger Chats with Josh please :D
Personally I don't like Wheel Pants, I think airplanes look better without them.
I don't think you mentioned what I thought was the main reason to have them on, and that is to protect the aircraft from mud and water splashing from the ground, up to the under wing areas, fuselage and side windows, specially on gravel/dirt runways, when they are wet.
I like your airplane, it´s nice one. 😊👍🏼
As director of maintenance for the Oregon State Flying with 3 C-172's, we have removed all of the the wheel pants so that student pilots can learn to see and inspect for tire/brake wear. We also save about 1.5 hours of labor every 100 hours with our A&P's by not having to take them off and putting them back on for inspections. When you have an airplane flying 600 hours a year that savings adds up fast. I can also point out to the CFI's that are allowing their students to brake to hard and making flat spots on new tires, or that they are side loading when landing.
I have a 1967 C-182 Skylane and I took them off because when I bought the plane it only had two. One on each main gear nothing on the nose. I lost about the same on speed that you said about 1 to 2 knots. I am from North Dakota and the wind here will change your speed more than the wheel pants will. Like your videos. Keep up the great work.
Good Point - in the South you did not mention mud. It will cake and add weight. In the North there is slush and snow. It will lock the wheels and add weight. Wheel pants in winter. You have to do a touch and go. You tap the wheels on the runway to break the ice and check wheel rotation. Then fly a circuit before full stop. Flying schools up here remove the pants.
I own a Challenger 2 CWS and its a low power aircraft with a 65 hp Hirth 2 stroke engine. With wheel pants on I cruise at 80-82 mph, without, I cruise at 75-76mph. I currently don't have them installed because I operate from a grass strip that is very wet and mud/snow get up in the pants. When it dries out, I'll put them back on.
Speed advantage is not worth the cost. Useful load gain on 172s and 150/152s is worth keeping them off. Another con is having to worry about people stepping on them and busting/scratching them. One last con.....if you fly in winter conditions (snow and slush) they can accumulate that material and freeze.
Fun, informative video, Josh. Have been flying various Cessnas (both fixed and retractable) since 1981, including instructing for a number of years. The biggest reason I prefer no pants is definitely the (in)ability to fully inspect everything around the wheel/tire. Always feels like I need to take a second or deeper look, but there's not way to do it...
Fly safe everyone.
Plane: Where are my pants 😊
Or, it might even go "Whee, let us go streaking down the taxiway!" 😁
Everything looks better without pants... wait...
Plane: everyone can see my gear.
Tango just made my entire evening 😂
Piper Cherokee: COME HERE BABY
I've also heard the same comment that they only add a couple of knots of airspeed. We have a 172 exactly like yours. Same year and model. Putting air in that nose wheel through that too small of an access door is a real major pain. The round access door on the nose wheel pant needs to be an inch bigger. I think that if we ever take ours off they are going to stay off. If you were to get snow and ice built up in them I'll bet that you would then have a real problem. We usually aren't able to get ours out of the hangar in the winter due to low ceilings and visibility in freezing fog and/or blowing snow or a sheet of ice on the alleyways.
For 12 years my father has had a 46' Cessna 140 and after he bough her we found some original wheel pants. At 85-90 knots I really don't think they do anything but it adds to that classic aircraft look.
Great vid. Answered the wheel pant question. If your fixed plane goes less then 150mph, don't need. Above 150mph, probably helps plus usable load is not a problem.
Even if you don’t go full Alaska bush tires, some slightly larger tires for grass fields may not fit std wheel pants. (182 for me with 8.5” tires on the way)
+1 for removal for my preference and ease of maintenance.
Hi Josh, at least two advantages are they protect the tail from rocks thrown up from the tyres on gravel strips and when operating from wet muddy strips they keep under the wing clean from mud. Two cons are they can fill up with freshly cut grass and you can get debris caught between the Tyre and the scraper which can jam up the wheel. Personally I prefer the panties look over the naked tyres. Nothing like a little mystery and anticipation looking there!
Con. Snow I learned to fly in northern Indiana. It was a best practice for the FBO to remove wheel pants in winter. Packed snow from the runway would pack into the wheel pant on the runway. This happened to me when I was about 17 years old and on a solo flight. Shortly after landing the left main locked up and the next thing you know I’m facing another plane on final (they did a go around). As a student I assumed I had done something catastrophic like breaking the gear. I shut down the engine jump out and inspect the gear. No obvious issues I push the plane backwards the wheel skidded a couple inches then pushed out a load of packed snow. Freeing up the wheel immediately. Relieved that I hadn’t rode the plane I taxied back to the FBO. (FYI uncontrolled airport, Valparaiso Indiana and about 40 years ago.
I always had this crazy idea of having "wheel tails" instead of "wheel pants". The wheel tail would be like the back end of the wheel pant, when looking from the side and top the wheel tail would very closely contour the wheel and would be barely narrower and less tall than the wheel. Couple it with a smooth wheel cup, and it looks to me that you would retain most of the aerodynamic advantage with a fraction of the wight and you have the whole wheel and brake exposed to check condition, inflate, etc... and it doesn't get hit by stones in the front because it doesn't have a front.
That is not a bad idea, in fact it was done on some airplanes in the 1930's...can't remember the make.
Great and practical episode! Keep these coming and mixed in with your flights!!!
I just put pants on my 172M and saw about 3 knots difference in speed in similar conditions. Like you, I do a fair bit of grass ops and am a little concerned, but figure on trying it out and seeing. As I see it, 3 knots on a 4 hour flight is negligible.....on a trip from Texas to Osh and back, maybe that saves you a bit....does it add up in the long run? Probably not.
I own a 79 Archer with wheel pants. The plane does look nicer with them on. But, we recently had some wind damage to the right main wheel pant: A big heavy box came flying across the tarmac, hitting the back of the right main and poking a hole through it. )-: At the time, all I had was a shade port. Good thing it didn't hit anything else! When I got to looking at the main wheel pants, they both needed some fiberglass work; Dzus screws and nuts missing. Makes me wonder if I should even bother with them anymore. They are a pain to take off and put back on every annual, too. Especially the front! Think I'll just repair them and leave them in the hanger for when I sell it.....
Josh I totally agree with you! My 172 currently has wheel pants and they're probably coming off at next annual. It drives me crazy trying to air up a tire and you really don't get a good look at everything during preflight. Nice video!!
25 year old pilot just south of you in San Antonio. We took our pants off our 182... living in Texas with dirt strips it just seems to make more sense. Have also thought about increasing tire ply or going full bush tires as well🤷🏻♂️ appreciate your channel, hope to see you in the sky!
According to the POH for the 172 Skyhawks I fly it states:
"Cruise speeds are shown for an aircraft equipped with speed fairings. Without fairings, decrease speeds shown by 2 knots". So pretty much what Josh experienced when he tried it himself.
The biggest advantage is looks and how well they protect the tail from rocks if flying on gravel
I love that you set up multiple cameras to talk to just for a simple talking to the camera video. Thanks for your work, Josh!
The manual for my Jabiru says Wheel Covers on for long grass and off for sand or soft surfaces.
This makes sense as the covers are open around the wheel and would fill up with sand ect while in the long grass they part the grass and prevent "wrapping" around the wheel/axle /brake gear ect.
I believe they make about 2-3 kts difference at cruise speed. This is not very significant for short flights by may make a difference on longer ones.
Mine spats are in good condition so I have left them on as I do not land on sand but do operate from grass strips.
Looking at the spats in the video, i am surprised that they cannot be repaired. Fiberglass is usually very repairable by cutting out damaged areas and putting back new glass fiber.
no doubt you have looked at the options, so I guess you know your aircraft better than i would. I guess the labour could be expensive.
Intersting video though.
you some ideas right but the other reason for wheel pants is, if you get count flying in rain the tires aren't slowing water and mud all over the place. It also keeps the tires from throwing hard debrie like a bolt or a rock through the bottom of your wing were if I'm not mistaken your fuel Tank is.
There is no debate, any wheel pants fitted to any plane will increase airspeed (albeit negligible) on fixed undercarriage aircraft. If you think it’s negligible on a 172, it’s even less so on a Beechcraft Skipper, which is why they never even bothered making it an option. Good video.
I fly a 1946 PA-12 on 31" tires. "Shucks, sodbuster, we don't hardly wear no pants 'round here!"
I can't recall flying any Cessna with wheel pants. Maybe the 182 I did my mountain checkout in. I like being able to see the brakes, bolts, etc. during preflight.
Hey. That's a Spotted Cow! Josh, did you smuggle that back from EAA?? 🤣🐄🍻
Josh, I have a 1980 172N with the same paint scheme. It is low time, always hangared, and good original paint. My wheel pants are in good condition so I’ll probably just leave them on. The problem I have is that Cessna, in their infinite wisdom, removed the valve stem doors on the later models and replaced them with 2” round plastic plugs that make it almost impossible to put air in the tires. If you are planning to discard your wheel pants, I would be happy to buy the doors, hinges, and latches from you. The metal structure behind the plastic was not changed so they could be easily mounted to do away with those ridiculous plugs. Let me know if you are interested.
I just watched this video again and I think I will remove my wheel pants. They are nothing but a pain in the ass. The main problem with removing them is that I’ll have to repaint the wheels and brakes assemblies. They’ve been under those wheel pants for so long that they look terrible. I think I’ll be glad when they are off though.
Wheel pants also protect tires from the sun's radiation. Something for one to consider if they have to have their plane tied down outside.
try to put some glycerine in the tyres works like moisturizing
We don't use wheel pants on our Ottawa-based C182 primarily because of build up of ice and snow during winter operations. We don't have a hangar for the plane, making matters worse.
I was working on my PPL for 3 years at 2 different flight schools and the first school I was at none of the skyhawks had pants and then my second school did and working with them to see the tires and breaks for preflight sucked. So now with my PPL I am a proud member of the "nopants" team
Got a 182 with britches, love the way it looks but a pain to service tires.
Hey Josh! Been watching your videos since you were "Mr. Aviation" years ago! I finally got my first logged flight hour out at KBAZ earlier this week even though I've had flights in a RV7 and a T38. I'm headed off to Air Force pilot training in the coming month so I'm just trying to get ahead. Your videos are very inspiring and a ton of fun to watch! It's crazy to think that you live not more than an hour away too. Keep up the good work!
I think the wheelpants help keep a bit of debris from hitting the horizontal stabilizer. I don't use them, though I use to have them. Flying into grass strips and gravel often I find more nicks on the stabilizer I believe from gravel chipping up off the back wheels. I don't keep them on because of tire accessibility and because mud and ice can clog them up and make you even heavier.
Add, better brake cooling without, but everything underneath is more prone to stone damage as well,
they are not only an aerodynamic aid, but also a mudguard, stone guard and water deflector. They also keep the sun off rubber components and reduce dry rot.
Maintenance difficulty should not be considered a factor.
The slightly less obvious thing about anything that affects aerodynamics is that it also affects fuel economy (such as it is). But the counter that "every ounce counts" means that you have to weigh the gains. I recall, right after the new paint job, you noticed slight (but appreciable) performance gain (with the old engine IIRC) that you attributed to the cleaner aerodynamics of the new paint. It may have been shedding those 17#! But if there's no need, why tinker? 991 is fine as-is.
Wheel Pants pro - all that gravel and debris hits the wheel pant as opposed to your wheel surfaces and brakes, etc - I.e protection (although I agree with your points regarding weight and utility) Great video!
I agree - wheel pants protect the wings and horizontal stabilizer from flying debris.
I use to be in the pro wheel pants club. Had them on my Cherokee and loved them, but was always a bit nervous landing on grass fields, especially here in Florida where grass grows 1 inch a day in the summer. Recently I was renting a Cessna 152 and I had an engine failure on a cross country flight. After making an emergency landing, I discovered a new use for wheels without wheel pants. The left wheel made a perfect seat for me to sit on in the shade of the wing while I was waiting for help to arrive..
it,s almost 3 gallon of fuel , and you are spot on 2 to 3 knots on a good day , even if you fly long cross country leg the saving is negligible the useful weight is more valuable in my mined , keep up the good work Josh and thanks for sharing .
When I was building race cars, aerodynamics didn't play a noticeable factor below 100mph. If your 172 doesn't go much faster than that, don't worry about it.
Wheel pants on my Long EZ gave me 5-6kts. It trims out better, climbs better, etc, but it goes a bit faster than 100mph. It's also a small plane, so small changes make more noticeable results.
Last time I had to add air to the tires in my SR22, after fighting for what must have been half an hour to get everything lined up through that little access hole on the first one and still not getting it finished, I just removed the wheel pants to add the air. Hey, 15 screws with a cordless screwdriver, for each, not too bad, took about an hour for all three off and back on. Definitely would be a lot easier without the pants. A 172, fine without pants, but on a Cirrus -- I want the pants installed. BTW, that's a nice paint job on your 172.
And, another great informative video from a talented pilot and entertaining speaker.
I have an SR20 that was missing it's front wheel pant when I bought it. I have replaced it and can attest that I gain a little speed. I can now do 130+kts at LOP where before it was more like 125kfs. The look is also much more balanced for a Cirrus. It is a very aerodynamic design and a missing WP looked very much out of place. For a C72 I can understand your point, especially if you do bush flying.
I agree with all you points about practicality and safety, this is indeed a big down.
One last thing I wanted to say is gravel projected on wings and other parts of the plane without WP, that must also be one reason for their existence
Real pilots fly without pants! :D
And your estimate of 2-3 knots is pretty spot on for a 172. On a 182 you get about 4-5kts. Still not a huge difference. Of note on a PA-28 Cherokee/archer/warrior, etc you should not remove the nose pant as it has a small aerodynamic “rudder” built in and helps with rudder authority.
For us northern pilots you should remove the pants in the winter or they’ll fill with snow!
It's so common to see saggy tires when wheel pants are installed. Pilots get frustrated with the pain of topping off the tire pressure which leads to a general blowing off of the "castle nut to brake caliper" part of the preflight. I personally like to see everything. He's right about the performance loss on an RV or similar type, but for the older legacy singles: KISS.
Pro: gravel and rainwater are not thrown up against the belly, flaps, bottoms of the wings, and horizontal stabilizers with the pants on.
Con: everything you mentioned plus operating in snow and slush in the winter can cause the wheels to freeze
What a Awesome Gift from Chris!!!
Did you ever finish teaching Brooke how to fly a plane and get her license or did you two go separate ways? I would love to see you with more students in the cockpit as well as more trips around the USA and Canada!
Figuring this video was shot just prior to the 27th. At sunset in Michigan our hangars would have been in the upper 20's with sleet & slush on the ramp and ice in the air. Enjoy San Marcos Josh, someday you may be living the dream up here in the Snowbelt.
Hate to say it, but I love that 70s brown. The new paint is pretty, but the original just looks right. I took mine off, as well. Two reasons: 18 lbs saved and easier to check tire condition.
In my personal opinion, the biggest Pro for having wheel pants is to protect the tires from FOD. But the downside as you said is you really can’t do a good visual inspection on damage particularly to the side of the tires.
There is another reason to have wheelpants: grass landing strips.
If you use grass strips you'll inevitably run into suboptimal conditions at some point, meaning rain and mud. The dirty water and mud will fly up from the wheels. The belly and the wings will look accordingly. How I know? Been there, done that ;-)
No wheel pants for me. Back in the early sixties my dad had a forced landing into a plowed field somewhere in the Blue Mountains. He landed the Stinson and on rollout the mud and straw packed into the wheel pants, locked-up the wheels and the airplane flipped onto its back. Fortunately dad was the only occupant. The next plane we had with pants was a Cessna U-206. We were surrounded by thunderstorms, VFR, and racing a storm to get on the ground. Just as the mains touched we got hit by a severe downdraft and the nose wheel slammed down, bursting the nose tire. The fairing on the nose gear got shredded to pieces. We used our airplanes like most people used a station wagon. We took long trips around the country every summer. All of the planes after the 206 were retractable. Aesthetics and performance had nothing to do with the choice.
I think your speed numbers are probably right on for Cessna pants, there are other suppliers, (I think knots 2 U) have a better design, especially for the nose gear. Piper when it brought back its piston singles line actually did some aerodynamic upgrades, Cessna just hung a bigger motor on them. Bigger is not always better. The nose gear is the biggest drag, that's why the convention gear (tailwheel) is faster than the tricycle gear. There is a fairing for Cessna's stupid exhaust location, it supposedly gives you one mph BUT it gives you lower oil temps and CHTs, on a hot day in FL this might be nice.
If anyone made this video into a drinking game (“Drink anytime someone says ’wheel pants’!”), people would die of alcohol poisoning. 🥴
not in Texas
Mikhail Hunter I don’t get it
@@airwipe1639 I was making an (admittedly weak) joke about how many times Josh said "wheel pants" in this episode. Nothing really to get. You're not missing anything.
da' Clickster haha no I got that, I was replying to the guy that said “not in Texas”
that was a cool bottle opener lol
Shame he didn't mount it on the engine.