anon wrote:

Peter Dohm wrote:

n o t n e c e s s a r i l y

Trivial in this case, as the tires were not alleged to have gone flat.
However, it is a frequently employed method to protect the wheels, and
sometimes the tires, while the parts (tubes in this case) are obtained.

IIRC, no assertion was made that this was an adiquate temporary service
for flight, or even ground operation.

Peter

My bad. I incorrectly assumed that his #1 response was his reply to
the first question about correct tire pressures and his #2 response
was his reply to the second question about flat tires. His reply
makes perfect sense now that I realize, thanks to you, that both
answers were in response to the flat tire question. Apologies to all
concerned. My pressure recommendations stand. I will now slither
back under my rock.

- anon

I really was not trying to be that much of a prick.

Especially for a canard aircraft, for which there is probably not a formal
POH, the tire manufacturer may be of some help.

My recollection, admittedly as a student-pilot twenty years ago, is that a
Cessna 150/152 with the optional 6.00x6 main tires (5.00x? was standard IIRC)
had generally better balanced handling with around 25 psi in the main tires
than with 30 psi; which I believe was recommended for the standard tires.

The problem that it corrected was not so much that the mains were "bouncy",
at the higher pressure, although they were and the lower pressure corrected
it nicely; but that the plane did not gain excessive speed on the taxiways
at just above idle. Therefore, you could reasonably warm up the engine and
taxi out at the same time without additional wear on the brakes. In other
words; it was practical to be kind to the FBO, even when renting by hobbs
time.

There was a very small increment in the take-off roll on smooth concrete,
which probably would have been an equally slight decrement on turf or very
well maintained grass, when compared to the higher pressure. And, of course
much less braking was required after landing...

Peter