"The Goodyear Flight Custom III is the only GA aircraft tire that has a Kevlar belt. The Kevlar belt makes the tire very stiff--and thus hard to push. If you stand a Flight Custom II and a Flight Custom III vertically side by side and try to push down toward the center you will find that it is very difficult to get any deflection on the Flight Custom III. Not so on the Flight Custom II.

Another Retread Source That Receives Positive Pireps

On 9/21/2019, a 6x6-8ply is reported to be $70!

Here are videos of my gear swings with Desser retreads at all three positions. No rubbing or airframe clearance issues     Video 1             Video 2

Read the Aviation Consumer 2008 Test Results HERE

Read the Goodyear Tire Data HERE

Read the Goodyear Tire Maintenance Manual HERE

Read the Michelin Tire Tech Data HERE

PS: Beech Talker, Rick O., was at a Michelin presentation in which the rep stated that inflation of 90% to 105% is considered "acceptable operating parameters". Anything less than 80% is considered a "FLAT TIRE"! SO please regularly check your tire pressures, especially around the change of seasons and when you traverse temperature zones in the country. When Rick asked about high quality retreads, the Michelin rep stated that Michelin recaps were better than their new tires!

Here's the Aviation Consumer 2008 Test Results Narrative:

While car tires are all about the finer points of traction and resistance to hydroplaning, the best we can hope for with airplane tires is that they’ll make it through a couple of annuals. To do that, they need a lot of tread depth, the right rubber compound and a pilot whose idea of making the first turnoff doesn’t involve landing with the brakes locked.

Heat is hard on tires, but landings chew up the rubber so to find out which tire is top dog, we conducted the second Great Florida Tire Death Match, subjecting each of 11 new tires to 300 blistering, rubber-burning simulated touchdowns on a flat stretch of I-75. Conclusion? He with the most tread wins, and that would be the Goodyear Flight Custom III. In this case, "wins" means delivers the most landings for the money—in other words, the best value. But that doesn’t mean the most expensive tire is always the best choice for every owner. More on that later, but first, on to the tests.

If most of your flying is from A to B, you probably don’t do many landings, even if each "landing" might be labeled a series of controlled collisions. For many owners, tire replacement is more about age— weather-related cracking, for example—than it is tread wear. Still, smearing rubber on the runway is what it’s all about so we dug out our test rig, mounted it on the trailer, bought a sample of most 6.00 X 6 new tires and tubes and got busy. 

As shown here, the rig consists of a pneumatically operated pivoting arm mounted on a utility trailer towed by a pickup truck. The arm is activated by a valve—call it an air-powered gear selector—that reasonably simulates a retractable gear airplane by allowing a tire touchdown and retraction about every six seconds.

Of the 11 tires tested in 2004, we rated six as unserviceable after the skid test. There wasn’t much to gain from repeating it this year, so for our 2008 edition, we substituted a two-mile taxi test at 30 MPH to test heat buildup. We measured the tires’ temperature before and after the taxi test and from there, we went right into the simulated landings. We also simulated a faster landing, at between 65 and 70 MPH, instead of 55 MPH or so in 2004. We chose this speed to better approximate the 60-knot touchdown many tires see in actual use.

We weighed and measured each tire before and after the tests. In addition to tread depth, we measured diameter, finding that most tires are less than 1/8-inch out-of-round.

Weight varied, too, with the less expensive tires generally being the lightest, given that their construction uses less steel, fabric and/or rubber. Goodyear’s top-rated Flight Custom III was the heaviest tire, at 11 pounds, 4 ounces, followed by Desser’s massive Monster retread at 11 pounds. The lightweight was Specialty’s Aero Trainer at 6 pounds, 13 ounces.

Rubber hardness can be a predictor of tire durability, although in the end, we think tread depth trumps all. We measured hardness with an analog durometer at five points along each tires’s tread. Interestingly, we found that hardness often varied from point to point along the tread’s circumference and from shoulder to shoulder. Again, you get what you pay for. The cheaper tires seemed to vary in hardness while the premium products were more consistent.

Prior to hitting the road, we marked each tire’s sidewall into eight segments and using a digital depth gauge, we measured groove depth at each segment mark at the beginning and end of each test. Although the tires vary in number of grooves, to make things simple, we used only wear data from the two center grooves, averaging the 16 values for an overall wear indication. No surprise that the data showed the centers of the tires wore more than the outer grooves.

As noted in our previous report, heat is hard on tires and we were surprised how much variability in heat rise we recorded during the two-mile taxi test. While the Goodyear Flight Custom III ran the coolest, some of the least expensive tires were right behind it, such as the Condor and the Super Hawk. Desser’s Monster and the Specialty Air Hawk ran the hottest, as shown in the chart at left.

We also recorded before and after temperature rise during the 300-landing cycle test. Here, the cheaper tires acquitted themselves well, with the bargain $45.95 Aero Trainer tire showing a scant 2.3-degree rise. The Desser Monster and the premium Michelin Air topped the scale in landing cycle heat rise, which while not a predictor of imminent failure, is also not desirable, in our view.

To keep our observations consistent, we had to park in the shade to prevent direct sunlight on the tire from contaminating the data. For what it’s worth, even in Florida’s weak February sun, solar heat rise was so significant that we think tire covers might be worth the investment to reduce heat and UV damage. As described in the sidebar at right, our long-term weathering test showed that UV and heat really trash tires, turning the soft rubber brittle and badly oxidizing the surfaces.

As we learned in our previous tests, if a tire is landed frequently, durability is a function of tread depth and wear rate. Deeper tread is a strong plus, but if the rubber wears rapidly, the tire might not last as long as one with shallower tread but a lower wear rate. The additional variable is price and this has the largest impact on value. From most to least, the tread depth ratio in these new tires was 1.6 to 1, but the most-to-least cost ratio was more than 3 to 1.

To make some sense of cost versus tread versus wear rate, we constructed a simple formula. First, we established a wear rate for each tire—in other words, how much comparative wear each tire showed per 300 landing cycles related to its total tread depth. We used this to roughly calculate how many cycles the tire would theoretically deliver and we divided this number into the discount price to determine a value ranking. The number itself is arbitrary; the ranking is useful. Our intent was to answer several questions: Which is the best tire for minimum wear? Which is best value tire? Are cheap tires a better buy under any circumstances?

First, overall wear, irrespective of tread depth and cost. The top three here are Goodyear’s Flight Special, the Michelin Aviator and the bargain Super Hawk, all of which had more than 95 percent of their tread remaining after the test. Although this sounds good, here’s the problem: Each of these tires started out with 20 percent less tread depth than the top rated Goodyear Flight Custom and more than 30 percent less than Desser’s Monster.

When total tread depth is considered against wear rate and cost, a different picture emerges. At the premium end of the market—tires in the $100 and up range—the Goodyear Flight Custom III tops the value equation because its .270 inch tread depth exceeds its competition—mainly its stablemate Flight Special and the Michelin products—and the price differences aren’t that great between these tires. While it’s true that the Flight Custom had a slightly higher wear rate, it wasn’t enough to offset that generous tread depth.

At the lower end of the market—tires under $100—the wear rate grouping and price relationships were scattered enough that the Specialty Air Hawk came out as a winner largely because of an edge in total tread depth. Cheaper tires such as the Condor, the Specialty Aero Trainer and Air Trac didn’t do as well because—you can see it coming—they started with less tread or they had a higher wear rate.

If there was a surprise for this round of testing, it was the Monster retread. In our last test, we picked it as the top value using a slightly different formula. But this time, its combination of a slightly higher wear rate against the other tires and a higher price dropped it from the top ranking.

This could have been related to more test cycles or the fact that the simulated weight on the tire was lower. Also, the Monster’s rubber was among the softest tested. Nonetheless, we still like the Monster as a good buy because of its top ranked tread depth—good protection against skids and lockups.

One caveat: Drawing take-it-to-bank conclusions from what are actually very slim differences in actual tire wear rates is problematical. But we’re comfortable making some general recommendations.

Goodyear’s Flight Custom III came out at the top of our cost vs. observed tread wear equation for two simple reasons: The tire simply starts with a deeper tread than most of its competition and the wear rate is comparable. The only tire with more tread, Desser’s Monster retread, also features a slightly softer rubber compound—yielding a durometer value of 61, vs. the Goodyear’s 63. Plus, the Flight Custom has only two grooves, so it puts more rubber on the runway, thus reducing wear.

Specialty Tires of America (neé McCreary Tire and Rubber Company) came in second and third with their Air Hawk and Aero Classic models, respectively. The two tires started out with relatively deep tread and their rubber compound—at 72, the hardest we tested—kept wear to a minimum. But it was low street prices that helped boost them to near the top of the pack. The Air Hawk is a conventional four-rib tire while the Aero Classic is designed for classic airplanes including warbirds, DC-3s and Beech 18s, according to the company, so it has a sidewall shoulder tread pattern popular in the 1940s and 1950s. It’s designed for a particular look.

Michelin’s premium Air model came in fourth overall. Although we think it’s a great tire, it suffers for lack of tread depth and it’s priced with the Flight Custom. Michelin’s Aviator model had much harder tread—second only to the Specialty Aero Classic and Air Hawk—but there wasn’t enough of it. Despite wearing well, it finished near the bottom of the pack in value, after Desser’s Monster.

So, given the Flight Custom’s top-of-the-tire-pile rating, is it automatically the best buy? Not necessarily. If you fly a lot, are careful on the brakes and don’t want to be bothered with tire changes, the Flight Custom is our top choice. It’s worth the $146 (discounted) asking price. 

But if your airplane sits a lot exposed to weather—and many airplanes do—your tires will probably rot before they wear out their tread. In this case, second tier tires such as the Air Hawk and Michelin Air are good choices. We don’t recommend the cheaper tires at all, for two reasons: They start out with less tread when new and given similar wear rates, the cost of changing them will easily amount to a total higher than a more expensive tire would have in the first place. Second, you need downside protection against a wheel lockup. We all do this from time to time and if you lock a $51 Air Trac with .200 inch of tread, it’s toast. Do the same with a Flight Custom and you can might get another year or two out of it. And in the end, that’s all we can ask of a tire.

Here's what happens when you run with tires that have thin tread remaining AND maybe land long or try to make that first turnoff. Please folks, save your brakes and tires - go around and set it up right or just roll to the end of the runway (pics courtesy of BeechTalker YS)......Just a thought.

As expensive as owning and operating our aircraft is getting, I encourage all Beechcraft owners to take the opportunity to evaluate lower cost tire options. Even finding NOS tires on Ebay can be a good option to lower your operating cost on this consumable.

Here is an example of what happens when poor airspeed control and touchdown point meet ~2,500' runway in a D55 Baron.

New Baron owners please note: You might need something a little less than Blue Line over the fence and a touchdown point just a little bit after "Brick #1" of the runway if you are intending to land on a "short" runway. If you are not proficient in short runway ops (my personal definition for a Baron short runway is anything less than about 3,000' or so), please get some dual and sharpen up your game and save your airframe!