I use 31” Bushwheels for rough ground, but I keep a pair of “racing wheels” with planed 8.50 × 6 Goodyears for long trips to boring airfields. We plane most of the tread off because it only serves to trash the prop and the tail feathers.
For soft ground, inflation pressure, which equals ground pressure for a pneumatic tyre, is what matters most.
Conventional aircraft tyres can be run down to about 15 psi but lower than that could risk the tyre creeping around the rim. There are tricks to limit that, but perhaps not to be shared on a public forum.
Lower tyre inflation pressure means lower hydroplaning speed on water or wet runways, which might or might not be desirable.
Larger diameter tyres help to smooth travel over rocks, brush, rough ground and rabbit holes, but where Alaskan Bushwheels score on soft ground (and water) is that they can’t come off the rim, so they can be run all day at 8 psi (or less, in extremis). I cut one of mine open landing on a sharp rock this summer, and the aircraft remained perfectly controllable – albeit looking a bit lop-sided.
I’ve not noticed Bushwheels wearing on tarmac, but I do try to land as near to my parking space as possible. They get cut on rocks and sharp gravel, and the sidewalls crack a bit after a couple of years (UV perhaps). Still, they only cost 3 AMU a pair and you can’t put a price on carrying your runway with you…
I’ve never heard of balancing aircraft tyres, but I suppose it wouldn’t hurt for nice aeroplanes. For Maules, Cubs and similar aerotrash we are only running at more than 30 mph for a second or two, during which time the driver is too preoccupied with the various knobs, sticks, pedals and levers to notice any vibration or bumps.
Conventional undercarriage obviously allows more effective braking until the aircraft is almost stopped, whereupon trikes have the advantage of a training wheel under the prop. 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Not even during your PPL Training? That is astonishing and makes me ask something about your flight school. Flying from grass is an integral part of a PPL and not having done that makes me wonder what else was left out.
I never did any grass flying either when I got my PPL, or snow, or frozen lakes. Grass is more forgiving than tarmac, or snow and ice. IMO their is no point in training on grass.
There have apparently been several A210s that had the noseleg collapse on grass, so I’m not surprised a school would stay away from unpaved runways
Peter wrote:
There are publications listing grass strips but most of the people whose strips appear in them are not too pleased about it.
The Italians seem to have a very nice system of grass strips, approved, known and published. It seems to very much “deliver the goods for the majority” as long as they don’t want to leave Italy…. the big compromise that makes it work legally. The UL guys fly around and have a good time. The land use doesn’t seem to be either ambiguous or illegal.
There are publications listing grass strips but most of the people whose strips appear in them are not too pleased about it.
This is yet another reason why the idea that GA can shrink and shrivel up to a load of grass strips, will never deliver the goods for the majority. They can work for the owners and their good friends.
Ibra wrote:
What aircraft did you use for training?
600m is short for comfortable training but should be ok for a taster with the right conditions…
We used a Rotax 912 (100 hp) powered Aquila A210, later A211. At 750 kg MTOW you are somewhat limited with two people, especially when the student pilot weights 100 kg. We were practically always at MTOW. I don’t know about the performance of the A210/211 on grass in comparison to other types.
MedEwok wrote:
No, not even in training. The nearest strip to my training base of EDWF was Barßel EDXL, which has 770m grass for landing and 600 m for takeoff. My instructor said we’d never get out of there again.
With what aircraft?
yes, my comment is for France/UK, I had the impression the German UL/Micro situation is similar, especially on the south…
Ibra wrote:
There are more of private/grass strips than what you will see on paper map or skydemon, especially those who don’t want publicity or visitors
Depends on the country. Several countries simply do not permit aviation from any place other than a licenced airfield, and these licences are very difficult or impossible to obtain.
MedEwok wrote:
The nearest strip to my training base of EDWF was Barßel EDXL, which has 770m grass for landing and 600 m for takeoff
What aircraft did you use for training?
600m is short for comfortable training but should be ok for a taster with the right conditions…
There are more of private/grass strips than what you will see on paper map or skydemon, especially those who don’t want publicity or visitors (funny enough, I saw someone crashing on the ground and relayed to ATC, I discovered later that it was business as usual of someone who land on his 400m backyard airstrip), maybe some few will be listed in UL/Micro websites and mags, still you can spot few of the non-listed from the air
