Is retractable gear obsolete for small GA?

[gsengle]

Also if Cirrus is inherently more dangerous hypothetically, and thus destroys more airframes per hour, regardless of how many chute saves, then insurance rates will be higher. My point is only that the fatal accident rate dropping may be misleading...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danb]

If I wanted one of those ugly looking sperm planes I'd have one. 

[PTK]

This thread serves to remind me how much I love my Mooney...in case I forget!

[Bob_Belville]

Not sure I know how to fly a fixed gear any more. 2934 of my 3186 logged hours are retract. 92.1% 

[jonhop]

21 hours ago, DaV8or said:

The general "wisdom" amongst GA pilots and enthusiasts is that retractable landing gear has become pretty much obsolete for any airplane flying at speeds less than 200kts. The reasoning being that the magic of computers and the wind tunnel has made modern fixed gear design nearly invisible to the wind and modern construction and materials has made it very light. Combined, airplanes like the Cirrus and the Columbia as well as several kit planes go just as fast as the old retracts if not faster.

This makes me ask two things-

1. Is retractable gear for four seat piston planes like the Mooney truly obsolete?
2. If there were an STC to convert your Mooney to modern fixed gear that would result in an increased Gross Weight, lower maintenance costs, lower insurance costs, the peace of mind that you would never do a gear up and all at a penalty of 5-10kts, would you do it? Assume the STC, hardware and labor were free.

I was going to photoshop an image of a Mooney with Lancair gear on it, but screw it. It's late and you guys can close your eyes and imagine. 

How much faster would a Cirrus or Lancair--Cessna 400--fly with retractable gear? Lancairs had retracts too on other models before Cessna bought them out to manufacture the Corvalis, so that may be a factor. Both planes are fast for fixed gear airplanes but I'd bet they would be quicker with the gear tucked in....

[KLRDMD]

6 hours ago, gsengle said:

Also if Cirrus is inherently more dangerous hypothetically, and thus destroys more airframes per hour, regardless of how many chute saves, then insurance rates will be higher. My point is only that the fatal accident rate dropping may be misleading...

My data is 10 years old but I owned a Cirrus SR22 in 2005 and then sold it and bought a Mooney Bravo in 2006. The hull value was virtually identical but the insurance premium on the Cirrus was twice what I paid for the Mooney.

[mooniac15u]

22 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Does anybody have W/B data for a D Mooney before and after fixed to retract conversion?

i bet the difference was less than five pounds.

I found some very old paperwork from my M20D.  "Retractable gear kit" is listed at 20 lbs. 

[Hank]

Wow! That's about the best use of 20 lb payload I've ever seen!! Wonder how many times that the Piper "gear transmission" alone is?  

[Jerry 5TJ]

6 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

My question was MODERN not geriatric. (Britten Norman Islanders, Twotters are old ish). .  The caravan is at least a 20 yr old design as well. 

Cessna Caravan is closer to 35 years old:  First flight in 1982.  Over 2,500 built, still in production. Still fixed gear.  

Ref:Cessna Press Release 2015

[DaV8or]

8 hours ago, PMcClure said:

Maybe but how much coverage do aviation policies offer or payout for loss of life or medical. I think the limits are pretty small. Liability and hull drive the cost don't they? Life insurance companies may care, but I have never been asked by them if I have a fixed or retract hear. Pilot is scary enough for them. 

 

I don't know if you've checked out medical expenses these days, but a badly broken leg can cost as much as my plane is worth. I hope your limits aren't small if you fly strangers people other then yourself and family in your plane. Throw in some lawsuits for loss of life and the Cirrus is a much safer bet for insurance companies. It will take time for them to adjust their premiums downward for the Cirrus as they will need several consecutive years of data to do that. Of course insurance companies are in it of the profit, so they may just leave the premiums high and pocket the money.

[PMcClure]

3 minutes ago, DaV8or said:

 

I don't know if you've checked out medical expenses these days, but a badly broken leg can cost as much as my plane is worth. I hope your limits aren't small if you fly strangers people other then yourself and family in your plane. Throw in some lawsuits for loss of life and the Cirrus is a much safer bet for insurance companies. It will take time for them to adjust their premiums downward for the Cirrus as they will need several consecutive years of data to do that. Of course insurance companies are in it of the profit, so they may just leave the premiums high and pocket the money.

So how much medical do most folks carry on an aviation policy? A quick look at my policy has relatively high liability including property and bodily injury and relatively low coverage for medical. All I am saying is I believe the hull and liability coverage is driving the cost of insurance, not medical costs. As a matter of comparison, Insurance cost for me in a Cirrus was double a Mooney.

 

 

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, DaV8or said:

 

I don't know if you've checked out medical expenses these days, but a badly broken leg can cost as much as my plane is worth. I hope your limits aren't small if you fly strangers people other then yourself and family in your plane. Throw in some lawsuits for loss of life and the Cirrus is a much safer bet for insurance companies. It will take time for them to adjust their premiums downward for the Cirrus as they will need several consecutive years of data to do that. Of course insurance companies are in it of the profit, so they may just leave the premiums high and pocket the money.

I'm not buying that logic. If Cirrus claims are lower the underwriters will react with more competitive quotes. Si if they keep their quotes higher for Cirrus than for Mooney it means their actuaries tell them claims will be higher. (Of course it is not just the accidents per 100,000 hours. If it costs twice as much to repair a Bonanza than a Mooney for a garden variety gear-up because parts are more obscenely price... BICBW

 

[DaV8or]

7 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

My question was MODERN not geriatric. (Britten Norman Islanders, Twotters are old ish). .  The caravan is at least a 20 yr old design as well. 

And the M20 is a 60 year old design and still being made. Most of the current Boeing offerings are 40-50 year old designs. Look up and damn near everything you see flying in the sky is geriatric. Don't like the Caravan as an example? How about the Quest Kodiak, or the GA8 Airman, or the PAC P-750? Anyhow the Caravan is still in production because it still does the job.

[Andy95W]

2 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

I found some very old paperwork from my M20D.  "Retractable gear kit" is listed at 20 lbs. 

Worth every ounce!

[DaV8or]

1 hour ago, mooniac15u said:

I found some very old paperwork from my M20D.  "Retractable gear kit" is listed at 20 lbs. 

This is of course misleading. The M20D carried a lot of it's future retractable equipment with it in fixed gear mode. It is unique in that it is the only retractable gear airplane I can think of that was modified to be fixed gear with the option to be retractable in the future. The retractable gear kit's weight listed above no doubt accounts for the stuff removed from the plane as well. The difference being 20 lbs. 

However, the M20D is a poor example to study in the case of fixed gear vs. retractable. It was never optimized to be an ideal fixed gear airplane. The M20D could have been a much lighter airplane if it weren't for the need to be an eventual retractable airplane. It was nothing more than a step up marketing scheme to the standard M20 line up. A great and novel idea on paper, but in practice it wasn't that great.

[AndyFromCB]

12 hours ago, jetdriven said:

 Cirrus airplanes are pretty fast but they do so at a large fuel cost 17-23 GPS,  and a high percentage of power (>80%) in cruise which translates to 1000 hours between overhauls basically. And those costs back into the hourly cost and you might be shocked at how much you're paying to fly that airplane

Nothing stops you from running them LOP and still getting respectable speed. SR22T can be almost as efficient as J if you're willing to slow down to J speeds, 155knots are doable on 11GPH LOP at 12,000FT. It will never touch the Acclaim in top speed, good 30knots slower for same fuel flow on the top end,  but you're right, people don't spend 700K to go slow, so the burn up cylinders, but once again, in the grand scheme of ownership, that mid life top is not that much.

Most people who fly the SR22, especially new ones, are not very price sensitive, so cost per hour does not matter as much as comfort, reliability, superior avionics and integration to anything else in GA other than Piper M350 and the perceived safety of the parachute which does come in handy when you run your engine hot at 85% power ROP ;-) Many people with SR22 own a faster, bigger aircraft for business and family trips, it's their personal toy. GA is very quickly become like the rest of US of A, not much middle ground, which is sad. I don't know too many younger people interested in spending the time required to maintain an older airframe chasing used parts, so I don't see the ranks of pilots growing much. It's the 50+ old guys keeping these amazing old airframes in the air, after them, I suspect they will just rot away.

 

15 hours ago, PTK said:

Not to hijack the thread but which airplane has a disproportionately high fatal accident rate?

Why? Is it the airplane, the FAA or the pilot who is at fault? 

I'm of the opinion it's all of the above with special emphasis on the pilot.

Why is this relevant to the thread? Because these are the same brainwashed pilots who bought into the marketing hype who, thinking the overweight Orca is cool, proceed to kill themselves. In theory they have all the safety advantages: parachute, glass cockpit with all the bells and whistles. But they still manage to kill themselves...disproportionately. 

 

You mean the lowest rate in the industry by an aircraft that actually spends the most time in the air traveling, as opposed sitting in hangar being worked on.

[Raptor05121]

I tl;dr'ed most of this thread, but keep in mind- 

The fixed legged birds that go as fast as us are all small airframe/big engine.

Lancair/Cirrus- all 6-bangers. The 4-bangers that are as fast (Vans RV) are all 2-seaters with less useful load than my bladder.

I like the Mooney because its a 4-seat, 1000# useful load, 140+kt, 4-banger economical cruiser. Show me another modern airplane that can pull single-digit fuel flows with those specs.

[mooniac15u]

8 hours ago, DaV8or said:

This is of course misleading. The M20D carried a lot of it's future retractable equipment with it in fixed gear mode. It is unique in that it is the only retractable gear airplane I can think of that was modified to be fixed gear with the option to be retractable in the future. The retractable gear kit's weight listed above no doubt accounts for the stuff removed from the plane as well. The difference being 20 lbs. 

However, the M20D is a poor example to study in the case of fixed gear vs. retractable. It was never optimized to be an ideal fixed gear airplane. The M20D could have been a much lighter airplane if it weren't for the need to be an eventual retractable airplane. It was nothing more than a step up marketing scheme to the standard M20 line up. A great and novel idea on paper, but in practice it wasn't that great.

Have you personally seen inside a fixed gear D?  Which parts of the retraction system does it have?  Or are you just speculating?

[midlifeflyer]

This is a great question. As a more or less neutral observer, I'd go with

same speed + lower maintenance + lower insurance 

make it hard to beat in the long run, no matter how much we love our retracts.

Retracts won't go away completely but they could be relegated to the same minority position s tailwheels.

Of course, my crystal ball has never been too good.

[peevee]

it's hard to argue with the performance of the cirrus and columbias out there, I suspect we won't see new types of retracts. They'll all be fixed gear.

[gsengle]

it's hard to argue with the performance of the cirrus and columbias out there, I suspect we won't see new types of retracts. They'll all be fixed gear.

I disagree. We will see them, gotta compete on speed somehow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peevee]

Just now, gsengle said:

 

I disagree. We will see them, gotta compete on speed somehow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, whens the last clean sheet design retract 4 seat single that came out?

[gsengle]

There are some coming...

http://robbreport.com/aviation/cobalt-co50-valkyrie-personal-piston-plane-future


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pinerunner]

I think the Cirrus is terribly overpriced for what it is. If I had that kind of money I'd keep my Mooney and get a seaplane (58' C-180 on 2870A's) along with a camp on a remote lake to fly it to. I can't honestly say if I'd trade in my M20E for a J or whether I'd trick it out big time. I'm having a lot of fun with my E.

[peevee]

Just now, pinerunner said:

I think the Cirrus is terribly overpriced for what it is. If I had that kind of money I'd keep my Mooney and get a seaplane (58' C-180 on 2870A's) along with a camp on a remote lake to fly it to. I can't honestly say if I'd trade in my M20E for a J or whether I'd trick it out big time. I'm having a lot of fun with my E.

I think all aircraft are terribly overpriced... but if I could get an sr22T for what I have in the mooney I'd sacrifice the performance for the nice features I guess.