Is retractable gear obsolete for small GA?

[DaV8or]

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. 

[gsengle]

Nope wouldn't do it. And there is a drag penalty on those aircraft.... and they just look dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

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.

[gsxrpilot]

I'm not a student pilot, so the only fixed gear airplane I'd own would be a tail-dragger. Fixed gear airplanes including the Cirrus and Columbia just look like trainers or airplanes for beginners. If I'm gonna spend money to own an airplane, it's gotta look good as well as perform. So I don't care if they could get the performance to equal my retract, I'll fly a retract.

[carusoam]

When speed and efficiency are your mission, fold the gear...

If flying around in an Orca look-alike is your thing, go Cirrus....  

Best regards,

-a-

[Mcstealth]

Good question.

I do wonder how much lighter our birds would be, could be, if lighter metals or composites were incorporated. I guess the cost is prohibitive or it would have been done already.

Part of flying, to me, is subjective. I like the look of the Mustang, the F-16, and the Mooney. They just look "Right", to me. The modern designs are nice but just don't do it for me. I like the wheels up.

DF

[cliffy]

Fixed gear = training wheels!  :-) :-)

[PTK]

Which look timelessly hot and seriously sexy...without even trying?

[Jerry 5TJ]

Which company has built and sold over 6,000 planes since 2000?

 

 

[XXX]

McDonalds has sold over 3 billion burgers, but that doesn't make their burgers better.  In reality an inferior product. They are very good at marketing however.

1 hour ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Which company has built and sold over 6,000 planes since 2000?

 

 

 

[PTK]

13 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Which company has built and sold over 6,000 planes since 2000?

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. 

 

[Marcopolo]

Invisible to the wind?  Not gonna happen!

 

I do think that the aerodynamics of the fixed gear and the weight and complexity of retactable gear are the trade off.  Fixed will never be as slick as retactable and retactable will never be as light and easy as fixed (not a new theory obviously).  But there is something to be said for the way an airplane looks and feels when the gear comes up.  I personally like having the choice of gear position when it comes to an off-field landing.  Landing in water with the gear down probably isn't going to end right side up!

 

2 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Which company has built and sold over 6,000 planes since 2000?

Cirrus is deffinately on a sales tear, but it isn't because they have fixed gear, the vision jet tucks its tires up, lets see how it fairs.

Just sayin!

 

Ron

[1964-M20E]

birds fly much less than 200knts and they retract the landing gear so mother nature got it right.

 

Look at the Lanceairs and Galssairs that retract and they have the same shape as their fixed counter parts and the retracts are faster and more efficient.

 

Besides the build time that is one thing that has kept me away from some single engine 4 seat experimental aircraft they have fixed gear.

 

Now looking at the pole you do need to consider the audience you are polling.

 

 

[rbridges]

even with the sleeker fixed "cirrus" gear, wouldn't you have at least a 10 knot penalty?  Not worth it for me.  I'm sure it would decrease insurance and that would be worth it for some.  Also the fact that a gear up is impossible.  Getting 150 knots with 180hp in a certified plane is pretty damn cool to me.

[mooniac15u]

2 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 and, think the overweight Orca is cool, who 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.

 

Cirrus accident rates have been trending down with better training.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/july/24/how-cirrus-reduced-accidents

[jetdriven]

 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

[gsengle]

Cirrus accident rates have been trending down with better training.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/july/24/how-cirrus-reduced-accidents

Yes, and it's commendable. But that training has as a focus getting pilots to not hesitate to use the parachute. So it's not clear if the number of wrecked planes is going down, and if not, the insurance rates will stay high.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oldguy]

5 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Which company has built and sold over 6,000 planes since 2000?

 

 

Yep, that would be Cirrus. But change the "6" to "8" and the answer becomes Cessna (not including Bonanza or anything other than 100LL burners). And whoever buys them, I am just pleased there are enough pilots wanting to fly to keep the various manufacturers in business.

I hope the additional training any pilot gets helps keep them and their plane safe. A loss of either diminishes us all.

I guess my comment would be I fly what I want to fly that fits both my mission and what I am willing to part with $$$-wise. Lifting up the legs get me higher speed within the investment I am willing to make.

[mooniac15u]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

 

Yes, and it's commendable. But that training has as a focus getting pilots to not hesitate to use the parachute. So it's not clear if the number of wrecked planes is going down, and if not, the insurance rates will stay high.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was a statement about Cirrus having a disproportionately high fatal accident rate.  That claim was not supported by more recent data.

I suspect that most Cirrus owners would say you buy a plane with a chute for a reason and you pay for insurance so that you have the freedom to pull the chute.

I have no personal affinity for Cirrus.  I wouldn't buy one and I have no interest in flying one.  I'm on my second Mooney.

[gsengle]

There was a statement about Cirrus having a disproportionately high fatal accident rate.  That claim was not supported by more recent data.
I suspect that most Cirrus owners would say you buy a plane with a chute for a reason and you pay for insurance so that you have the freedom to pull the chute.
I have no personal affinity for Cirrus.  I wouldn't buy one and I have no interest in flying one.  I'm on my second Mooney.

Yes my point was only that the cost of the chute is borne not just in repack but also in insurance premiums as the chute still totals the plane most times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaV8or]

9 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

I would ask a simple question......in Modern commerical aircraft do theyretract the gear or with modern computing capability do they leave it down as it is invisible to the wind.. QED. 

It depends on the mission and type of aircraft. In general, most commercial passenger and cargo planes do retract their gear, but there are some that do not. The Cessna 208 Caravan, the Britin Norman Islander, The Dehaviland Twin Otter, etc come to mind. Remember the new thinking is planes under 200kts, so there is no question that the typical airliner, or corporate plane should tuck it's gear by anybody as they cruise well over 200. 

[DaV8or]

4 hours ago, 1964-M20E said:

 

Now looking at the pole you do need to consider the audience you are polling.

 

Absolutely! Do this same poll and question over at the Vans forum and the results would likely be exactly inverse. Whenever the topic of a Vans RV with retractable gear comes up, it is almost unanimously rejected as a waste of time, money and capability. They will admit that it does look cool though as a few RVs have been built with retractable gear with mediocre results.

Likely those on the Cirrus and Columbia/Corvallis forums would also reject such a suggestion.

 

[DaV8or]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

 

Yes, and it's commendable. But that training has as a focus getting pilots to not hesitate to use the parachute. So it's not clear if the number of wrecked planes is going down, and if not, the insurance rates will stay high.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You have to remember that a whole lot of traditional airplanes that don't have a parachute end up wrecked too when landing off field and some wrecked even when they do manage to make it to an airport. I have also heard that many of the Cirrus that landed under chute have been repaired and returned to service. I think it's wash as far as the insurance companies have to pay out to cover aircraft. It's the human occupants where the insurance companies save big time.

[PTK]

Just now, DaV8or said:

...I have also heard that many of the Cirrus that landed under chute have been repaired and returned to service. ...

I wouldn't want a plastic airplane to begin with let alone a repaired plastic airplane!

[PMcClure]

6 minutes ago, DaV8or said:

You have to remember that a whole lot of traditional airplanes that don't have a parachute end up wrecked too when landing off field and some wrecked even when they do manage to make it to an airport. I have also heard that many of the Cirrus that landed under chute have been repaired and returned to service. I think it's wash as far as the insurance companies have to pay out to cover aircraft. It's the human occupants where the insurance companies save big time.

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.