Retract vs Fixed Gear

[poadeleted21]

Thought I'd spin this off from the other thread.

in the recent AOPA Pilot magazine, Dave Hirschman concludes that the only reason for owning a retract is personal preference.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2013/april/efficiency.html

I disagree, I think the article wasn't well thought out, and he uses some suspicious reasoning to conclude that. He also uses a 177RG to make his point.

The one thing he argues, that makes me cringe is that OMG OMG OMG INSURANCE IS OUTRAGEOUS on retracts. It's GASP 57% higher GASP.

Then look at the numbers.

Let’s compare the insurance costs for an $80,000 Cessna 182 and an RG model of the same value. For a 400-hour private pilot with an instrument rating, insurance is $1,086 a year for the fixed-gear model and $1,705 for the RG—an additional $619, or 57 percent, for the RG.

In other words, 50 bucks a month, or about a tank and a half worth of gas over the course of a year. You're flying a complex high performance plane and 50 bucks a month is going to scare you away?

What should be more telling IMHO, is that a tank and a half worth of fuel is 650 bucks.. Know how to save fuel? Buy a retract. If you take 10 trips a year and the retract saves you 1/2 hr each way, assuming 14GPH, that's 14*10*6.50 (at today's rates), that's $910.00 Your insurance difference plus $300 in change to throw at the dreaded maintenance. He says that overall the retract will account for 20% of the MX bills, dunno where he got that, but it sounds high.

The maintenance on my gear has been minimal to nonexistent, the longer I own it, my opinion might change.

I think he's misguided.

 

[LDJones]

And that's without even considering the "cool factor" of sucking up the wheels on climb out. How do you put a price on that??!

I think this is just one of those articles where the author had no idea what to write so decided to create something to !

 

[poadeleted21]

And that's without even considering the "cool factor" of sucking up the wheels on climb out. How do you put a price on that??!

I think this is just one of those articles where he author had no idea what to write so decided to create something to !

He claims the price is a 57% insurance increase and a 20% maintenance for nothing more than the cool factor. Well, I posted it to , I figured since it's in AOPA's most recent rag, I might as well.

 

[LDJones]

He claims the price is a 57% insurance increase and a 20% maintenance for nothing more than the cool factor. Well, I posted it to , I figured since it's in AOPA's most recent rag, I might as well.

Admittedly, fast plastic planes have raised the bar on flying fast without the retract expense/maint. But how much faster would they be without gear hanging out?

 

[wabower]

Admittedly, fast plastic planes have raised the bar on flying fast without the retract expense/maint. But how much faster would they be without gear hanging out?

It's said that they tested one that didn't do much better. Insurance problems supposedly nixed the retrac version.

 

[poadeleted21]

It's said that they tested one that didn't do much better. Insurance problems supposedly nixed the retrac version.

Im going to guess that insurance is more of a factor when you're dealing with $725,000 hull value vs $72,500

 

[hindsight2020]

I don't think it's hyperbole. You sing the praises of your present Bo's lack of gear mx cost, but you've only owned it for less than two years. You said it yourself. Your opinion might change. I know for certain the maintenance on fixed gear never changes.

Look. Our esteemed OP from the 172RG thread just got slammed on the replacement cost of an ~8AMU actuator replacement, and that was the "improved" model. No way one can rationalize that kind of budget breaker away by using gas savings. You simply wish to paint him as an unlucky statistical outlier. I don't. The gear mx takes a hell of a lot more than 20% of mx bills this year for that owner.

20% is not a high number to estimate gear mainteance on, imo. I also submit that the savings on time are not as dramatic based on the fact that parasite drag is not linear as a function of dynamic pressure. On an aircraft moving at 8 miles a minute, that kind of drag matters. At less than 180ktas, it doesn't matter as much. It is also common knowledge the late model streamlining of gear legs have largely recovered more than 50% drag penalty and the market has embraced that opportunity cost (corvalis, RVs, SR-2x), in an environment of already stated 5-$6/gal gas prices no less.

Fixed gear for me for the kind of airplanes I'm likely to own (piston singles). If I were to own cabin class turboprops or singles that attempt to cruise at more than 180ktas, then the drag reduction provided by swing gear on that kind of powerplant is worthwhile the complexity and expense. I place no value on aesthetics.

As to the article, his assessment on insurance may not be polished, but the overall point is neither misguided nor pointedly misleading. It's about right IMO.

 

[poadeleted21]

I don't think it's hyperbole. You sing the praises of your present Bo's lack of gear mx cost, but you've only owned it for less than two years. You said it yourself. Your opinion might change. I know for certain the maintenance on fixed gear never changes.

Look. Our esteemed OP from the 172RG thread just got slammed on the replacement cost of an ~8AMU actuator replacement, and that was the "improved" model. No way one can rationalize that kind of budget breaker away by using gas savings. You simply wish to paint him as an unlucky statistical outlier. I don't. The gear mx takes a hell of a lot more than 20% of mx bills this year for that owner.

20% is not a high number to estimate gear mainteance on, imo. I also submit that the savings on time are not as dramatic based on the fact that parasite drag is not linear as a function of dynamic pressure. On an aircraft moving at 8 miles a minute, that kind of drag matters. At less than 180ktas, it doesn't matter as much. It is also common knowledge the late model streamlining of gear legs have largely recovered more than 50% drag penalty and the market has embraced that opportunity cost (corvalis, RVs, SR-2x), in an environment of already stated 5-$6/gal gas prices no less.

Fixed gear for me for the kind of airplanes I'm likely to own (piston singles). If I were to own cabin class turboprops or singles that attempt to cruise at more than 180ktas, then the drag reduction provided by swing gear on that kind of powerplant is worthwhile the complexity and expense. I place no value on aesthetics.

As to the article, his assessment on insurance may not be polished, but the overall point is neither misguided nor pointedly misleading. It's about right IMO.

**** happens. Get a corroded cam or sling a rod.. We don't think of that as operating cost, it's just a risk we take. I don't see the point in a 172RG unless you're selling the privilege of checking a box on a commercial pilot certificate application. It's a wacky system that was glued on to a fixed gear design. An $8,000 actuator is a statistical outlier, just like a corroded cam. If replacing $8,000 parts every 1000hrs were the norm, you couldn't give away 172RGs.

No doubt the new airframes have improved aerodynamics wrt the fixed gear. I could buy 10 of my Bonanza's for what it would cost to acquire that technology on a modern airframe. That's a helluva lot of maintenance bills on the dead simple Bo gear. Oh and if I wanted a fraction of that technology on an older airframe.... it's $7,000 for wheel pants...but stay out of the snow.

He made sure to say it was 56% more!!!! because 56% more sounds a lot worse than $600.

 

[zaitcev]

If Pantera pans out, a few people are going to have to change the tune. If it doesn't, that's the end of retracts. Well, that and another bankrupcy at Piper and Beechcraft.

 

[Silvaire]

There's obviously an absolute speed under which it simply makes no sense to carry that complexity. At the same time there is an absolute speed over which you've really got no choice but to have retractable gear. In between those two speeds is a grey area where you're not going to get a slam dunk either way despite how much you want to believe you do.

 

[N747JB]

I've owned a retract airplane since 1992, actually a half dozen of them. The only gear MX that I recall, was a main wheel up lock in 1995 or so in a 414A and a couple years ago I replaced both torque tubes in my 421B. Other than that, just swing and adjust as necessary at annual time.
Oh wait, I did have a nose gear door binding issue on my 441 in 97 or 98.

 

[weilke]

Overhauling the Bonanza gearbox is $1500 + about 5 hours for the R&R. Add in some shipping and it is a $2000 bill. If you have to do this once every 2000hrs, it's a buck an hour for the gearbox. If you have to overhaul the gear motor maybe twice during that period, add another $800 (40 cent/hr) to the bill. The Pipers and Socatas with hydraulic gear need occasional hydraulic pump overhauls/actuator rebuilds and the Rube Goldberg machine that swings the gear on the Comanche has to be re-rigged every 1000hrs.

So, the retract doesn't come free, but I dont see how it could add up to 20% of the maintenance bill.

 

[Z06_Mir]

In the last year I've saved at least $1,000 on fuel with my RG. Not to mention the faster speeds I got and better climb rates coming out of high DA airports.

They're not for everyone. I think mine is great though and I wouldn't trade it for anything really of equal value. To me its worth the "risk" that I hear about to go faster on less fuel, not to mention I get the Lycoming which is a 2000hr tbo instead of the Continental which is a 1500hr tbo?

In the long run having all the retract time will save me $$$. Right now its more costly but in April it will begin to get cheaper every year.

 

[Geico266]

Admittedly, fast plastic planes have raised the bar on flying fast without the retract expense/maint. But how much faster would they be without gear hanging out?

With Van's stuff the "new" pressure recovery wheel pants design the gain is minimal. Not worth the extra cost and maintenance.

Cool factor? RVs are cool enough. B)

 

[wabower]

I don't think the hull rate (premium as % of insured value) is much different, but the dollars are obviously much bigger. JMac researched it back when Cirrus (and Columbia to a lesser extent) made their big run and reported that the big insurance concerns for retracs at the time were availability as much as cost, and that the manufacturers were fearful that the pilots in their target market would simply be uninsurable in retracs.

All that was before the 2008 crash, which has been a game-changer for the insurors as well, so a company evaluating the same situation today might reach a different conclusion.

Even so, I still like retracs better.

Im going to guess that insurance is more of a factor when you're dealing with $725,000 hull value vs $72,500

 

[Ted]

Well, given the pretty limited number of fixed gear airplanes around as far as mission criteria, it seems that a good reason for owning a retract is "There's not a fixed gear that fits my mission."

But, my personal preference is retract. In about 1600 hours of retract flight and retract ownership/management, I haven't found it to be a burden.

 

[spinfire]

So far the added cost of MX has trumped insurance. My 2nd year of retract insurance seems to be only $200 or $300 more than a comparable speed fixed gear would be. Maintenance has been higher. But the first year of flying and maintaining an older plane usually seems to reveal issues, I don't think this year's gear expenses are typical.

In any case, I didn't buy a retract for the express purpose of saving money and I think very few people do.

 

[Everskyward]

I think that any time you add a level of complexity to an airplane there's another thing that can go wrong or that you need to maintain. However, whether or not it's worth it depends on your mission and, yes, your personal preference.

The first retractable I flew to any extent was an old C-210 which had recurring gear problems, mostly with the gear doors. Pretty sure it had something to do with a glitch in the hydraulic sequencing but that was a long time ago. I heard later that they had the doors removed. Then there was the C-320 with the nose gear which wouldn't extend all the way because of a broken push tube. The same 320 must have gotten out of rig again a couple years later because I found the nosegear doors dented on the preflight where they apparently weren't opening all the way to let the gear pass by.

Granted these two models (older 210s with gear doors and Twin Cessnas) probably have more gear problems than most. I just was lucky enough to be exposed to both of them.

 

[flyingron]

I've owned my Navion for 20 years now. I've had one maintenance issue on the gear in that time. The metal fitting that the nose gear retract pulls against cracked. It's not an uncommon failure in a 60 year old airplane. Not a tremendously big fix either.

 

[poadeleted21]

I don't think the hull rate (premium as % of insured value) is much different, but the dollars are obviously much bigger. JMac researched it back when Cirrus (and Columbia to a lesser extent) made their big run and reported that the big insurance concerns for retracs at the time were availability as much as cost, and that the manufacturers were fearful that the pilots in their target market would simply be uninsurable in retracs.

All that was before the 2008 crash, which has been a game-changer for the insurors as well, so a company evaluating the same situation today might reach a different conclusion.

Even so, I still like retracs better.

Right but $600 becomes $6,000 (if it's linear). I can't imagine that a new SR22 is more expensive to operate than a 50 year old Bonanza in any area except insurance. So that $6,000 becomes a significant operating expense.

 

[rbridges]

I've got a johnson bar (manual) mooney. It's about as maintenance free as it gets. I see the speed difference with gear up vs gear down. I got insurance with 100 hrs and a PPL, and it was around 1400/yr with 50k hull.

I love the fact that it's rectract, especially when I see a TAS of 155knots in my 180hp plane.

 

[wabower]

If you're willing to ignore the opportunity or capital cost difference of $700,000, you're probably right.

Right but $600 becomes $6,000 (if it's linear). I can't imagine that a new SR22 is more expensive to operate than a 50 year old Bonanza in any area except insurance. So that $6,000 becomes a significant operating expense.

 

[MSPAviator]

The only planes I want to own are retractable and I'm willing to pay for the priviledge so retracts win--end of story.

 

[wabower]

That can change. Never say never.

The only planes I want to own are retractable and I'm willing to pay for the priviledge so retracts win--end of story.

 

[rbridges]

Right but $600 becomes $6,000 (if it's linear). I can't imagine that a new SR22 is more expensive to operate than a 50 year old Bonanza in any area except insurance. So that $6,000 becomes a significant operating expense.

don't you have to redo the ballistics system every so many years? I heard that is thousands of dollars.

 

[weilke]

don't you have to redo the ballistics system every so many years? I heard that is thousands of dollars.

$11000 on the older ones, $8000 on the newer ones. Figure $800 to $1200 per year. That is a small number on a new 800k Cirrus, for someone who picked up an early SR20 for 100k it is a somewhat bigger number in relative terms.

 

[poadeleted21]

If you're willing to ignore the opportunity or capital cost difference of $700,000, you're probably right.

I'm willing to ignore almost anything on the internet.

 

[rbridges]

Right but $600 becomes $6,000 (if it's linear). I can't imagine that a new SR22 is more expensive to operate than a 50 year old Bonanza in any area except insurance. So that $6,000 becomes a significant operating expense.

also, insuring a 400K hull value is more than the cost of your Bo. In a perfect world, I'd be flying the SR22, but in my world, I'll take your Bonanza in a heartbeat.

 

[poadeleted21]

also, insuring a 400K hull value is more than the cost of your Bo. In a perfect world, I'd be flying the SR22, but in my world, I'll take your Bonanza in a heartbeat.

I was just trying to point out that there'd be a $6,000/yr operating cost increase on a retract SR22 over a Fixed Gear SR22. Given that it would increase speed 4-5 knots? and probably cut into the useful load, one can see why Cirrus didn't build one. In other words OMG! OMG! insurance cost as it relates to operating cost does come into play when you scale up to that level of hull value.

I don't think the argument that "Cirrus doesn't build an RG" makes much sense when you're using it to justify an $80,000 FG 182 over an $80,000 182RG.

 

[bnt83]

RVs are cool enough. B)

Especially when the door flys off on departure in January because it wasn't closed and locked...

 

[wabower]

Insurance isn't an operating cost, it's an ownership cost. And the hangar in the same below-the-line category would cost the same for either plane, so whatever additional expense you're paying for insurance on the high-priced plane would be offset by the saving on the hangar.

She said.

I was just trying to point out that there'd be a $6,000/yr operating cost increase on a retract SR22 over a Fixed Gear SR22. Given that it would increase speed 4-5 knots? and probably cut into the useful load, one can see why Cirrus didn't build one. In other words OMG! OMG! insurance cost as it relates to operating cost does come into play when you scale up to that level of hull value.

I don't think the argument that "Cirrus doesn't build an RG" makes much sense when you're using it to justify an $80,000 FG 182 over an $80,000 182RG.

 

[Silvaire]

...I see the speed difference with gear up vs gear down....

That's not a valid way to compare retract vs fixed because if the aircraft were designed as a fixed gear it wouldn't have things such as doors, cavities and all the other paraphernalia for the retract system.

 

[LDJones]

With Van's stuff the "new" pressure recovery wheel pants design the gain is minimal. Not worth the extra cost and maintenance.

Cool factor? RVs are cool enough. B)

Those are only effective at RV Mach speeds, I think.

 

[docmirror]

The correct comparison is the Mooney M20D and equivalent year M20C. Both rolled off the same assembly line, both have the same basic engine, prop, load, etc. The M20D cruises at 117Kts, the M20C about 150.

If I decide to slow the C model down to 117kts, I'm saving enough fuel to pay years of mx, with some insurance money tossed in. Or, I could just go 150kts, and save all that wear on the engine, prop, and airframe.

No brainer. This article is FOS(it's AOPA).

 

[N747JB]

Right after I got my ticket we were coming home from an airshow, I was in our 182P and my buddy was in a 182RG. We lined up side by side at about 1500 AGL and set the power on both to the top of the green arcs in both planes. I remember being shocked at how much faster the RG was. the RG does have 5 more HP, but I don't think that was the difference.

 

[dell30rb]

I do see problems with the numbers in that airticle.

He's claiming the O-360 will burn 10gph in cruise while the 200hp IO-360 is 12gph.

Forgetting to mention the IO is fuel injected and will happily run 40 degrees LOP 9.5 GPH at 25 squared.

I played with this yesterday in the Mooney. (same 200hp IO-360 I think). The difference between 100 ROP (best power) and 40 LOP is 3 gallons per hour and 6 knots.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I've owned two Arrows - a Turbo Arrow and an Arrow II and between the two of them, the incremental costs of the gear at annuals has been nil. The incremental cost of the turbo, however, has been great.

But for the majority if flying that I do, the greater speed and efficiency comes from retractable gear, not the turbo. I'll take the RG option for increasing my speed and economy thank you.

 

[Garthur]

When I was first looking for an airplane, I debated the retract Vs fixed gear issue. When I worked the numbers the retract was about 25% more expense, but then I used the rationalization that I would be going faster and getting to my destination sooner. When figuring actual time in-flight to any destination the time difference was in mins (not enough to justify retract). But then I went through the "but its cooler" phase. What finally made the decision easier is when I talked to my A+P and he said that if I get fixed gear any maintenance will be easier and when the annual comes due and the weather is good he can work on it outside instead of taking up a lot of hangar space and his only set of jacks so that he can operate the gear for inspection.

Over the years since I have found his comments to be true. Retract gear aircraft would be in the hangar for 1-2 weeks for annuals and a fixed gear only a few days.

 

[rbridges]

That's not a valid way to compare retract vs fixed because if the aircraft were designed as a fixed gear it wouldn't have things such as doors, cavities and all the other paraphernalia for the retract system.

Yeah, I should have compared an arrow to a cherokee, but I've never flown an arrow to give first hand advice. I just know my plane flies like a dog when I drop the gear.

 

[AdamZ]

Admittedly, fast plastic planes have raised the bar on flying fast without the retract expense/maint. But how much faster would they be without gear hanging out?

You could probably do work on the gear every 500 hours and you wouldn't hit the entry price of an SR22T for quite a while

If you're willing to ignore the opportunity or capital cost difference of $700,000, you're probably right.

You got it!