Endangered Species - Retractable Piston Singles?

[Grum.Man]

And others on this thread have said exactly the opposite so I think *definitely* is a bit strong haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So 6% of piston singles sold last year were retracts according to the stats listed in post one or 1 in 15 single engine piston airplanes sold has a retractable gear versus fixed and you don't think that makes them endangered? I guess we would need to know trend data to support whether they are endangered versus very rare.

 

[Tantalum]

I guess it depends on our definition of endangered and extinct, loosely put I would say retracts are no longer in their prime but definitely not endangered. Multi's have a key role and so aren't endangered either, but Cirrus' strong sales numbers (and other piston singles) show their demand is down and aren't necessarily the logical "next step" anymore

For endangered I would honestly put things like gyrocopters, canards, and oddities like that. Sure some are still flying and you'll see new concepts pop up now and then (see Starship, see Cobalt, etc.) but they're few and far between

For extinct I would say flying wings, bi-planes, radials, tail draggers, etc.
^^all those things are still wicked cool... but you're not going to see a company like Cirrus, Piper, Cessna, Mooney, etc., roll out a fancy new cleansheet tail dragger or radial, etc.

That may be too broad... but endangered could cover a huge realm there

 

[gsengle]

They aren't rare in the fleet, and there are no known fast piston singles fixed gear in development whereas we know of a number of retracts in development... forgot the tecnam too, it's showing up as a twin trainer... so I think you're oversimplifying a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tantalum]

I guess we would need to know trend data

was about to say the same. and if we look at all piston planes under a certain weight class how many were multi? Do the retracts in the multi count towards retracts overall? Might seem like apples and oranges but I don't think so, there is a reason multi's have retracts...

 

[Tantalum]

Low sales volumes (speaking used) is not necessarily a bad thing... shows that the owners of these things love 'em and want to hang on to them...

 

[GRG55]

I interpreted the statement more as a "state of mind" than necessarily based on one sales figure or another. From what I've read here and from the pilots I've talked to at airports and owners multis are really not something that people seem to look enviously towards anymore.. at least not in piston GA planes. Retracts on the other hand still hold a romantic place in the hearts of most people. So even if production of retractables ceases and multis continue here and there I still get the impression that RGs have a higher echelon in the minds of most pilots

The romantic hallucinations at the airport don't mean squat. The future of light aircraft GA depends on people spending their hard earned cash, and the actual sales figures and trends are what count. That's why I started this thread with some actual industry data that covers all manufacturers and numbers from across the entire globe. That's a slightly bigger sample size than yours, so I'm gonna stick with it.

As for piston twins, most of the people who disparage them have never flown or owned one. But most of us who have and do, can speak with some knowledge of the comparison with retractable singles since most of us have owned at least one.

 

[gsengle]

Anyone know the top speed of a generation 6 SR22T? All I find on the Cirrus web site is 213kt which would give the Acclaim 29kts on it which seems like a lot...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone? Bueller?

I mean if gear only help a few knots as others have opined, what's up with those 29 knots? Or what's the real number?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FloridaPilot]

Everyone has their own mission, wants and desires. I don't do a lot of mountain flying. I like the twin for: a) need 6 seats at times b) need the increased useful load at times c) like having a second engine for traveling over water d) like having a second engine while flying over/through areas of low IMC. An additional bonus is having a heavier plane makes for a more stable platform.

If somebody doesn't have these requirements then there are a lot of great single engine planes that make way more sense.

You are correct, everyone has their own mission. I can understand the need for a twin in more populated cities but a place like Florida you can fly a single and find many places to land if the fan stops turning. There are singles that can fit your mission pretty well too.

So 6% of piston singles sold last year were retracts according to the stats listed in post one or 1 in 15 single engine piston airplanes sold has a retractable gear versus fixed and you don't think that makes them endangered? I guess we would need to know trend data to support whether they are endangered versus very rare.

Check out the sales volume for TBM's. Maybe people are just buying what they know and the people that can upgrade are buying turboprop retractable's? That is exactly what I would do not many fixed gear airplanes can go over 12k without O2.

 

[gsengle]

There are lots of turbine retract singles either in existence or development after all. TBM, Pilatus, Piper, Epic, Cessna announced the Denali... I'm sure I'm missing some...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grum.Man]

was about to say the same. and if we look at all piston planes under a certain weight class how many were multi? Do the retracts in the multi count towards retracts overall? Might seem like apples and oranges but I don't think so, there is a reason multi's have retracts...

Twins need all the drag reduction they can get for single engine operations.

 

[dell30rb]

I wonder how a chute would affect the useful load, maybe that's why they don't have a chute?

For a totally useless datapoint, my last Cirrus SR22 Turbo flight I see had me burning 15.8GPH and truing out at 200KTAS at 16000 for about 12.7NMPG. The Mooney M20J I'm looking at is about 150KTAS and 10GPH for 15NMPG at 8000 or so(numbers estimated based on the book as I haven't flown it yet).

A good J you are looking at more like 160ktas on 9gph at 8000.

 

[AKBill]

I doubt it, as most airplanes commercial pilots fly bring uo their gear...

That is unless you live in Alaska....

 

[GRG55]

A tiny bit off topic... but does anyone else think the TTx has an odd looking nose gear? I'm sure the design is aerodynamically dictated, but the Cirrus's fixed gear just seem more attractively designed

also.. I can't help but think that in the air this plane would look much better and even sleeker with the gear gone. and yes, probably a couple knots faster, or burn just a little less fuel for the same speed

Retracting the gear addresses parasitic drag. Adding weight for a retractable gear increases the induced drag, because you have to lift it to fly. The extra weight takes away from payload, and the space the mains take up in the wing reduce the available fuel containment options. There's a lot of compromises the come with that few extra knots.

It is interesting that, similar to Cirrus, when Lance Neibauer designed what ultimately became the Cessna TTx he was coming off years of designing a series of the sleekest, fastest single engine retractable gear kitplanes ever made, including the Lancair IV/IVP. Yet, just like the Klapmeier brothers at Cirrus, when it came time for his first design for the certified market he too opted for a well faired fixed gear.

These are not inexperienced airplane designers. And nobody could possibly think Neibauer didn't know how to design and build an excellent retractable gear for the plane. Think these guys might know something we don't? Or maybe they are all just like selling uncool stuff that doesn't qualify as a real airplane.

 

[gsengle]

They made a choice. Remember we are still working out the best way to do composites and retractable gear and the best way to do it in a composite wing is not as far along.

The weight penalty needn't be that great, and the parasite drag is a bigger factor as evidenced by airplanes with fixed and retract versions...

No one will answer my Cirrus top speed question either, hmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GRG55]

They made a choice. Remember we are still working out the best way to do composites and retractable gear and the best way to do it in a composite wing is not as far along.

The weight penalty needn't be that great, and the parasite drag is a bigger factor as evidenced by airplanes with fixed and retract versions...

No one will answer my Cirrus top speed question either, hmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are talking nonsense. Lance Neibauer's designs starting with his original Lancair in 1985 were composites, and almost all were retractables. You're trying to tell us he couldn't "work out the best way to do composite and retractable gear" when he did the Columbia/TTx?

 

[gsengle]

I remember it being problematic in some early composites. There are trade offs with locating fuel tanks, where in the wing structure do the wheels go etc, and they decided for those planes it wasn't worth it.

I'm sorry, the retract version of anything will always be faster and more fuel efficient.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[drotto]

From an article about the Panthera showing how the plane performs getting the plane set at 100 k with gear and flaps down, and then setting the plane to clean configuration.

"Saso, Pipistrel’s test pilot, gave us one more interesting demonstration. Starting in level flight with just enough power set to maintain 100 knots, the flaps and gear were retracted. Without touching the throttle setting (20in/2,700rpm) and while maintaining altitude, the aircraft began to accelerate. After one minute and 30 seconds, the speed rose up to 135 knots. Gaining 35 knots simply by retracting flaps and gear shows slippery is the basic airframe. The Panthera really is a very pure aerodynamic design."

Here is the full article

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/pipistrel-panthera/#.WN8UVPkrKUk

 

[denverpilot]

No, doing it for some ink in the log and demonstrating it and incorporating it in a ride before you can act as a pro pilot are diffrent things.

The sentence doesn't make any sense. You "do it and incorporate it into a ride" for the endorsement "ride", now.

Maybe you know CFIs who'd sign an endorsement without flying with the pilot, but I don't.

A better example than Complex or HP would be tailwheel. Know anyone just giving away that "ink in the log"? Nope.

 

[James331]

The sentence doesn't make any sense. You "do it and incorporate it into a ride" for the endorsement "ride", now.

Maybe you know CFIs who'd sign an endorsement without flying with the pilot, but I don't.

A better example than Complex or HP would be tailwheel. Know anyone just giving away that "ink in the log"? Nope.

Tailwheel??? You kidding me? Tons of places will sign you off but won't let you touch their plane solo.


As for doing a while check ride with a DPE or ASI in a complex being diffrent than a sign off with a CFI, well in my opinion is a bit of a difference, but that's just me.

 

[denverpilot]

Tailwheel??? You kidding me? Tons of places will sign you off but won't let you touch their plane solo.


As for doing a while check ride with a DPE or ASI in a complex being diffrent than a sign off with a CFI, well in my opinion is a bit of a difference, but that's just me.

That first one seems to be more of an insurance thing than anything. But I get what you're saying. Not sure it's a good idea on their part to sign before the person COULD solo the aircraft though. That's asking for trouble all around. I supoose some folks do it.

I'd be cool with someone saying endorsements had to have a checkride with a DPE or something like that, chief pilot at a 141, whatever additional limits you'd like put on it... if we're talking moving to an endorsement based model.

A CFI prep and signature and someone else cross-checks the behavior and signs, doesn't sound all that awful to me, if we are just talking hypothetical rule changes to some of these skill sets.

Could break it down further if you like. How many pilots like me grew up on steam and LEGALLY could go launch in IMC with a modern GPS and go kill ourselves? That's a different skill set than doing the ol' VOR to VOR XC and fly the ILS at the end.

Hell, I was surprised when the silly thing TOLD me how to enter the hold, depicted it on a screen, and gave me a countdown and a heading to turn to that included a wind correction angle. LOL. I was doing the mental math and looking at the needles. (Grin... and got it right but the instructor was chuckling at me after I said it out loud as he tapped a pencil on the bottom right corner of the Garmin and said, 'Yep...')

There's all sorts of ways the big picture job of teaching the individual skill sets needed could be busted up. The gear handle is just one of many things to juggle.

 

[James331]

Form my perspective making people fly a complex for the CPL ride is more about making sure they can do a little more walking and chewing gum at the same time.

I've also noted a large difference between people who can come into the downwind at full cruise power, dump the gear, to VFE, flaps, turning flaps to vref and make the first taxi exit not even spilling your coffee. Now that level of airmanship isn't required to be safe enough to get your log inked for a complex, nor should it be, but it's to be expected of a pro pilot.

Guess what I'm trying to say is it's not so much about just being a complex, it's adding in more controls and seeing if you still have a mastery of said aircraft.

 

[gsengle]

Amen. That's why they call it "complex" and not simply "retract". If you can't fly the current commercial checkride in a complex airplane, you probably shouldn't be carrying passengers for hire....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RudyP]

Sorry do all the math you want, fast and fixed gear looks silly to me. Prob won't ever buy one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like retracts too but this was a pretty weak come back. At the end of the day, every engineering choice is a set of compromises. Retract gear has definite speed and efficiency gains, and personally I'd be willing to pay a bit more upfront and in maintenance and insurance if I could get 10 extra knots with a retract SR22 but not if it cost much in terms of useful load, interior space or CAPS safety. Which it probably would so I have no problem with the fixed gear in my Cirrus. My next plane (thinking Mustang but maybe TBM or Meridian) will definitely have retract gear and I will be happy to have it in that application. There is no right or wrong answer here and obviously, the numbers (both sales and performance) which Mr gsengle so summarily dismisses when they don't work in his favor prove there is not as much value to retracting the gear in the relatively slower speeds of piston singles when compared to modern, well designed faired fixed gear.

Btw - your smaller cabined Mooney doing 175KTAS on 13GPH doesn't really blow me away. That's only 7.5% more fuel efficient but 13% slower than the 200KTAS I get at 16.5GPH while dangling the gear in the slipstream. But I forgot, you don't care about numbers, you just think fixed gear looks silly. I'm not even sure why that matters because at least in the Cirrus, I can't see my gear when I'm flying the plane and I'm pretty sure I'd keep the gear down when I'm looking at it on the ramp.

 

[gsengle]

I'm guessing you have a Turbo. You like numbers? M20TN 242knots, SR22T publishes 213 knots. 29 knot difference. Same basic power plant.

Have you sat in a *modern* one? They have plenty of room, big baggage area, great legroom. And not Cirrus wide but wider than a Cherokee or Bonanza. That's a whole lotta difference to explain...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RudyP]

I dont care about those numbers gsengle. I just think the backwards tail looks silly and I prob will never buy one.

 

[gsengle]

Very funny. You do know the reason GA tails started to slant back right? Marketing.

Look at the trailing edge of aerobatic airplane rudders, look at the tail on a P51 mustang. They slant like the Mooney tail. Why? Because with an increase in angle of attack you have a decrease in speed and thus rudder effectiveness. So you want the rudder becoming more vertical not less in that mode. It wasn't just for looks! Also the all trimming tail is part of the efficient design by avoiding aerodynamic trim tabs. It's a good design, even if some people think it looks funny

I've flown a Cirrus, do. you have modern Mooney in your logbook?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RudyP]

In all seriousness:
1) the 242 KTAS number seems a bit of hyperbole by Mooney. Flying magazine was only able to get 236 KTS out of it http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/pistons/mooney-acclaim-type-s
2) I fly a 22TN which tops out at 217 KTAS, not 213 KTAS like the 22T
3) Cirrus quotes top speed LOP while mooney runs ROP. My plane would probably do another 8-10 KTAS if I flew it at the same power settings as Mooney does but that will eat your engine quickly if you actually run it that way. In real life use, no one is flying SR22s consistently at top speed and neither are Mooney pilots.
4) Yes, I have sat in the latest mooneys and at 6'6" I find them very cramped compared to the much larger SR22 cabin. My passengers would agree if they sat behind me in a Mooney too.
5) I actually don't believe one is "better" than the other. The Cirrus is the better choice for ME but I love Mooneys and Bonanzas and all the other planes and I'm very happy you like yours.

 

[RudyP]

Very funny. You do know the reason GA tails started to slant back right? Marketing.

Look at the trailing edge of aerobatic airplane rudders, look at the tail on a P51 mustang. They slant like the Mooney tail. Why? Because with an increase in angle of attack you have a decrease in speed and thus rudder effectiveness. So you want the rudder becoming more vertical not less in that mode. It wasn't just for looks! Also the all trimming tail is part of the efficient design by avoiding aerodynamic trim tabs. It's a good design, even if some people think it looks funny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually have no problem with the Mooney tail at all. I was just poking fun at your previous comment on Grum.man's math.

 

[gsengle]

I know. But my objection to the wheels is they are draggy. That's why they don't look good. Not some aesthetic judgement. I was sawing fixed gear off kid toy airliners as a kid.
ps the obvious exception is high wing airplanes... it's the low ones with fixed gear that look like a hacksaw is needed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nauga]

Look at the trailing edge of aerobatic airplane rudders, look at the tail on a P51 mustang. They slant like the Mooney tail. Why? Because with an increase in angle of attack you have a decrease in speed and thus rudder effectiveness. So you want the rudder becoming more vertical not less in that mode. It wasn't just for looks!

Good one. Happy April 1st.

Nauga,
and his bending moment

 

[gsengle]

Hey "marketing... wins out over aerodynamics"

http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/straight-tail-vs-swept/

Now look at some proper subsonic rudder trailing edges

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tantalum]

Guess what I'm trying to say is it's not so much about just being a complex, it's adding in more controls and seeing if you still have a mastery of said aircraft.

^this!! exactly

1) the 242 KTAS number seems a bit of hyperbole by Mooney. Flying magazine was only able to get 236 KTS out of it

Strictly speaking this is correct, they couldn't get 242 knots out of it, however, the article also notes that it was "considerably warmer than usual" - if it had been standard temp or even "considerably colder than usual" the performance stats may have looked much closer, or potentially better than Mooney's figures"

So you want the rudder becoming more vertical not less in that mode.

I think this is correct, I've read this elsewhere and been told it by Mooney owners.. it makes sense if you visualize it in your mind

 

[nauga]

Nice pics. Now look at root bending moment and roll due to rudder deflection to learn why they're tapered. It's not to get the trailing edge 'more vertical', it's to get more yawing moment closer to the root of the vertical stab. You'll notice that most GA airplanes have tapered rudders, regardless of whether the hingeline is perpendicular to the fuse or swept.

Nauga,
and credit where it's due

 

[RudyP]

Strictly speaking this is correct, they couldn't get 242 knots out of it, however, the article also notes that it was "considerably warmer than usual" - if it had been standard temp or even "considerably colder than usual" the performance stats may have looked much closer, or potentially better than Mooney's figures"

According to the POH, the plane should get faster with higher ambient temp. See attached. Also not sure why the POH shows 233 KTAS as top speed.

 

[MetalCloud]

Hey "marketing... wins out over aerodynamics"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guarantee anyone buying a cirrus or TTx knows about mooney. So people buy them for more reasons than you seem to realize or accept. But keep fighting the good fight. Lol

 

[gsengle]

I only chime in when silly people try to say fixed gear are superior... it's the Cirrus folks that are all defensive lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gsengle]

ps shouldn't it be PlasticCloud?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MetalCloud]

I only chime in when silly people try to say fixed gear are superior... it's the Cirrus folks that are all defensive lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cirrus folks don't really give a crap what other people fly. But not even going to get started on this. Good day.

 

[MetalCloud]

ps shouldn't it be PlasticCloud?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has nothing to do with the plane. But nice attitude. Ignore list updated.

 

[gsengle]

They seem awfully defensive on this thread. That said you seem bothered. Sorry!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk