Endangered Species - Retractable Piston Singles?

Speaking of new retracts... at the risk of being laughed out of town I think the long long term (50-100 yrs or more) picture actually sees some future in electric aircraft. No, not for long haul privately or corporate owned cross country machines (at least not yet), but for a trainer with 2-3 hr battery life and 90 knots seems like the electric concept could be very convenient to just plug the plane in when you are done. No, I am not *hoping* for this, I like the internal combustion engine, but Airbus built a pretty cool little prototype, link below

http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/c...us-e-fan-the-future-of-electric-aircraft.html

and notice that it has retractable gear... that to me shows that there is still some definite aerodynamic advantages that outweigh the added complexity

and ultimately I agree... a "real" plane is meant to be in the sky, and when you're flying you don't need wheels out, so put those things away! Yes, there is some insanely fast fixed gear planes out there, but real planes have retractable gears (sorry but it's true)
 
Retracts are cool, but Cirrus has proven that the market doesn't demand them in new aircraft. Fixed gear really lowers operating expenses, and weight, and those are as important as speed.
 
The Panthera is also going for approval on a hybrid and an electric version. I really hope that plane does not turn into vapor. Has a CAPS system. Is going for a utility rating, and full spin testing. Plus, they claim even with the 540 in it will do 170 k at around 11 or 12 GPH. I even like that they ditched the 390 because they wanted owners to have the certification to use Mogas. Tell me this is not a fun, capable little plane so far.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
George Mohr said:
Retracts are cool, but Cirrus has proven that the market doesn't demand them in new aircraft. Fixed gear really lowers operating expenses, and weight, and those are as important as speed.
Click to expand...
-and the real proof to this is that Cirrus first airplane, the VK-30, actually had retracts, but their production ones didn't
 
midcap said:
It's my aviation goal in life to own a retract plane.

I'll feel so much cooler when I can call out, "positive rate of climb, gear up!" and then in the pattern, "3 green, gear down and locked";)
Click to expand...

Save yourself some money and just put this on your dash. You can still call out 3 green, gear down and locked on a fixed gear. You might get some weird looks though :)

upload_2017-3-31_11-50-45.png
 
James331 said:
But how many people do you know who are buying brand new planes?
Click to expand...
very few, there are just too many good airplanes on the market today.

some big SCHOOLS are buying new planes in droves recently, though. ATP, NDU, etc have all announced big purchases recently.
 
Caramon13 said:
Save yourself some money and just put this on your dash. You can still call out 3 green, gear down and locked on a fixed gear. You might get some weird looks though :)

View attachment 52395
Click to expand...

Oh but all the money I've saved on fuel burn going 175+ on 13 gph


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If mooney put a chute on their new airplanes I think that would really top it off. I haven't sat in a new mooney but I hear they are quite a bit more roomy than the old ones (which I have sat in)

Wow just looked at the new 2017 mooneys online...very nice

What does the M20U cost?
 
CC268 said:
If mooney put a chute on their new airplanes I think that would really top it off. I haven't sat in a new mooney but I hear they are quite a bit more roomy than the old ones (which I have sat in)

Wow just looked at the new 2017 mooneys online...very nice

What does the M20U cost?
Click to expand...

I wonder how a chute would affect the useful load, maybe that's why they don't have a chute?
 
You can get a parachute and air conditioning with a Cirrus. I don't think it has that much to do with retract/fixed
 
CC268 said:
If mooney put a chute on their new airplanes I think that would really top it off. I haven't sat in a new mooney but I hear they are quite a bit more roomy than the old ones (which I have sat in)

Wow just looked at the new 2017 mooneys online...very nice

What does the M20U cost?
Click to expand...
The Ovations are like 650k and the Acclaims like 750k. Only issue with the new Mooney is despite the fact they started using some compsites, the weight saved was eaten up by the increased weight of the second door assembly. So the useful on the Ovation is around 1100, and about 1000 on the Acclaim without options. A chute would take up about #65.

How they made them feel bigger is the door was extended by 4 inches, and the interior panels are now made out of a thinner composite material. That gained them a few inches on the inside. I think I also ready the seat structure, position and cushions were redone especially in the back to help the rear passengers feel less enclosed and more comfortable.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
They should be on display at sun and fun.

What does a BRS system weigh? There are still some weights in a long body Mooneys tail, hmmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
They should be on display at sun and fun.

What does a BRS system weigh? There are still some weights in a long body Mooneys tail, hmmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The after market system for the Cessna 182 is 85#, and 79# for the 172. To figure losing somewhere between 70 to 80 is a specifically designed system not requiring other after market alterations.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
The after market system for the Cessna 182 is 85#, and 79# for the 172. So figure losing somewhere between 70 to 80 for a specifically designed system not requiring other after market alterations.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Perhaps, but I posted links of folks working on retract competitors... they don't seem to be shy... the Valkyrie is gunning for 260 knots top speed. Fixed gear won't get you there.

As for Mooney they were even planning a retract version of their trainer variant. Remember retract is needed for a commercial pilot trainer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You are the one that said "Tastes change". Pushers are long out of fashion in the home built world, with Velocity playing a rearguard action as the lone holdout. The rows of Rutan EZs grazing in the grass at Oshkosh 25 years ago have given way to the propeller-in-front RV hordes. Canard pushers were never successful in the certified market. Beech killed the Starship. Cirrus abandoned that layout and went with a tractor configuration when it moved from kitplanes into the certified market. The Avanti turboprop is the only commercial pusher still in production as far as I know, and they sold 3 airplanes in each of the last two years, representing 0.5% of the entire turboprop market.

Suggesting the Valkyrie is a legitimate contender as a new design for a commercially viable certified airplane is absurd. Even their marketing materials are a recycling of the same old BS claims of why the canard configuration is superior.

You should buy a new Mooney. Looks like a really nice airplane. They could use your patronage. ;)
 
I already have a model in current production.

The question is are retracts dying? I think we've at least shown that they aren't going away...

We shall see. I really love the panthera.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
midcap said:
I wonder how a chute would affect the useful load, maybe that's why they don't have a chute?
Click to expand...

The Cirrus CAPS system adds about 80 pounds to the weight of the airplane. That includes the weight of the additional structure as well as the chute and ballistics. Estimates are it adds about $25k to the cost of building the airplane.

Its not a trivial exercise to add one to a plane. In addition to the structural testing to take the loads on deployment, there's dealing with managing the loads on touchdown to protect the occupants as well as making sure the upper part of the canopy/fuselage doesn't collapse onto the occupants. And these days, what with suit happy lawyers hanging around every airport coffee shop, it better work every damn time. Hence the expensive 10-year repacks. Cirrus had to do a lot of work to get it right. They deserve the payoff they are getting.
 
I almost bought the 172 hawk sp that BRS used as their stc test plane. It can be done. That airplanes useful load was just too low tho and decided I wanted something faster...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GRG55 said:
The rows of Rutan EZs grazing in the grass at Oshkosh 25 years ago have given way to the propeller-in-front RV hordes. Canard pushers were never successful in the certified market. Beech killed the Starship. Cirrus abandoned that layout and went with a tractor configuration when it moved from kitplanes into the certified market.
Click to expand...
There is a Rutan EZ that flies over my house now and then on approach and it's a cool plane. I've always thought pusher canards were cool, but you are right, the market for that is dead. There was a small uptick and an attempt to reshape the landscape with them but ultimately the cool factor and "hard to stall, so it's safe" factor just don't outweigh the many costs (hard to cool rear engine, prop strike, limited CG envelope, etc.)

GRG55 said:
The Avanti turboprop is the only commercial pusher still in production as far as I know, and they sold 3 airplanes in each of the last two years, representing 0.5% of the entire turboprop market.
Click to expand...
It's a cool plane, and while yes, it is a pusher, Avanti will tell you that it is NOT a canard, the rear horizontal surfaces apply downforce in most phases of flight if memory serves right, and the fuselage gives something like 20%?

GRG55 said:
Suggesting the Valkyrie is a legitimate contender as a new design for a commercially viable certified airplane is absurd. Even their marketing materials are a recycling of the same old BS claims of why the canard configuration is superior.
Click to expand...
Yeah... these guys may pump a few planes out but I think they'll end up going the way of Adam Aircraft
 
gsengle said:
The question is are retracts dying? I think we've at least shown that they aren't going away...
Click to expand...
Correct sir. I would say that twins are dying at a faster pace than retracts, and the fact that new makers are using them in their designs (whether or not those new makers survive) I believe shows testament to that. Designers know that there is a certain speed advantage (which may be offset by complexity, etc.), but ultimately a definite cool and "real airplane" factor by having RG and saying "positive rate, gear up" - so I think they'll stick around for a while
 
gsengle said:
I almost bought the 172 hawk sp that BRS used as their stc test plane.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I know in a Cirrus when you deploy the chute the plane is generally considered "totaled" or "written off" - but what about on the 172? The gear on those can take a pounding... and when you mentioned "as their test plane" - did they actually deploy it from that plane?
 
Good question I'm not sure. I thought so but maybe not. It took up half the baggage compartment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This was at least ten years ago


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Retract = Higher Insurance, MX, MX Costs. In all many planes only gain about 5 - 10 knots.
 
TommyG said:
In all many planes only gain about 5 - 10 knots.
Click to expand...
15kt gain between a newer T182 and an older T182RG. Believe me I'm looking and comparing. My type of mission flying could get by with either one, but the RG for the same fuel burn seems much more attractive. However finding one in decent shape is another feat in itself. There's just not that many left. Still plenty of well equipped T210s on the market in great shape for about the same price. That's probably what I'll eventually end up getting if not for the heft and comfort in choppy weather.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
Correct sir. I would say that twins are dying at a faster pace than retracts, and the fact that new makers are using them in their designs (whether or not those new makers survive) I believe shows testament to that...
Click to expand...

The stats in the OP don't support that view. There were 50% more certified piston twins sold last year than certified high performance piston singles. One don't have to go back very many years to find where that statistic was the reverse. If you work back through the stats over the past years the fall off in production of high performance certified piston singles as a percentage of total certified piston singles sold has been absolutely dramatic.

Now an argument can be made that piston twins saw the same thing, but many years earlier, and sales are low, but fairly stable now. Going forward that may be the same pattern for high performance retractable singles (lets leave the overambitious Rotax amphibians out of this). Maybe there will always be a niche market for a handful of Bonanzas, Mooneys and a couple of Arrows? Mooney is the only one that is really trying to reverse that trend, and I really do hope the Ultras find a crop of dedicated new buyers/owners as passionate as Mooney owners of the past.
 
It depends on what your airplane goals are, Retractable gear is where the big boys play! What about these beauties?
 

Attachments

  • Cirrus Jet.jpg
    Cirrus Jet.jpg
    145.4 KB · Views: 17
  • DA42.JPG
    DA42.JPG
    6.4 KB · Views: 16
  • Piper Mirage.jpg
    Piper Mirage.jpg
    204.3 KB · Views: 16
  • ext-1_8_sp.jpg
    ext-1_8_sp.jpg
    861.8 KB · Views: 16
  • TBM900.jpg
    TBM900.jpg
    249.9 KB · Views: 16
TommyG said:
Retract = Higher Insurance, MX, MX Costs. In all many planes only gain about 5 - 10 knots.
Click to expand...

Mooney here. Same flat rate annual price at a shop I know as a Cirrus. Same insurance rates as those with similarly valued Cirruses. I've looked into it. And believe me the gain is more than 5-10kts. If you love your fixed gear plane, cool. But LOP won't eat your engine, shock cooling won't shatter it, and pulling up the gear is not gonna break the bank. What it does is save fuel and fuel is money. And finally anyone wanting to ever fly for a living needs time in complex...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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).
 
gsengle said:
Mooney here. Same flat rate annual price at a shop I know as a Cirrus. Same insurance rates as those with similarly valued Cirruses. I've looked into it. And believe me the gain is more than 5-10kts. If you love your fixed gear plane, cool. But LOP won't eat your engine, shock cooling won't shatter it, and pulling up the gear is not gonna break the bank. What it does is save fuel and fuel is money. And finally anyone wanting to ever fly for a living needs time in complex...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Turbo or naturally aspirated Cirrus? If it's an SR22 than maybe the annual is the same but I highly doubt the annual on a 6cyl Mooney is the same or less as an SR20. A Cirrus does have an abnormally high insurance premium for a fixed single so I could see that. The gain is dependent on many factors. There are no fixed gear Mooney's so you can't say how much faster yours is than a fixed gear one. A Cessna TTx is faster than an Ovation 3. Altitude is the great equalizer so if you are really hungry for speed prioritize turbos over gear configuration.
 
chartbundle said:
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).
Click to expand...
To compare the numbers you kind of need to know what the fuel burn on the SR22 would be at the same 150 knots or what ever it's maximum range power setting is.
 
Grum.Man said:
Turbo or naturally aspirated Cirrus? If it's an SR22 than maybe the annual is the same but I highly doubt the annual on a 6cyl Mooney is the same or less as an SR20. A Cirrus does have an abnormally high insurance premium for a fixed single so I could see that. The gain is dependent on many factors. There are no fixed gear Mooney's so you can't say how much faster yours is than a fixed gear one. A Cessna TTx is faster than an Ovation 3. Altitude is the great equalizer so if you are really hungry for speed prioritize turbos over gear configuration.
Click to expand...

You have to compare a TTx to an Acclaim. Same engine. Ditto Cirrus turbo or NA.

And actually the annual was slightly higher on the SR22, and my insurance runs actually slightly less for similar hull value Cirrus, I was just keeping it simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
You have to compare a TTx to an Acclaim. Same engine. Ditto Cirrus turbo or NA.

And actually the annual was slightly higher on the SR22, and my insurance runs actually slightly less for similar hull value Cirrus, I was just keeping it simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
What model Mooney do you have?
 
Ovation. io550. FIKI.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GRG55 said:
The stats in the OP don't support that view.
Click to expand...
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
 
gsengle said:
You have to compare a TTx to an Acclaim. Same engine. Ditto Cirrus turbo or NA.

And actually the annual was slightly higher on the SR22, and my insurance runs actually slightly less for similar hull value Cirrus, I was just keeping it simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So the TTx gives up 7 knts to the Acclaim. Just have to decide if 7 knts is worth the added complexity.
 
That's at top speed. Doesn't tell us everything. And it's not just speed, that equals fuel which equals $$$. All adds up.

Personally I'd be so annoyed at the fixed gear always being down I'd want to saw em off. They are nothing but drag producers once the airplane leaves the ground.

And the only reason that the TTx gets that close is the very small cockpit and very modern clean design. I wonder how much faster than 242 it could achieve if the gear could disappear...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top