denverpilot
Tied Down
I just keep wondering when retract will fall off of the Commercial requirements, and become an endorsement across the board. I think eventually that'll happen...
Endangered Species - Retractable Piston Singles?
- Thread starter GRG55
- Start date
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
..but, for a mental exercise, wouldn't the retractable gear version of any plane have less drag, and as such more speed than the non retractable variant of the same? The Cessna TTx keeps coming up, as a fixed gear high water mark for speed, being faster than some other retracts out there. fine. but if there was an RG variant of the TTx would that still not be faster by pure virtue of their being less drag?
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
I doubt it, as most airplanes commercial pilots fly bring uo their gear...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grum.Man
En-Route
Of course, but not as much as you think. A well faired fixed gear has very little drag. Nobody is saying retracts aren't faster, just that they may not be faster enough to justify the added cost and complexity.
denverpilot
Tied Down
And beyond a certain size, they're a type rating, anyway... so... as the low end of the fleet loses retracts...
Of course this also assumes the insurers don't put their own rules on it, which is really how this stuff gets done... "Must have X number of hours of retract time to be insurable under this policy..."
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
Justify? That will forever be subjective. But for someone that wants the best, the retract will offer the more speed and range over its fixed gear twin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
I really don't get why people think retracting the gear is a hard thing
And the low end of the commercial fleet isn't losing retracts. Just the 4/5 seaters which are personal planes and trainers. And Caravans are a special case... you won't see fixed gear twins. Hell only just recently did Europe allow commercial flying with even a turbine single like the pilatus. (Retract)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
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
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
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I think it looks weird because it kind of just goes straight down... if it had some angle to it then I think would help make it look a little more sleek
but looks are subjective. ultimately the bottom line is it would be faster if those gear could come up!
Greg Bockelman
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,093
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Sure there are. Not many but they were made. Check out a thread by this title.
Fixed Gear Mooney M20D Master
Sorry, I don't know how to link it.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Wow... well will you look at that! learn something new every day. Incidentally, when I started Googling "fixed gear Mooney" I found this very sharp looking FIXED GEAR diesel: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2014/november/11/mooney-unveils-diesel-m10t-m10j
**as much as I like retracts, THAT is a sharp looking plane... love that they retained the signature "backwards" tail and those gear look sharp. Unfortunately the "3 seat" and "140 knot cruise" and "160 knot Vne" kind of kill it for me. Oh well.
**as much as I like retracts, THAT is a sharp looking plane... love that they retained the signature "backwards" tail and those gear look sharp. Unfortunately the "3 seat" and "140 knot cruise" and "160 knot Vne" kind of kill it for me. Oh well.
Grum.Man
En-Route
At the end of the day we are all splitting hairs here. Many more factors will impact your trip other than 7 knts or a few gallons of fuel. I mean someone in the market for an SR22 or TTx or Acclaim isn't going to loose sleep over a few gallons of gas, a few hundred dollars at annual, or a few hundred dollars more on insurance. What will make the decision is when you tell your significant other that one of the airplanes you will be flying your family and friends in has a rather nasty stall reputation, one has a gear that may not always come down or stay down, or one has a parachute but your 600 mile family vacation to the Hamptons will take 30 minutes longer but they will be more comfortable during the trip. Just look at the sales numbers if you think I'm wrong lol
drotto
Cleared for Takeoff
That is the upcoming M10. That will also have a retract version. Mooney did make a fix many years ago, but very few were produced, and I think most were later converted to retract.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
They are also planning a retract version of that m10
The M10 is intended as a trainer. There is one flying as a prototype.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
Once again you keep making this about Cirrus. Look at the thread title.
Having a chute has nothing to do with having or not having retractable gear in a design.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
...true, and ultimately the purchase of a high end plane, yacht, or sports car comes down largely to taste... but that's not to say people don't get pedantic about why what they fly is the best
Grum.Man
En-Route
The thread is about retract singles going obsolete. What causes a product to go obsolete.... sales. What affects sales, reputation and perception. Which is why I included Cirrus as it's the biggest manufacturer on the market that makes a fixed gear turbo single that competes against the Acclaim and TTx.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Kind of drives the point home then about retractables being "real" planes... their trainer has fixed gear, and I bet their retract version at least had some people in the boardroom thinking "when they finish training they can graduate to this, feel like a real certificated pilot, and build complex time" <- am I stirring the pot?
Full disclosure I have very little RG time and my flying is done in 172s, Archers, and sometimes an SR20 (enough to stay current for a faster ride on a longer XC). But, one of my favorite flights was some work I did in an Arrow, purely because the departure and approach just felt more proper without the training wheels of fixed gear
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
I'd respectfully disagree. I think that for people that have the money, ratings and mission for a multi, there is no other plane to fill that role.
Cirrus has figured out how to cover (to some degree and psychologically) the redundancy of the second engine with their chute. Dual vacuum have long been replaced by back-up pumps on singles and the technology advancement with electric attitude/hsi's. Dual batteries and alternators have been repeated with newer HP singles in that some now come with one or both of these. These things have mitigated some of the major past draws to twins.
But here's the big deal. All that comes standard on a twin. And most importantly, the additional useful load of a twin can't be replicated by piston singles. The cruise speed (plane dependent) is right there with the highest performance singles and I have over 1300 mile range.
Anyway, I love several of the single's mentioned in this thread. And I was closest to pulling the trigger on an Ovation before deciding on a 310. That said, I don't think people don't look enviously of twins anymore. I just think that people that don't have a mission for a twin simply don't want to pay the added cost associated with having them.
Grum.Man
En-Route
I would bet it isn't hurting them though. There is no direct comparison by which to judge but look at the success of Vans's aircraft compared to Lancair or Glasair or many other retract experimental aircraft that have gone out of business. Why do you think Cessna doesn't sell a 182 RG or 172 RG anymore? The first thing Questair did when they tried to re-enter the market place was offer a fixed gear model.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Trainers are where the checkrides happen... that's why I think the whole thing becomes an endorsement, sooner or later. Otherwise you're just building trainers that don't really get any safety or real performance gains from sucking the gear up, just to meet a checkride requirement... once more get wrecked and/or wear out.
Every year there's another gear up that is NOT the pilot's fault at our home 'drome, because some component in some beat to hell retract being used to meet the Commercial requirement, failed.
Couple of years ago, it happened on a CFI ride. With a Fed on board.
It's not an outdated requirement per-se... yes, folks will have to suck the gear up in any commercial job they get... it's more of a "doesn't fit the aircraft available" problem, eventually.
Technically one COULD fly commercially for a very long time without sucking the gear up. Many do... skydivers, freight in Caravans, etc etc etc.
FloridaPilot
Pattern Altitude
I don't know if you guys know this or not but I'm a member of COPA (Cirrus Owners and Pilots Assoc) and they send me a newsletter every two months or so. When you open the mag what do you find? Advertisements for TBM's and Pipers which are all retracts by the way....Why do you think that is? Because upgrading from the Cirrus to a retractable airplane is the natural progression for a lot of the Cirrus Members. Looking through the book now, Lancair, Epic...etc
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Hopefully never, I think expecting a professional pilot to be able to make a CS prop and gear all work in unison isn't asking much.
And techanlly you can get a CPL without flying a retract plane.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
Cmon man, they don't sell em because the Cessna retractable gear mechanisms were always problematic and they never built speedy planes anyway as a core mission...
As for experimental, it's about in part ease of construction.
You can argue that the gear isn't a big deal either way, but in no way is it a big plus on a plane that is otherwise marketed as being speedy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As for experimental, it's about in part ease of construction.
You can argue that the gear isn't a big deal either way, but in no way is it a big plus on a plane that is otherwise marketed as being speedy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
denverpilot
Tied Down
It's not, but there's commercial jobs where it's not required. The CS prop is *already* just an endorsement, so you're kinda shooting your argument in the foot, eh?
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
It's not, but there's commercial jobs where it's not required. The CS prop is *already* just an endorsement, so you're kinda shooting your argument in the foot, eh?
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.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Fair enough... if you have the mission for a twin and the means to own and operate one then that's another "real pilot" thing to have two throttles in your hand and two props out there, and even if some pilots can't manage to fly safely on one engine there is a definite safety advantage (both real and perceived) to having that second engine out there, I would argue
But I still feel like people for the most part don't look enviously at twins anymore... maybe most know they'll never have the means to own and operate one, so it's kind of just "shut out" of your mind and instead you find solace in the safety that your single engine gives you. Retracts on the other hand are not unattainable, and with only one engine are cheaper to operate and maintain.. so it's a more enticing "step up" option for many, at least that has been my experience
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
P.S. - @Radar Contact I did mention in the $993K Cirrus thread that I'd still lean towards having two engines so I can fly home on one as opposed to going swimming under a chute. But that assumes you have the $$ to keep both engines turning, save for TBO, twice the fuel, etc.
Grum.Man
En-Route
Here is as close a comparison as you are going to get.
A Glasair II ft is 9 knots slower than the retract model. The retract model cost 10k more. I know for a fact the insurance is about 3-500 more a year for the retract.
If you fly 100 hours a year you will travel 900 miles further in the RG vs the FT which is 4.5 more hours of flying at the ft cruise speed. Given a fuel burn for both of 10gph that is about 181.00 more a year in fuel.
It would take 55 years of flying just to make up the difference in purchase price.
Please feel free to check my math as I did the calculations sitting in the Cookout drive through haha.
A Glasair II ft is 9 knots slower than the retract model. The retract model cost 10k more. I know for a fact the insurance is about 3-500 more a year for the retract.
If you fly 100 hours a year you will travel 900 miles further in the RG vs the FT which is 4.5 more hours of flying at the ft cruise speed. Given a fuel burn for both of 10gph that is about 181.00 more a year in fuel.
It would take 55 years of flying just to make up the difference in purchase price.
Please feel free to check my math as I did the calculations sitting in the Cookout drive through haha.
FloridaPilot
Pattern Altitude
A twin engine airplane wouldn't benefit me here in Florida. If I lived in a higher altitude city like Denver I would consider it. It's better to have a second engine going over the mountains than say a parachute.
Grum.Man
En-Route
Don't shoot the messenger just stating the facts and answering the thread topic. Keep in mind I fly a retract too. The old saying goes... The only time you or anyone else will see your plane with the gear up is when they are picking it up off the runway with a crane. Who is the silly looking one then?
Grum.Man
En-Route
They may not be extinct yet but they are definitely endangered of doing so.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
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
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
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.