Dav8or
Final Approach
Good to know the Vans reputation is being upheld. Your friend didn't happen to say "Watch this", or "Check this out" did he?
I Am Converted
- Thread starter Jay Honeck
- Start date
Good to know the Vans reputation is being upheld. Your friend didn't happen to say "Watch this", or "Check this out" did he?
Yes, it took him eight years to build, and it was completed several years ago.
Some pics:
Attachments
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Nope. He did the pass at my suggestion. The gopher thing was his idea.
If by the "Vans reputation" you mean astounding performance, I would agree.
Smart man!
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,557
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
You can build a faster, more efficient airplane, and it can have retracts.
Of course, it'll stall at 70 mph instead of 50, and you'll need a bunch more runway, particularly in the landing phase.
But those are the trade-off's inherent in aviation.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,157
- Display Name
Display name:
GeorgeC
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Retracts cause the stall speed to go up?
An RV with retractable gear would be faster and more efficient, and it'd stall at a speed that would be the same as the equivalent fixed-gear RV for all intents and purposes (Yes, it'd stall faster 'cuz it'd be slightly heavier, but we're talking fractions of a knot).
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Retracts cause the stall speed to go up?
An RV with retractable gear would be faster and more efficient, and it'd stall at a speed that would be the same as the equivalent fixed-gear RV for all intents and purposes (Yes, it'd stall faster 'cuz it'd be slightly heavier, but we're talking fractions of a knot).
I used to lust after retractable gear, until I owned airplanes and became good friends with a shop owner.
If you want to provide a comfortable living for your A&P mechanic, buy a retractable gear aircraft. Especially an older one.
Let's take a look at the retractable version of my plane. My fixed gear Pathfinder, with the benefit of aftermarket speed mods, will walk away from an Arrow. The speed difference between retracted gear, and properly faired fixed gear, is almost nil.
Of course, I'm burning more gas to beat him, thanks to those two extra cylinders, but my annuals are way less expensive.
That's why Van hasn't made a retractable, IMHO. I'm surprised that some skilled homebuilder hasn't tried it on his own yet.
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
They have. There's at least 2 examples that I'm aware of: an RV-4 in Germany and a RV-8 in Arizona.
Personally, I'll take the speed penalty over the added weight and maintenance.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
I think I will disagree with almost everything in this post. I've had both, and the Bonanza is about the best RG plane every developed in the GA realm. It is simple, electric, robust, low mx, and provides significant speed enhancements over a fixed gear. Beech isn't the only one that thinks that way either. Every mfg over the past 50 years should have followed the Bonanza retract system, but no - they had to go and think they knew better with hydraulics, and swinging pipes, and counterweights, etc.
Back to my fave, the Glasair, the difference in speed between like airframes and engines with the TD and the RG is about 10Kts. The diff is even greater with the trike gear, but Glasair doesn't break it down. Given the diff between the Mooney M20D and G models, there is clearly speed to be had by sucking up the wheels.
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
There is a couple of obvious problems with this sort of blanket statement:
- penatly of anything sticking out grows with the speed, which is why even the outspoken champions of the fast fixed-gear single at Cirrus installed a retractable gear on their jet. Tests of Subsonex also demonstrated that it must have a retractable gear to be at all viable.
- penalty of the gear balances against the rest of the airframe, which is why you beat 200 hp Arrows with a 235 hp Pathfinder. If the airframe is made slicker, suddenly the effect of the gear is magnified. I'm sure designers of Panthera know about the certification burden, but what to do? It just would not hit the performance otherwise.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you want to provide a comfortable living for the guy who sells fuel, buy a fixed gear aircraft.
Also, we're talking experimentals in this thread, aren't we? So you're not gonna be buying an old airplane and paying a mechanic to fix it, we're gonna be buying a new-ish airplane and fixing it ourselves.
Several problems with this argument:
1) You're burning a couple of extra gallons per hour to go the same speed - if the Arrow had the same speed mods your Pathfinder does, it'd go about the same speed or better - The Arrows I've flown with the tapered wing and straight tail, ie the III models that are basically equivalent to the Dakota, flew at least as fast as the Dakota or beat it by 5 knots on 35 less hp and a couple less gph.
2) Not only are you burning extra gas, you've got two extra cylinders to maintain. Not a huge deal at annual, but when it comes time for engine overhaul, all else being equal, you'll more than spend the difference that you may have saved on all your annuals. (I say "all else being equal" because IIRC you have a carbureted engine. The Arrows are fuel injected. That makes a big difference in overhaul cost too - But that's a PA28-specific thing.)
3) Speed-wise, otherwise equivalent airplanes (Lance vs. Cherokee Six, Arrow I vs. Cherokee 180, Mooney G vs. D, etc) tend to gain 10-20 knots when given retracts. So if we forget the apples-vs-oranges-that-look-like-apples argument you've presented here - You're wrong about the nil speed difference.
4) Weight-wise, while retracts do weigh more, I would bet that in this case the weight of the retract system on the Arrow is lower than the two extra cylinders and the extra gallons of fuel you'd need to carry for the same trip.
Bill Watson
En-Route
Everything I've ever heard about building an RV (or aluminum plane) turned out to be true... except the thing about the band aids. I built a QB RV10 and didn't really draw much blood from anything. Didn't drill my wife either
I guess I'm still due.Of course my knees will never be the same and I have a psychological aversion to fiberglass after building an "aluminum" plane... but that's a different matter.
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Everything I've ever heard about building an RV (or aluminum plane) turned out to be true... except the thing about the band aids. I built a QB RV10 and didn't really draw much blood from anything. Didn't drill my wife either
Of course my knees will never be the same and I have a psychological aversion to fiberglass after building an "aluminum" plane... but that's a different matter.
How about a picture of the -10?
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
Sounds about right and this is the reason my flight school prohibited solo student pilot ops when the RV guys hangar door opened. Be sure to get the invasion stripe version for maximum effect.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
The RV-8 is the only civilian GA plane I've found that actually looks good in military livery.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you want to provide a comfortable living for the guy who sells fuel, buy a fixed gear aircraft.
Also, we're talking experimentals in this thread, aren't we? So you're not gonna be buying an old airplane and paying a mechanic to fix it, we're gonna be buying a new-ish airplane and fixing it ourselves.
Several problems with this argument:
1) You're burning a couple of extra gallons per hour to go the same speed - if the Arrow had the same speed mods your Pathfinder does, it'd go about the same speed or better - The Arrows I've flown with the tapered wing and straight tail, ie the III models that are basically equivalent to the Dakota, flew at least as fast as the Dakota or beat it by 5 knots on 35 less hp and a couple less gph.
2) Not only are you burning extra gas, you've got two extra cylinders to maintain. Not a huge deal at annual, but when it comes time for engine overhaul, all else being equal, you'll more than spend the difference that you may have saved on all your annuals. (I say "all else being equal" because IIRC you have a carbureted engine. The Arrows are fuel injected. That makes a big difference in overhaul cost too - But that's a PA28-specific thing.)
3) Speed-wise, otherwise equivalent airplanes (Lance vs. Cherokee Six, Arrow I vs. Cherokee 180, Mooney G vs. D, etc) tend to gain 10-20 knots when given retracts. So if we forget the apples-vs-oranges-that-look-like-apples argument you've presented here - You're wrong about the nil speed difference.
4) Weight-wise, while retracts do weigh more, I would bet that in this case the weight of the retract system on the Arrow is lower than the two extra cylinders and the extra gallons of fuel you'd need to carry for the same trip.
I think for legacy aircraft everything you say is probably true. More modern designs (Lancair, Cirrus, RVs) not so much.
This is why there are almost no new retracts. The speed advantage they have has been diminished by modern fixed gear design.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,557
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Retracts cause the stall speed to go up?
An RV with retractable gear would be faster and more efficient, and it'd stall at a speed that would be the same as the equivalent fixed-gear RV for all intents and purposes (Yes, it'd stall faster 'cuz it'd be slightly heavier, but we're talking fractions of a knot).
No, retracts don't change the stall speed. But the designs with retracts have smaller wings and higher stall speeds than the RV series.
So unless you're gonna go the scratch built or major modification of an existing design, you're gonna have to put up with a higher stall speed.
Besides, as pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the amount of drag reduction to be had by retracting the RV's gear is negligable. The gear is very well faired.
Neal Howard
Cleared for Takeoff
It was done over a quarter of a century ago... it was called the Swearingin SX-300. Unfortunately no longer in business but there are many of them still flying and occasionally offered for sale.
BTW, welcome to the darkside, Jay.
Neal Howard
Cleared for Takeoff
Yeah. Putt-putting around in the fixed gear RV-6 at 150 mph on 5 gph while throttled back to 2000 rpm (and going 195-200 mph TAS at full rental power on 9 gph) is just so damn embarrassing I can hardly stand it...
Last edited:
How about a picture of the -10?
I have seen pics, and it is a VERY nice plane.. Bill did a super job and I am kinda amazed you built a 10 too and have not heard of Bill's center console / O2 set up....
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm familiar with the 02 set up, not familiar with Ben.
I did not build my -10. I traded into it.
silver-eagle
En-Route
It will be Burt and not Zephram. Timing is about right.And Burt Rutan bends those laws as much as anyone.
I'm familiar with the 02 set up, not familiar with Ben.
.
Ben's feeling is hurt and he is on the way to therapy now...
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
It was done over a quarter of a century ago... it was called the Swearingin SX-300. Unfortunately no longer in business but there are many of them still flying and occasionally offered for sale.
BTW, welcome to the darkside, Jay.
I flew an SX-300 for 0.5 hours. It is an amazing plane.
I remember looking at something on the ground for a few moments -- and gaining 500'. If the RV-8s controls are "sensitive", the SX-300's are positively twitchy.
That design is too much toward the "speed" side of the envelope for my tastes. You lose the engine in that thing, and you are coming down NOW. The wings look impossibly small in flight -- because they are.
jpower
Cleared for Takeoff
It was done over a quarter of a century ago... it was called the Swearingin SX-300. Unfortunately no longer in business but there are many of them still flying and occasionally offered for sale.
BTW, welcome to the darkside, Jay.
The Falco is close...but it's not aluminum. So I guess it's not close. But it's pretty darn cool! All wood construction (even the skin). Seriously cool plane.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Diminished, yes... But I'd bet money that a Cirrus would gain at least 10 knots with folding legs - the legacy designs get more like 15-20, but no matter how good the fairings are there's still a significant amount of drag there. I think with Cirrus it's probably driven more by insurance than engineering - Their rates are already astronomical, can you imagine what they'd cost to insure with retracts? I think repairs of a composite airplane after a gear up landing would be significantly more difficult as well.