Retracts vs Fixed gear

My Arrow is as fast as they made them with all the speed mods and the short body Hershey bar wing at actually almost goes as fast as the factory numbers in cruise of 141 knots...I like that on 9.5 gallons an hour so its also fuel efficient. Gear up off field landing in an emergency is a plus if it has to happen and I can still lift 1000 pounds. Parts are easy and nothing seems to complicated to fix...even the gear.

I keep wanting to upgrade but cant justify the cost for a couple of knots. I could sell her tomorrow for what I have in it to any number of guys that are looking for a similar set up after flying it...knots2you and Scimitar STC being the difference...
 
My plane was involved in a gear up before I got it, and was with a CFI in the right seat giving a BFR, doing touch and goes in the pattern. They had the gear auto extender locked out and forgot to drop the gear in a pass.

I don't do T&G's in the Arrow. Part of my checklist is to lock out the autoextender on takeoff, and re-engage it in cruise. Entering the pattern, the gear is simply the first set of flaps.
 
Mine is disabled no bad habit transfer...but the same throwing the gear out is the fist flaps to slow it down...never flown an Arrow with it working and would not really be adverse to it anyway for some reason.
 
For those who claim year after year of trouble free retract maintenance is great till they sell it to someone who finds out that on the next inspection the IA will not sign off on the slop of the gear that other IA will pass on. Plan on big $$$, or pay me now or pay me latter, no free lunch here.
 
rbridges said:
25-30 knot difference b/t gear up and down in my plane. I'm sure it would be less if it was designed to be fixed gear, but I guess it would still be 15-20 knots or so. Within reason, I'd go for retrac so long as it's worth the speed increase.
Click to expand...

So the airplane with gear up taxis 25-30 kts slower?
 
FloridaPilot said:
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not but I was wondering. If you had the same exact plane but you had a choice between fixed gear and retractable gear which one would you choose and why? I understand there is a bit of speed difference.
Click to expand...

Fixed gear! Retract gear doesn't always lower itself. More flimsy. Longer annuals. Higer insurance. Every landing is an adventure. Sometimes the gear doesn't come up and you almost fly into mountains as a result of not being able to climb.
 
Datadriver said:
Fixed gear! Retract gear doesn't always lower itself. More flimsy. Longer annuals. Higer insurance. Every landing is an adventure. Sometimes the gear doesn't come up and you almost fly into mountains as a result of not being able to climb.
Click to expand...

Typically not more flimsy. Piper's retractable gear is probably more stout than its fixed gear. Barring a mechanical failure to lock, I am not aware of any cases where the gear folded from a hard landing. Piper does have a gear extension system which is supposed to sense both airspeed and engine power via a propwash pitot tube, but it can be overridden for mountain takeoffs.

Every landing an adventure?????
 
Warlock said:
Mine is disabled no bad habit transfer...but the same throwing the gear out is the fist flaps to slow it down...never flown an Arrow with it working and would not really be adverse to it anyway for some reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah when I owned my Turbo Arrow I just flew with it locked out too, but I'm in a partnership now, and I leave it on more for the benefit of the Other Guy. Either way I don't think it's a bad habit former. I don't rely on it as a crutch.
 
Another consideration not mentioned is adding turbo to a fixed gear. Take a N/A FG 182T at 8000 MSL, 65% pwr (12GPH) and get 136kts. Take the turbo version to 16000 MSL, at the same 65% pwr (12GPH) and get 145kts for a 10kt increase. Then, sometimes you can gain perhaps even 20 to 30 kts more when going East due to stronger tailwinds (i.e. 8000 msl vs 16000 msl). Or you would dial it back even further to save fuel. Of course, when traveling West, you may need to cruise lower to reduce your head wind, but with the Turbo, you have the option to increase the power to 75% (or more) and maintain the 145 kts at 14 GPH at 8000 MSL to counteract headwinds. In the NA version, you are already near maxed out. Everything involves trade-offs. So, it is really more than just FG vs RG. It can be at least four comparisons, i.e. FG/NA vs FG/TC vs RG/NA vs RG/TC...
 
skidoo said:
Another consideration not mentioned is adding turbo to a fixed gear. Take a N/A FG 182T at 8000 MSL, 65% pwr (12GPH) and get 136kts. Take the turbo version to 16000 MSL, at the same 65% pwr (12GPH) and get 145kts for a 10kt increase. Then, sometimes you can gain perhaps even 20 to 30 kts more when going East due to stronger tailwinds (i.e. 8000 msl vs 16000 msl). Or you would dial it back even further to save fuel. Of course, when traveling West, you may need to cruise lower to reduce your head wind, but with the Turbo, you have the option to increase the power to 75% (or more) and maintain the 145 kts at 14 GPH at 8000 MSL to counteract headwinds. In the NA version, you are already near maxed out. Everything involves trade-offs. So, it is really more than just FG vs RG. It can be at least four comparisons, i.e. FG/NA vs FG/TC vs RG/NA vs RG/TC...
Click to expand...

But can you say that having a turbocharger would affect whether you would have retractable gear? I think the choice of FG/RG and TC/NA would be independent of each other.
 
brien23 said:
Only two types of people fly retracts those who have landed wheels up and those about to land with the wheels up.:lol:
Click to expand...

My original CFI never had a gear up landing, and he was very insistent on making sure you had three green in the Arrow after dropping the gear on downwind, checking 3 green on base, 3 green turning final and 3 green on short final. Me? I follow his training to this day. Club insurance would require me to pay the first $1000. I could write that check without a problem. The embarrassment, on the other hand, would kill me.

Sac Arrow said:
Typically not more flimsy. Piper's retractable gear is probably more stout than its fixed gear. Barring a mechanical failure to lock, I am not aware of any cases where the gear folded from a hard landing. Piper does have a gear extension system which is supposed to sense both airspeed and engine power via a propwash pitot tube, but it can be overridden for mountain takeoffs.

Every landing an adventure?????
Click to expand...

The club's Arrow has that feature disabled. But, I'll tell you, that buzzer that goes off when you pull the power with the gear in the wells is really annoying. And the emergency extension system is dirt simple and effective.
 
Warlock said:
My Arrow is as fast as they made them with all the speed mods and the short body Hershey bar wing at actually almost goes as fast as the factory numbers in cruise of 141 knots...I like that on 9.5 gallons an hour so its also fuel efficient. Gear up off field landing in an emergency is a plus if it has to happen and I can still lift 1000 pounds. Parts are easy and nothing seems to complicated to fix...even the gear.

I keep wanting to upgrade but cant justify the cost for a couple of knots. I could sell her tomorrow for what I have in it to any number of guys that are looking for a similar set up after flying it...knots2you and Scimitar STC being the difference...
Click to expand...

Curious, why would you choose to do a gear up emergency off field landing?
 
Henning said:
Curious, why would you choose to do a gear up emergency off field landing?
Click to expand...

If I had to land in a rough plowed field, a wet rice field or a vineyard I would probably choose to go gear up to avoid cartwheeling.
 
Henning said:
Curious, why would you choose to do a gear up emergency off field landing?
Click to expand...

He'd land gear-up because he doesn't want the energy adsorption available with the gear down. Prolly not the best idea but there's no accounting for personal choices....
 
skidoo said:
Another consideration not mentioned is adding turbo to a fixed gear. Take a N/A FG 182T at 8000 MSL, 65% pwr (12GPH) and get 136kts. Take the turbo version to 16000 MSL, at the same 65% pwr (12GPH) and get 145kts for a 10kt increase. Then, sometimes you can gain perhaps even 20 to 30 kts more when going East due to stronger tailwinds (i.e. 8000 msl vs 16000 msl). Or you would dial it back even further to save fuel. Of course, when traveling West, you may need to cruise lower to reduce your head wind, but with the Turbo, you have the option to increase the power to 75% (or more) and maintain the 145 kts at 14 GPH at 8000 MSL to counteract headwinds. In the NA version, you are already near maxed out. Everything involves trade-offs. So, it is really more than just FG vs RG. It can be at least four comparisons, i.e. FG/NA vs FG/TC vs RG/NA vs RG/TC...
Click to expand...

Turbo normalizing is a great deal if you live above 4500' or so, or most of your traveling is above 8500'. The Riley kit let my 4cyl Travelair walk away from 6 cylinder Barons above 12,000. If you spend most of your time below 7500' though they do nothing of any considerable value.

You have to consider that relationship between drag, power, and speed is a square function; for every double in speed, you need to square the power. Adding more excess power alone is a great deal to add the ability to climb, however it is not such an efficient way at picking up speed. Basically you don't see an IAS increase, turbos take advantage of the TAS increase with altitude by holding the power as you climb into altitudes where you can take advantage of it. They add a complication though as in order to maximize on that advantage, you need O2.

Retractable gear however works from the drag side of the equation so gains relationship is inverse to the power gains relationship, both in that the power you can reduce to maintain the same IAS reduces as a square root function, and is more effective at Sea Level than FL210 (about the maximum effective altitude for non pressurized planes).

So you see, the turbo and the gear, while buying the same thing, are optimized at different ends of the altitude spectrum. That's why the A-36 with the TAT kit on it and big tip tanks to keep you up high as far as possible to take advantage is such a popular set up. It will operate optimized for any altitude and is a great flying plane. I wonder how BRS fits in one? The Turbo Commanche 260C is also a good choice.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Curious, why would you choose to do a gear up emergency off field landing?
Click to expand...

Rice fields, mud flats, water and Pine trees for miles around here...just taught that way and would feel more comfortable if it was the only place to go in each of these emergencies...
 
Warlock said:
Rice fields, mud flats, water and Pine trees for miles around here...just taught that way and would feel more comfortable if it was the only place to go in each of these emergencies...
Click to expand...

Having cleaned up crashes for a couple of years, while I used to think the same way, now no longer do. The gear is helpful in reducing maximum final G load in nearly all circumstances, and going into tall trees you want it for sure because that slows your downward speed through the trees. Typically they hung up and I had to get a crane in to get them out. The occupants of all of them walked away.

Unless I'm going into the water, or I need to maximimize my glide to get to a nice smooth surface I can slide nicely onto like a gear up on a runway, my gear is coming down.

If you leave the gear up, you are more prone to spinal trauma.
 
Last edited:
I have the spinal trauma already from a helicopter accident...retract gear gives me the option when having to use a soft surface....
 
Clark1961 said:
He'd land gear-up because he doesn't want the energy adsorption available with the gear down. Prolly not the best idea but there's no accounting for personal choices....
Click to expand...


In a corn or bean field or on water, I think I'd like to avoid having the gear grab something and flip the plane over or have it come to a sudden stop on its nose.
 
Warlock said:
I have the spinal trauma already from a helicopter accident...retract gear gives me the option when having to use a soft surface....
Click to expand...

Exactly, you have the option to keep them up if the situation makes that the best option. Just want you to consider more closely what the best option may be, I brought it up mostly because you specifically mentioned trees for up, and trees are where you always want them down.
 
Henning said:
Exactly, you have the option to keep them up if the situation makes that the best option. Just want you to consider more closely what the best option may be, I brought it up mostly because you specifically mentioned trees for up, and trees are where you always want them down.
Click to expand...

I'm talking planted young pine forest 10-15 ft tall between the old growth and no thinning...lots of it in east Texas...old growth I agree with you.
 
Warlock said:
My Arrow is as fast as they made them with all the speed mods and the short body Hershey bar wing at actually almost goes as fast as the factory numbers in cruise of 141 knots...I like that on 9.5 gallons an hour so its also fuel efficient. Gear up off field landing in an emergency is a plus if it has to happen and I can still lift 1000 pounds. Parts are easy and nothing seems to complicated to fix...even the gear.

I keep wanting to upgrade but cant justify the cost for a couple of knots. I could sell her tomorrow for what I have in it to any number of guys that are looking for a similar set up after flying it...knots2you and Scimitar STC being the difference...
Click to expand...

I was at a safety course during a recent mooney summit. The speaker said to always do an off field landing with the gear extended. The exception being a water landing. He said that it's about energy dissipation.
 
rbridges said:
I was at a safety course during a recent mooney summit. The speaker said to always do an off field landing with the gear extended. The exception being a water landing. He said that it's about energy dissipation.
Click to expand...

sounds familiar...
 
I'd generally prefer retracts personally. Depending on budget and load carrying needs, a Mooney M20F with upgrades, a late model Mooney M20J, or a long body Bonanza with IO-550 would be my preference. :)
 
It's the watery rice fields around here that have me scratching my head. My current thought is gear up. The mud should absorb a lot of energy and I'm also wondering about the cartwheeling.

But I spend a lot of time flying over Kansas. I figure I'll just land, taxi up to the farmer, exchange insurance information and ask if he happens to know a local A&P ...

(Purdy C170 by the way !!)
 
brian];1740700 said:
It's the watery rice fields around here that have me scratching my head. My current thought is gear up. The mud should absorb a lot of energy and I'm also wondering about the cartwheeling.

But I spend a lot of time flying over Kansas. I figure I'll just land, taxi up to the farmer, exchange insurance information and ask if he happens to know a local A&P ...

(Purdy C170 by the way !!)
Click to expand...

I would have the gear down going into a rice patty, go in on a full stall with the mains first and nose high, the main gear dragging through the rice will slow you down very nicely and then the gear will shear off setting you sliding in the mud at low speed and low impact.

Most paddies aren't that big, I wouldn't want to skim along into the levee with speed.
 
Last edited:
I would prefer a Diamond DA- 40 over any other similar airplane !

Cheers
 
So many places the 180 cessna can go that the bonanza cannot in the bush. . The 180 is much more versatile.
 
mondtster said:
The gear speed was lower on the older planes. I believe that Brian is correct on the 100mph figure.
Click to expand...

brian];1740277 said:
POH says 100MPH for both flaps and gear. I have a beech A&P that says with all the mods to mine I could probably hang the gear out at 120MPH. Since I'm paying the bills, 100MPH it is.
Click to expand...

A35 TCDS:

Model A35, Bonanza, 4 PCLM (Utility Category), approved July 15, 1948
Engine Continental E-185-1 (see Item 111 for optional engine)
Fuel 80 min. grade aviation gasoline
Engine Limits Takeoff (one minute) 2300 rpm (185 hp)
For all other operations 2050 rpm (165 hp)
Airspeed Limits
Maneuvering 130 mph (113 knots) True Ind.
Maximum structural cruising 160 mph (139 knots) True Ind.
Never exceed 202 mph (176 knots) True Ind.
Flaps extended 105 mph ( 91 knots) True Ind.
Landing gear extended 125 mph (109 knots) True Ind.

Lower speed = less stress. Always a winner.
 
Having flown as a pax a bit in a C-180, and a whole bunch in the old Bo, there's not much that the C-180 can get into that the Bo can't. I've landed and taken off in a couple of cow pastures in the Bo. Of course the C-180 is made for that stuff, but if the location is hairy enough that it requires a C-180, or a Maule, I prolly don't want to get in there that bad anyway. The cow pasture in that pic above would be no prob if I had ~1200' or so.
 
The price of that bonanza in 1948-49 was round nine grand.( as I mentioned before, there are not many bonanzas flying bush in Alaska) . In Australia as Henning mentions, I'd bet they prepared dirt strips of some kind. Big difference from unprepared backcountry . Try Ohio bush planes videos. You don't see any bonanzas for good reason. Going into "hairy" places is why the 180 or 185 was and is so popular!
 
Last edited:
In 1947-8 Cessna was offering the 140, 170, 190/5. The 190/5 was the 'businessliner' comparable to Bonanza. Yeah - you could land it a little rougher than the Bo of the day, but planes are meant to be in the air. The Bonanza outperformed the 195 in every category by far. No comparison. If you want bush, buy bush. If you want speed with a little bush tossed in buy a Bo.
 
UngaWunga said:
Now THAT is what a proper airplane should look like. :yesnod:
Click to expand...


I concur. It does 100% everything I ask it to do. Except go really fast.

However, retracts don't add enough overall time to a trip for me, so the fixed gear for landing on a ranch or a road is perfect.

Airplanes are really all about your mission. Forget about cars and how you look at them, airplanes are much more specific.
 
Henning said:
I'll work a Bonanza off a good Texas pasture any day. In Australia they are the primary bush plane.
Click to expand...


I would too knowing what I know about Bo's. They're o.k. for prairie rough because I've seen it. I'd want 8X6's or the biggest tire that will retract.

The skywagon on 26" Tundra's is an awesome machine. The pastures out in West Texas with the blue gramma grass and spangeltop that is kind of clumpy, you don't even feel it. When I was down on 8X6's, it could vibrate your fillings out.

And congrats on 50,000 posts. Wow. So why are they going down? Weird..



Landing at Reklaw! ~2008 :)
 
Last edited:
Coolness factor goes to the retract for sure. I think they even look better on the ground as they don't have wheel pants etc. and there is a business like look to retracts. More headaches with retracts and some additional expense. Certainly building a retractable gear is a lot more involved. My Glastar was much simpler than my Glasair III building especialy with the gear! In the end, I think almost all airplanes are great, but I like retracts a little better, at least until I have a gear up.....
 
txflyer said:
I would too knowing what I know about Bo's. They're o.k. for prairie rough because I've seen it. I'd want 8X6's or the biggest tire that will retract.
Click to expand...

Beginning in 1950 the gear wells had a truss arm relocated a bit, and it will take the Baron Cleveland wheels and tires. They are 8x6" wheels and 6.50x8 4 ply tires. They juuuuuuust barely retract into the bay. The nose gear stays the same, but you can pump up the strut so there is only an inch up in the trunnion. It's no taildragger, but the big tires make it fairly smooth on the gritty stuff.

Then - I flip a switch and they whiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrr up where they belong!

:)
 
docmirror said:
Beginning in 1950 the gear wells had a truss arm relocated a bit, and it will take the Baron Cleveland wheels and tires. They are 8x6" wheels and 6.50x8 4 ply tires. They juuuuuuust barely retract into the bay. The nose gear stays the same, but you can pump up the strut so there is only an inch up in the trunnion. It's no taildragger, but the big tires make it fairly smooth on the gritty stuff.

Then - I flip a switch and they whiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrr up where they belong!

:)
Click to expand...



Noted.

8X6 are kind of the minimum I want to put a heavy single down on in softer turf or bumpy grass. 6X6's in pants are not as good. You can do it, but you're going to see grass stains and weedwacker marks on your pants.

Another one I wouldn't hesitate to prairie land is an aero Commander. They have massive trailing link gear. I don't know how stout their nosewheel is however ... :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top