Why are retractable singles out of style?

I found the retractable gear quite nice today on the 310. Pull them up to save money. Then put them down when you need drag.

I tried saying deploy speed brakes a few times..but that didn't help...so I was forced to use the antiquated gear. Call me old fashioned.
 
jesse said:
I found the retractable gear quite nice today on the 310. Pull them up to save money. Then put them down when you need drag.

I tried saying deploy speed brakes a few times..but that didn't help...so I was forced to use the antiquated gear. Call me old fashioned.
Click to expand...

It's too bad you're wasting so much time and money on learning how to fly something that's obsolete. :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ok, I could buy a new Mooney Acclaim instead of an SR22. That's fine for me. :)
Click to expand...

And that's just fine. It's certainly a faster plane than either the SR22 or the G36 and if what little I can find online is correct it is cheaper than the G36.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ok, I could buy a new Mooney Acclaim instead of an SR22. That's fine for me. :)
Click to expand...
Guys, if someone is into retractables he/she should support Mooney, they are on the verge of extinction, get yourself an Acclaim or Ovation, they are a very unique line of aircraft, support the company provided you can afford it! ;)
 
Since everyone is arguing about fixed vs retract, I have a new solution... No gear. Sure it will take a bit of power to taxi but i believe thats the best option.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Since everyone is arguing about fixed vs retract, I have a new solution... No gear. Sure it will take a bit of power to taxi but i believe thats the best option.
Click to expand...

It certainly saves initial cost and the plane won't have any ugly gear hanging down in flight. Maintenance might be a bit of a problem.
 
olasek said:
Guys, if someone is into retractables he/she should support Mooney, they are on the verge of extinction, get yourself an Acclaim or Ovation, they are a very unique line of aircraft, support the company provided you can afford it! ;)
Click to expand...

Can you even buy a new Mooney right now? Last I heard, they were down to a skeleton crew with no production.
 
bfergie10 said:
Can you even buy a new Mooney right now? Last I heard, they were down to a skeleton crew with no production.
Click to expand...
I read an article today to that effect. They haven't produced a new airplane in a couple years if I remember correctly.
 
What I always think when I look at the Lancairs and Cirri offered today is this: They are able to post speeds faster than most similar retracts. The why not MAKE RETRACT versions of them? Wouldn't that be eeeeeeeeeeeven better?
 
spiderweb said:
What I always think when I look at the Lancairs and Cirri offered today is this: They are able to post speeds faster than most similar retracts. The why not MAKE RETRACT versions of them? Wouldn't that be eeeeeeeeeeeven better?
Click to expand...

Most of these fast fixed gear aircraft have real high lift wings that are not tolerant to ice and use up a lot of runway. They also have real weak gear that is not tolerant of dirt or grass strips.

I'd rather have a Bo with stout gear, can take on some ice without falling out of the sky, and is happy on grass.

You won't see the above mentioned negatives in their advertising. Every design decision has positives and has negatives. They can't change physiscs. Sacrifices must be made.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
Most of these fast fixed gear aircraft have real high lift wings that are not tolerant to ice and use up a lot of runway. They also have real weak gear that is not tolerant of dirt or grass strips.
Click to expand...

Actually the wings are high aspect ratio wings requiring more speed for equivalent lift. That means a higher stall speed and the need for more runway. It also means a faster and more efficient cruise. Also, they are high wing loading designs. A positive of this is a better ride in turbulence. My Cirrus is better in turbulance than my friend's Bonanza. Also, crosswind handling is superb. Ice is indeed a downside due to a sharp leading edge and laminar flow design. There is an excellent FIKI system available on the Cirrus but you are talking more $$$ and weight. All of this has nothing to do with fixed vs. retract but is more about the mission target of the design.

I'd rather have a Bo with stout gear, can take on some ice without falling out of the sky, and is happy on grass.
Click to expand...

Actually the gear is relatively stout. The issues are small tires, tight and low wheel pants and a lack of shocks. These are design tradeoffs based on mission so I have no issue with someone preferring a different mix. The damping on the nose strut is why you see fewer PIO issues on a Bonanza (personal opinion). Additionally, since the Bo's gear lacks streamlining, it is a nice speed brake when you get slam dunked.

You won't see the above mentioned negatives in their advertising. Every design decision has positives and has negatives. They can't change physiscs. Sacrifices must be made.
Click to expand...

You are correct. It's similar to Beech not wanting to post pricing, Mooney not wanting to talk ease of ingress and egress or Cessna not wanting to talk speed and fuel efficiency vs. an SR20. Then again, the Mooney is fast and efficient and the 182 is a much better small field plane than the others.

Most pilots love talking ultimate planes. However, when it comes time to write the check it is about mission and value. Fixed gear planes have become popular because, for most pilots, they represent the better value once price is factored in.
 
DavidWhite said:
And when the de icing system fails watch what happens.
Click to expand...

Actually FIKI certification requires dual pumps. Other requirements are heated stall vane, ice light, and protection against ice bridging on control surfaces.
 
DavidWhite said:
And when the de icing system fails watch what happens.
Click to expand...

What happens? Well, 1) you fly the airplane, and 2) you take advantage of your planned "out" from the icing conditions. FIKI on a plane like a Cirrus isn't a good enough excuse to fly into prolonged or inescapable icing conditions. At least not in the mind of someone like me -- who has no actual icing experience to speak of. Personally, though, I think the greatest risk of flying a plane like a Cirrus in hard IFR is that it's a piston single. Lose an engine, you go down. Lose an alternator, you start losing power. Lose a vacuum pump, you're no gyro.
 
spiderweb said:
What I always think when I look at the Lancairs and Cirri offered today is this: They are able to post speeds faster than most similar retracts. The why not MAKE RETRACT versions of them? Wouldn't that be eeeeeeeeeeeven better?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by better. How much more would you pay for 5 kts? That's one estimate I have heard. Even if it is 10 kts would you pay $100K up front along with higher insurance and maintenance?

As planes get faster the speed difference gets bigger. I would love to know how much difference it would make on a turbo Cirrus both in speed and cost.
 
matthammer said:
What happens? Well, 1) you fly the airplane, and 2) you take advantage of your planned "out" from the icing conditions. FIKI on a plane like a Cirrus isn't a good enough excuse to fly into prolonged or inescapable icing conditions. At least not in the mind of someone like me -- who has no actual icing experience to speak of. Personally, though, I think the greatest risk of flying a plane like a Cirrus in hard IFR is that it's a piston single. Lose an engine, you go down. Lose an alternator, you start losing power. Lose a vacuum pump, you're no gyro.
Click to expand...

Rip.... Sound of can of worms opening. First the odds and ends. My Cirrus has dual batteries and dual alternators so a single failure won't bring you down. Heck, I have two ADAHRS, dual GPS's, dual radios (4 receivers, 2 transmitters), dual magnetometers, dual temp probes, and a set of backup instruments. I have no, repeat no vacuum pump. I do have a BRS system which makes me feel much better over water, mountains, or when it is hard IFR such as zero-zero minimums below me. I also find having the BRS system comforting at night. In this area I understand why people like twins.
 
peppy said:
Rip.... Sound of can of worms opening. First the odds and ends. My Cirrus has dual batteries and dual alternators so a single failure won't bring you down. Heck, I have two ADAHRS, dual GPS's, dual radios (4 receivers, 2 transmitters), dual magnetometers, dual temp probes, and a set of backup instruments. I have no, repeat no vacuum pump. I do have a BRS system which makes me feel much better over water, mountains, or when it is hard IFR such as zero-zero minimums below me. I also find having the BRS system comforting at night. In this area I understand why people like twins.
Click to expand...

I do love a good can of worms. :D

The point of my original post was more to point out the irony of single engine pilots picking on the cirrus because it "might" lose its de-icing system. Of course that's a possibility; but engine failures are and always will be a greater cause of fatal IFR accidents than failed de-icing systems. I probably should have qualified my original post for folks like you with heavily equipped singles. Yes, you can have redundancy in a single. But, in my mind, a twin is still ideal (from a risk mitigation perspective). :)
 
Matt - on the subject of FIKI for a bit, when it comes to a Cirrus, I think FIKI and turbo should be paired. I have neither. I have the much less effective non hazard system for ice and a normally aspirated engine. I agree that the Cirrus wing doesn't like ice. Also, while my plane climbs well, I feel the turbo is needed if you are gong to get into icing in a FIKI plane. That's another similarity to twins. A FIKI plane needs great high altitude climb performance.
 
peppy said:
Also, while my plane climbs well, I feel the turbo is needed if you are gong to get into icing in a FIKI plane.
Click to expand...

I feel like a turbo is less important than raw engine power, the ice that accumulates on the airframe in other places will slow you down and bring you closer to stall speed. In the event FIKI does fail, its raw engine power and horsepower that will push you through with iced up wings and keep you flying.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I feel like a turbo is less important than raw engine power, the ice that accumulates on the airframe in other places will slow you down and bring you closer to stall speed. In the event FIKI does fail, its raw engine power and horsepower that will push you through with iced up wings and keep you flying.
Click to expand...

We are essentially in agreement although perhaps for different reasons. Even with FIKI working, on a single like the Cirrus, I think FIKI is more for climbing through layers and not for sitting in ice. Power falls off with altitude. The turbo Cirrus has great climb performance up to the flight levels. Also being able to go to 25K' rather than 18K' gives better options for getting through icing layers. By 17k' my plane is down to a climb rate of 300' to 400'/min. That's why I made the comment about twins. They often have better climb performance. A Baron out climbs a Bonanza.
 
My Apache has the speed of a fixed-gear single with all the costs and maintenance requirements of a retractable. It's the best of both worlds. =D
 
1) extra maintenance cost
2) because the gear pump likes to run on the ground when the nose limit switch is out of alignment
3) because when you lose all electrical power you can't see the gear indicator lights
 
Cost/Difficulty in certification. Insurance doesn't care really as is borne out in the rates of similar value Bonanza products as Cirrus or Cessnumbia for the 100 hr/type pilot. It's a cop out to me.
 
John Baker said:
Low insurance. I never remember to put my gear down in my Warrior.

-John
Click to expand...

It's funny you mention that because all the high performance fighter jets I flew as a kid playing games on the computer had retractable landing gear and HUDs with the standard scrolling tapes for speed & altitude on the sides, attitude indicator in the middle, and heading on top with the on-course caret.

Putting the gear up/down just seems natural to me. :rofl:
 
Without looking it up, it's around $700.00 a year, with $50,000.00 hull coverage. I pay monthly and it's $75.94 pm. ( I just made a payment )

I just tried to find my policy and it must still be down at my old shop. I use Travers.

-John
 
John Baker said:
Without looking it up, it's around $700.00 a year, with $50,000.00 hull coverage. I pay monthly and it's $75.94 pm. ( I just made a payment )

I just tried to find my policy and it must still be down at my old shop. I use Travers.

-John
Click to expand...

I paid $1700 on $85k with an extra seat, engine, speed, capacity and retract gear. The premiums on all the above just aren't really that much in the eyes of insurance.
 
So your about a thousand dollars more a year for insurance, then you also have to feed and maintain that extra engine, along with increased maintenance costs for the retract.

If money was not such an important part of the equation for me, I'd rather have your airplane.

-John
 
John Baker said:
So your about a thousand dollars more a year for insurance, then you also have to feed and maintain that extra engine, along with increased maintenance costs for the retract.

If money was not such an important part of the equation for me, I'd rather have your airplane.

-John
Click to expand...

$700 of that $1000 is just in avionics value. Most of the rest of the other $300 is exposure for the 5th seat. My point is that retract is not a punitive premium in the insurance's mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top