Fixed Gear Vs. Retracts

flyingron said:
I had a neighbor with a Johnson Bar mooney. Took me a lot of effort to get the hang of locking it down.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but there really isn't anything simpler. Al Mooney knew what he was about. The Johnson bar Mooneys are the only retractable aircraft I know without an emergency extension system of any kind.

Fun story, on my aircraft the step is retractable with a horrible crank on the pilot side. During my prepurchase inspection I thought I would see if it worked, and the mechanic frantically told me to stop. Apparently on other modes with electric gear that same crank is the emergency gear release.
 
tawood said:
I also didn't mention that I currently have 500 hours tt, with 0 in complex...
Click to expand...

That would be why it's quadruple the cost, but that would go down with experience...
 
Radar Contact said:
I have zero ties to AOPA other than being a simple member. My insurance went down a little this year and I increased my hull value a bit. I didn't do any insurance accepted training or sims either. If you haven't checked, you should hit them up for a quote. If you have or aren't a member and don't want to be, disregard. I just mention this because I think we bought about the same time and your broker told you every company they deal with went up...just not my case. I did shop the market before renewing with AOPA and they were again better than the rest.
Click to expand...

Just a heads up that you don't have to be an AOPA member to get insurance through them...
 
idahoflier said:
That would be why it's quadruple the cost, but that would go down with experience...
Click to expand...
So this has me thinking...if I rented a complex aircraft for awhile, THEN bought...but, how much time do I need to reduce the cost? Maybe it would be "cheaper" to just buy, pay the $2000 for the first year, get 100 hours under my belt, then the following year get the reduction.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Slightly higher cost, perhaps, but not quadruple. There is some other element at play here besides just retract time.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the other elements are the fact that I told my Insurance Broker that I would expect to pay about $70k, or double the cost of my current Cherokee, and the aircraft being complex.
 
Last edited:
tawood said:
So this has me thinking...if I rented a complex aircraft for awhile, THEN bought...but, how much time do I need to reduce the cost? Maybe it would be "cheaper" to just buy, pay the $2000 for the first year, get 100 hours under my belt, then the following year get the reduction.
Click to expand...
I think it would be cheaper to pay the increased premium and fly ALOT that first year. I would think that until you get at least 50 hours (maybe even 100) retract time that you won't see any noticeable decrease in your premium.
 
SkyDog58 said:
So it’s just a bun. Why not just call it a bun if that’s all it is? An empty bun might as well be called a “nothing BBQ” or a “nothing chicken sandwich” or a “nothing tenderloin sandwich”.

And who says a burger has to be on a bun? If you give sac a couple pieces of lettuce and nothing else, would that constitute a nothing burger to him?

When I first heard the term I sort of thought it meant a plain burger versus let’s say a bacon cheeseburger. I took nothing as to mean there is nothing on it.
Click to expand...

Really? This is worth that much effort to debate?
 
donjohnston said:
I think it would be cheaper to pay the increased premium and fly ALOT that first year. I would think that until you get at least 50 hours (maybe even 100) retract time that you won't see any noticeable decrease in your premium.
Click to expand...

I agree, the "value" proposition is definitely paying the higher insurance cost to gain experience in your aircraft. As far as how much it decreases, IDK? If you're serious, shop around and get a broker/agent on the phone. IR and Commercial rating can help a little too.
 
Challenged said:
Both of the approaches into my home airport have me flying over water so I do like having my retract in case I have to put it down off-field.
Click to expand...
Hmm actually never thought about an advantage in that specific scenario . good one.
 
tawood said:
So this has me thinking...if I rented a complex aircraft for awhile, THEN bought...but, how much time do I need to reduce the cost? Maybe it would be "cheaper" to just buy, pay the $2000 for the first year, get 100 hours under my belt, then the following year get the reduction.
Click to expand...

This is what I ended up doing by default and not design. For several years I rented first a Cessna Cutlass and later a Piper Arrow IV. When I actually bought my Mooney, I had hundreds of hours of complex and the insurance company gave me a good rate ($1100 a year) and no requirements. Made it super easy, but I did not plan it this way, it just happened because I prefer to fly retractable for the greater speed at a lower fuel burn.
 
donjohnston said:
Really? This is worth that much effort to debate?
Click to expand...

My sincerest apologies for not using the proper font or smiley to make it clear that I was just joking or being sarcastic. I trust you were not too upset by my not taking into account your living in the oblivious zone. I will try to do better.
 
SkyDog58 said:
My sincerest apologies for not using the proper font or smiley to make it clear that I was just joking or being sarcastic. I trust you were not too upset by my not taking into account your living in the oblivious zone.
Click to expand...
So your "sincere" apology is followed by an insult?

I feel sorry for your kids.
 
Just a data point. When I went from a Cherokee to a Comanche with 0 RG time my insurance quadrupled the first year.

After a year (and ~130 hours) it was cut in half to be twice the Cherokee. But the hull value was triple, so that seemed like a good deal.

The hull value matters a lot, forever. Experience matters for about a year (or so) too, but not so much after that.
 
Last edited:
After replacing the belly on a Mooney (TWICE) and watching an Arrow and a Baron belly in outside my hangar, I have a definite preference for fixed tricycle gear.

Even if I can fix it myself, they are more fun to fly.
 
ironnerd said:
After replacing the belly on a Mooney (TWICE) and watching an Arrow and a Baron belly in outside my hangar, I have a definite preference for fixed tricycle gear.

Even if I can fix it myself, they are more fun to fly.
Click to expand...

OK, you got me. Why is a fixed trike more fun to fly than a retractable trike?
 
tawood said:
So this has me thinking...if I rented a complex aircraft for awhile, THEN bought...but, how much time do I need to reduce the cost? Maybe it would be "cheaper" to just buy, pay the $2000 for the first year, get 100 hours under my belt, then the following year get the reduction.
Click to expand...

I bought my Mooney about the ssme time my nifty plastic card came in the mail from OKC. First year premium was bad . . . Flew 100 hours the first year, it fell 50%. Flew 85 the second year, no change. Got 125 the third year while getting Instruments, it fell by another 35% and stayed there.

Then I moved, changed brokers and it fell another 20%. The moral of the story is to shop around.
 
SkyDog58 said:
So it’s just a bun. Why not just call it a bun if that’s all it is? An empty bun might as well be called a “nothing BBQ” or a “nothing chicken sandwich” or a “nothing tenderloin sandwich”.

And who says a burger has to be on a bun? If you give sac a couple pieces of lettuce and nothing else, would that constitute a nothing burger to him?

When I first heard the term I sort of thought it meant a plain burger versus let’s say a bacon cheeseburger. I took nothing as to mean there is nothing on it.
Click to expand...
If ya give Sac two pieces of lettuce he calls it a salad. Sheesh. Does your mother still tie your shoes?
 
Dav8or said:
OK, you got me. Why is a fixed trike more fun to fly than a retractable trike?
Click to expand...

One less thing to worry about if your mission is primarily tooling around the local area.

If you do more TOs and landings than 50+ mile trips, retracts can be a liability I would think; “Let’s go out, bang around the pattern a few times, fly over there for barbecue and a fly by, then home. Do I cycle the gear for T&Gs?”

Personally I travel, so my 160 knot LOP cruise speed is important. I get it with well faired fixed gear which means in my non-complex plane I only need a pre-take off checklist. No GUMP, no 3 green checks, no gear down speed checks, less to do when slam dunked, simple cleanup on go-arounds.

What’s not to like if one is not building retract hours for insurance or a career?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
So Bill, you don't check your (G)as, (M)ixture, (P)ower, and (S)afety items when preparing to land?

Even without (U)ndercarriage it sounds like GUMPS to me.

(S) seems to be variable. Some say Switches, some Seatbelts, I say Safety (Seatbelts, doors, nothing unsecured)
 
Ravioli said:
So Bill, you don't check your (G)as, (M)ixture, (P)ower, and (S)afety items when preparing to land?

Even without (U)ndercarriage it sounds like GUMPS to me.

(S) seems to be variable. Some say Switches, some Seatbelts, I say Safety (Seatbelts, doors, nothing unsecured)
Click to expand...
Like most mnemonics, the acronym often becomes far more important than what it represents. That's why you have extensions like BCCGUMPFS (and worse!) and why so many think GUMPS is the one and only way to check things.

No, I don't "check" my power in terms of a mnemonic or other written or mental checklist when making throttle changes in a fixed prop airplane when preparing to land any more than I use a checklist to take my foot off the gas pedal and place it on the brake when coming to a red light in my car.
 
Last edited:
I did GUMPS in my Cherokee. Heck, I did GUMPS in my little Cessna 150. There's always stuff to check.
 
Ravioli said:
So Bill, you don't check your (G)as, (M)ixture, (P)ower, and (S)afety items when preparing to land?

Even without (U)ndercarriage it sounds like GUMPS to me.

(S) seems to be variable. Some say Switches, some Seatbelts, I say Safety (Seatbelts, doors, nothing unsecured)
Click to expand...
No. I fly one aircraft that I built, exclusively. For landings, I just fly. Everything that needs done falls to my hand naturally but there's not much to do except fly the plane and manage the engine. I do have some power settings committed to memory for instrument approaches (23" LOP under 4-5k, 19" LOP for intercepts/Ts, 2500rpms and rich for final segment, then it's throttle only). I have forgotten to put the seat belts back on. Putting them on for TO is a checklist item.

Without the vowel, GMPS is unpronounceable ;);)

I do have a checklist for instrument approaches which I struggle with a bit because I tend to do most of the items far in advance. The checklist becomes an audit point rather than an action plan.
 
Last edited:
easik said:
Generally speaking retracts would cost more to operate and maintain, but they are faster because of the 'drag' factor. No tricycles holding down the airplane. And retracts do look sexier IMO. Curious anyone who's owned both, what were the difference in cost with maintenance and insurance?

Please share specifics. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Not an owner, but a member of a club that has a 182 and had an Arrow...

The 182 was faster than the Arrow. Not by a lot, but it was a few kts faster. Yes, it burned more gas doing it, but it was faster. So, that argument for a retract (if you aren't going to limit the discussion to particular models) is not real.

The club sold the Arrow a while back. Probably because not enough members were flying it. I gave up a few years ago because I got tired of its impact on my knees. 3 hours and it was all I could do to crawl out of it. Not sure why, but it had that effect on my body. The 182, on the other hand, is very comfortable. The hourly cost paid to fly the two was minimal. It's been 5 years since I last flew the Arrow and it was $105/hr wet back then. My 182 time was either significantly earlier or significantly later, so a direct comparison isn't possible. $128/hr for the 182 middle of last year, I've only flown the club's 172s since.

1969 PA-25R-200
1976 C182P
 
midlifeflyer said:
No, I don't "check" my power in terms of a mnemonic or other written or mental checklist when making throttle changes in a fixed prop airplane when preparing to land any more than I use a checklist to take my foot off the gas pedal and place it on the brake when coming to a red light in my car.
Click to expand...

What..?? You don't follow a checklist for panic stops in your car..?? I would never ride with you....:lol::lol:

1. place hands at the 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions on the steering wheel.
2. See threat.
3. lift foot off gas pedal.
4. check for objects below brake pedal.
5. place foot on brake pedal.
6. use foot to apply pressure to brake pedal.
7. stop
 
Ghery said:
The 182 was faster than the Arrow. Not by a lot, but it was a few kts faster. Yes, it burned more gas doing it, but it was faster. So, that argument for a retract (if you aren't going to limit the discussion to particular models) is not real.
Click to expand...

Yes, the idea that retractable gear planes are "faster" is not the proper way of looking at it. They are more efficient than the same airplane would be with fixed gear. The pilot can opt to either use that efficiency to fly faster than the comparable plane, or fly with a lower fuel burn. It is of course nonsense to think that any retractable gear plane is faster than any fixed gear plane. With enough brute force, you can definitely make an airplane with terrible aerodynamics go fast, just as you can build a retractable gear plane with good aerodynamics, but if it's underpowered, it's not going to be very fast.
 
My buddies bonanza gets more MPG at 160 knots than my Archer gets at 125 knots. Gets way more when ran at the same speed. Sure costs are greater but fuel costs to go from A to B aren’t that much different
 
My Mooney gets better mileage than most cars. And the dang thing was built in 1962.
 
My Sierra is slow with the gear down, but when I pull that gear up...aww, still slow :(
 
Dav8or said:
OK, you got me. Why is a fixed trike more fun to fly than a retractable trike?
Click to expand...
To fly? No difference really, but eventually I gotta land, and as cool as conventional gear is, I would rather have a nose-dragger in a cross-wind.
 
ironnerd said:
To fly? No difference really, but eventually I gotta land, and as cool as conventional gear is, I would rather have a nose-dragger in a cross-wind.
Click to expand...

Ummm... Ok. Still confused. I thought we were talking about retractable gear?
 
@Dav8or,
I misread your post - as you appear to have misread mine.

I am stating that I would rather Fly a plane than Fix a plane (though I find both quite enjoyable and rewarding), and that I have seen enough planes with retractable gear land on their bellies (and noses, and wingtips) that I would rather not bother flying a plane with retracts if I can help it. Basically it comes down to this; every hour a plane spends being repaired is an hour it cannot be flown (thus reducing the amount of fun which may be derived form the aircraft), and retract-equipped planes run a higher risk of landing with the gear up and spending a long period of time being repaired than do those equipped with fixed landing gear.

For those who want retracts, nothing else will do. I just ain't one of them.
 
ironnerd said:
@Dav8or,
I misread your post - as you appear to have misread mine.

I am stating that I would rather Fly a plane than Fix a plane (though I find both quite enjoyable and rewarding), and that I have seen enough planes with retractable gear land on their bellies (and noses, and wingtips) that I would rather not bother flying a plane with retracts if I can help it. Basically it comes down to this; every hour a plane spends being repaired is an hour it cannot be flown (thus reducing the amount of fun which may be derived form the aircraft), and retract-equipped planes run a higher risk of landing with the gear up and spending a long period of time being repaired than do those equipped with fixed landing gear.

For those who want retracts, nothing else will do. I just ain't one of them.
Click to expand...

Ok got it. You are saying fixed gear is more fun because in theory you spend more time flying the airplane than repairing it. I suppose there is some merit to eliminating one potential risk, but remember, there are lots of ways to ding and airplane on landing and fixed gear pilots do it all the time. Prop strike, ground loop, collapsed nose gear, depart runway, etc.

I know there is the old saying- "There are two types of retractable pilots, those who have done a gear up and those who will do a gear up.", but I think if you dig deeper, you will find plenty of pilots who have flown for decades without a gear up and plenty more who retire from a decades long flying career in retractable planes that never did a gear up landing. I personally have gone about 16 years so far in a Cessna Cutlass, then a Piper Arrow IV and now a Mooney. No gear up landings. It doesn't have to be a sure thing.

You're right though, I love retractable gear planes and it is tough to consider anything with fixed gear to own. I am considering a Vans RV down the road, but oh how I wish they made a Vans RV-9RG, or an RV-7RG. :(
 
Dav8or said:
Ok got it. You are saying fixed gear is more fun because in theory you spend more time flying the airplane than repairing it. I suppose there is some merit to eliminating one potential risk, but remember, there are lots of ways to ding and airplane on landing and fixed gear pilots do it all the time. Prop strike, ground loop, collapsed nose gear, depart runway, etc.

I know there is the old saying- "There are two types of retractable pilots, those who have done a gear up and those who will do a gear up.", but I think if you dig deeper, you will find plenty of pilots who have flown for decades without a gear up and plenty more who retire from a decades long flying career in retractable planes that never did a gear up landing. I personally have gone about 16 years so far in a Cessna Cutlass, then a Piper Arrow IV and now a Mooney. No gear up landings. It doesn't have to be a sure thing.

You're right though, I love retractable gear planes and it is tough to consider anything with fixed gear to own. I am considering a Vans RV down the road, but oh how I wish they made a Vans RV-9RG, or an RV-7RG. :(
Click to expand...

Amen, brother! I'm at 11 Mooney years and counting.

Remember, RVs are "experimental," you can do anything that you want to do to it. Retract, floats, skis, tie your kayak to the fuse, make it a twin jet, etc. Experiment!
 
Hank S said:
Amen, brother! I'm at 11 Mooney years and counting.

Remember, RVs are "experimental," you can do anything that you want to do to it. Retract, floats, skis, tie your kayak to the fuse, make it a twin jet, etc. Experiment!
Click to expand...

And yet even though 5 to 10 thousand RVs are flying, you would be hard pressed to find more than a handful ‘converted’ to retracts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
I saw 3 at Oshkosh last year. One was for sale.

[Not sure if that supports or refutes Bills claim]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top