How expensive/effective is nosewheel-retractable landing gear?

[DMD3.]

When it comes to aircraft in which only the nose gear retracts such as the Long EZ, and I believe some Lancair or Glasair models, how less expensive would they be to maintain versus a fully retractable gear aircraft? I like to believe it would be a third of the expense. And would insurance be any better, as nose-gear up landing would probably do significant damage, especially if the engine weren’t shut down first.

Also, how would the performance compare to a fully fixed or fully retractable gear? As I said, I could swear there were some Lancair/Glasairs (can’t remember if both or one) that were available with nose-retractable gear.

I also realize that landing gear maintenance could depend on the brand. For example, Mooney landing gears tend to be less expensive to maintain than other certified brands.

 

[dans2992]

It’s the lancair mako.

Other than that, I have no idea, kind of wondered the same. Given the engine damage potential, seems like it could end up being the “worst of both worlds” in a way..

 

[Rgbeard]

if it only used 1/3 of a hydraulic pump, you might be on to something.

 

[Rgbeard]

....For example, Mooney landing gears tend to be less expensive to maintain than other certified brands.

Citation, please?

 

[DavidWhite]

Citation, please?

I could buy that the johnson bar mooneys are indeed cheaper than most rg birds. As far as the later electrical gear planes I can’t imagine any meaningful difference.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Citation, please?

Nah, you don’t want one of those. They’re a crap airplane.

 

[DMD3.]

It’s the lancair mako.

Other than that, I have no idea, kind of wondered the same. Given the engine damage potential, seems like it could end up being the “worst of both worlds” in a way..

Yes, thank you! Now knowing make/model, a quick search led me to this article: https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/lancair-mako-make-airventure-debut/

“Lancair thinks that tucking the nose gear will add better than five knots to cruise while retaining, according to Lancair, the lower insurance rates for fixed-gear planes”.

This article is from 5 years ago just before the aircraft was available, and it also fails to mention the expected maintenance costs, but I would settle for the fixed-gear for only 5 kts.

 

[Tusayan]

I might be the only owner responding with an individual certified plane that has been operated in both fixed nose gear and retractable nose gear (only) configurations. It’s an MBB Monsun, introduced about 1970 with retractible nose gear as a factory option, like the Lancair but much earlier. Photos of planes in both configurations are here:

https://www.deutsches-museum.de/en/.../air-sports-and-civil-aviation/boelkow-monsun

The retractable nose gear adds about 5 knots to the 120 kt cruise speed but also adds an electric motor, switches, relays etc and about 15 lbs weight. So my plane was delivered as a fixed nose gear plane, converted by an enthusiastic owner and operated as a retractable version for some years, then for practicality converted back to fixed gear with a different prop that maintained the same cruise speed.

I think the main benefit is for training, it’s ‘complex’ with the minimum of complexity. Also in relation to the Monsun not many planes are designed to be both ‘complex’ and aerobatic, so one plane could check a lot of boxes for a flight school. Two other advantages of retracting the nose gear only are that (1) you can tie down the tail and swing the gear for inspections with very little hassle, and (2) it makes trailering the plane on its main gear possible, like a taildragger. The latter was a design feature of the Monsun and even the fixed nose gear can be swung up out of the way if you remove the wheel fairing and fixed link.

 

[Brad W]

I just had a thought... a gear up landing would play out kinda bad...Seems a fairly safe bet you're in for a potential cartwheel....

 

[bbchien]

Just needs a tailwheel.....

 

[Brad W]

Just needs a tailwheel.....

ha ha...yeah, and a way to shift the CG aft

 

[donjohnston]

I just had a thought... a gear up landing would play out kinda bad...Seems a fairly safe bet you're in for a potential cartwheel....

Not really. Lots of planes have landed without nose gear extended. I haven't heard of one cartwheeling. At least on a paved runway. Turf might be different.

 

[Tusayan]

No cartwheeling has been observed over the last 50 years of MBB Monsun gear up landings. For example on grass (in 2019)…

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/237222

 

[kyleb]

It’s the lancair mako.

Other than that, I have no idea, kind of wondered the same. Given the engine damage potential, seems like it could end up being the “worst of both worlds” in a way..

Except on a Canard, where it is cheap speed without much risk.

 

[Zeldman]

I just had a thought... a gear up landing would play out kinda bad...Seems a fairly safe bet you're in for a potential cartwheel....

I see that a problem when landing nose gear up on very, very soft sand or open water. Pavement will support the weight and the plane will slide.

I watched a Navajo land on a gravel runway without a nose gear. It just slid to a stop.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Except on a Canard, where it is cheap speed without much risk.

The canards usually retracted the nosegear to get the CG forward enough that the airplane wouldn't tip back onto its tail and prop when the occupants got out.

 

[unsafervguy]

speed wise, retractable gear doesn't alwas get you that much. a guy in germany built two RV-4's identical, expcept one he designed retractable gear for it. it was only a couple of knots faster than the fixed gear model. a well designed fixed gear with properly designed fairings is really not that much drag. the problem is, most designers don't spend that much time and effort on the gear and fairings.it more important for them to have a wheel pant that will not get damaged with a flat tire than to make it as clean as possible. talk to any of the forumula 1 guys at reno and they can tell you a lot about how to clean up fixed gear. the biggest problem is you end up with wheel pants very prone to damage.

 

[kyleb]

The canards usually retracted the nosegear to get the CG forward enough that the airplane wouldn't tip back onto its tail and prop when the occupants got out.

Some do. And it is still cheap speed with little risk. ;-)

 

[kyleb]

speed wise, retractable gear doesn't alwas get you that much. a guy in germany built two RV-4's identical, expcept one he designed retractable gear for it. it was only a couple of knots faster than the fixed gear model. a well designed fixed gear with properly designed fairings is really not that much drag.

The nosegear is the biggest challenge. It is normally in the prop blast, so there's more drag because of that. Also, if you have a hydraulic (telescoping) nose strut, those are more difficult to fair.

 

[Dana]

The LongEz / VariEZ nose gear has to retract because otherwise the aircraft will tip back on its tail when the pilot gets out. It's why you always see them parked with the gear retracted.

No hydraulics though, I'm pretty sure it's a straight mechanical linkage.

 

[Pilawt]

Former Cessna aerodynamicist and test pilot Bill Thompson wrote that in 1981 Cessna evaluated a retractable nosegear/fixed main gear arrangement on the C-182. The test pilot on that project reported:

"(1) SAFETY - When some pilots do their 'gear' check in a Cessna prior to landing, they look out the side window to verify 'main gear down.' Since the main gear was fixed (possibly with wheel fairings) this habit could result in nose-gear-up landings. I requested that experimental rig up the prototype in the hangar to support the nose of the airplane (by the engine hoist ring), retract the nose gear and lower the nose to just shy of contact with the floor. As you can imagine, the 'attitude' was dramatic and showed the seriousness of a 'nose-gear-up' landing.

"(2) COSMETICS - The airplane, in my opinion, was very ugly in flight with the nose-gear retracted and the main-gear fixed. We did some performance testing, and the speed and climb differences between the standard T182 and the retractable nosegear T182 were 6-8 knots and 60 fpm, respectively. However, after the hangar demonstration in item (1) above, the program was canceled."​

 

[3393RP]

I watched a Navajo land on a gravel runway without a nose gear. It just slid to a stop.

This reminds me of your post about the repeated gear up landings in a Navajo fleet even after the operator installed a system that alarmed when the gear wasn't extended when the aircraft slowed to approach speed.

I seem to recall the circuit breaker was left pulled by pilots to keep the annoying noise from disturbing them.

 

[FORANE]

The lancair mako is an experimental. The cost of maintenance delta between a nose retractable and a standard retractable will be small. 2 additional hydraulic cylinders which typically require no maintenance aside from possibly new o rings every decade or so. The need for a means to jack the aircraft at annual to check a gear retract. That's about it.

I believe the majority consensus is these nose retract aircraft are fugly.

 

[Tusayan]

The need for a means to jack the aircraft at annual to check a gear retract.

As mentioned, you can tie down the tail to lift the nose wheel, so no jacking required. I have two Hiltis installed in my hangar floor to allow it with only a tie down strap.

The main issue other than the nose wheel hydraulics or electric motor, screw jack etc is the controls: limit switches, position lights, relays, wiring, breakers and connections. If the design has these parts, they will all break and require service over time. No different from a conventional retractable. Also, hull insurance is likely to be more expensive.

 

[asicer]

We did some performance testing, and the speed and climb differences between the standard T182 and the retractable nosegear T182 were 6-8 knots and 60 fpm, respectively.

Interesting. I wonder at what altitude was the 6-8kt difference. Also, what's the difference between a T182 and a TR182 at that same altitude? I think the climb difference between a T182 and a TR182 is 75fpm, right?

 

[Dan Thomas]

I think the climb difference between a T182 and a TR182 is 75fpm, right?

Something like that. The extra weight hurts the climb nearly as much as the retraction helps it; the retracted gear helps mostly the cruise.

 

[Zeldman]

This reminds me of your post about the repeated gear up landings in a Navajo fleet even after the operator installed a system that alarmed when the gear wasn't extended when the aircraft slowed to approach speed.

The company put in radar altimeters set to go off at 200AGL if the gear wasn't down. They were put in at the request of the FAA. That company had problems, for sure.

And yeah, one guy pulled the breaker and joined the club...