I love retractable gear airplanes

Tantalum said:
Do you guys say "positive rate; gear up" or "no more usable runway left; gear up" .. I've always favored the former, and apparently in multi's it's the only correct thing to say.

What say you?
Click to expand...

I say "positive rate, no more runway, gear up." If the runway is long enough for that to be an option. In twins, you need to get the gear up ASAP, because a clean twin can get you out of engine issues much more safely.
 
They all need axillary landing gear like a big fiberglass skid plate so when they land gear up the fuselage isn't scrap.
 
bnt83 said:
They all need axillary landing gear like a big fiberglass skid plate so when they land gear up the fuselage isn't scrap.
Click to expand...

Just mount a bunch of roller blade wheels to the belly. Viola! Aux landing gear!
 
I flew a club Mooney and liked it a lot. I always wondered why the unpainted engine cowl didn't match the rest of the paint job. Eventually learned that before I joined the club, some unsupervised kid climbed in the cockpit. While he was making airplane noises, he found a big brass bar latched into the bottom of the panel. He managed to unlatch it and pull it back. He couldn't retract the mains but the free rolling nose wheel retracted just like a switch blade.
 
jd21476 said:
I was just watching a video on the new Daimondstar DA 50 RG and it made me think of just how much I love RG airplanes. I know from a safety standpoint and maintenance standpoint they just are not as safe or easy on maintenance but there is just something about have the gear tucked.

I had a Grumman AA1 prior to buying my Comanche and while the fixed gear was fine I just love reaching over and hitting the gear switch. Sometimes on a twilight take off when the sun is just right I will get a nice shadow effect and can watch the gear go up.

I still find myself saying, "gear coming up" or "gear coming down" as I reach for the switch even if no one is in the plane with me. I know its dorky...but...I love it.

How about you?
Click to expand...

Agree, but I also concede fixed gear is cheaper, safer, etc. The DA50 looks slick
 
Tantalum said:
Do you guys say "positive rate; gear up" or "no more usable runway left; gear up" .. I've always favored the former, and apparently in multi's it's the only correct thing to say.

What say you?
Click to expand...

When ALL the prerequisite events for gear retraction have been met: "Gear Up."

It's not a public dissertation.
 
I too prefer retracts. Mine only retracts two wheels though, so its a bargain at 33% off!
 
jsstevens said:
Have you mastered or tried the "Mooney dip" Gordon Baxter talked about where you ease off the climb just as your raise the gear? It lets the momentum help with the forces-basically flying down onto the gear. I've never flown a Mooney so I don't know how well it works, but he obviously both flew one a wrote about it...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've used it for go-arounds and I suspect I'll us it when I go missed if I ever do the IR (need a ca$h transfusion that's unlikely to show up). That said I don't like it even one bit. Just don't like pointing the nose down when at low altitude and energy. Personally I think if you're doing that routinely you could use a change your routine. Easy enough to bring the gear up once you've got positive rate. If the engine is in such bad shape it konks out immediately thereafter I needed a new one anyway, though I can probably have the gear back out before I land.
 
Ted said:
Meh. Number of times I’ve had to do that for real in >3,000 hours of retract flying: 0. Aztec, 310, 414, Navajo, MU2, Mooney, some others in there too that I’ve forgotten I’m sure.

Yeah things break. Most often what breaks with landing gear is the pilot forgetting to put it down.

Unless it’s a piston single Cessna retract. Those are the only planes that I’ve known several people have gear issues with.
Click to expand...
B-727 and C-172 are the only ones I’ve had to put it down with alternate methods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Gear down in the air are pretty worthless, but it does simplify things a little. In addition to getting about 3 or so knots more airspeed for each gear sucked into the belly, it gives you a lot of performance options. Dropping the gear can be another source of drag to add to the propellor, speed brakes and flaps, comes in handy when ATC wants max speed to the FAF, and then you are faced with the go down and slow down dilemma. But also a safety feature. Lose an engine and have to put down in water or a muddy field, leave them up and no flippy. Hard field or pavement, put them down. Encounter moderate or severe turbulence above Va, and drop the gear to slow down, and in some aircraft increase yaw and longitudinal stability. And then the performance envelope. Coming into Salt Lake on an Angel flight in a Mirage one day, ATC had me on the downwind of International at 11,000 feet on the arrival. The norm about 15
Miles up the arrival and 15 back in the conga line. Guess they were appreciative I was flying the Angelflight flag, and asked me if I could see the runway. Sure could. Cleared me to land from
11K on downwind at around 200 knots. Explained to the pax, the sounds of speed brakes and gear, and that we were cleared to land and it would be a steep but safe approach. Power back to 18MP, speed brakes out gear down and a nice smooth downwind/base/final slowing the whole way while descending 2000-2500 fpm, and a stabilized 85 indicated vref on final. Saved a little time, and the pax thought it was pretty cool to get priority over the busses. So the fixed gears are sensible, but do leave a lot of performance on the table.
 
Tantalum said:
Do you guys say "positive rate; gear up" or "no more usable runway left; gear up" .. I've always favored the former, and apparently in multi's it's the only correct thing to say.

What say you?
Click to expand...

I do positive rate gear up because if you have a really long runway you tend to drag the gear for quite a while...
 
More to the serious side of this. As a Sport Pilot I presently do not have a dog in this hunt but I've read several articles over the years comparing the differences i.e. the pro & cons of fixed vs retract. Here is one example:

From the article:
Bowen feels general aviation retractables have their place, but he questions whether they’re worth the price in weight, utility, complexity and dollars for some pilots. “Properly designed wheel pants can go a long way toward recovering the performance advantages lost to retractable gear,” says Bowen.
Click to expand...

Tom Bowen is the gentleman referenced in this quote.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/why-retract/
 
Daleandee said:
More to the serious side of this. As a Sport Pilot I presently do not have a dog in this hunt but I've read several articles over the years comparing the differences i.e. the pro & cons of fixed vs retract. Here is one example:

From the article:


Tom Bowen is the gentleman referenced in this quote.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/why-retract/
Click to expand...
If you're only flying 120kts, retracts aren't needed. As parasitic drag rises with the square of velocity, there's a speed where the trade-off of added complexity begins to make sense, otherwise airliners would have wheel pants.~

If simplicity is more important than efficiency, Cirrus, just burn a lot of fuel and you never have to worry about that aspect of maintenance or remembering to confirm three green before landing.
 
bnt83 said:
They all need axillary landing gear like a big fiberglass skid plate so when they land gear up the fuselage isn't scrap.
Click to expand...

The hawker has a keel under the fuselage that is called the "auxiliary landing gear".
 
I love my retract bird.

f388c52153df6acace9ffe0ecaed9059.jpg


But this is a pretty fun plane to fly also, even though it’s quite a bit slower than my plane.

I guess it depends on the mission.

ecfbbf0818250b7935da159d7005fea0.jpg
 
I saw a video the other day about the A-10 Warthog and it showed it was designed so that even with the gear retracted it can still land because the wheels stick down below the body. Amazing!!!
 
jd21476 said:
I saw a video the other day about the A-10 Warthog and it showed it was designed so that even with the gear retracted it can still land because the wheels stick down below the body. Amazing!!!
Click to expand...


It's also so slow it undergoes no drag penalty for having the wheels exposed. I keed I keed (sorta) :D

upload_2020-11-17_21-12-22.png
My personal favorite? ....They chocked it. :rofl:
 
Groundpounder said:
The hawker has a keel under the fuselage that is called the "auxiliary landing gear".
Click to expand...


As do most aircraft where the low mounted wing's skins is the fuel tank wall. Belly landing without it might just be a fireball.
 
bnt83 said:
As do most aircraft where the low mounted wing's skins is the fuel tank wall. Belly landing without it might just be a fireball.
Click to expand...

The Meridian actually has wheels built into the wing covered with composite. If the plane belly lands, the composite wears away and the wheels keep the wings from grabbing. With all that elegant design though, I am not aware of a Meridian landing gear up. Wonder how many Meridian drivers even know what those bumps under the outer wing are?
 
Rockymountain said:
The Meridian actually has wheels built into the wing covered with composite. If the plane belly lands, the composite wears away and the wheels keep the wings from grabbing. With all that elegant design though, I am not aware of a Meridian landing gear up. Wonder how many Meridian drivers even know what those bumps under the outer wing are?
Click to expand...

Is the center section a fuel tank too? Most jets the entire wing including the center "wing box" is all a fuel tank. Some of them have large composite fairings screwed to them and the antennas are mounted to the fairing and localized steel plates glued to the fuel tank skins to prevent antennas rupturing the fuel tank skins if those belly antennas were to be smashed up into the wing.
 
Rockymountain said:
The Meridian actually has wheels built into the wing covered with composite. If the plane belly lands, the composite wears away and the wheels keep the wings from grabbing. With all that elegant design though, I am not aware of a Meridian landing gear up. Wonder how many Meridian drivers even know what those bumps under the outer wing are?
Click to expand...

Learned something new this morning! Very interesting.
Anybody know if Piper does the same with the Malibu piston airframes?
 
GRG55 said:
That's a fantastic photograph!
But I think you misinterpreted my post. It was "why bother"...retracting the gear on a high wing. ;)
Click to expand...
@Dan Thomas , I can vouch for GRG, he's one of the good ones I promise. Even has a Husky to prove it. :)
 
I love RG as long as it’s working properly. My first was an M20 C with Johnson Bar that I would still be flying if I hadn’t injured my shoulder. As we speak my electric gear F is on Jack’s awaiting the reconditioned actuator. I wish my shoulder could still handle aJohnson bar. It’s the ideal RG system.
 
Tantalum said:
Do you guys say "positive rate; gear up" or "no more usable runway left; gear up" .. I've always favored the former, and apparently in multi's it's the only correct thing to say.

What say you?
Click to expand...

For the most part, I’m a positive rate, gear up guy. If I’m on more than 4,000 feet I might delay a little, but my normal procedure is off the ground, flaps up, positive rate gear up, nose over to 105 indicated and climb out like an elevator. I’m anxious to get back in my retract. I’ve had nothing to fly except the 140 for a while.
 
I called around for hypothetical insurance quotes, and was told an Arrow 2 vs a straight legged 182 was $3,000 vs $1,500. But then I figured the fuel burn difference of 10 vs 13 gallons / hour, at 75 hours per year, X $5.00 a gallon, pretending that an annual would be about the same, and some other made up factors would make it a wash. (Yes, you can really monkey with math and make it justify things you really want....)
 
Fying is absolutely cheaper than that $60 Southwest ticket.. by the time you factor in airport parking expensive snacks at the airport all the time waiting around it absolutely makes sense to spend $2,000 vs $60, you know, by the time you factor everything in
 
You also have to factor in the hospital bill from the infection you'll get just touching anything on a Southwest flight. Its the Greyhound bus of the skies.
 
Works for me, but you forgot to mention that there’s no one in that little plan breathing their germs in your face.
 
And the value of your time. And the wear on your car driving to the big airport vs the GA airport.
 
WDD said:
And the value of your time. And the wear on your car driving to the big airport vs the GA airport.
Click to expand...

And ... you can't put a price on the coolness of arriving at the airport in your own personal plane! :D
 
Tantalum said:
Fying is absolutely cheaper than that $60 Southwest ticket.. by the time you factor in airport parking expensive snacks at the airport all the time waiting around it absolutely makes sense to spend $2,000 vs $60, you know, by the time you factor everything in
Click to expand...

If Southwest actually went to the places I want to go for that kind of money I'd use them. Door to door I'm faster if it's East of the Mississippi.

WDD said:
I called around for hypothetical insurance quotes, and was told an Arrow 2 vs a straight legged 182 was $3,000 vs $1,500. But then I figured the fuel burn difference of 10 vs 13 gallons / hour, at 75 hours per year, X $5.00 a gallon, pretending that an annual would be about the same, and some other made up factors would make it a wash. (Yes, you can really monkey with math and make it justify things you really want....)
Click to expand...
You need a new quote. I got insurance cheaper than that in my Mooney which will leave your Arrow in the dust. Whatever rate quote, it'll come down significantly the next year when you've failed to gear up your airplane.
 
I probably don’t have near the hours and time in retract that you do.
 
Why retracts are actually cheaper
- how to convince yourself

When flying, the tires are retracted. Thus, less exposure to the elements, thus will last longer

No chance of costly bird strikes to the landing gear

No wheel skirts that can be damaged.

Safer - you know for sure your have good landing gear with the three green lights. Don’t have that confirmation on a non retract

If these things don’t make sense then have a few beers and just repeat over and over “ I want a retract - I look good in a retract - I want a retract ......”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top