Retractable

E

ESA1178

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
20
Display Name
Display name:
Esa1178
Are single engine retractables going the way of the DODO and VHS BETA ?
Seems as though none of the schools in Northern California have them...


Mark
 
Not all of them, but many of the lower end ones are losing popularity now that people can buy airplanes which go just as fast on the same fuel burn without paying the extra insurance premiums and maintenance costs that retractable gear airplanes carry with them. Of course, there will still be a need for bottom-end retractables like Piper Arrows and Cessna Cutlasses for the required 10 hours of complex time for Commercial Pilot-ASEL, but if the FAA changes that (as they want to), I think that will pretty much sound the death knell for those models.
 
A CPL who never flew a complex plane :no:

What is this, the "no pilot left behind" act?
 
James331 said:
A CPL who never flew a complex plane :no:

What is this, the "no pilot left behind" act?
Click to expand...

The FAA, at the urging of large schools, has decided that the more computers you have installed in the aircraft doing things for you it is in fact a complex aircraft and you don't need to fly RG aircraft any more.

Won't be long and the airlines will have the FAA convinced that the only requirement for the copilot is self dressing in the proper uniform and ability to read the checklist for the captain.
 
ESA1178 said:
Are single engine retractables going the way of the DODO and VHS BETA ?
Seems as though none of the schools in Northern California have them...


Mark
Click to expand...

I believe they have an Arrow IV at Oakland Flyers at KOAK. I used to fly it all the time and it's still on their website.
 
James331 said:
A CPL who never flew a complex plane :no:

What is this, the "no pilot left behind" act?
Click to expand...

Most single engine commercial flying is single engine anyway. There's always Multiengine to train and test pilots on retractable gear operations.
 
Brad Z said:
Most single engine commercial flying is single engine anyway. There's always Multiengine to train and test pilots on retractable gear operations.
Click to expand...

Really? I never would have never guessed that.
 
Brad Z said:
Most single engine commercial flying is single engine anyway. There's always Multiengine to train and test pilots on retractable gear operations.
Click to expand...
So....maybe he just wants to fly a Bonanza?.....:yesnod::popcorn:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • bonanza.JPG
    bonanza.JPG
    2.5 KB · Views: 282
Last edited:
Tough for the retrace to compete ,with the ne'er ,faster,fixed gear airplanes,now available.lower maint cost and cheaper insurance for fixed gear may also be a factor.
 
A SR22 does not compete with a PA-24.

I can get a few PA-24s for the price of one SR-22

It's dumb enough that a PPL never has to spin a aircraft, dumbing down licenses just isn't a great idea IMO.
 
ESA1178 said:
Are single engine retractables going the way of the DODO and VHS BETA ?
Seems as though none of the schools in Northern California have them...


Mark
Click to expand...

For rental and training? Yeah, they are getting scarce. What most places around here do is the the initial Commercial Multi Engine in a Seminole, then add on the SE Com in a Warrior or 172. It was a real pain to find an retract the other day when they sent out the Seminole I had reserved for my 709 ride, in fact, it was the Fed calling around his contacts who came up with it.

As for personal, nah, they'll be around for a while.
 
James331 said:
A CPL who never flew a complex plane :no:

What is this, the "no pilot left behind" act?
Click to expand...
Considering what jobs are out there for single engine Commercial Pilots, what difference does it make?

Hauling jumpers in a 182
Pipeline patrol in a Super Cub
Traffic watch in a 152
135 in a Cirrus
Hauling boxes in a Caravan.

Think about it -- I know the FAA has, which is why they proposed dropping the requirement.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The FAA, at the urging of large schools, has decided that the more computers you have installed in the aircraft doing things for you it is in fact a complex aircraft and you don't need to fly RG aircraft any more.

Won't be long and the airlines will have the FAA convinced that the only requirement for the copilot is self dressing in the proper uniform and ability to read the checklist for the captain.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the airlines who killed the proposed removal of the complex requirement from CP.
 
Ron Levy said:
Considering what jobs are out there for single engine Commercial Pilots, what difference does it make?

Hauling jumpers in a 182
Pipeline patrol in a Super Cub
Traffic watch in a 152
135 in a Cirrus
Hauling boxes in a Caravan.

Think about it -- I know the FAA has, which is why they proposed dropping the requirement.
Click to expand...

It's still something a CPL should demonstrate.

Besides, even though it's fixed gear, if you can't keep up with a arrow, best of luck in the 208.
 
James331 said:
It's still something a CPL should demonstrate.
Click to expand...
Why? We did fine without that requirement for over half a century. Has the gear-up landing rate in single-engine commercial operations changed that much since that requirement was added in 1975?

And it's not about speed, or they could better demonstrate that ability in a 170 knot fixed gear Cirrus than a 130 knot retractable Arrow, but the FAA has never made speed an issue.
 
It's not about speed, it's about managing systems, being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I've seen more arrows for rent than late model cirrus, look at ROI on both airframes.

You want to talk working planes? WAAAAAY more C210s working than cirrus.
 
Retract should be an endorsement, just like those airplanes with the tiny wheel on the back end.

Those Arrows and their high ROI would plummet, however.
 
Wheels on aircraft belong in wells.

/thread
 
Same logic, not many green horn jobs have the pilot flying much over 50nm miles or at night, perhaps we should through out the cross country and night requirments as well.

Very few low hour working pilots will ever do chandels or lazy 8s, or land on a soft field, could ex that stuff too.
:rolleyes2:
 
Wheels on aircraft belong in wells.
:tongue::cornut:
/thread
 
denverpilot said:
Retract should be an endorsement, just like those airplanes with the tiny wheel on the back end.

Those Arrows and their high ROI would plummet, however.
Click to expand...

It is. (when you combine it with CS prop and flaps)
 
James331 said:
It's not about speed, it's about managing systems, being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Click to expand...
Having flown both reasonably extensively, I'd say a Cirrus Perspective is a lot more challenging in that regard than a legacy Piper Arrow.

I've seen more arrows for rent than late model cirrus, look at ROI on both airframes.
Click to expand...
Only reason you see that is that flight schools have to run Arrows for their CP trainees.

You want to talk working planes? WAAAAAY more C210s working than cirrus.
Click to expand...
Really? I kind of doubt that. I can't remember the last time I saw a C-210 doing corporate or charter work, and the last 210 I saw doing training was over 35 years ago.
 
I have a cheap simple solution for the retract requirement. A plastic clamshell inside the wheel pant with a little electric servo to flip it up or down. Forget the switch on the dash and you eat $10 worth of easy to replace molded plastic.
 
Henning said:
I have a cheap simple solution for the retract requirement. A plastic clamshell inside the wheel pant with a little electric servo to flip it up or down. Forget the switch on the dash and you eat $10 worth of easy to replace molded plastic.
Click to expand...
ya.....that ought to be good for at least 10 kts....and 10 AMUs. :rofl:
 
Ron Levy said:
Having flown both reasonably extensively, I'd say a Cirrus Perspective is a lot more challenging in that regard than a legacy Piper Arrow.

Only reason you see that is that flight schools have to run Arrows for their CP trainees.

Really? I kind of doubt that. I can't remember the last time I saw a C-210 doing corporate or charter work, and the last 210 I saw doing training was over 35 years ago.
Click to expand...

Quite a few govt agencies use them, tons of them in africa too.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
ya.....that ought to be good for at least 10 kts....and 10 AMUs. :rofl:
Click to expand...

It should be good for a knot or two I would think, but it would be interesting to see what they actually get. If they could sell for $10k that would be fabulous, but realistically if the FAA didn't give me a bunch of trouble, no real reason to since failure is inconsequential, just use MilSpec electrics, I could sell them at $2000 and be quite happy.
 
docmirror said:
Wheels on aircraft belong in wells.

/thread
Click to expand...

If the aircraft is intended to be efficient in speed, or fuel consumption, then absolutely! :yes: People speak of modern fixed gear airplanes like the Cirrus, Diamond, or Corvallis and declare that retractable is obsolete for GA piston singles. I say, what if somebody applied all the modern materials, like carbon fiber and titanium as well as all the digital computer modeling to a new retract design? I also say, the day I see a fixed gear plane take the gold in the Sport Class at Reno, then I'll agree that retracts are dead... maybe.
 
Henning said:
I have a cheap simple solution for the retract requirement. A plastic clamshell inside the wheel pant with a little electric servo to flip it up or down. Forget the switch on the dash and you eat $10 worth of easy to replace molded plastic.
Click to expand...

How about just a fake switch and green panel lights combined with a grumpy CFI with a rolled up copy of TAP. :D
 
Dav8or said:
How about just a fake switch and green panel lights combined with a grumpy CFI with a rolled up copy of TAP. :D
Click to expand...

You need a cheap, positive record. A 10 minute to change, $10 piece of injection molded plastic can provide that.
 
Henning said:
It should be good for a knot or two I would think, but it would be interesting to see what they actually get. If they could sell for $10k that would be fabulous, but realistically if the FAA didn't give me a bunch of trouble, no real reason to since failure is inconsequential, just use MilSpec electrics, I could sell them at $2000 and be quite happy.
Click to expand...
you do realize the RV guys have this pretty well knocked out with the low pressure recovery wheel farings? .... and it ain't worth the effort.:D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
you do realize the RV guys have this pretty well knocked out with the low pressure recovery wheel farings? .... and it ain't worth the effort.:D
Click to expand...

If you can use the plane for commercial/CFI training and certification it is worth the minimal effort and expense.
 
Henning said:
If you can use the plane for commercial/CFI training and certification it is worth the minimal effort and expense.
Click to expand...
I had a field approval to install them on my Six.....but, other things happened before that happened.

pants1ms1.gif
 
Dav8or said:
If the aircraft is intended to be efficient in speed, or fuel consumption, then absolutely! :yes: People speak of modern fixed gear airplanes like the Cirrus, Diamond, or Corvallis and declare that retractable is obsolete for GA piston singles. I say, what if somebody applied all the modern materials, like carbon fiber and titanium as well as all the digital computer modeling to a new retract design? I also say, the day I see a fixed gear plane take the gold in the Sport Class at Reno, then I'll agree that retracts are dead... maybe.
Click to expand...


Ravin


Your post made me think of this. I still want to build one. Have always been a fan of the comanche. Especially the ones with IO720's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top