Retracts vs Fixed gear

[mondtster]

A35 TCDS:

Model A35, Bonanza, 4 PCLM (Utility Category), approved July 15, 1948
Engine Continental E-185-1 (see Item 111 for optional engine)
Fuel 80 min. grade aviation gasoline
Engine Limits Takeoff (one minute) 2300 rpm (185 hp)
For all other operations 2050 rpm (165 hp)
Airspeed Limits
Maneuvering 130 mph (113 knots) True Ind.
Maximum structural cruising 160 mph (139 knots) True Ind.
Never exceed 202 mph (176 knots) True Ind.
Flaps extended 105 mph ( 91 knots) True Ind.
Landing gear extended 125 mph (109 knots) True Ind.

Lower speed = less stress. Always a winner.

Except that Brian doesn't have an A35. I'm pretty sure his is a straight 35, which has the 100mph limitation on it.

My understanding is that the newer parts can be retrofitted to the straight 35 to increase the extension speed but I've never bothered to look into it because it doesn't affect my plane.

 

[Henning]

Noted.

8X6 are kind of the minimum I want to put a heavy single down on in softer turf or bumpy grass. 6X6's in pants are not as good. You can do it, but you're going to see grass stains and weedwacker marks on your pants.

Another one I wouldn't hesitate to prairie land is an aero Commander. They have massive trailing link gear. I don't know how stout their nosewheel is however ...

The whole plane is a brick ****house.

 

[docmirror]

Except that Brian doesn't have an A35. I'm pretty sure his is a straight 35, which has the 100mph limitation on it.

My understanding is that the newer parts can be retrofitted to the straight 35 to increase the extension speed but I've never bothered to look into it because it doesn't affect my plane.

Oh...

 

[brian]]

You guys with your new 1950's models..... Mine was one of the first 1500 35's made with first flight in Feb 1948.

The grass strip where I hangar the Bo has an excellent runway, but the taxiway is getting a little rough with all the folks driving cars on it. I've had the -35 on a couple of grass strips where the runway wasn't much better than my taxiway is now..

Now, nothing personal about that good looking Cessna - but it is time for a pic of a retrac!

 

[txflyer]

You guys with your new 1950's models..... Mine was one of the first 1500 35's made with first flight in Feb 1948.

The grass strip where I hangar the Bo has an excellent runway, but the taxiway is getting a little rough with all the folks driving cars on it. I've had the -35 on a couple of grass strips where the runway wasn't much better than my taxiway is now..

Now, nothing personal about that good looking Cessna - but it is time for a pic of a retrac!

That's a good lookin Bo.

I bet it's a booger to push it back up in there ...

I've got a winch bolted to the floor in my hangar that comes in handy sometimes. I don't always need it, but sometimes I do if I'm dog tired and the plane is full fuel.

 

[docmirror]

You guys with your new 1950's models.....

Hehe, good one. :wink2:

Couple things for you to check when you mess around inside. Look under your seat and see if you have the metal bird cage center section or if it's formed Al. Pull the inspection panel just forward of the inboard aileron and look at the type of control cable you have. See if it's spiral wound looks like stranded electrical wire, or if it's a tight wire-wound which looks like a smooth piano wire. If piano looking, consider replacing them. Have a close look at the batt box floor for corrosion. I've seen the old ones rot through. You don't really need vented gill doors, but it doesn't hurt anything, maybe cost you some speed. If you still have a gen, spend the money and get the Plane Power alt. Lighter, and fixes the nasty oil leaks in the back.

wish I had authority to post pics!

 

[brian]]

Hehe, good one. :wink2:

Couple things for you to check when you mess around inside. Look under your seat and see if you have the metal bird cage center section or if it's formed Al. Pull the inspection panel just forward of the inboard aileron and look at the type of control cable you have. See if it's spiral wound looks like stranded electrical wire, or if it's a tight wire-wound which looks like a smooth piano wire. If piano looking, consider replacing them. Have a close look at the batt box floor for corrosion. I've seen the old ones rot through. You don't really need vented gill doors, but it doesn't hurt anything, maybe cost you some speed. If you still have a gen, spend the money and get the Plane Power alt. Lighter, and fixes the nasty oil leaks in the back.

wish I had authority to post pics!

I went with the winch solution as well - definitely a 2 person job without it

I'll take a look at the items you posted later this year when I redo the floorboards. I just got a "new prop" (long story) so I'm really wanting to just fly it for a few months first.

Really hoping to make it to the Beech service clinic in Illinois later this year as well - I guess I like spending money ...

(Previous owners did the alternator conversion, cleavland breaks, spin on oil filter, etc. The battery box has some corrosion, but looks good enough for the moment. Just had the controls re-rigged but didn't think to ask what cables were strung - MUCH sweeter ride now - decidedly better than the DA40 I used to fly)...

 

[txflyer]

The whole plane is a brick ****house.

I've always liked everything about the commanders, the room, the gear, the looks, .. they lack a little speed, but hey, you can't have it all right?

You have to keep in context, you're flying an airplane pretty dog gone fast compared to Homer down there in his pickup...

The older vee-tail Bo's have a rep for being faster than later models right?

 

[Henning]

You guys with your new 1950's models..... Mine was one of the first 1500 35's made with first flight in Feb 1948.

The grass strip where I hangar the Bo has an excellent runway, but the taxiway is getting a little rough with all the folks driving cars on it. I've had the -35 on a couple of grass strips where the runway wasn't much better than my taxiway is now..

Now, nothing personal about that good looking Cessna - but it is time for a pic of a retrac!

It's such a good looking plane with the speed slope windshield.

 

[docmirror]

The older vee-tail Bo's have a rep for being faster than later models right?

Nope, the fastest V tail is of course the V35B-TC turbo up high. Next in line is the S35 short body, closely followed by the V35 stretch version. The J35 has a book of 174Kts but they don't make that, it was a numbers game that Beech did when they pushed the HP up to 250. The real oldies of G35 and before are Vne at 175Kts. The fastest of the oldies is the lightweight or thin skin Bo from model 35-B35 with the E225 engine and 88" elec prop. With that config, you can pump out ~165 or a bit more, but they seem to vibrate at that speed.

 

[Henning]

I've always liked everything about the commanders, the room, the gear, the looks, .. they lack a little speed, but hey, you can't have it all right?

You have to keep in context, you're flying an airplane pretty dog gone fast compared to Homer down there in his pickup...

The older vee-tail Bo's have a rep for being faster than later models right?

The left door, do not forget just how nice having the left door is.

If I wanted a SE travelling machine, a 114TC with the tail incidence mod would be at the top of my list.

The older Bonanzas have a slightly smaller fuselage, and the really old ones came with a smaller tail as well, so there are three levels of drag across the model. The oldest of them are limited to 260hp, however this is just about perfect for the airframe at the lower gross weights of the old ones. With 260hp, the oldest are indeed the fastest because they are the lightest with least drag. They didn't come with 260hp though. The wing pretty much optimizes at 165kts, and 260 hp will get you that, and more TAS at higher altitude. Where the 285hp and 300 and up conversions come in is with hauling the increased gross weights off the ground and climbing with it. 300hp will buy you around 175 kts and use a lot more fuel to get that extra 10, so in cruise you're doing the same speed anyway.

 

[txflyer]

Nope, the fastest V tail is of course the V35B-TC turbo up high. Next in line is the S35 short body, closely followed by the V35 stretch version. The J35 has a book of 174Kts but they don't make that, it was a numbers game that Beech did when they pushed the HP up to 250. The real oldies of G35 and before are Vne at 175Kts. The fastest of the oldies is the lightweight or thin skin Bo from model 35-B35 with the E225 engine and 88" elec prop. With that config, you can pump out ~165 or a bit more, but they seem to vibrate at that speed.

Noted but I meant the V tails in general will smoke the later model straight tail Bo's with the same power ... won't they?

 

[txflyer]

The left door, do not forget just how nice having the left door is.

If I wanted a SE travelling machine, a 114TC with the tail incidence mod would be at the top of my list.

The older Bonanzas have a slightly smaller fuselage, and the really old ones came with a smaller tail as well, so there are three levels of drag across the model. The oldest of them are limited to 260hp, however this is just about perfect for the airframe at the lower gross weights of the old ones. With 260hp, the oldest are indeed the fastest because they are the lightest with least drag. They didn't come with 260hp though. The wing pretty much optimizes at 165kts, and 260 hp will get you that, and more TAS at higher altitude. Where the 285hp and 300 and up conversions come in is with hauling the increased gross weights off the ground and climbing with it. 300hp will buy you around 175 kts and use a lot more fuel to get that extra 10, so in cruise you're doing the same speed anyway.

I don't know, for all out comfort, speed, durability, and mission, it's just damn hard to beat a Bo.

The commanders .. I don't know if you could tweak some more speed out of one or not ...

My friends A36 he re-furbished, after we flew it I told him if it had air conditioning, it would be like a Cadillac in the sky. It flew fast and solid as a fighter. Among the single retracts, a swank trimmed out Bo with A/C would be the cat's meow for all out traveling IMHO.

 

[docmirror]

Noted but I meant the V tails in general will smoke the later model straight tail Bo's with the same power ... won't they?

Generally yes. The V tail S35 is faster than the 36 and A36 on the same 285HP. These are different type certificates, so some people don't really consider them the same, but they do carry the same name, and many similar features.

 

[docmirror]

My friends A36 he re-furbished, after we flew it I told him if it had air conditioning, it would be like a Cadillac in the sky. It flew fast and solid as a fighter. Among the single retracts, a swank trimmed out Bo with A/C would be the cat's meow for all out traveling IMHO.

Well, it's not really AC but my plane has an evaporative cooler up in the rear of the cabin. It's a canister with a bunch of flat plate wicks. Before takeoff, you pour a gallon of cold water in the air intake, and the incoming air blows across the saturated wicks and cools the cabin. Not so good in the south east where it's humid, but in the west up high it'll chill you real well. No drag and very little weight penalty as well.

 

[Henning]

I don't know, for all out comfort, speed, durability, and mission, it's just damn hard to beat a Bo.

The commanders .. I don't know if you could tweak some more speed out of one or not ...

My friends A36 he re-furbished, after we flew it I told him if it had air conditioning, it would be like a Cadillac in the sky. It flew fast and solid as a fighter. Among the single retracts, a swank trimmed out Bo with A/C would be the cat's meow for all out traveling IMHO.

Yes, there is a tail incidence tweek that reports 10kts on the 114. Have you sat in a Commander? It's like climbing into an Eldorado instead of the A-36 Fleetwood stretch. The Commander has the widest cabin IIRC.

 

[brian]]

Well, it's not really AC but my plane has an evaporative cooler up in the rear of the cabin. It's a canister with a bunch of flat plate wicks. Before takeoff, you pour a gallon of cold water in the air intake, and the incoming air blows across the saturated wicks and cools the cabin. Not so good in the south east where it's humid, but in the west up high it'll chill you real well. No drag and very little weight penalty as well.

Yea, about that old airconditioner...

The wicks and supporting structure in mine have long since disappeared. This being the (mid) south, it gets warm and muggy here. So one miserable day, I decided to give my ice theory a try. I packed as much ice in that old box as I could fired up and away I went. All was good until I dropped the nose after climb out ...

Never before had I seen it rain INSIDE an airplane.

Not trying that one again...

 

[Geico266]

Get a ride in ....say a mooney. Have the pilot take off and leave the gear down. Go for a little spin, then raise the gear. Big difference! Like a different airplane!

25-30 knot difference b/t gear up and down in my plane. I'm sure it would be less if it was designed to be fixed gear, but I guess it would still be 15-20 knots or so. Within reason, I'd go for retrac so long as it's worth the speed increase.

The examples you guys give are silly. The planes are designed as retracts with no consideration given for aerodynamics. Fixed gear planes are designed go be fixed gear.

 

[Clark1961]

The examples you guys give are silly. The planes are designed as retracts with no consideration given for aerodynamics. Fixed gear planes are designed go be fixed gear.

Compare the turbo Arrow and the turbo Dakota...the t-Arrow is about 15 knots faster.

 

[Henning]

Compare the turbo Arrow and the turbo Dakota...the t-Arrow is about 15 knots faster.

Pretty much all the 'like for like' comparisons (including the Mooney M-20D) come in between 15-20kts difference between the faired straight leg and retract designs.

Cessna should have made the Corvalis a retract with all the redesign stuff they ended up doing.

 

[docmirror]

Yea, about that old airconditioner...

The wicks and supporting structure in mine have long since disappeared. This being the (mid) south, it gets warm and muggy here. So one miserable day, I decided to give my ice theory a try. I packed as much ice in that old box as I could fired up and away I went. All was good until I dropped the nose after climb out ...

Never before had I seen it rain INSIDE an airplane.

Not trying that one again...

We're laughing with you not at you! :wink2: The wicks are replaceable if you want to try it, but really - in humid weather it's better to get the ice and some mild rain than more humidity. Works great in NM, AZ, CO and west TX.

 

[Henning]

We're laughing with you not at you! :wink2: The wicks are replaceable if you want to try it, but really - in humid weather it's better to get the ice and some mild rain than more humidity. Works great in NM, AZ, CO and west TX.

I think anymore, if you have some free cabin space, these are pretty much the best solution.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79784

The evap cooler in my Travelair was nice in the desert though, but you still were dying until you got some speed up, and it took a while to get cooled down.

 

[rbridges]

The examples you guys give are silly. The planes are designed as retracts with no consideration given for aerodynamics. Fixed gear planes are designed go be fixed gear.

I know, that's why the second sentence addressed that. I don't know the #'s, but I'm sure an RG glasair, for example, has a noticeable speed advantage over its non-retrac versions.

 

[Datadriver]

Every landing an adventure?????

I'm referring to my 400hrs in an Arrow. Yep, because you don't know if the gear is truly ready until you plop it down regardless of the 3 green.

 

[JHW]

Retracts are cool, but they can't take a Texas cow pasture...

Good point, we land in a sheep pasture, not cows. Except we call it a paddock down here rather a pasture. So it's completely different, that's why the retract gear works for us.

Fixed gear! Retract gear doesn't always lower itself. More flimsy. Longer annuals. Higer insurance. Every landing is an adventure. Sometimes the gear doesn't come up and you almost fly into mountains as a result of not being able to climb.

It's a shame I didn't see your warning earlier, before I decided to risk life and limb with children on the plane. Here's a picture my wife snapped at the farm this morning as I was bringing our kids home from school camp. 2nd picture is the "big town" airport where I dropped off a couple of their classmates. My kids always complain about "boring old dad" but here it turns out we've been having an "adventure" and never even knew it!

 

[FloridaPilot]

I'm referring to my 400hrs in an Arrow. Yep, because you don't know if the gear is truly ready until you plop it down regardless of the 3 green.

That is a good point!

I guess there are advantages and disadvantages of both.

The advantages of a fixed gear:

* I don't have to worry if the gear is down or not and that provides some safety also some fixed gear airplanes look great too.

Disadvantages:

* it provides drag no matter what, severity is depending on what type of airplane used.

Advantages of a retractable gear:

* (Generally speaking) When the gear is retracted the plane travels faster because the drag of the gear doesn't exist. It's also possible in some situations to land in an emergency with the gear up, (Ex: water landing).

Disadvantages:

*Maintenance issues can possibly happen when you are trying to gear down and costs of maintaining.

 

[flyingron]

Retracts are cool, but they can't take a Texas cow pasture...

I'll put this retract most places you can put that 180...

 

[brian]]

Way, with that navion, you would fit in well around here...

 

[Gsxrpilot]

To my eye, airplanes should be retract or tailwheel. All others are ugly.

I'm always surprised at how many pilots are afraid of a Mooney. I fly an M20C. The gear is mechanical and dead simple. I never worry about forgetting it. It won't slow down to pattern speed, much less approach speed without the gear down. It's simple, cheap, and fast for it's 180hp. And actually very easy to fly.

Love my Mooney!

 

[Hank S]

I'm with you, bro! Electric gear and all. The mechanics are the same, they just sawed off the J bar and attached a motor to it.

 

[N3368K]

I prefer retracts AND taildragger.

Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4

 

[JHW]

beautiful plane but my polishing muscles are sore just looking at it

 

[red4golf]

I'll put this retract most places you can put that 180...

I think I just fell in love...... damn you!

 

[Dav8or]

I never worry about forgetting it. It won't slow down to pattern speed, much less approach speed without the gear down.

This is a seriously OWT. You absolutely can slow a Mooney down to pattern speed and landing speed with the gear up and many have landed gear up as proof. In fact, if you go to buy a small bore Mooney and consider all vintages, I bet at least 40% of the ones you look at were landed gear up at least once in their life time. Don't fool yourself and pass on the the OWT, landing gear up in a Mooney is done all the time.

 

[Dav8or]

To those that say- "With new modern, digital designed fixed gear and modern materials, there is no reason for retrac anymore...", I say, what if a company were to apply the same 21st Century design and materials to retractable designs? To my knowledge, no planes available to buy have ever done this yet. Even kit planes offer the same ol' stuff from 1960. IMO, retractable designs could be made much, much lighter than is currently available and therefore reduce the induced drag and lower gross weight associated with retractable gear.

Bottom line is, if one is designing an airplane to be the fastest, or most efficient it needs retractable gear. If the goal is to land on sand bars in Idaho, or be the cheapest and easiest to build, then probably fixed gear is the way to go.

 

[Gsxrpilot]

This is a seriously OWT. You absolutely can slow a Mooney down to pattern speed and landing speed with the gear up and many have landed gear up as proof. In fact, if you go to buy a small bore Mooney and consider all vintages, I bet at least 40% of the ones you look at were landed gear up at least once in their life time. Don't fool yourself and pass on the the OWT, landing gear up in a Mooney is done all the time.

This is a personal observation. And I stand by it. I know Mooneys are landed gear up all the time, just not by me. And one of the reasons is that, for ME, they are difficult to slow down to landing speed without the gear down.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

This is a personal observation. And I stand by it. I know Mooneys are landed gear up all the time, just not by me. And one of the reasons is that, for ME, they are difficult to slow down to landing speed without the gear down.

I thought Mooneys didn't add the gear warning horn till 1967 when they went to electric? I wonder how many have occurred with those with electric gear?

 

[Hank S]

I thought Mooneys didn't add the gear warning horn till 1967 when they went to electric? I wonder how many have occurred with those with electric gear?

Way too many . . . all it takes is distraction. Happened to the previous owner of my plane, cut off on the ground, went around, ATC changed his runway then requested him to keep his speed up.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Way too many . . . all it takes is distraction. Happened to the previous owner of my plane, cut off on the ground, went around, ATC changed his runway then requested him to keep his speed up.

But what about the horn, did they just ignore it or was it broken?

 

[FastEddieB]

This is a personal observation. And I stand by it. I know Mooneys are landed gear up all the time, just not by me.

Yet.

"Pride goeth before a fall" and all that!