Retracts vs Fixed gear

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not but I was wondering. If you had the same exact plane but you had a choice between fixed gear and retractable gear which one would you choose and why? I understand there is a bit of speed difference.
 
Do you have the money to pay for the exta cost at annual and insurance? If so, take the trade.

Are you more concerned with operating costs, go fixed gear. Airframe to airframe, the speed diff is not going to be dramatic.
 
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!
 
Which fixed gear and which retract?

There are some RG planes I would never, ever own(Cardinal RG). Mine is a sweet system, and provides a lot of drag reduction, so I'm happy with it.
 
I know my limitations. I wouldn't make it 10 hours without a gear up landing. Fixed gear for life for me.
 
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.
 
What's the flight profile and gear system?

Putting around the patch in a 140 is different than short/medium-haul in a M20C is different than transcons in a TBM.
 
Meh, it's not that bad when it comes to upkeep.
 
compare a 180hp archer to a 180hp arrow. Maybe 10-15 kts difference. All the new plastic planes with small wheels and carefully designed fairings show that fixed gear can scoot right along. Personally though, I hate wheel pants, they are a huge PIA.
 
I've typically figured the drag reduction was enough for me to fly at exactly the same speed with n/x reduction in fuel burn saving me sufficient to do a retract test every annual, and modest mx on the gear system. Or - I could go that much faster, and reduce the hours on the engine/airframe at similar fuel consumption of the FG plane.
 
JHW said:
compare a 180hp archer to a 180hp arrow. Maybe 10-15 kts difference. All the new plastic planes with small wheels and carefully designed fairings show that fixed gear can scoot right along. Personally though, I hate wheel pants, they are a huge PIA.
Click to expand...

But as they say, the faster you want to go, eventually the gear has to come up.

But I must admit that the da40 flies a lot like my_35 with the gear up...
 
brian];1738790 said:
But as they say, the faster you want to go, eventually the gear has to come up.

But I must admit that the da40 flies a lot like my_35 with the gear up...
Click to expand...

Don't tell Cirrus pilots that!:rofl:
 
Jimmy cooper said:
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!
Click to expand...
Those open wheel wells are pretty draggy. You might compare an old M20C with an M20D Master; or a '68 Cherokee 180 with a 180-hp Arrow; or an early '80s Piper Saratoga with an otherwise-similar Saratoga SP.

My '78 172N (180 hp) gives up less than ten knots in cruise to a similarly-powered 172RG.
 
I've convinced myself that having retractable gear is a safety benefit, plus it's neat to put the gear up and down.
 
The RV10 is fixed gear only and that's just fine.

After building it and now maintaining it the advantages are obvious despite the lack of any comparison. I can do 155 (economy) to 165 with gear fixed in place... and I NEVER have to worry about a gear up anything.

There are those that have and those that will and those that can't. I like can't and the speeds are just what I signed up for.
 
A Cirrus has fixed gear and is still able to achieve incredible performance numbers that can compete with retracts in similar categories, so I would say it would depend on the plane for me.
 
True, but I can't afford those. :) I could get a nice Mooney M20J with money left over to run it for years for the price of the Cirrus. Maybe that will change when enough Cirrus and Diamond planes get to the used market, but that will take many years.
 
Chicks dig retracts.

QED.
 
olasek said:
Safety benefit?? :hairraise:
Click to expand...

I vote for retracts. I fly a Seneca.

Safety benefits someone else has mentioned include the option of landing either gear up or gear down in an emergency. Eg. If you're over water, gear up so the nose gear doesn't flip you over. Same with a rough field. Etc.

To me, it's a bit of stick vs auto transmission in a car. Most old school car guys (incl myself) would prefer a stick because it gives you more control and more options. And you're way more connected to the car. Someone who has never driven a stick would say what's the big deal.
 
FloridaPilot said:
If you had the same exact plane but you had a choice between fixed gear and retractable gear which one would you choose and why?
Click to expand...

Which planes came in both fixed and retract versions?
Off the top of my head:
Archer vs. 180hp Arrow
172Q vs. 172RG
M20C vs. M20D
T182 vs. TR182 (R182 vs. 182R doesn't count because it's 235hp vs. 230hp)
A24 vs. A24R

I figure the 177 vs. 177RG isn't fair because of the 20hp difference. Even then the M20D, 172Q and Archer aren't really fair comparisons since they have fixed pitch props vs. constant speeds in the retracts and are therefore not "the same exact plane" so that really narrows it down to the last 2 on the list.
 
For those comparing retracts with gear down v gear up, remember one thing... Very little, if any aerodynamic engineering thought was put into flying a retrac with the gear down. Otoh, with a fixed gear airplane, all engineering was done with wheels down.
It's just not fair to say "look at my Mooney with wheels down vs up".
 
It would depend on the aircraft for me. Some of the "let's make the gear retractable" don't contribute anything and detract from the aircraft. The 172RG certainly falls into this category. The Cherokee vs. Arrow is a better case.

The 182 is probably still arguably better in the straight leg case (the Cardinal as well) when you stick to equivalent HP.

I have a friend with a Cessna 195 who came blasting down on one of his Navion buddies (not me) and told him "must be nice having retractible gear" as he shot by.
 
There is some more maintenance over a fixed gear. But on a properly maintained retract, insurance is going to be the most noticeable cost increase.
 
Good luck finding an M20D with fixed gear. Sure, they were all built like that and had a quick, easy, inexpensive way to convert to retract. Last I heard there were three (3) M20D's left with fixed gear.

Ron also made a good point about it depends on the plane. A 172 is so draggy that raising the gear accomplishes little; also, what else is different? Not much, there was no thought or design work into any improvements, as someone else said, it was designed to be gear down.

Most retracts will either go the same speed on less fuel, or go faster on the same fuel. Like when cars were available in 2-door and 4-door versions, suspension and gearing were often different because people want a sportier ride in 2-door models. Same for airplanes designed to be retracted versus a "designed to be fixed gear" plane later converted to be retractable for Commercial training.

Buy the plane that fits your mission.
 
Interesting comparison is a fixed gear Tiger to a retractable Arrow.

Advantages to the Arrow:

200 hp vs. 180 hp.
Constant speed prop vs. fixed pitch.
And, of course, retractable gear vs. fixed gear.

And yet, they both cruise at very comparable speeds.

In my Tiger I could plan for about 132k TAS, and I think that was typical, though some owners claimed slightly higher speeds.

Non-turbo Arrows seem to be in that ballpark or just a tad higher, albeit at a higher fuel burn.

Just shows what Roy Lopresti could accomplish with careful attention to drag reduction.
 
For me, it depends on the particular airplane.

I much prefer the 177RG over the 177
I would take a Warrior or Archer before I'd own an Arrow
Same for a 172 vs 172RG. I never really like the 172RG.
 
FastEddieB said:
Interesting comparison is a fixed gear Tiger to a retractable Arrow.

Advantages to the Arrow:

200 hp vs. 180 hp.
Constant speed prop vs. fixed pitch.
And, of course, retractable gear vs. fixed gear.

And yet, they both cruise at very comparable speeds.

In my Tiger I could plan for about 132k TAS, and I think that was typical, though some owners claimed slightly higher speeds.

Non-turbo Arrows seem to be in that ballpark or just a tad higher, albeit at a higher fuel burn.

Just shows what Roy Lopresti could accomplish with careful attention to drag reduction.
Click to expand...


I beat my friends 200 HP Arrow back from Morehead City, NC to the Philly area, and I left right AFTER he did. He did not like that a simple, non retract Tiger could do that. The next month he bought a really nice V35B with Colemill Starfire conversion. :D
 
Anthony said:
I beat my friends 200 HP Arrow back from Morehead City, NC to the Philly area, and I left right AFTER he did. He did not like that a simple, non retract Tiger could do that. The next month he bought a really nice V35B with Colemill Starfire conversion. :D
Click to expand...

Cool!

Was my 132 kts about what you saw?

If the Class III medical thing ever passes, a nice Tiger, maybe in partnership with an A&P friend, would be very tempting.
 
FastEddieB said:
Cool!

Was my 132 kts about what you saw?

If the Class III medical thing ever passes, a nice Tiger, maybe in partnership with an A&P friend, would be very tempting.
Click to expand...

Close. At 75% I could see 135KTAS, but usually flew at 65% to save gas, and would flightplan 130.
 
Another interesting comparison:

I regularly flew from S FL to N GA in my Tiger. About 5 hours @ 132 k. At 10 gph and with 50 gals, almost always required a fuel stop.

Moved up to a Cirrus SR22. Same trip was about 3 1/2 hours at about 170k. LOP at about 13.5 gph, actually burned less fuel to save an hour and a half flight time plus eliminating a fuel stop.

Again, kudos to Cirrus for that kind of efficiency, especially since the Tiger itself is no slouch in that department.

Really off topic now, but before I let my medical lapse and settled on Light Sport, I considered a Maule taildragger of some description. The amount of fuel required for any given trip length was depressingly high. Though admittedly, efficient crosscountries are not what a Maule is built for.
 
Last edited:
rbridges said:
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.
Click to expand...

I once had to fly the 201 gear down over a good distance, at power settings that produce 150kts gear up resulted in 118-120kts with the wheels down.
 
It depends on what is more important to you.

Gear up gives higher speed at lower fuel burn. Plus it makes it easier to land on water in an emergency. That may or may not overcome the extra maintenance cost.

I chose a retractable for the additional speed. That and I couldn't find any fixed gear Bonanzas.
 
I love hopping off the runway saying, "positive rate, gear up!" :D

I hate paying $1,000.00 for a pressure switch that looks like it oughta come out of Radio Shack and cost $10.00. :(

I do love my Lance though...she's everything I've ever wanted...until I can afford the new avionics ;)
 
Obviously, I'm biased, but I will also say it depends on the plane. I have some time in a 172RG "Gutless", and I'll take a normal 172 over it hands down. Would I be willing trade some expense and complexity to have a slightly higher performance RG Cirrus or DA40? Probably.
 
FastEddieB said:
Cool!

Was my 132 kts about what you saw?

If the Class III medical thing ever passes, a nice Tiger, maybe in partnership with an A&P friend, would be very tempting.
Click to expand...

I just did a speed test on the Arrow III the other day. GPS GS averaged 134.75 between straight and level flights N, S, E & W. That was at 24/24.
 
I get awfully tempted by a Mooney sometimes. Similar in price to a decent Cherokee 180. So if the Cherokee would cost ~$900 a year, what would a Mooney cost? I have about 275TT and 1 hour of retract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top