Should I get a retractable gear airplane?

flyingron said:
The open pilot policy on my Navion requires 25 hours of retract time. My U-2 pilot buddy wanted to fly it. I asked if the wheels fall off your airplane if that counts as retract time.
Click to expand...


Get an AirCam. :wink2:

At least it's inexpensive to fly and it's fun.
 
A number of 6-place planes really don't make good 6-place airplanes in reality. I've used the 310 as one, and it's not a good choice. Speed and economy are good, but comfort with 6 is lacking - just ask the people in back. But the trips with 6 are infrequent and pretty short.

A claimed 6-place plane is typically a comfortable 4-place, depending on the individual requirements for comfort.
 
JHW said:
and as you said, if those people DO want to take a small bag with them, put on the cargo pod and make a slow plane even slower
Click to expand...

Let's see, my 337's (NA) would cruise 160-165 kts TAS on 20gph. Useful load was around 1600+ pounds.

As far as the cargo pod goes, it knocks off all of 2 to 3 knots of speed.
 
Interestingly, my FIKI T-210 provided almost exactly the same performance and load on 25% less fuel and 300% less MX. ;)

RotorAndWing said:
Let's see, my 337's (NA) would cruise 160-165 kts TAS on 20gph. Useful load was around 1600+ pounds.

As far as the cargo pod goes, it knocks off all of 2 to 3 knots of speed.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Interestingly, my FIKI T-210 provided almost exactly the same performance and load on 25% less fuel and 300% less MX. ;)
Click to expand...

So you're telling me the 210 actually fixed itself while flying? Maybe this twin thing is overrated. ;)
 
flyingron said:
The open pilot policy on my Navion requires 25 hours of retract time. My U-2 pilot buddy wanted to fly it. I asked if the wheels fall off your airplane if that counts as retract time.
Click to expand...


:rofl: Wow.
 
iflyforfun said:
Says the guy flying a straight leg 182 :^)
Click to expand...

Touché, but that's because I knew this wouldn't be my last plane. When looking for something that I can easily sell and meet my mission the fixed gear 182 rose quickly to the top.
 
N747JB said:
Reasonably powered and reasonably priced are two different categories! :yikes:
He could get Charlene and still have money to fly for a year!:yes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, and when you look at the performance it's still not spectacular. I'd go for Charlene, but she's also prettier. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, that does it. I guess it's time to trade the 310 for a Malibu. ;)
Click to expand...
Don't get confused Ted.....I think Wayne was referring to the 210 fixing itself. I believe the Malibu comes with a self destructing engine vice self sealing tanks :D
 
Fearless Tower said:
Don't get confused Ted.....I think Wayne was referring to the 210 fixing itself. I believe the Malibu comes with a self destructing engine vice self sealing tanks :D
Click to expand...

You mean all singles aren't the same?! :confused:;)
 
Only one engine.
 
BTW, what would a 75% cruise speed be on a 182 with 300HP at say 10,000'?
 
Zhunter said:
BTW, what would a 75% cruise speed be on a 182 with 300HP at say 10,000'?
Click to expand...

Well, you won't get 75% at 10,000 feet without a turbo, it'll be more like 65% - But that should get you in the 145-150 knot range, burning a bit over 13gph if you run it lean of peak.
 
421's have many advantages over others in their class. Nice wide aisles and ease of cockpit entry, excellent visibility, quiet slow-turning props, great loading flexibility, air-stair door, potty, big instrument panel for multiple magentas. The wet-wings offer even better visibility and the only other improvement that makes them reallybetter is the one that has turned poor John's head. Or perhpaps the one that converts them to a 441.

Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, and when you look at the performance it's still not spectacular. I'd go for Charlene, but she's also prettier. ;)
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
421's have many advantages over others in their class. Nice wide aisles and ease of cockpit entry, excellent visibility, quiet slow-turning props, great loading flexibility, air-stair door, potty, big instrument panel for multiple magentas. The wet-wings offer even better visibility and the only other improvement that makes them reallybetter is the one that has turned poor John's head. Or perhpaps the one that converts them to a 441.
Click to expand...

As you know, I have a longing affection for 421s, probably in part because I've never owned one and only flew one for 30 minutes once. Maybe if I spent more time around them I'd change my mind, especially after seeing the fuel and MX bills.

The issue for me is that, as a flying family, the club rear seating leaves the cabin isolated from the cockpit - a negative for us. Probably not a concern for most families.
 
Wiring some or all of the seats into the intercom allows as much (or as little) interaction with PIB's as desired. Both passengers in the aft-facing seats behind the crew can have as much cockpit access as they want by sitting with their knees in the aisle.
Ted DuPuis said:
As you know, I have a longing affection for 421s, probably in part because I've never owned one and only flew one for 30 minutes once. Maybe if I spent more time around them I'd change my mind, especially after seeing the fuel and MX bills.

The issue for me is that, as a flying family, the club rear seating leaves the cabin isolated from the cockpit - a negative for us. Probably not a concern for most families.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Wiring some or all of the seats into the intercom allows as much (or as little) interaction with PIB's as desired. Both passengers in the aft-facing seats behind the crew can have as much cockpit access as they want by sitting with their knees in the aisle.
Click to expand...

I found that seating arrangement uncomfortable in the Cheyenne (looking forward with knees in the aisle), but the benefit is also being able to stretch out and take a nap easier. Did that in the Navajo more than once.

The intercom is a big benefit. The Cheyenne had it, the Navajo didn't. Was much nicer in the Cheyenne.

Either way, I don't see the upgrade happening, especially with a very nice 310.
 
I wouldn't upgrade either. If I had reason to own another twin I would probably get a 310. BTDT with the others (except 414) and not worth the spread to me. Fortunately, I don't have to spend much time thinking about different planes now.


Ted DuPuis said:
I found that seating arrangement uncomfortable in the Cheyenne (looking forward with knees in the aisle), but the benefit is also being able to stretch out and take a nap easier. Did that in the Navajo more than once.

The intercom is a big benefit. The Cheyenne had it, the Navajo didn't. Was much nicer in the Cheyenne.

Either way, I don't see the upgrade happening, especially with a very nice 310.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I wouldn't upgrade either. If I had reason to own another twin I would probably get a 310. BTDT with the others (except 414) and not worth the spread to me. Fortunately, I don't have to spend much time thinking about different planes now.
Click to expand...

The 310 makes a great balance and is an excellent family plane, provided you're content with the space.

Our trip to Newfoundland was a good example. Plenty of room for everyone and everything, good enough speed and economy to make the trip comfortably time wise, get above the typical winter weather, and that extra fan is very comforting over sections of the north Atlantic or forrested northeast.
 
wabower said:
I wouldn't upgrade either. If I had reason to own another twin I would probably get a 310. BTDT with the others (except 414) and not worth the spread to me. Fortunately, I don't have to spend much time thinking about different planes now.
Click to expand...

What attracts you to the 310? I'm curious. While we're at it, which 310 variant do you like best? It seems that they went through a boatload of changes over the years.
 
Morne said:
What attracts you to the 310? I'm curious. While we're at it, which 310 variant do you like best? It seems that they went through a boatload of changes over the years.
Click to expand...

Well, as one of the local 310 drivers, I can give my opinion.

The 310 has a good blend of speed and economy. We're getting about 180 kts @ 26 gph combined LOP on ours with 520s, including some draggy features like boots and VGs. It's fun and sporty to fly. Good interior space and comfort for 4, can hold 6. Wing lockers give you good storage. Looks good on the ramp to most. They're priced attractively, and you can get a lot of plane for not a lot of money, plus there are some good performance upgrades.

The Q and R have a slightly larger cabin with a rear window, which is nice. R has nose baggage. I've never flown a Q, but the R is significantly heavier on the controls than the N that I fly, I'm not sure why.

I like the N quite a bit. The short nose fits into hangars better, and the body is less draggy than the R so it's more efficient. Flies sporty, has wing lockers, and also has the large rear baggage door. The early baggage door is about worthless, and makes it hard to load up.

The Rs have cowl flaps, the earlier ones don't. Not a big deal either way, but it's somewhat nice not having the extra parts to deal with.

Cessna got a lot of things right with the 310. It's a shame they stopped building them.
 
For me it's the best package of trade-offs. My primary requirements are a comfortable cabin with enough power to provide some margins.

Morne said:
What attracts you to the 310? I'm curious. While we're at it, which 310 variant do you like best? It seems that they went through a boatload of changes over the years.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top