Why are retractable singles out of style?

Everskyward said:
Which was in a retractable single. His particular problem wouldn't have happened if that had been a 206 instead of a 210. The more systems an aircraft has, the more there is to maintain and the more possibilities there are for malfunction. For the budget-minded, simpler is better, which I think is why fixed-gear airplanes are popular, especially if they can come close to the speed of retractables.
Click to expand...
Agree. And while you do save fuel for the same speed by raising up the gear, the market says the other penalties for retractable gear (insurance maintenance and purchase cost) aren't worth it.
 
I don't mind flying a fixed gear single - as long as it's a taildragger. Tricycle gear airplanes' landing gear should retract, if only to prevent embarrassment for the pilot. I mean fixed gear and a built-in headwind (nose wheel)? No way.
And while technological advances change the world, the idea that an airplane can be built to dumb it down to the lowest pilot denominator only serves long term to render future pilots incompetent in all but the dumbed down version. First thing you know, all plastic planes with parachutes require the new pilot to neither be coordinated with the rudder and ailerons or navigate, (without the mindless aid of a moving map) or think his/her way out of a problem...if the going gets tough: just pull the rip chord!
It's only the crew who keep the ship from sinking, despite it being supposedly unsinkable.
 
Everskyward said:
Which was in a retractable single. His particular problem wouldn't have happened if that had been a 206 instead of a 210. The more systems an aircraft has, the more there is to maintain and the more possibilities there are for malfunction. For the budget-minded, simpler is better, which I think is why fixed-gear airplanes are popular, especially if they can come close to the speed of retractables.
Click to expand...

As the owner of a retract single, I agree. When the cost of flying is going up, and the economy is tough, things like maintenance costs matter. And it's not like the maintenance is getting any easier with reduced numbers of mechanics, higher potential liabilities, and obsolete parts.

I love my retract, but I get why they're less popular. Heck, light twins are less popular, too, for many of the same reasons.

Note: David's situation wouldn't have happened in my plane (dump hydraulic pressure and the gear come down whether you like it or now).
 
Wow, a company tries to bring new people into flyng and gets nothing but crap for it. If you want to talk about training look back far enough and you'll see a time when you spent 10 hours with an instructor and were then told to go fly and have fun. At one time, once endorsed for solo, you could fly anywhere as long as you didn't carry passengers. Training has gotten better. For all of the crap thrown at Cirrus, they have always offered a thorough transition training class as part of buying a plane. Initially they commissioned UND to write the program. They later started the Cirrus Standardized Instructor Program to aid training. Yes, they market to non pilots. Shame on them for wanting to bring new people in. Cessna, Beech and Mooney have done the same thing. Just go look up the old Cessna Land-o-Matic ads.

To get back on topic, raising the gear is just plane cool. However, to pay more in initial cost, maintenance, insurance and then go slower makes it a non starter. Mooney doesn't count since they didn't sell a single plane last year. They also go faster by having a more cramped interior. Look at Saratoga sales (also zero) and Beech (~19) vs Cirrus (207) and Diamond (115 not counting DA42). If you sucked the gear up on a Cirrus I am sure it would go faster and it would definitely look better in flight. But if it only gains 5-10 kts is it worth it?
 
Everything is give and take in aviation it seems, but I personally like the safety aspect of my retract, and I think from that perspective it would be hard for me to go back to a fixed gear plane. I'm not sure about being able to confirm the statistics of it, but I feel like ditching in water or a forced landing in a plowed field are going to be much more survivable for myself and any occupants in a retract. Aircraft with a BRS system obviously have a different method of mitigating the single-engine issue, however, so maybe that point is meaningless if we're talking specifically about Cirrus.

I do secretly wish that I could somehow magically taxi around with my gear up, so my airplane would look cooler on the ground :)
 
Sorry for the rant, Paul. Cirrus just wants to sell airplanes, I get that. They may offer a training course for new pilots and instructors, but their safety record is nothing to brag about. And I agree with your assessment of the land-o-matic gear and other 'pilot proof' efforts to keep the shiftless lawyers out of manufacturers hair are just pure folly. Cessna has always been trying to improve its airplanes...read make them so easy to fly, even a caveman can do it. Much subsequent carnage has resulted when the said cavemen fly an airplane that requires a pilot aboard. I can teach a person to be a good pilot in a Cessna...but it's a lot harder, because the airplane is too easy to fly. Take a 20hour Cessna student for a flight in a Champ and it will rock his world.
 
I think it is the destiny of all Cessna 210s to go out in a very spectacular gear up landing. Unfortunately the one I was flying will have to wait a bit longer.
 
I'll take my bulletproof skyhawk over a RG any day of the week.

I'm pretty sure skyhawks and cockroaches will be the only 2 things still around after a nuclear apocalypse.
 
Alan Klapmeirer and I were once discussing safety records and he said it was frustrating that so much had been added to Cirrus aircraft to enhance safety and the impact had been so small. I doubt airbags help if you hit a mountain at 200 mph. Some items seem to fall under the category of changing mission so that risk stays the same. You see the same in twins. As one person said, you don't buy a twin to stay in the pattern on a VFR day. I suspect XM weather, comfortable cockpit, GPS, great AP etc. fit into this.

As for safety and who should fly where do you stop? Require a week of type training every 6 months and you probably improve the safety record but remove a lot of people from flying resulting in more manufacturers going under, airport closures etc. The fact is that the safety record is the best it has ever been although flat over the last couple of decades. For very selfish reasons I would like to see the pilot population increase.

BTW, as far as Cirrus advertising, some of the Flying 2.0 push has involved trying to sell the idea of buying the plane and getting a professional to fly it.
 
L.Adamson said:
But that's okay. For some, old & bold pilot's..........nothing will change. They'll still walk to school up hill, both ways. I won't even really argue the point, because it goes on forever, until the old ones die off, I suppose. In the meantime, I'll just continue to read these replies....... and feel that I'm reading about the standard of aviation from 30 years ago...

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Hey, I did that. And my kids thought I was nuts until they went to college in that town and lived on the hill I walked over to get to high school. And I did it in the snow, too.

Now, get off my lawn! :D
 
DavidWhite said:
I think it is the destiny of all Cessna 210s to go out in a very spectacular gear up landing. Unfortunately the one I was flying will have to wait a bit longer.
Click to expand...

A very seasoned pilot I know was going on a Bahamas trip along with myself and others. She was bringing an old friend she hadn't seen in awhile. She didn't show up in Ft. Pierce. She lived in a flyin community that lacked fuel so her and her friend stopped nearby for fuel. She was talking to her friend as she was landing and then felt something funny and saw the propeller stop. Yep, gear up landing. This is a person who flies as part of her day job. Planes are much less forgiving than cars. It only takes one moment of inattention.
 
peppy said:
Alan Klapmeirer and I were once discussing safety records and he said it was frustrating that so much had been added to Cirrus aircraft to enhance safety and the impact had been so small. I doubt airbags help if you hit a mountain at 200 mph. Some items seem to fall under the category of changing mission so that risk stays the same. You see the same in twins. As one person said, you don't buy a twin to stay in the pattern on a VFR day. I suspect XM weather, comfortable cockpit, GPS, great AP etc. fit into this.

As for safety and who should fly where do you stop? Require a week of type training every 6 months and you probably improve the safety record but remove a lot of people from flying resulting in more manufacturers going under, airport closures etc. The fact is that the safety record is the best it has ever been although flat over the last couple of decades. For very selfish reasons I would like to see the pilot population increase.

BTW, as far as Cirrus advertising, some of the Flying 2.0 push has involved trying to sell the idea of buying the plane and getting a professional to fly it.
Click to expand...

Please forgive my tilting at windmills, but I'd love to see a trainer designed to really develop the skills students need to fly all airplanes. I read about a woman recently who learned to fly from scratch in a Stearman. I'll bet she has a great foundation (of stick and rudder skills) that will work in ANY airplane. Her talent may not immediately transfer to piloting a turbo Centurion on a cross country flight, as going fast isn't something Steamans do. But she no doubt understands coordinated control inputs, trim, the effects of wind, (in a much more profound way) and how to hold onto a chart in an open cockpit.
I'd like to see the pilot population increase too, but lightplane manufacturers seem only to want a bunch of crippled lackeys...well trained to fly land-o-matic, plastic, GoesPerfectlyStraight, parachute equipt airplanes in which the autopilot can't be disengaged.
That aint safety.
 
Doug - but shouldn't flying be about choice and to some extent personal responsibility. I am instrument rated but don't want it to be a general requirement. I have gone up in a Super Decathalon to do spins, rolls and loops. Again I don't want it to be a requirement. I have looked at just about every Cirrus accident and it's amazing the cases where airmanship would make little difference. For all the talk of spins that's not an issue when you look at the accident pattern. For all of the talk of fire there is only one Cirrus death from fire. If all a person is ever going to do is fly a Mooney then I think it is fine if that's what he trains in. If you want to really reduce fatalities then make pilots stop for fuel. Make VFR pilots avoid the clouds. Make people in non FIKI planes turn around at the first sign of ice. Keep pilots from flying into box canyons or instrument pilots flying an approach with a missed climb gradient the plane won't do. I suspect most, probably all, of these pilots had instructors who told them not to do what they did.
 
"" Why are retractable singles out of style?""

maybe because many CFIs think it requires 3 weeks and a huge maintenance bill to get an annual completed.
 
TMetzinger said:
HUH?

You can't say "retract gear reduces drag" as a plus and then say "plus it helps add drag on demand" as a plus.
Click to expand...

Sure I can, because it is. :)

When compared to a fixed gear airplane, either the fixed gear is draggy and slows you down but helps you slow down when you need it, or the fixed gear is NOT draggy and it doesn't slow you down much when you need the drag.
Click to expand...

When you're in cruise, you want to have as little drag as possible. That lets you go fast. When you're in the pattern and getting ready to land, having zero drag is a problem. This is why I always wonder how people manage to gear up airplanes - they have a hell of a time getting the plane down because it doesn't have enough drag.

If all you want is a drag device, speed brakes are a lot less complex than retractable gear.
Click to expand...

This part is true. But I like bendy legs.

I think the fixed gear configuration on modern singles has less to do with "dumbing down" flying than it does with making the airplanes easier to certify and build, and cheaper to operate (insurance) and maintain.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's a combination.

And now that they can do those and STILL go fast on reasonable fuel, it's sort of a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you want in a plane, and what you like.

L.Adamson said:
Hold that thought......
Click to expand...

Nothing you said was even related to what I said. So, I'll continue to ignore you.
 
TMetzinger said:
Hmm I'll be diplomatic...
You're BOTH wrong:rofl:
Click to expand...

I appreciate your diplomacy! :)

Seriously. I get what Ted is saying, that the marketing of some modern airplanes tries to make the buyer feel that the gadgets reduce the need for the fundamentals. That's a MARKETING issue, and it shouldn't become a pilot issue unless the TRAINING slips into the same mold. And from what I've seen it hasn't around me - the pilots who are learning to fly the newer airplanes are getting just as thorough a grounding in basic airmanship as the were in the older steam-gauge airplanes.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you have seen that. The majority of what I've seen is not the case. It's the people who believe they are safer having a dumbed-down flying experience, and think that it's dangerous to be flying around in these 40-year-old twins. Well, when we both have an engine failure at the same time they land in the Gulf of Mexico with their parachute, they can wait until I get back to land with my one good engine and report their last location for the SAR teams.

Ted's put the Aspen in his airplane, he's not against progress or advanced tech, as long as pilots are still trained and proficient in the fundamentals that will be required when the advanced tech fails.
Click to expand...

I'm glad my points aren't completely impossible to comprehend! :)

Everskyward said:
Which was in a retractable single. His particular problem wouldn't have happened if that had been a 206 instead of a 210. The more systems an aircraft has, the more there is to maintain and the more possibilities there are for malfunction. For the budget-minded, simpler is better, which I think is why fixed-gear airplanes are popular, especially if they can come close to the speed of retractables.
Click to expand...

I do agree that simple is better for the budget-minded which is why 172s and Cherokees still do have a great place in aviation. However, it would be difficult to argue against my statement that the 310 I fly is more capable than a 172 overall. The 310 is more complicated, has more systems. Those systems can fail. However, their failures also produce overall fewer pitfalls. Example: I have two alternators, meaning that I have twice the probability of an alternator failure. However, when one alternator fails, I just keep flying.
 
From an economic and performance point of view. Although, rather cool and badass to fly them, retractable singles are obsolete. Meaning, they cost way more to operate without a significant advantage than fixed gear singles.

I have flown cessna the 182, 172, seminole, baron, and currently a cirrus sr22t. By far the most efficient and safer travelling machine imo is the cirrus. It goes faster, has way better gas milage than any of the above mentioned planes. There's no free lunch in anything. You still need to learn, be proficient operating and trouble shooting all that "2.0 technology", and have good arimanship skills to get out of situations. flicking an extra lever on final is pretty cool, but has no particular advantage or merit.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I do agree that simple is better for the budget-minded which is why 172s and Cherokees still do have a great place in aviation. However, it would be difficult to argue against my statement that the 310 I fly is more capable than a 172 overall.
Click to expand...
But that comes with a very big price which many people can't or don't want to pay. I don't see how you can reasonably compare a 310 with a 172. They have two totally different missions. There are some things the 172 does better than the 310. Landing on a short field or acting as a sightseeing platform, for instance, not to mention their comparative values as a primary trainer.
 
cirrusmx said:
From an economic and performance point of view. Although, rather cool and badass to fly them, retractable singles are obsolete. Meaning, they cost way more to operate without a significant advantage than fixed gear singles.
Click to expand...

What have you found the hourly wet cost of an SR22 to be?

I have flown cessna the 182, 172, seminole, baron, and currently a cirrus sr22t. By far the most efficient and safer travelling machine imo is the cirrus. It goes faster, has way better gas milage than any of the above mentioned planes. There's no free lunch in anything. You still need to learn, be proficient operating and trouble shooting all that "2.0 technology", and have good arimanship skills to get out of situations. flicking an extra lever on final is pretty cool, but has no particular advantage or merit.
Click to expand...

The 182, 172, and Seminole are pretty crappy travel machines. However if you consider the SR22 to be a better travel machine than the Baron, well, that's your choice, but I respectfully disagree. One flight in Lance's Baron should prove my point.
 
Everskyward said:
But that comes with a very big price which many people can't or don't want to pay. I don't see how you can reasonably compare a 310 with a 172. They have two totally different missions. There are some things the 172 does better than the 310. Landing on a short field or acting as a sightseeing platform, for instance, not to mention their comparative values as a primary trainer.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was unclear. I wasn't saying they were comparable, it was a point of capabilities.

Retracts end up having more capabilities than fixed gear overall. It's like saying a plane with a GPS is more capable than one without avionics. Having a tool means you can use it. Not having a tool means you can't.
 
cirrusmx said:
From an economic and performance point of view. Although, rather cool and badass to fly them, retractable singles are obsolete. Meaning, they cost way more to operate without a significant advantage than fixed gear singles.

I have flown cessna the 182, 172, seminole, baron, and currently a cirrus sr22t. By far the most efficient and safer travelling machine imo is the cirrus. It goes faster, has way better gas milage than any of the above mentioned planes. There's no free lunch in anything. You still need to learn, be proficient operating and trouble shooting all that "2.0 technology", and have good arimanship skills to get out of situations. flicking an extra lever on final is pretty cool, but has no particular advantage or merit.
Click to expand...

You can't compare a SR22T to a Baron. They're two entirely different aircraft that do two entirely different missions.
 
Everskyward said:
But they also come with a cost. You can't ignore that part when deciding what is best for you to purchase.
Click to expand...

Where did I say otherwise?
 
There are several COPA members who have stepped down from Barons since an SR22t gets them about the same speed on half the fuel burn and much lower maintenance cost. The second engine can be comforting but just like advanced avionics, it's no cure-all. A COPA member upgraded to a Cessna 421. He had an engine out while up high so getting the plane configured was not a big deal. However, as best I can tell, his lizard brain muscle memory kicked in and he put flaps and gear down on final just where he normally would. He crashed with the loss of all aboard. I'm not knocking twins. I'm just saying a second engine hasn't exactly made twin fatality rates lower than singles. The way we kill ourselves seems depressingly immune to technology.
 
peppy said:
There are several COPA members who have stepped down from Barons since an SR22t gets them about the same speed on half the fuel burn and much lower maintenance cost. The second engine can be comforting but just like advanced avionics, it's no cure-all. A COPA member upgraded to a Cessna 421. He had an engine out while up high so getting the plane configured was not a big deal. However, as best I can tell, his lizard brain muscle memory kicked in and he put flaps and gear down on final just where he normally would. He crashed with the loss of all aboard. I'm not knocking twins. I'm just saying a second engine hasn't exactly made twin fatality rates lower than singles. The way we kill ourselves seems depressingly immune to technology.
Click to expand...

Which has been my point to Adamson that SVT is not a cure-all, nor is anything else.

Training and proficiency is the closest we can come to a cure-all.
 
DavidWhite said:
I'll take my bulletproof skyhawk over a RG any day of the week.

I'm pretty sure skyhawks and cockroaches will be the only 2 things still around after a nuclear apocalypse.
Click to expand...
Someone as young as you shouldn't have had enough time on the planet to develop such a dry wit. You sure you're not channeling an ancient spirit?
PS: I need a new keyboard for that.
 
Ted;
You missed the diamond twinstar (DA42). Nice looking bird with or without the diesel engines. Clean sheet design, twin, retract.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What have you found the hourly wet cost of an SR22 to be?


The 182, 172, and Seminole are pretty crappy travel machines. However if you consider the SR22 to be a better travel machine than the Baron, well, that's your choice, but I respectfully disagree. One flight in Lance's Baron should prove my point.
Click to expand...

160/hr variable cost.


Don't get me wrong, I like the Baron way more than the cirrus and a twin is always more fun to fly. It's just that for the particular travel over the flat lands I make with maybe one or two passengers well I lean more towards the cirrus. In mountains or over water, then we are talking twins. It all depends. But fix against retract, I would say thats a given. Retracts are obsolete.
 
silver-eagle said:
Ted;
You missed the diamond twinstar (DA42). Nice looking bird with or without the diesel engines. Clean sheet design, twin, retract.
Click to expand...

Good point. And that is a nifty plane.

cirrusmx said:
160/hr variable cost.
Click to expand...

That number is nowhere close to what other owners have told me. They've basically convinced me that my Aztec costs about the same to operate.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Baron way more than the cirrus and a twin is always more fun to fly. It's just that for the particular travel over the flat lands I make with maybe one or two passengers well I lean more towards the cirrus. In mountains or over water, then we are talking twins. It all depends. But fix against retract, I would say thats a given. Retracts are obsolete.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Where did I say otherwise?
Click to expand...
Maybe I am misreading you but I don't think more complex or sophisticated is necessarily the "better" choice for people even if everything else is equal.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, when we both have an engine failure at the same time they land in the Gulf of Mexico with their parachute, they can wait until I get back to land with my one good engine and report their last location for the SAR teams.
Click to expand...
This is what the professionals who augered that King Air in Phillipines thought too. But it's just as likely that the Cirrus driver gets fished out with a tip from his PLB, and then pays his last respect to the smoking crater that you made when Vmc roll got you -- assuming you both have the same training and experience.
 
peppy said:
Doug - but shouldn't flying be about choice and to some extent personal responsibility. I am instrument rated but don't want it to be a general requirement. I have gone up in a Super Decathalon to do spins, rolls and loops. Again I don't want it to be a requirement. I have looked at just about every Cirrus accident and it's amazing the cases where airmanship would make little difference. For all the talk of spins that's not an issue when you look at the accident pattern. For all of the talk of fire there is only one Cirrus death from fire. If all a person is ever going to do is fly a Mooney then I think it is fine if that's what he trains in. If you want to really reduce fatalities then make pilots stop for fuel. Make VFR pilots avoid the clouds. Make people in non FIKI planes turn around at the first sign of ice. Keep pilots from flying into box canyons or instrument pilots flying an approach with a missed climb gradient the plane won't do. I suspect most, probably all, of these pilots had instructors who told them not to do what they did.
Click to expand...

Paul, a pilot certificate is good for life. Doesn't it make sense to train in a generic trainer that accents the challenges of the worlds airplanes, vs. a dumbed-down kidde car? Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox.
 
Everskyward said:
Maybe I am misreading
Click to expand...

I think you are, or I'm being unclear.

Point is, different tools for different missions. Some tools are more capable than others, but those capabilities may be irrelevant for certain people.

zaitcev said:
This is what the professionals who augered that King Air in Phillipines thought too. But it's just as likely that the Cirrus driver gets fished out with a tip from his PLB, and then pays his last respect to the smoking crater that you made when Vmc roll got you -- assuming you both have the same training and experience.
Click to expand...

See, that's the thing. The Cirrus driver has no option but to pull the 'chute and end up in the Gulf. He may choose to land on the water rather than use the 'chute, and be just as bad, if not worse off. Then he gets either rescued or eaten by sharks. The Gulf of Mexico is a big place, and SAR work isn't as easy as it sounds. So if you like that option, go for it!

I still have that option, too. I can land my twin in the water, and use my 406 PLB (which I carry) and wait for the SAR crews to show up, or for the sharks to eat me. I also have the option to continue, and try to make land. The fact that the majority of engine failures in twins result in a safe landing means that the odds are in my favor, doubly so since I fly them a lot and practice OEI procedures. I doubt the same could be said for ditching in the middle of the Gulf.

Thank you, I will take having the extra tool in my belt with more options.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Yeah that's why they got rid of retractable gear on the new composite 787, oh wait...
Click to expand...

owned_12.jpg
 
jesse said:
You can't compare a SR22T to a Baron. They're two entirely different aircraft that do two entirely different missions.
Click to expand...

Please explain. The SR22T flies at the same speed or better. Range is close. The Baron will usually carry more but if you don't need that I'm not sure of the difference. In terms of room the Cirrus is wider. The Baron is basically an A36 with a second engine. Its a wonderful plane that costs over a million and has 2X the operating cost for no speed gain. It can carry 6 people and the middle seats do offer tall people extra room but the front and rear don't match the Cirrus if I remember my dimensions correctly. My hangar neighbor has one and it is very cool if you don't mind the expense.
 
silver-eagle said:
Someone as young as you shouldn't have had enough time on the planet to develop such a dry wit. You sure you're not channeling an ancient spirit?
PS: I need a new keyboard for that.
Click to expand...

He lives in Texas. I'm surprised that he didn't have scorpions on the list:D
 
Most Barons don't have fuel tanks designed by an orangutan, however.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Paul, a pilot certificate is good for life. Doesn't it make sense to train in a generic trainer that accents the challenges of the worlds airplanes, vs. a dumbed-down kidde car? Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox.
Click to expand...

Why if that training will be 30 years in the past when you change planes? Why not get fresh training when you get the new plane? More training is almost always better. It also cost money and time. Looking at accidents it seems that in most cases airmanship is adequate but common sense isn't. Does it matter if a 747 pilot originally trained in a Stearman 20 years earlier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top