Why are retractable singles out of style?

Everskyward said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is particularly true of the new avionics packages. The issue is rarely one of knowing what to do when all is well but rather what to do when something didn't sequence as was expected or when things come fast from ATC. Just compare Perspective (basically G1000) vs. Avidyne's R9. I would argue that R9 is much better for the 50 to 100 hour per year pilot even though Perspective is as capable if not more so. R9 lacks deep menus and has a more fixed interface (buttons with fixed labels).

Call me a wimp but if FADEC's weight, cost and reliability issues get solved I would love to have it. I think getting rid of the boost pump and mixture control would be great.

All that said, I would love to own a Cub but that's for a different mission. The Cirrus is a trip plane.
 
Everskyward said:
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.
Click to expand...

Saw you edited this - I do agree.

But in this case, the point is that the extra complexity buys you something. If that is something that benefits you, it makes sense. If it doesn't buy you something that benefits you, then there's no point.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hangar will be the same, annual will be higher on the Aztec, and then there is fuel burn. I seriously doubt the Aztec will beat a Cirrus on miles per gallon. Now if you are comparing a $700K Cirrus to a $100K Aztec then depreciation on the Cirrus will make it the more expensive plane and insurance will be higher since hull value is the main driver of insurance cost.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Saw you edited this - I do agree.

But in this case, the point is that the extra complexity buys you something. If that is something that benefits you, it makes sense. If it doesn't buy you something that benefits you, then there's no point.
Click to expand...
This I fully agree with.
 
peppy said:
Hangar will be the same,
Click to expand...

Correct

annual will be higher on the Aztec,
Click to expand...

Really? The Aztec doesn't have parachutes to replace, doesn't have Avidynes that have problems. That's pretty variable, but annuals on my Aztec have typically been pretty cheap.

and then there is fuel burn. I seriously doubt the Aztec will beat a Cirrus on miles per gallon.
Click to expand...

Correct. But I do 21 GPH @ 155 kts, vs. say 16 GPH @ 175 kts for a SR22.

Now if you are comparing a $700K Cirrus to a $100K Aztec then depreciation on the Cirrus will make it the more expensive plane and insurance will be higher since hull value is the main driver of insurance cost.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Like I said, when I ran the numbers against what owners I came across gave me, the Aztec looked to be, at worst same cost.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Aztec doesn't have parachutes to replace, doesn't have Avidynes that have problems. That's pretty variable, but annuals on my Aztec have typically been pretty cheap.
Click to expand...

Correct at about $1K/year that needs to be set aside. However, there is only one engine to rebuild. The Cirrus lacks maintenance on the landing gear. As for avionics it depends on what is installed. Newer planes are all Garmin. Avidyne reliability has improved dramatically. There is an expense because of all the stuff on most Cirrus aircraft but a comparably equipped Aztec would, I suspect, have the same expenses. For example, if you have Jepp electronic charts then you know they aren't cheap. If you want inexpensive then an older plane (low depreciation, low hull value) with only basic avionics will be a lot cheaper.
 
I heard the other day that the cirrus has an airframe/body time limit of something like 2000 hours. Is that true?
 
Jeanie said:
I heard the other day that the cirrus has an airframe/body time limit of something like 2000 hours. Is that true?
Click to expand...

Try 12,000 hours. Which really is quite a bit.
 
Jeanie said:
I heard the other day that the cirrus has an airframe/body time limit of something like 2000 hours. Is that true?
Click to expand...

Like many things there are reasons behind the choices and different companies often choose different paths. Unlike older aircraft, newly certified aircraft have a much tougher standard to meet for airframe life. The FAA ha publicly stated their concern over aging "unlimited life" airframes. Planes like the Cessna 182 get grandfathered in. Cirrus' rationale can be found here. They went for a demonstrated life rather than inspections. Initially, this was a low number of a couple of thousand hours but it has been steadily raised. It currently sits at 12,000 hours.
 
jesse said:
Try 12,000 hours. Which really is quite a bit.
Click to expand...

As I recall, P-Barons are limited to 10,000 hours.

For anything not a freight dog, that's a good amount.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Saw you edited this - I do agree.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I had a hard time figuring out how to edit on Tapatalk while also keeping an eye out to see if the passengers were arriving yet. :D

Ted DuPuis said:
But in this case, the point is that the extra complexity buys you something. If that is something that benefits you, it makes sense. If it doesn't buy you something that benefits you, then there's no point.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And people have different ideas about what they value and how much they will pay for it.
 
jesse said:
Try 12,000 hours. Which really is quite a bit.
Click to expand...
That's not too shabby, really. And there are a lot of aluminum airframes out there still flying with much more hours, but they probably shouldn't still be flying. :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's about what sells. Bonanzas sell and have the status, following, performance and comfort to back it up.

OTOH, compare an SR-20 with an Arrow. Same HP, roughly equivalent fuel burn. The non-retract SR-20 is faster (and to buyers, sexier).
Click to expand...

But not faster than a 200HP Mooney 201. The Mooney is about 20kts faster than the SR-20 and has a longer range with the same power. A retractable plane with the gear retracted will not flip over when ditching in the water like those with fix gear. I would not be surprised if Cirrus comes up with a retractable version for the macho pilot.

José
 
Piloto said:
But not faster than a 200HP Mooney 201. The Mooney is about 20kts faster than the SR-20 and has a longer range with the same power. A retractable plane with the gear retracted will not flip over when ditching in the water like those with fix gear. I would not be surprised if Cirrus comes up with a retractable version for the macho pilot.

José
Click to expand...

A fixed gear airplane isn't going to flip over the vast majority of the time either. The gear being there or not being there really isn't going to have a huge factor in that regard.
 
Piloto said:
But not faster than a 200HP Mooney 201. The Mooney is about 20kts faster than the SR-20 and has a longer range with the same power. A retractable plane with the gear retracted will not flip over when ditching in the water like those with fix gear. I would not be surprised if Cirrus comes up with a retractable version for the macho pilot.
Click to expand...

The Mooney isn't a good comparison on the retract issue. It is a more aerodynamic plane due to a narrower cabin. Cirrus has traded some speed for cabin comfort. Don't get me wrong. Suck the gear up and the SR 20 would go faster. The question is how much faster and at what cost in purchase price, useful load and maintenance.
 
jesse said:
A fixed gear airplane isn't going to flip over the vast majority of the time either. The gear being there or not being there really isn't going to have a huge factor in that regard.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I still prefer to come down under canopy for many reasons. The plane will be a writeoff either way.
 
peppy said:
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.
Click to expand...

The mission difference is obvious: The Baron's primary mission is to show the world that you just bought an incredibly expensive airplane, and you have money to burn.
 
I prefer retracts and the Cirrus isn't even on my list of "planes I'd like to own" because of it. :yesnod:
 
jesse said:
A fixed gear airplane isn't going to flip over the vast majority of the time either. The gear being there or not being there really isn't going to have a huge factor in that regard.
Click to expand...

I attended a water survival training at Halifax and they demonstrated in a pool why is better with the gear retracted. They launched into the pool a C172 model plane with fix gear. Out of the three flights two flipped and one went nose down into the water. They pulled the gear out of the C172 model and launched it three times. None of the ditching flipped but the plane sank up to the wing. This would make difficult to open the cabin door due to water pressure on it. They launched a low wing Mooney like model with no wheels. It splashed flat on the water with no flip over. The cabin floated above the wings thus allowing easy egress. Lesson learned: for ditching you are safer in low wing retractable plane.

José
 

Attachments

  • Mooney on Water.jpg
    Mooney on Water.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 28
Piloto said:
But not faster than a 200HP Mooney 201. The Mooney is about 20kts faster than the SR-20 and has a longer range with the same power. A retractable plane with the gear retracted will not flip over when ditching in the water like those with fix gear. I would not be surprised if Cirrus comes up with a retractable version for the macho pilot.

José
Click to expand...

If you KNOW you are gonna ditch in a Cirrus why not yank the cord and ride the chute down. ?
 
Doggtyred said:
If you KNOW you are gonna ditch in a Cirrus why not yank the cord and ride the chute down. ?
Click to expand...

A parachute is only required for unsafe airplanes like aerobatics and Cirrus but not for commercial airplanes.:wink2:

José
 
bfergie10 said:
What about ditching inverted for those in a high wing, fixed gear? Solves both problems.

:idea:
Click to expand...

That's how Chuck Norris would ditch an airplane, regardless of wing or gear orientation.
 
Everskyward said:
Yeah, I had a hard time figuring out how to edit on Tapatalk while also keeping an eye out to see if the passengers were arriving yet. :D
Click to expand...

Isn't corporate flying fun? ;)

Exactly. And people have different ideas about what they value and how much they will pay for it.
Click to expand...

Precisely. I wasn't implying that everyone needs whatever gee-whiz-bang item may be in discussion, be it retractable gear, GPS, SVT, multi-engine, etc. Simply pointing out that it provides an additional tool which, depending on your needs, may be helpful.
 
Back on topic, the reason for fixed gear dominance is value. If you remove price as a consideration I suspect a lot of us would have a jet on our list of the five planes we would own :). We don't because of expense. Sucking the gear up makes a plane go faster. It also costs money. The GAMA numbers show what happens when people vote with their wallet. It goes beyond retract vs. fixed. Single engine pistons out sell twins because of value. Twins are cool. I grew up watching Sky King so deep down I want one. For me, a twin doesn't make financial sense. We all have different priorities so for some a twin and/or a retract will be the right thing. For most, however, I suspect the choice will be a single engine fixed gear and the GAMA numbers support this.
 
Doggtyred said:
If you KNOW you are gonna ditch in a Cirrus why not yank the cord and ride the chute down. ?
Click to expand...

Because, the CAPS is an integrated system (and a damned good one, too), which relies upon the controlled collapse of the landing gear upon impact with the ground as a fundamental part of the deceleration and energy-absorption. The vertical impact G-loads of a Cirrus into water will be much higher than those onto land, assuming a flat landing.
 
SCCutler said:
Because, the CAPS is an integrated system (and a damned good one, too), which relies upon the controlled collapse of the landing gear upon impact with the ground as a fundamental part of the deceleration and energy-absorption. The vertical impact G-loads of a Cirrus into water will be much higher than those onto land, assuming a flat landing.
Click to expand...
Bottom of Cirrus is not perfectly flat, so displacement of water provides the same effect, and the impact in the water is not going to be harder. Also, see the account of the guy who splashed just a month ago.
 
peppy said:
Back on topic, the reason for fixed gear dominance is value. If you remove price as a consideration I suspect a lot of us would have a jet on our list of the five planes we would own :). We don't because of expense. Sucking the gear up makes a plane go faster. It also costs money. The GAMA numbers show what happens when people vote with their wallet. It goes beyond retract vs. fixed. Single engine pistons out sell twins because of value. Twins are cool. I grew up watching Sky King so deep down I want one. For me, a twin doesn't make financial sense. We all have different priorities so for some a twin and/or a retract will be the right thing. For most, however, I suspect the choice will be a single engine fixed gear and the GAMA numbers support this.
Click to expand...

Thing is, if you're trying to go somewhere, the retracts do tend to offer a better value. For example, one can buy a used 172 and M20F for about the same price. The M20F has retractable gear and thus the MX and insurance are higher, but it also goes significantly faster, in a manner proportional to the cost.

If your goal is to build hours or bore holes in the sky, then speed isn't a factor. Thus, the 172 can make sense.

You take something like a twin and they, without a doubt, cost more. That gets into whether or not you have use for the extra engine.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Thing is, if you're trying to go somewhere, the retracts do tend to offer a better value. For example, one can buy a used 172 and M20F for about the same price. The M20F has retractable gear and thus the MX and insurance are higher, but it also goes significantly faster, in a manner proportional to the cost.
Click to expand...

But you are discussing the used market. I thought the original discussion was about the dominance of fixed gear planes like the SR22 over retracts like the G36 in the new market. Modern design and simulation have decreased the speed and fuel penalty of fixed gear compared to retract while allowing the plane to be sold at a lower cost. Even in the used market, look at the value proposition of a 2002 or newer aircraft.
 
I'd take a new G36 over a Cirrus any day. And that G36 will be around to carry the ferry pilot home that flew the Cirrus to the salvage ride. And then it'll still be around to do the same for the Cirrus that replaced the first one.
 
peppy said:
Back on topic, the reason for fixed gear dominance is value.
Click to expand...
A used 182RG with the same times/equipment/condition goes for significantly more than a fixed gear 182.
 
jesse said:
I'd take a new G36 over a Cirrus any day. And that G36 will be around to carry the ferry pilot home that flew the Cirrus to the salvage ride. And then it'll still be around to do the same for the Cirrus that replaced the first one.
Click to expand...

That's what's great about choice. It makes for a very interesting and diverse world. A base G36 is something like $700K (Beech seems afraid to publish pricing) while an SR22 is about $450K. If $250K doesn't matter much then I can easily see the G36. It's a great plane. However, for a lot of people, the price difference will matter. I suspect that is why Beech only sold about 19 G36 planes vs. Cirrus selling 207 SR22's in 2011.
 
peppy said:
But you are discussing the used market. I thought the original discussion was about the dominance of fixed gear planes like the SR22 over retracts like the G36 in the new market. Modern design and simulation have decreased the speed and fuel penalty of fixed gear compared to retract while allowing the plane to be sold at a lower cost. Even in the used market, look at the value proposition of a 2002 or newer aircraft.
Click to expand...

Ok, I could buy a new Mooney Acclaim instead of an SR22. That's fine for me. :)
 
peppy said:
However, for a lot of people, the price difference will matter.
Click to expand...
You bet. I would gladly own G36 if I really needed a 6-seater. I don't see an economical justification in hauling around mostly an empty aircraft. In my opinion the number of seats is the key criteria for many, same as for airlines :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top