Why are retractable singles out of style?

Morne

Morne

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
699
Display Name
Display name:
Morne
Of the newer production singles out there few are retractable gear. Why?

Historically, especially as it pertains to Cessna, I understand. The 182 started life fixed gear and if you wanted retract then you stepped up to the 210. Only as airframe model lines matured did they start offering the 172, 177 and 182 as retractables.

I understand that the retracts are heavier and hence why they were only found in higher-powered planes (even the 182RG has more oomph than the straight-leg 182). But with modern materials and electronics constantly getting smaller and lighter why should this be such a hurdle today?

I also understand that there were some reliability issues. It seems to me that the ultimate solution of removing the gear doors, as on the 210 like discussed in this month's CPA magazine, fixes a bunch of the headaches for not much performance loss. Who needs the doors anyway?

So back to the original point - what is with avoiding retracts like the plague? Especially in this day of high AvGas costs? Who wants those drag machines hanging in the breeze chewing up your fuel budget?
 
Morne said:
Of the newer production singles out there few are retractable gear. Why?

Historically, especially as it pertains to Cessna, I understand. The 182 started life fixed gear and if you wanted retract then you stepped up to the 210. Only as airframe model lines matured did they start offering the 172, 177 and 182 as retractables.

I understand that the retracts are heavier and hence why they were only found in higher-powered planes (even the 182RG has more oomph than the straight-leg 182). But with modern materials and electronics constantly getting smaller and lighter why should this be such a hurdle today?

I also understand that there were some reliability issues. It seems to me that the ultimate solution of removing the gear doors, as on the 210 like discussed in this month's CPA magazine, fixes a bunch of the headaches for not much performance loss. Who needs the doors anyway?

So back to the original point - what is with avoiding retracts like the plague? Especially in this day of high AvGas costs? Who wants those drag machines hanging in the breeze chewing up your fuel budget?
Click to expand...

Insurance is tired of paying for gear ups, even happens to experienced pilots. So you pay for a retract both in insurance and maintenance cost.

Fixed gear drag has been greatly reduced in the Cirrus and Cessna 400 for example. The tradeoff between drag and the weight/complexity of retracts has tended to favor fixed gear for singles in some newer designs.

Good news is they still make Bonanzas.
 
Insurance and maintenance driving the demand. Plus, many of the newer fixed gear planes (Cirrus for example) are faster than the older retracts.
 
Because you can make a fixed gear single faster than most, if not all retract singles in its class... They are totally out of style, single engine retracts are all 60 year old designs that are outdated. Nobody wants to spend 400k on a new Arrow...
 
I'll add that retractable gear costs weight in addition to mx and insurance considerations. Newer planes with better (heavier) interiors, soundproofing, seat structures, airbags etc, really can't afford any less useful load!:mad2: the only thing lighter in newer airplanes seems to be avionics.;) Oh, and pilots and passengers aren't getting any lighter either.:hairraise:
 
I don't think gear mx is a consideration for a manufacturer. Beech isn't going to build a fixed gear Bonanza because they worry about what the owner is going to have to pay in extra mx costs.
 
Inverted said:
I don't think gear mx is a consideration for a manufacturer. Beech isn't going to build a fixed gear Bonanza because they worry about what the owner is going to have to pay in extra mx costs.
Click to expand...

True, but the buyers are who decides what gets sold, thus what gets built.:D
There is a reason that the high performance single market is owned by fixed gear airplanes, that's what people want.:D I'm not against retracts, I own a 421 and would have bought a 182 RG when I bought my 182Q, but the people buying NEW airplanes want fixed gear, by a 10 or 20 to 1 margin.:dunno:
 
Inverted said:
I don't think gear mx is a consideration for a manufacturer. Beech isn't going to build a fixed gear Bonanza because they worry about what the owner is going to have to pay in extra mx costs.
Click to expand...
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).
 
The 182RG has more oomf?

I know they sport a larger displacement engine but thought they were still the same 230hp
 
I would love a C182T-RG but Cessna hasn't ask me what I want.

I think it's just the good old American lawsuit happy nation that keeps them from bringing back the retractables.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Insurance and maintenance driving the demand. Plus, many of the newer fixed gear planes (Cirrus for example) are faster than the older retracts.
Click to expand...

Alot has to do with new pressure recovery designs of the wheel pants like RV's, and Cirrus. No need for the complexity, weight penalty, maintenance costs. The speed of fixed gears is faster than retracts now.
 
Last edited:
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...

Just curious -- how many Bonanzas did Hawker-Beech build in 2011? I can't seem to find any production stats.
 
midlifeflyer said:
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...
This is a great comparison. Thanks for bringing it up, Mark. For some reason I thought SR-20 had a 300 hp engine. What's interesting though, a Mooney M20E with 200 hp is even faster. There seem to be some reserves that Cirrus designers allocated to something else, like payload and interior volume (with appropriate cross-section).
-- Pete
 
Alrighty then...so why are new production multis all retracts? Heck, even historically there were rather few multi-fixed birds (C336 comes to mind, but one 1 year of little production before switching to retracts on the 337).
 
As others have noted - in the four-seat arena, the added weight, maintenance, endorsements, and insurance costs (in premiums and required training) of retractable gear aren't justified by the small speed increase one might see.

I assume the reason we don't see fixed gear four-seat multiengine planes is that their performance is so marginal that the drag of the gear really matters?
 
TMetzinger said:
I assume the reason we don't see fixed gear four-seat multiengine planes is that their performance is so marginal that the drag of the gear really matters?
Click to expand...
I see a lot of Twin Otters that Airborne Research flies around Albuquerque. One of them is even in Vistaliner configuration, probably a retired tour plane.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Ugh. That's not good. :nonod:
Click to expand...
How's 22 not good for a $800k airplane? Many LSA makers can't pull that much with airplanes that cost 10 times less than that (Aerotrek only sold 8 -- and that's a success).
 
rpadula said:
You are, John. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I'm no where near the average pilot weight of 30 years ago.:redface:
Heck I'm not near the average weight of current pilots. :mad2: But, a lot less than I was. :D
 
Morne said:
Alrighty then...so why are new production multis all retracts? Heck, even historically there were rather few multi-fixed birds (C336 comes to mind, but one 1 year of little production before switching to retracts on the 337).
Click to expand...

The Partenavia/Vulcanair P68 is fixed gear.
 
Nobody likes to hear the gear pump continue to run while gear is in down and locked position.

This is a consistent problem in the Arrow I fly. The limit switch in the nose gear is constantly out of whack.
 
zaitcev said:
How's 22 not good for a $800k airplane? Many LSA makers can't pull that much with airplanes that cost 10 times less than that (Aerotrek only sold 8 -- and that's a success).
Click to expand...

One Bonanza purchased for every 1.42 million people in the U.S.

Or one Bonanza purchased for every 318 million people on the planet.

--

In comparison...

1 iPhone sold for every 4.2 people in the U.S.

1 iPhone sold for every 94 people on the planet.

--

Just depends on how you calculate "success" really...

Doesn't account for profit margin on either one, either. Do you want Market Share or Profit Margin in your business?
 
denverpilot said:
One Bonanza purchased for every 1.42 million people in the U.S.

Or one Bonanza purchased for every 318 million people on the planet.

--

In comparison...

1 iPhone sold for every 4.2 people in the U.S.

1 iPhone sold for every 94 people on the planet.

--

Just depends on how you calculate "success" really...

Doesn't account for profit margin on either one, either. Do you want Market Share or Profit Margin in your business?
Click to expand...
It also depends on how you choose to define the "market." You can certainly define the market for Bonanzas as "people in the US" or "people in the world," but I would define it a little more narrowly than that. Not everyone in the US is part of the market for an airplane of any type. They are for an iPhone.

Something about lies, damn lies and statistics ;)
 
midlifeflyer said:
It also depends on how you choose to define the "market." You can certainly define the market for Bonanzas as "people in the US" or "people in the world," but I would define it a little more narrowly than that. Not everyone in the US is part of the market for an airplane of any type. They are for an iPhone.

Something about lies, damn lies and statistics ;)
Click to expand...

Heh. Yup. ;)

It's just fun to play with numbers.
 
Here is some data from the 2011 GAMA report just out. There were 14 Beech G36 aircraft sold in 2011 but Q4 data is missing. I'll guess the final number at 19. There were 207 SR22's sold. An SR22 is slightly faster than a G36 based on manufacturer numbers but they are close enough to be essentially equal. The SR22T is significantly faster. I don't know the cost of a G36 but if you are in the $800K range then you are talking a turbo Cirrus with flight into known ice capability and a lot of fancy avionics. A reasonably well equipped base model SR22 is $450K.
 
Morne said:
Alrighty then...so why are new production multis all retracts? Heck, even historically there were rather few multi-fixed birds (C336 comes to mind, but one 1 year of little production before switching to retracts on the 337).
Click to expand...

There have been a number of fixed-gear twins, even up to surprisingly large sizes such as the Twin Otter and Casa 212.

This is a good question, though. I believe the answer is that all the current production twins are really aircraft that were designed upwards of 30 years ago. If you look at what's out there today for the most part, you've got King Airs, Barons, Senecas, Seminoles, and I think that's most of it. There is that new concept that Cape Air is planning on using to replace their line of 402s, but that's also the first modern twin design to come about in a while.

Overall, retractable gear tends to be more of a benefit than it is a harm. Just try losing speed on a Mooney without the gear and flaps out, and you'll see. Even the 310 would benefit from speed brakes if you don't want to do rapid jockeying of the throttles (which I don't). Plus, every jet that I've seen has retractable gear, so it seems to help if you actually want to go fast.

My thought is that the popularity of the current line of faster fixed-gear singles goes along with the "Flying 2.0" mentality. "We're going to dumb down flying for you. You don't need a twin or retractable gear, that just gives you two more areas to have problems. We'll give you one engine and a parachute so that your decision is made for you, plus synthetic vision and a good autopilot so you really don't have to do very much. Don't worry about skill or proficiency."

If you take a look at people who are trying to get work done with airplanes, it still falls primarily into twin-engine aircraft (with a certain number of turbine singles), primarily with retractable gear.
 
N747JB said:
Thanks, but I'm no where near the average pilot weight of 30 years ago.:redface:
Heck I'm not near the average weight of current pilots. :mad2: But, a lot less than I was. :D
Click to expand...

Good for you!!! Thats awesome!! Keep going!!!:cheers::cheers:
 
As someone who has been committed to fixed gear, fixed prop planes for many years due to simplicity, and cost, I will have to say there is NOTHING like picking up the gear and having a C/S prop for a travelling machine. I would pick a Mooney or Bonanza in good condition over a Cirrus any day of the week.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Overall, retractable gear tends to be more of a benefit than it is a harm. Just try losing speed on a Mooney without the gear and flaps out, and you'll see. Even the 310 would benefit from speed brakes if you don't want to do rapid jockeying of the throttles (which I don't). Plus, every jet that I've seen has retractable gear, so it seems to help if you actually want to go fast.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

And now that they can do those and STILL go fast on reasonable fuel, it's sort of a no brainer.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My thought is that the popularity of the current line of faster fixed-gear singles goes along with the "Flying 2.0" mentality. "We're going to dumb down flying for you. You don't need a twin or retractable gear, that just gives you two more areas to have problems. We'll give you one engine and a parachute so that your decision is made for you, plus synthetic vision and a good autopilot so you really don't have to do very much. Don't worry about skill or proficiency."
Click to expand...

Hold that thought......

The idea is really old fashioned. Happily I'm around a group, where synthetic vision is more of an accessible norm. Unlike the brave pilots of WWII, we no longer have to get lost, bomb the wrong cities, crash into mountains, etc. We have the precision of putting missiles through a desired window... So why not use it?

These mainstream users of modern synthetic vision, that I speak of, are from the likes of military, commercial, and GA. It's a rather good cross section of experience. Turns out, that SV enhances day to day operations even in VFR conditions. We all know, the scenario of runways vanishing into the dense forest of urban development. SV is a great heads up for instant awareness. You know right where the runway is, and that allows more time for keeping the head out of the cockpit. For IFR, there is nothing that comes close, to a greatly added awareness.

Seriously, as I've made it a point, of looking into the whys and wherefores of CFIT for the last few decades, I feel like I'm in a time warp, when I read these types of replies. It's the exact opposite of dumbing down. What it actually is, is a very enhanced awareness of what you didn't already know.

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
 
L.Adamson said:
Hold that thought......

The idea is really old fashioned. Happily I'm around a group, where synthetic vision is more of an accessible norm. Unlike the brave pilots of WWII, we no longer have to get lost, bomb the wrong cities, crash into mountains, etc. We have the precision of putting missiles through a desired window... So why not use it?

These mainstream users of modern synthetic vision, that I speak of, are from the likes of military, commercial, and GA. It's a rather good cross section of experience. Turns out, that SV enhances day to day operations even in VFR conditions. We all know, the scenario of runways vanishing into the dense forest of urban development. SV is a great heads up for instant awareness. You know right where the runway is, and that allows more time for keeping the head out of the cockpit. For IFR, there is nothing that comes close, to a greatly added awareness.

Seriously, as I've made it a point, of looking into the whys and wherefores of CFIT for the last few decades, I feel like I'm in a time warp, when I read these types of replies. It's the exact opposite of dumbing down. What it actually is, is a very enhanced awareness of what you didn't already know.

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...

Hmm I'll be diplomatic...
You're BOTH wrong:rofl:

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. 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.


Witness David White's recent smoke-in-the-cockpit issue. That was aviation reduced to the raw basics. Fly the plane. Deal with the issues. Fly the plane. Coordinate resources. Fly the plane. We can't give up teaching that kind of airmanship in order to explain the 20-odd pages of options in the G1000 to a new pilot. He's gotta learn it all.
 
TMetzinger said:
Witness David White's recent smoke-in-the-cockpit issue.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top