Budget Retracts - Anyone own a Sierra or Comanche 180?

It is broader and roomier than an Arrow. That interior space comes with a
penalty. I also do not believe an Arrow will get 140kts at 75%
wrote in message
news:t3UGf.12957$j07.2997@trnddc04...

On 9-Feb-2006, "pgbnh" wrote:

Speed - not real fast. Zero wind is probably about 115kts.


Is that at 75%? If so, it's about 25 kts slower than an Arrow which uses
essentially the same engine (Lyc IO-360). Slower than an Archer with 20
fewer horses and fixed gear. That's pretty ugly!

Are you sure you're remembering to raise the gear?

--
-Elliott Drucker

On 10-Feb-2006, "pgbnh" wrote:

I also do not believe an Arrow will get 140kts at 75%

My Arrow IV seems to. But I usually cruise at 65% and get 135 kts. It does
have a couple of speed mods, however.

--
-Elliott Drucker

On 2006-02-05, RH wrote:
That's what I have read too. Maybe this trait just gets exaggerated
after hearing it over & over. I cant believe the Sundowner/Sierra
would require superman pilot skills.

It doesn't. I was checked out in a Beech Super Musketeer (basically the
same airframe with a 200hp engine) as a 30 hour student pilot. I *never*
had a bad landing in that plane. If you just fly at the airspeed in the
book on short final, it almost lands itself.

I think the stories of the Musketeer/Sundowner being hard to land come
from people who weren't properly taught that you need to touch down main
wheels first (go to any airport and watch how many people land flat -
three pointing a nosewheel plane - translated to a Musketeer/Sundowner,
this results in bouncing).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2006-02-10, pgbnh wrote:
It is broader and roomier than an Arrow. That interior space comes with a
penalty. I also do not believe an Arrow will get 140kts at 75%

The Arrow I we used to have in our club would always true out at 140kts
at 7000/8000 ft MSL. It had the 200hp IO-360. The 200hp Super Musketeer
the club had would true out at about 115kts TAS at the same altitude.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

wrote:

I think you would find that the 180 Comanche is a
fine plane but you need to have it maintained by someone who
understands the landing gear system. So many of the old ones have been
bellied in at one time in their past.

Of course, they're ALL "old ones".

Very good, I was hoping somebody could come up with better numbers then I
had. It looks like from your numbers the fuel savings come close to the
extra maintenance costs so the insurance costs would swing the balance
toward the FG model cost wise. I think the extra "sex appeal" of the RG
might swing it back toward the RG side, but bottom line you can't argue
for the RG just on cost savings over FG.

Sorry, I'm late to this thread, but it's an interesting point you bring up.

However, it's only applicable to what we might call "legacy aircraft" --
Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft, Navions, etc. All of the "modern" aircraft
(Cirrus, Lancair, Diamond) are going with stiff legs, and don't appear to be
paying much of a price penalty for doing so.

Anyone care to venture a guess as to how much faster an SR-22 (for example)
would go with retractable gear?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article u9%Lf.822635$xm3.75681@attbi_s21,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Sorry, I'm late to this thread, but it's an interesting point you bring up.

However, it's only applicable to what we might call "legacy aircraft" --
Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft, Navions, etc. All of the "modern" aircraft
(Cirrus, Lancair, Diamond) are going with stiff legs, and don't appear to be
paying much of a price penalty for doing so.

Anyone care to venture a guess as to how much faster an SR-22 (for example)
would go with retractable gear?


Consider the lancair aircraft.

The ES, with 210hp will supposedly do 200mph at 8000'
The ES with 310hp will do 225 mph at 8000'
Both of these are fixed-gear.

The lancair legacy, with the 310hp and retract will supposedly do 276mph at 8000'
The fixed-gear legacy, with 200hp will supposedly do 210 mph at 8000'

so, maybe the SR-22 would gain 30mph or so with a retractable...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

The lancair legacy, with the 310hp and retract will supposedly do 276mph
at 8000'
The fixed-gear legacy, with 200hp will supposedly do 210 mph at 8000'

so, maybe the SR-22 would gain 30mph or so with a retractable...

That's pretty significant. I suppose liability concerns are preventing them
from considering folding gear?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The lancair legacy, with the 310hp and retract will supposedly do 276mph
at 8000'
The fixed-gear legacy, with 200hp will supposedly do 210 mph at 8000'

so, maybe the SR-22 would gain 30mph or so with a retractable...


That's pretty significant. I suppose liability concerns are preventing them
from considering folding gear?

I'd think the concerns about their customers affording insurance would
be greater than any concerns about manufacturers liability.


Matt

With the old fixed gear setup 30mph for gear might be about it. With
the newer more streamline gear, it is less. Retractable gear is an
anethema. It needs to be tested, annualed and repaired and the pilot
needs to remember to deploy it. It's unavoidable on some planes, but if
you can get by without it, do so. Your life will be a lot easier. The
faster you go, the more retract will gain you, that is true. On a slow
airplane it's not much.