Is retractable gear potentially stronger / more slippery than fixed gear (on IFR tourers)?

But it strikes me as not ideal to fix landing gear into the wing structure, especially with a wet wing design.

Is it a big problem, though?

In my opinion, I would not use such type on any rough and bumpy surface.

On the other hand, if I look a the design of Columbia and Cirrus stream lined gear design, the retactable type wins every time.

First of all the pilot can actually steer with the front wheel, applying brakes as a secondary option.
Seems so obvious to me.
It’s a more efficient design as the sturdier gear can be retracted.

Which aircraft could I live with all year round, considering unplanned strong cross winds at the destination here in Europe’s usually shortish runways?

It would be the RG, I am afraid.

I don’t think the Mooney performs better out of short runways. And it has a very low demo’ed crosswind capacity.

I find it odd that the strength discussion is around the main gear. Most gear failures are in the nose gear – that for example is a weakness in the Mirage.

But it strikes me as not ideal to fix landing gear into the wing structure, especially with a wet wing design.

Given its prevalence I think you can safely assume engineers have found it to be acceptable.

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

I don’t think the Mooney performs better out of short runways. And it has a very low demo’ed crosswind capacity.

At the time of certification Mooney just demonstrated the minimum required by regulation…which was 11 kts I think…. This has been rehashed billions of times and people still interpret demonstrated crosswind as some kind of limit….which it is not nor ever intended to be… In fact Mooneys (mid and long body variants) are well capable of crosswinds well in excess of 20 knots….ask me how I know!

For insurance purposes it can be a limit ^^

Has anybody really ever “tested” that? Or is it just typical forum wisdom?

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

limit

BS

complex-pilot wrote:

irst of all the pilot can actually steer with the front wheel, applying brakes as a secondary option.
Seems so obvious to me.

Have you actually FLOWN a Columbia ?

Not having a stearable NG is only a very small nuisance when starting to taxi. In landing & TO there is no decernable difference.

That said, the Mooney’s very shallow stearing angle limit is abit of a problem when handling the acft.

Thanks Shorrick_Mk2.

The Mooney cross wind limit seems to be 11 knots. I would like to assume that to be very conservative, or?
My current RG can deal with all lot more than demonstrated cross wind, without too much skill involved.
Main thing is to keep those damned feet off the brakes! That was my point in the earlier post.

The thread is about RG v FG efficiency and strength.

As I see it the reason the FG design on the Cirrus/Columbia has such slippery gear due to:

No stearing fitted
Verry small wheels and tyres fitted, such as a RG type
Tightly fitting spats, with very restricted cooling, tending to overheat easily