Michael wrote:
Exhibit N 2 :
Well….
The point is, however, that RENO Formular one doesn’t allow retractables. Hard to make a point for FG vs. RG with them.
I mean: What should the aerodynamic (!) benefit of a fixed gear at high speeds be? There is less weight (thus less C_A needed) and to some extend an effect on CoG, but that could very well be eaten up by distribution of payload.
That a FG is easier to maintain is a no-brainer, that hasn’t been argued. But for gaining aerodynamic efficiency, away with the gear. (and away with the antennas… if possible)
That particular aircraft does not hold any speed records .
Try again.
I was going to post mine….but I couldn’t get it all in shot…
Hiw do you post a pic?
The Nemesis probably doesn’t have the ground handling or forward view that Peter’s looking for…
Deleting the nose gear does help drag. In combination with fixed Wittman-style main gear (on production aircraft) that makes for a tough, light and compact landing gear. The only problem is that people voted with their wallet for Bonanza over C195 
Tailwheel RVs do continue to go fast with that setup.
How do you post a pic?
And if you want a really useful screen capture tool, I use this
Screen capture is really handy because many images block 3rd party / machine downloads. Many wikipedia images are thus blocked. Also many images e.g. some flickr stuff cannot be linked to. I am constantly fixing up broken image links 
Peter wrote:
How many are actively flying?
Lancair Columbia / Corvalis Ttx ? Not sure, but probably about a thousand since 2001 . Is that not enough ?
The Lancair Columbia is PROOF that a properly executed fixed gear design does not give up any significant perfomance to a RG design. Period.
What don’t you get ???
As I am not flying a single seat racing type, only a a lowly four seater Cessna, I would like to keep my observation to this type of airframe.
My type has not only got three engine control knobs, it has a retractable gear and has adjustable cowl flaps! What were they thinking?
I like to use all of the available engine controls, gives so much more flexibillity.
With gear up, opening cowl flaps alone reduces cruise speed by 5 knots!
With the gear down, it’s susbstantially more of a speed loss.
A retractable version of a 310-350hp piston four seater aicraft would gain significant efficiency and speed when compared to a fixed gear version. I think all pilots know about the amount of power needed to overcome drag.
A correctly designed and rigged RG is able to deal with a bounced landing at least as well as a FG version.
I have witnessed that myself seeing various Cessna types land, or try to land.
Not sure about say the Mooney gear set up, but I would love to learn more about it.
Always loved the Mooney philosophy. Not surprisingly it’s the Mooney that is the fastest certified piston four seater aircraft.
On a Columbia, or Cirrus set up it is not possible to steer directly on the ground.
I assume it is to reduce drag and weight, or is it a much more sound solution?
For Brakes to be used as the only available input for steering direction when on the ground it is surely a compromise, no?
Especially while approaching at 80 knots, blowing a 19 knot cross wind and touching down while trying to keep the runway straight in front of you and braking for an exit on a shortish runway.
Give me a fast new retract anyday!
The Lancair Columbia is PROOF that a properly executed fixed gear design does not give up any significant perfomance to a RG design
Well, no, a proof would be in the form of the same airframe but made with FG and re-made with RG.
There are very very few such examples.
There is the TB10 and the TB20. I think we did the numbers on that a while ago; the 20 does similar MPG despite going a faster i.e. (a square law) a lot more airframe drag. I am happy to do a flight test at a TB10 cruise speed, but we would need a TB10 with an accurate flowmeter and and accurate ASI. Ideally it should be a TB10GT but those are very rare.
I am not sure the PA28 and the PA28R can be directly compared but probably yes if you pick the right ones (same wing?).
The Lance and the Saratoga, similarly, maybe?
One also cannot compare fixed gear with RG gear and down, because the latter has no cowlings so is massively draggy.
Especially while approaching at 80 knots, blowing a 19 knot cross wind and touching down while trying to keep the runway straight in front of you and braking for an exit on a shortish runway.
As regards no nosewheel steering, you pay for that with the max demo crosswind being lower.
Cobalt wrote:
The Columbia has an especially flimsy landing gear, it has a max landing weight below the max take off weight
So does a Citation Mustang. I don’t see that as relevant.
