A radar altimeter based warning would be easy, and I believe it has been done on some planes, as a retrofit.
A KRA10A used to be about £10k installed... but this and this suggests King have stopped making it.
Also any modern Garmin handheld gives you a "five hundred" audio warning, anywhere 500ft AGL (airport or not, I think).
Over the years the owners of aircraft I have flown so far (including myself) have spent the equivalent of a nice little house (or even a villa) in pleasant surroundings to fix retractable gear related problems and some of the consequences that came from it
I think this is the crux of the matter. Although a new aircraft should have less problems, and the buyers probably do 'annuals by checkbook', they also have accumulated experience, including a lot of annual inspections on previously owned aircraft requiring that thing go up on jacks etc. Its all a bit of a pain and when (for annuals) its repeated every 12 months, the buyer has built up plenty of aversion.
Another factor is that Van's has taken over much of the light aircraft market with aircraft that give up two seats but go faster (175 kts) on less power (180 HP) without retractable gear. That's reset people's expectations.
If the TB20 and Cirrus have similar mpg, despite fixed gear, doesn't that validate the reason for not adding the complexity of a retractable gear, given all the other possible drawbacks?
Think of the business case behind Cirrus. They wanted to rejuvenate the GA industry, and bring it into the 21st century by introducing a modern (ie composite), advanced (ie glass panel) and safe (ie parachute and leading edge cuffs) aircraft for the well off guy who wasn't a pilot, and wouldn't be because everything on the market predated WWII, or was French.
So, it had to attract people who aren't like me, who loves Super Cubs and has no money basically.
I think they had a list along these lines: - Fixed gear is simple. Nobody will forget them - less liability. - Automatic run-up is simple. - Automatic leaning is simple, and the russians have had it for decades. - Automatic prop is simple, and negates the need to explain what the hell it does anyway. - Large moving map is very handy, so you don't need to read a small folded napkin. - Parachute is very attractive for the passengers. In fact it's a question I get every now and then. "Does this aircraft have parachutes, or an airframe parachute?" and "Why not?" Because it has two engines that don't stop are meaningless words when arguing with a misses who believes that an aircraft plummets to the ground when engine(s) stop.
When you factor in that the aircraft will do 200+kts (TAS Peter, TAS..) with all of the above, and that is rather fast actually, then why bother fiddling with the concept?
There is a certain "wind" speed (around 2xx kts if memory serves) where the tyres start to break, so it's best to protect them. Below that speed retracting them is optional.
Out of curiosity, what sort of mpg figures could one expect from a Bugatti Veyron when cruising it down the road at 200+ kts? And is there room for luggage and kids in the back?
doesn't that validate the reason for not adding the complexity of a retractable gear, given all the other possible drawbacks?
My view is simply that a retractable version could have been quite a lot faster still.
Whether that matters is for the Marketing Dept to decide.
Out of curiosity, what sort of mpg figures could one expect from a Bugatti Veyron when cruising it down the road at 200+ kts?
5 ?
Out of curiosity, what sort of mpg figures could one expect from a Bugatti Veyron when cruising it down the road at 200+ kts?
5 ?
I read in an automobile magazine that at maximum speed it can travel for ten minutes until the tank is empty. Fuel consumption is almost exactly one liter per kilometer. I'm too lazy to convert this into miles and gallons I'm afraid. When it retracts it's gear, the fuel will still last for ten minutes only, but it will not travel many miles.
My view is simply that a retractable version could have been quite a lot faster still.
Yes, that is likely, but the question is whether it is worth the extra cost/complexity. The Mooney Acclaim did all of that, go fast and lift the gear, but you need a shoehorn to enter and it's not a very modern design by comparison. So, in the end they only attracted die hard speed nuts, and Mooney aficionados.
5 ?
Aircraft are pretty efficient after all if one factors in the speed and consider that they operate at 65-75% available hp. 75% of the Veyron's 1000 hp is more than we had in our Caravan to begin with and we dragged 4 tons around in a box at 160kts. Fuel economy for the Caravan was about 4 mpg with an admittedly thirsty turbine.
Fuel consumption is almost exactly one liter per kilometer
That would equate to about 2,35 mpg. Is that LOP at 75%..?
In the Arrow that I fly, we get a warning horn if the gear isn't down and either a) the power is reduced below a certain level, b) flaps are deployed.
I understand it is now mandatory for the 'warning horn' for gear to be 'piped' into the audio system.
With the likes of the Arrow, + modern good passive headsets, it means that the 'cabin' horn is NOT very intrusive.
The Mooney Acclaim did all of that, go fast and lift the gear, but you need a shoehorn to enter and it's not a very modern design by comparison. So, in the end they only attracted die hard speed nuts, and Mooney aficionados.
You cannot even begin to compare a Mooney with the style of an SR22 or the C400 - if you are trying to dig out a new stratum of customers.
Cirrus did it very well, though I do think they did it on the back of the right economic growth wave and would not be able to do it today. But I don't think Cessna has the right formula.
With the likes of the Arrow, + modern good passive headsets, it means that the 'cabin' horn is NOT very intrusive.
I am very suprised. The TB20 gear horn is extremely audible in any headset. But... I am sure somebody is going to dig out that famous Youtube video of a TB20 gear up landing at Megeve where they listed to the horn all the way down, discussed it, etc, and did nothing about it.
Dublinpilot's description is what I have in the TB i.e. two separate interlocks. But a lot of pilots (mostly Americans, used to long runways) land with only half flap so they throw away the first one. Then you just need a strong headwind and you lose the second one.
But the plane will be "feeling" totally wrong with the gear up. For example there is not a hope in hell of slowing down on a 3 degree glideslope with the gear up.
