My view is simply that a retractable version could have been quite a lot faster still.
And probably won't climb quite as well. A good comparison of diametric opposites would be the RV7 or 8 versus a Lancair IV. The RV weights only 1100 lbs, climbs out at 1800 fpm or more and so it gets going quickly. The Lancair IV climbs slower initally, slowly gathers its skirts (flaps and gear), and ends up going 220 kts versus 170 kts once you're at altitude. To do that it needs 300 HP versus 180 HP for the RV, and you give up aerobatic capability. For a lot of people doing 100-300 mile flights, the RV is sometimes faster point-to-point, and always a lot less commitment to own. Simplicity is good and sometimes less is more.
Re labor to build aircraft. All high efficiency structures are labor intensive, and technology hasn't made a big difference, for any high efficiency structure in any application. If you go down the totem pole to car structures, you lose a great deal in manufacturing cost as a result of gaining a great deal in weight. I can remember my father fooling around designing stainless steel spot welded aircraft structures in the 70s - same issues then and now, never really solved. I have myself (plus team) designed and built large CNC milled structures from high strength 2219 AL, with those milled panels subsequently formed and welded. As Achimha said in an earlier post, the costs of infrastructure to make that kind of structure can be high. For an aircraft I think a composite fuselage with aluminum wing can be good - but Van's does just fine in volume production with all aluminum.
I have to pipe in on the Veyron question, remembering a Top Gear review of the car: driver barreling down the test track at 400 km/h, shouting into the mic "at this speed the tires will only last for 15 minutes... but that is not a problem because the fuel will only last for 12!" (quoted by memory)
Stupidest.car.ever.
Would be nice if someday the market volume for GA planes went up again - that would solve so many issues... and would induce Cirrus et al to offer retractable as an option. But for some reason most people don't seem to dream any more these days...
Would be nice if someday the market volume for GA planes went up again - that would solve so many issues.
8259 RVs flown as of today, according to the website.
By volume I mean 10000 a quarter... Half of what a small automotive OE builds. I guess I'm one of the dreamers...
Comparing aircraft performance like this makes little sense. The Mooney is more efficient (similar TAS as a Cessna 400 with less fuel flow) simply because of its smaller cabin cross-section, and you pay for that by sitting almost on the cabin floor in a cramped cabin. And comparing a two-seater with a four-seater....
Hey, a Sidewinder missile has less thrust than a Piper Archer and does Mach 2.0 or somesuch... still doesn't mean that the Sidewinder makes a better family transport.
Back to why Cessna don't sell any 400s: The only real difference between the two is speed (Cessna wins by 10-20kt) and the Parachute (Cirrus wins), everything else is so similar that it is more at the level of choosing the colour of the trim.
The market clearly prefers the chute. And so would I, despite the Cessna being by far the better built and more pleasant to fly aircraft [in my opinion,having flown both for a reasonable number of hours].
Would another 20-30kt make a difference? Maybe, because at +40-50kt it would put it in a different class of aircraft.
Could they put in a retractable gear? Of course they could. The Cessna is a derivative of the Lancair ES, and the [retractable] Lancair IV shares the same fuselage. The wheels retract into the fuselage, and the wheel track is pretty much the same (Lancair IV - 84", Cessna-88"). Whether the flimsy Lancair gear would pass certification is a different matter.
Would a retractable gear give 20-30kt? Perhaps Genghis can calculate the extra drag, or maybe we can find a friendly Lancair IV owner and do a speed test for us, with gear up and down... this should be some basis for comparison since the IV main gear doors close flush once the gear is extended.
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
Me - must get the hang of that 'here' thing!!!
Expected it to just 'paste' the link in, but it went straight into the video.
[that is how videos are supposed to work - just drop in the URL. See Posting Tips ]
The Cessna is a derivative of the Lancair ES, and the [retractable] Lancair IV shares the same fuselage.
If the Cessna is the same as the Lancair IV, its a two seater in my book. The 'four seat' Lancair IV cabin is so tight that despite being a 2+2 its generally less roomy than a two seat RV7. The back is good for midgets or bags. My buddy has a Lancair IV and he'll use it for he, his wife and their infant daughter until she outgrows it.
Here is a very interesting blog about the Lancair. The performance seems to be in the TBM range. But then I look at this landing gear and wonder how it will perform on a bad runway. Another report of the Lancair is here It is in German but the short version is that he build the plane, flew it to Antartica came home and was so afraid from the performance that he donated it to a museum. I think there is no question retractable is faster but as always this comes at a price.
Comparing aircraft performance like this makes little sense.
Agreed, the point being that Cirrus made a number of tradeoffs and decided they didn't want retracts. I can dig that.
If Vans ever got around to certifying any of their designs then we could actually compare them to other certified aircraft. As it is, they're nice for playing around, but not useful tools as compared to TBs, SRs, TTx etc. Yes, many people have spent thousands of hours in their garage and churned out an impressive amount of them, but would they sell like hot cakes if they were built at the factory? Not so sure.
