OK make it GBP 2/hr 
Hose replacement?
Peter wrote:
I have flown in an SR22 (non T), DA42 and a C400 and all of them did exactly the same IAS at the same fuel flow as my TB20: 140kt at 11.5 USG/hr. No free lunch, for a given cockpit volume. The SR22 and the C400 have a slicker airframe but chuck away the whole advantage with the fixed gear.
I vehemently disagree.
Your TB20 is NA and has nearly same engine size and weights as my LC-550FG, so a very good comparison.
I am very confident that my LC550FG will out run your TB20 by at least 15 Knots at same fuel flow setting at any altitude from SL to 16,000 feet.
With the gear down
What are your cockpit dimensions?
The Lancairs did have some clever aerodynamics mods also.
Peter wrote:
What are your cockpit dimensions?
Very close to yours. I’ll dig out the dimensions but I was just in a late model TB21 GT yesterday and the feel is just abit more generous. The problem with the Lancair is the windshield is very seriously inclined like a proper sports car, so the forward headroom is low.
That said, the Mooney has a much smaller cabin and only one door, yet the Lancair will beat the Mooney Ovation in all regimes, albeit not be much though.
Well the C400 did what I saw, LOP, and I have a witness here on EuroGA but from his curt replies to some emails I suspect he doesn’t want to be identified
Also the TB21 is not as efficient as the TB20 because it has a significantly lower CR.
I mentioned the TB21 for the cabin, no comment on it’s performance.
Have no idea what’s up with the 400 you mention, but I would be glad to race your TB20 on YOUR terms.
You chose the distance the altitude and the fuel burn or whatever criteria you like.
The point is that an aerodynamically optimized fixed gear has very little speed/efficiency penalty on retractables.Look at the F1 racers and the like, all are fixed gear yet they attain incredible speed efficiency.
Check out Nemesis: 253 Knots on a puny O-200 !
Peter wrote:
On my TB20 the gear costs me a few hours extra at the Annual so that’s about GBP 1 per flying hour.
Yes sure, if you don’t value your time then the retractable gear is almost free. If you have to pay market prices for labour, that few extra hours quickly translate into the 500-1000$ range.
Check out Nemesis: 253 Knots on a puny O-200 !
That just proves that if you make fixed gear slimmed down to the point where the aircraft is unusable on anything but smooth hard runways, you can achieve almost any level of aerodynamic drag.
Yes sure, if you don’t value your time then the retractable gear is almost free. If you have to pay market prices for labour, that few extra hours quickly translate into the 500-1000$ range.
Disagree; the extra maintenance on a retractable which has not been abused/neglected is at most the labour involved in dismantling the mechanism and greasing it once a year. I used to pay GBP 300 to a firm at EGHH, when the UK firm I then used refused to include it in their “fixed price Annual for a retractable” 
The big challenge is finding a retractable which hasn’t been shagged, which is why they have such a bad name. The PA28R Arrow is one of the hardest, because it’s one of the cheapest ones. It’s as hard as finding an XR3i which had never been crashed (mine was one of the very few).
The gear pump should last 20 years of average use. Mine lasted 12 years and I do 150+ hours a year. In 2014 I did 189 hours. The two gas struts on the nose gear are about 30 quid each and their replacement is purely precautionary; I had a pile of them going back to 2008 or so and as far as I could tell all were still in spec.
IMHO the “fixed gear is simple and reduces your insurance premiums” is just marketing bull – like removing the RPM lever. Both of them cost you money for ever although the removal of the RPM lever possibly costs the owner even more than the fixed gear. I posted some pretty clear figures here a year or two ago. And in the UK at least, SR22 insurance is no cheaper than TB20 insurance; that was from Haywards a year or so ago and I posted the figures here too.
I can see a fixed gear design is simpler and why that is a big plus. If you are developing a new plane and struggling to get everything done before the investors’ money runs out, you won’t go for a retractable unless you have a rock solid design in the bag already. And, in the US, “simplicity” is a big USP when you present it in the context of promoting a modern plane which “is like a car” – which was necessary to uncover new strata of customers without which Cirrus would have never made it. This is not a criticism; if I had been them I would have done the same. In say 2000, the existing GA community was a dead horse as far as buying anything new was concerned. Very very conservative. They had to go for completely new customers, with adverts showing a good looking pilot (good hair, sunglasses) with a good looking wife (good hair, sunglasses, a big smile) and good looking and smiling kids, all about to get into this sleek new plane which is “simple” to own and fly.
Peter wrote:
That just proves that if you make fixed gear slimmed down to the point where the aircraft is unusable on anything but smooth hard runways, you can achieve almost any level of aerodynamic drag.True, I’m not very comfortable flying the Lancair on anything but the hard, but then again I wouldn’t fly a Mooney on grass either.
Do you fly your retract out of fields ?
Not normally but have been to loads of grass with it. It’s not a problem. The reason I don’t like grass is because
So I will do it if there is a pressing reason, but in general nowadays I would go only if I have been there before on foot.
