KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6226 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4842 times:
A Couple of guesses here:
The gear hanging out in the breeze helps generate drag (which can be a good thing in aerobatics...you might not want a plane that picks up speed in a hurry when you point the nose below the horizon). Also, a hydraulic pump (for a conventional single) would be an added, unecessary complication.
BTW, I can think of one common aerobatic aircraft with retracts (although it is ex-military): the T-34:
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1961 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4831 times:
Hey i have thought about this too. I think both the answers above are good answer but perhaps also the added stress of +/- 10 G's on an airplane with retractable gear would be a bit much and to strengthen them, the weight comes back into the picture. Also the thought like posted above off the added drag is very interesting indeed, but it just doesnt look as cool when doing a low and over.
FredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4783 times:
Weight for a very small benefit in the intended regim of flight is the main reason, just as stated above. No doubt about it. Complexity and cost would be two other reasons. Why mess with and pay for a gear retraction system when you get very little, if anything, in return?
I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.