Why No Retractable Gear On Aerobatics Planes? — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Why No Retractable Gear On Aerobatics Planes?

QFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2024 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3646 times:

Why do no aerobatics planes have retractable gear? I have never seen one that does. Wouldn't it help quite abit if the plane was more streamlined?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob Epstein

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fanie Kleynhans

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Howard J Curtis

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Howard J Curtis

6 replies: All unread, jump to last

2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting QFA380 (Thread starter):
Why do no aerobatics planes have retractable gear?

Weight. Aerodynamics are comparatively less important, as aerobatic aircraft spend the majority of their time in low-speed flight.

2H4

Intentionally Left Blank

KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5929 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3637 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:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © C. Nolan Huizenga

Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)

ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1922 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3626 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.

Cheers Chris

Keep the shinny side up!

FredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3578 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?

Rgds,
/Fred

I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.

Sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3528 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):
The gear hanging out in the breeze helps generate drag

And if the need to overcome the drag arises, just put a bigger engine on it. I'm sure the aero pilots would say "hmmm bigger engine? Is good"

Just my twocents