tspear
Well-Known Member
I can follow that the gear hanging out adds drag. There seems to be some debate how much drag though.
Here are the tidbits I have picked up and I am trying to reconcile:
So, what is the real drag penalty of gear hanging in the wind? Does it really come down to design?
What is easier to design? A retract system or better aerodynamics?
Lastly, I look at Van's and the ability to switch from tricycle to tail wheel seems rather simple. Why for other kit planes is it so hard? I am sure I a missing a lot of the details, but I am baffled why other companies do not do it the same. e.g. Why not design the Lancair Mako to be either? Or the Revolution Aviation RAI-6 (http://revolutionaviation.net/foxtrot/)
Tim
Here are the tidbits I have picked up and I am trying to reconcile:
- Vans Aircraft: across the board, tail wheel to tricycle is only a 2 MPH penalty.
- Lancair Mako: retract nose gear expected to increase performance 7-8 knots!
- Cessna 182 vs 182RG: Based on the POHs I found, and other posts online. For the same engine and power settings, the RG is about 10-12 knots faster.
- Cessna TTx vs Mooney: The TTx is much faster on the same power. Both are 310HP naturally aspirated....
So, what is the real drag penalty of gear hanging in the wind? Does it really come down to design?
What is easier to design? A retract system or better aerodynamics?
Lastly, I look at Van's and the ability to switch from tricycle to tail wheel seems rather simple. Why for other kit planes is it so hard? I am sure I a missing a lot of the details, but I am baffled why other companies do not do it the same. e.g. Why not design the Lancair Mako to be either? Or the Revolution Aviation RAI-6 (http://revolutionaviation.net/foxtrot/)
Tim