banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 02:01 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 21:03 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/16/11
Posts: 5204
Post Likes: +6755
Location: Burlington, NC
Aircraft: V35B
What's the difference (stability, robustness, complexity) of landing gear on a High-Wing Cessna (e.g. 182RG, 210) vs. on low wing aircraft such as Bonanza/Deb/Baron/Travel Air, Piper Saratoga, Lance, Comanche, Arrow, Twin Comanche, etc.?

_________________
Matt
336-266-3105
Be Kind, Rewind


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 21:09 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/15/11
Posts: 899
Post Likes: +920
Location: Elk City, OK
Aircraft: B55 P2 & 210
I'm sure lots of people will tell you how terrible the Cessna gear is, but as the owner of a 1960 210 for 24 years and a 1975 T210 for 4 years, the gear is actually pretty stout. I think more problems have been caused by people trying to work on the planes who just don't understand the gear than anything.

_________________
Sincerely,
Bobby Southard


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 21:11 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19768
Post Likes: +19436
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
What's the difference (stability, robustness, complexity) of landing gear on a High-Wing Cessna (e.g. 182RG, 210) vs. on low wing aircraft such as Bonanza/Deb/Baron/Travel Air, Piper Saratoga, Lance, Comanche, Arrow, Twin Comanche, etc.?

Having flown both types I can say very un-scientifically that the high wing gear is about as stable, though somewhat narrower. It is sturdy, and it's more complex. What I've heard is that the complexity and design can make it somewhat more maintenance prone, but I wonder if that's accurate since many retracts have gear issues, including our robust gear on the Bonanza and Baron. I'm inclined to think that it's not better or worse, just different. Those who've actually owned and paid for it can chime in with more accuracy.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 21:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/27/10
Posts: 10861
Post Likes: +6884
Location: Cambridge, MA (KLWM)
Aircraft: 1997 A36TN
I have a little 182RG time and shopped C210s/P210s really hard, including taking the Cessna Pilot's Association 210 systems and procedures class (which I recommend if you're considering one and if they're still doing them post John Frank's passing).

I'd have no qualms buying a C210 based on the gear or any perceived limitations there. It looks goofy as hell while in transit, but seems to work well enough and be stout enough for unpaved operations. You do need to understand the system and its failure modes and need to have a mechanic who knows what they're doing and/or how to read and follow a book. In that regard, it's not all that different from the gear driven gear in your 35.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 21:45 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 705
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
I have flown a Cessna Cardinal RG for the past 26 years and the only problem I have had with the gear was a broken wire to the nose wheel squat switch. I fixed it with a $3 reed switch 20 years ago and it has not had a problem since. My gear has the hydraulic uplocks. Some earlier models '75 and older have electric uplocks which may take a little more maintenance.

Vince


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 21:53 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/16/11
Posts: 939
Post Likes: +417
Location: Fitchburg MA, MA (KFIT)
Aircraft: 1978 Bonanza A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
I have flown a Cessna Cardinal RG for the past 26 years and the only problem I have had with the gear was a broken wire to the nose wheel squat switch. I fixed it with a $3 reed switch 20 years ago and it has not had a problem since. My gear has the hydraulic uplocks. Some earlier models '75 and older have electric uplocks which may take a little more maintenance.

Vince



I am with Vince (Hi Vince!). Owned a 75 C177RG for 30+ years and had few issues if properly maintained... had a broken wire, leak in an pressure switch (new o-ring), and a few other minor issues.

Great system if maintained to a reasonable standard.

Jeff

_________________
Jeff Kauffman
BE-36 TN, Fitchburg, MA (KFIT)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 22:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/25/14
Posts: 1174
Post Likes: +963
Location: Western Kansas
Aircraft: Cessna T210M
I've had my T210 in and on just about every conceivable landing surface that would be appropriate for nearly any retract with no issues. I haven't done any maintenance on just the gear except a brake line swivel at the pivot (armpits) point. The shop I work with has extensive and long time experience with 210's so I've never run into a rigging problem myself but I've heard time and again you had better know what you are doing to properly rig the gear. This is true of many mechanical things though.
To at least be considered is the fact if you should suffer a broken hydraulic hose or line, you'll be going in gear up. I wouldn't let that one item sway a decision though, nothing does what a 210 does like it does it.

_________________
-JV


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 22:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/14/09
Posts: 544
Post Likes: +210
Location: Chattanooga, TN (KFGU)
I had a C210L for 8 years. The Cessna landing gear has to maintained by a shop that knows what they doing when working on the gear. Hose replacement and power pack maintenance is critical. The emergency system to lower the Cessna gear relies on fluid remaining in the power pack. There are situations and failure of certain hoses that will render the alternate system inoperative and cause a gear up landing. The fuselage belly is very strong and a gear up landing can be made without destroying the airplane, Just expensive to repair.

The Beech system is electrical with a reliable alternate mechanical lowering system. But the gear system also needs to be maintained by a knowledgable Beech mechanic or shop.

Having flown and owned a 210, A36, and G36 I would prefer the Beech system. The Beech system is less complicated than the Cessna system in my opinion.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 11:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/02/10
Posts: 7236
Post Likes: +4511
Company: Inscrutable Fasteners, LLC
Location: West Palm Beach - F45
Aircraft: Planeless
I've got a considerable amount of time in both Arrows and 172RGs. Both were fine, and I actually liked the 172RG quite a bit.

The only caveat to any of the Cessna RGs is what's been stated above: Make sure you've got someone who knows WTF they're doing around them and what to look for.

If you're going to buy one, make absolutely sure your pre-buy covers the gear completely. It's not that they're unreliable or a bad design...they're not. But parts are wickedly expensive. A gear saddle, actuator or even something minor like a brake swivel fitting are all beyond expensive.

Best,
Rich


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 11:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
The Piper Arrow (PA28), Saratoga and Lance (PA32) and Senecas (PA34) is among the simplest and robust retractable landing gear systems. If the hydraulic system loses pressure the gear will just fall and lock. The emergency extension is just a valve that relieves all pressure in the gear system. There are no uplocks and the only thing that keeps them up is hydraulic pressure. That's why so many Arrows are used for initial retract/complex training. It's about the cheapest to keep retract there is.

The Mooneys with johnson bar gear are arguably of the same order or even less complex - but I don't have any personal experience with them.

The Cessna gear system is more complicated and it is different on different models with variations of gear doors and up locks. But the gist of systems like on the 182RG use a "pivot" which is driven by hydraulics to bring the gear up and put them down. The pivots do fail and can be quite pricey to repair or replace. Kept in good order, they work fine. But they shouldn't be neglected. On the models with gear doors, many choose to remove them for various reason.

Beech gear are perfect and never fail. ;)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 12:13 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/29/10
Posts: 2528
Post Likes: +2187
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
One more voice to the echo-chamber: I had an 1980 T210 for 6 years and the gear was absolutely rock solid. Landed on grass, dirt, whatever, and it just worked.

Robert


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 12:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/27/10
Posts: 10861
Post Likes: +6884
Location: Cambridge, MA (KLWM)
Aircraft: 1997 A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
On the models with gear doors, many choose to remove them for various reason.
As I understand it, the gear door removal is more superstition than borne out by in the field reality. When I was researching, I'd concluded that I wouldn't remove the gear doors on an earlier model so equipped, but a lot of the fleet has had their gear doors removed.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 12:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/04/14
Posts: 1693
Post Likes: +1137
Location: Southern California
Aircraft: C 210
I cant really compare the two systems as I only have a small amount of time in Bo's but I consider my 210 very stable. The "truck-like" handling that is often mentioned here continues on the ground. :D The later models went to a tube gear leg that has a wider stance to put the mains farther back when retracted, which I assume makes them more stable than mine.

After 3 years and 300ish hours the gear on my 1964 210D has been 100% reliable. One of the actuators was barely "sweating" last year so we did new O-rings on both for a total cost of about $5 in parts. The early 210s like mine use an engine driven hydraulic pump, later years went to an electric motor driving the powerpack. As I understand it the emergency pump has a separate stand pipe and is supposed to contain enough fluid to put them down in the event that the engine driven pump fails or is ran dry for some reason.

One nice thing about the system is I am able to swing the gear using just the hand pump which avoids the need for a mule and allows you to stop with them in any position to look at stuff and you can observe them in transit while going as slow as you want.

A quirk that is probably unique to the engine driven pump set up is you really need to monitor the gear while in transit (always a good idea anyways) so as to not let the pump continue running in the event the handle does not automatically go back to neutral. If you allow the pump to keep running in this situation it is possible to burn it up.

While not as simple as the gear on a bonanza I really dont consider it all that complicated. Its essentially just a standard hydraulic ram that actuates a gear to make them pivot. Mine has had the gear doors removed like the later models which simplifies it quite a bit as it removes the hydraulic actuators and sequencing required to open and close the doors. Saves some weight as well at the expense of a few kts. Another nice thing is you can visually check the mains and I have mirrors for nose.

(Retraction at 2:00 and extension at 6:30)
[youtube]https://youtu.be/W1YnCWIX62U[/youtube]


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 12:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/04/14
Posts: 1693
Post Likes: +1137
Location: Southern California
Aircraft: C 210
Username Protected wrote:
On the models with gear doors, many choose to remove them for various reason.
As I understand it, the gear door removal is more superstition than borne out by in the field reality. When I was researching, I'd concluded that I wouldn't remove the gear doors on an earlier model so equipped, but a lot of the fleet has had their gear doors removed.


The current consensus is to not remove them if they are in good shape. I think most of the ones you see converted were done after a gear up or when pilots repeatedly put the gear down too fast/uncoordinated and damage them. Its cheaper to remove the doors than it is to replace them. You save some weight removing them but also lose a small amount of speed.

Ive read concerns about corrosion from exhaust with the doors removed (later models that came without doors have plastic wheel well liners). We keep ours covered in ACF-50 and have no corrosion and ours has been doorless for 30 years.

One thing I like about the conversion is the nose doors are changed to a mechanical linkage instead of hyd and the doors stay open with the gear down which is nice for inspection, cleaning, etc. I guess if you operated off dirt alot it would be a pain cause the nose tire would throw junk up in the well.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Retractable Landing Gear on High-Wing Cessna
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 15:33 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3553
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
Seems like maybe 10-15 years ago the 210s had a real streak of landing gear related issues and I recall one underwriter telling me after 5 geared up on one single day they totally blacklisted them from quoting.

For some reason the 182RG has always been relatively inexpensive to insure, didn't seem to have as many issues at least that I saw from an insurance perspective.

More recently the 210s have settled down and been fairly "normal". Maybe they are getting rigged better.

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.