<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#cc0000" bgcolor="#ccffff">
<font face="Arial">I think it has to do with the new style of flying --
slower, and especially trying to keep the down lines no faster than the
horizontal lines. Dirty airframes provide more drag</font>. Also, no
retracts leads to less mechanical complexity, and one less point of
failure. But, I think the drag thingy is the main point...<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Phil Spelt, KCRC President
AMA 1294 Scientific Leader Member
SPA 177 Board Member
(865)435-1476v, (865)604-0541c</pre>
<br>
On 12/8/2012 7:41 PM, Mark Aulfinger wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1355013677.60771.YahooMailNeo@web162702.mail.bf1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Hi
All,<br>
<br>
Long time lurker on this message board. Wanted to ask why modern
pattern planes don't have retracts? There's<br>
no doubt a good reason that no one uses them anymore. Just curious
why...I like the looks of a plane with the<br>
gear tucked away. <br>
<br>
Thanks in advance for any replies,<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>