Cessna 172 RG, GEAR Issue

hindsight2020 said:
Sell that thing OP, seriously. A FG 182 will cost less to maintain, operate and acquire and has better performance on both climb and useful load for the same cruise speed on a power setting that's easier on the engine. Just pay the gas and fly.

Keeping that thing is akin to keeping your worn-out $10K replacement-overdue battery pack toyota prius over a paid off pickup truck under the auspices that the prius has a higher book gas mileage....

Good luck to you.
Click to expand...

All I can say is, my god no flight school on earth could possibly make money with a 172RG if they are as big of a problem as you say they are.
 
bnt83 said:
All I can say is, my god no flight school on earth could possibly make money with a 172RG if they are as big of a problem as you say they are.
Click to expand...

Dave Hirshman has an idiotic article in this months AOPA magazine. He uses the Cessna 177RG for the basis of his argument against retracts.
 
bartmc said:
Dave Hirshman has an idiotic article in this months AOPA magazine. He uses the Cessna 177RG for the basis of his argument against retracts.
Click to expand...

Anyone who argues against retracts with the price of fuel where it is is an idiot to begin with.
 
Dan Thomas said:
For my money, it would be the R182, better known as the 182RG. Cessna really got the handling qualities right with that airplane. It doesn't fly like the FG version. What other airplane in that class has a Vso of 37 knots? What other airplane does a steep turn with almost no back pressure on the yoke? What older FG 182 has a TBO 2000 hours, or a Lycoming that doesn't need top-end work halfway to TBO? I always enjoyed the R182 when I flew it and maintained it. The biggest pain was jacking it so high to swing the gear.

Dan
Click to expand...

I love my 182RG.. really, I do. I try to stay out of these threads, but sometimes I just can't. My airplane has 1600hrs tt on it now, the oil analysis is BETTER than when I bought it, the gear has never caused problems. I figure in the last year of flying I've saved $1,000 at least by having the RG.. faster & more fuel efficient. Insurance is spendy, but when you got it as a brand new private pilot with a whopping 70hrs you can't expect much else...
 
bartmc said:
Here's Hirschman's piece.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2013/april/efficiency.html
Click to expand...
12 gph in a 177RG on a 450 nm flight? No way. Sure, 150 ROP at 3000 feet, but who flies like that unless there is a good reason (like icing or thunderstorms at the altitudes you'd otherwise be at)? If at all possible I'd be at 9000 feet, running at peak EGT or slightly LOP, and burning about 9 gph.

Also, he is quoting book figures for both airplanes. I've never actually seen a Cardinal RG make 156 KIAS. At max power at about 5000 feet, 135, maybe 140. A bit more with expen$ive speed mods, or if it's very clean and in perfect rig.
 
DavidWhite said:
How fast do you cruise with the 182RG?
Click to expand...
At 7000 I'm at 155. At 11000 I'm at 145. less than 11gph at that point. Fully loaded. I do fill it to gross frequently so the ability to haul a lot age get there comfortably was part if my mission. If you're in AZ ever I'd be happy to give you a ride.
rbridges said:
I'd like to know, too. Is the gear setup the same as the other RG models?
Click to expand...

Yes, at least as far as I know.
 
It's laughable how everyone thinks Mooney and Beech gear is far superior to Cessa's high wing retract design. This part failure could easily have been due to poor installation. Not even Beech or Mooney gear will survive poor maintenance.

Cessna 177RG and 210 ease of access for all passengers and crew cannot be beat by any aircraft in its class.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
It's laughable how everyone thinks Mooney and Beech gear is far superior to Cessa's high wing retract design. This part failure could easily have been due to poor installation. Not even Beech or Mooney gear will survive poor maintenance.

Cessna 177RG and 210 ease of access for all passengers and crew cannot be beat by any aircraft in its class.
Click to expand...

Having worked on them all, the Cessna's were the most problematic, but they weren't what I would classify as bad. I just wish I could buy the identical pump for a couple hundred bucks from the industrial suppliers I get it from for other applications.
 
bnt83 said:
It's laughable how everyone thinks Mooney and Beech gear is far superior to Cessa's high wing retract design. This part failure could easily have been due to poor installation. Not even Beech or Mooney gear will survive poor maintenance.

Cessna 177RG and 210 ease of access for all passengers and crew cannot be beat by any aircraft in its class.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has flown Mooney, Bonanzas, and 210s knows that the gear on Mooneys and Bonanzas is wayyyy better. Atleast Mooneys and Bonanzas don't have the ability to spew hot hydraulic oil and hydraulic mist in the cockpit.
 
I watched a Mooney gear up. Well, I heard it and saw the aftermath. He was "pretty sure" he put the gear down but never heard it lock. Whether he did put the gear down I don't know, though likely he didn't. It sure is nice to look down and confirm you've got a wheel hanging down.

Also, its not fair to lump the older 210s with the more modern Cessna retracts. Just like you probably don't want the J bar Mooneys lumped with yours. Every airplane has their downfalls, David. Cessna didn't make the best gear system, we all know that. But there are still other advantages. There is no magic airplane.
 
DavidWhite said:
. Atleast Mooneys and Bonanzas don't have the ability to spew hot hydraulic oil and hydraulic mist in the cockpit.
Click to expand...


I suggest you say out of real airplanes then... They all have the potential to spew hydraulic fluid into the cockpit & cabin. Most have hydraulic lines under the sub floor and of course the hydraulic lines that come off the brake master cylinder at the rudder pedals.
 
bnt83 said:
I suggest you say out of real airplanes then... They all have the potential to spew hydraulic fluid into the cockpit & cabin. Most have hydraulic lines under the sub floor and of course the hydraulic lines that come off the brake master cylinder at the rudder pedals.
Click to expand...

The Cessna system has way too many points of failure. I've had hydraulic issues twice in 2 separate 210s on 2 separate occasions. All in my whopping 10 hours in type. One resulted in declaring an emergency.

Not sure why I would want a 210 anyway. Spend more money on gas to go the same speed as my Mooney below 10k.
 
I don't care about lumping the J bar Mooneys in with mine. Hell that system is more idiot proof than the one in my airplane, just gotta watch the lock that holds the bar up when the gear is down, because it wears out.
 
DavidWhite said:
The Cessna system has way too many points of failure. I've had hydraulic issues twice in 2 separate 210s on 2 separate occasions. All in my whopping 10 hours in type. One resulted in declaring an emergency.

Not sure why I would want a 210 anyway. Spend more money on gas to go the same speed as my Mooney below 10k.
Click to expand...

For the same reason everyone ditches the mooney, the family won't fit and the bags sure won't either.
 
DavidWhite said:
FWIW I've had issues in a 210H and T210N
Click to expand...


And how did those turn out? What was the failure in each case? How were they maintained?

I seriously can't wait till you live in the real world where the aircraft is full of 1000's of miles of 20 year old wires and hundreds of 20 year old relays. Seriosly David, you won't have enough time to fly because you will be crying foul about make/model's dispatch reliability.
 
I've flown lots of airplanes, this dispatch reliability has sucked on my Mooney. In one instance I had hydraulic mist fill up the cockpit, the hydraulic pump had been running the whole time, and I burned my hand pumping the gear down because of the **** poor location of the hydraulic power pack. (Cliff notes, I'm on my phone) the other one I had a brake line that blew and I had no brakes on the right side. I became the NASCAR 210, making only left turns. Brake line had blown out and was leaking hydraulic fluid all over.


I'm not sure where you draw the "real world" line, but with 2 emergencies and 700 hours I'm pretty sure I'm there.
 
DavidWhite said:
I'm not sure where you draw the "real world" line, but with 2 emergencies and 700 hours I'm pretty sure I'm there.
Click to expand...

The one you want to be in... turbine. Where over 10 seconds of wing anti-ice "ON" during funtion check ruins the leading edges. Where failure of the engine bleed air duct in a plyon burns/melts holes in everything in its path. Anti-skid failures, windshield heat failures, stab trim failures, gear box carbon seal leaks, and even a $15 starter relay or the stupid airstair motor failure grounds the flight. Where there is an automatic fire extinguisher in the lavotory trash can.
 
I must fly in some sort of strange airplane purgatory where decisions I make have absolutely no negative possibilities and its just E-z mode. I didn't know to be a real pilot I had to fly a jet.
 
DavidWhite said:
I must fly in some sort of strange airplane purgatory where decisions I make have absolutely no negative possibilities and its just E-z mode. I didn't know to be a real pilot I had to fly a jet.
Click to expand...

Accoding to ABC we dont even have proper training for emergencies...

I just hope when you do get there, and skip flying a 1983 GII, that you have good stories for us.

Real world: where people get ****ed of your not going to fly and make them money.

Fun world: General Aviation where it doesn't matter if you go or not :yes:
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
Ok I see what you're saying. That makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like on pipeline patrols, I had a 3 day window in which to get each route done, if the weather is crap for 3 days straight guess what? Day 3 I go fly in crap weather, and winter in TX can have some ugly crap weather. Day 3 I don't even bother to check the weather because I'm going anyway.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, like on pipeline patrols, I had a 3 day window in which to get each route done, if the weather is crap for 3 days straight guess what? Day 3 I go fly in crap weather, and winter in TX can have some ugly crap weather. Day 3 I don't even bother to check the weather because I'm going anyway.
Click to expand...


Heard fire bombing sucks as usually the airplane is loaded/runing and waiting to fly but multipule government agencies are bickering about which one of their budget will be paying for this flight.
 
Henning said:
Having worked on them all, the Cessna's were the most problematic, but they weren't what I would classify as bad. I just wish I could buy the identical pump for a couple hundred bucks from the industrial suppliers I get it from for other applications.
Click to expand...

The Cessnas that get problematic are likely those that don't get the Cessna-recommended five-year hydraulic overhauls and 100-hour checks. We did those and had no issues at all. The rubber seals are mostly standard AN O-rings and backup rings, and so are cheap. The labor far outweighs parts costs. Thing is, with these airplanes, if an actuator seal fails, not even the emergency pump is going to get those mains down and locked. The nosewheel won't lock down properly, either, if the system can't build pressure, and it can't build pressure if an internal seal has split and is bypassing fluid. And the 500-hour NDI on the actuators doesn't even involve jacking the airplane until after the actuator goes back in, and then only to swing the gear.

Safety is much cheaper than a gear-up landing.

Dan
 
DavidWhite said:
I've flown lots of airplanes, this dispatch reliability has sucked on my Mooney. In one instance I had hydraulic mist fill up the cockpit, the hydraulic pump had been running the whole time, and I burned my hand pumping the gear down because of the **** poor location of the hydraulic power pack. (Cliff notes, I'm on my phone) the other one I had a brake line that blew and I had no brakes on the right side. I became the NASCAR 210, making only left turns. Brake line had blown out and was leaking hydraulic fluid all over.


I'm not sure where you draw the "real world" line, but with 2 emergencies and 700 hours I'm pretty sure I'm there.
Click to expand...
And many people have flown thousand of hours in them with no issues also. Nobody is saying they don't have problems, but your experiences are not the norm. Not sure if a brake line failure is an emergency, but its your flight.
You will ultimately fly airplane in your future that have other p*** poor locations of equipment im sure of it.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The Cessnas that get problematic are likely those that don't get the Cessna-recommended five-year hydraulic overhauls and 100-hour checks. We did those and had no issues at all. The rubber seals are mostly standard AN O-rings and backup rings, and so are cheap. The labor far outweighs parts costs. Thing is, with these airplanes, if an actuator seal fails, not even the emergency pump is going to get those mains down and locked. The nosewheel won't lock down properly, either, if the system can't build pressure, and it can't build pressure if an internal seal has split and is bypassing fluid. And the 500-hour NDI on the actuators doesn't even involve jacking the airplane until after the actuator goes back in, and then only to swing the gear.

Safety is much cheaper than a gear-up landing.

Dan
Click to expand...

Negative sir, safety by maintenance costs money out of pocket, gear up costs the insurance.
 
Henning said:
Negative sir, safety by maintenance costs money out of pocket, gear up costs the insurance.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it :D.

Though if an engine pukes itself it's still on you unless you purposely take it to a row of trees and sever the wings. If you Chuck Yeager it and it lands in one piece, you cost yourself money. Talk about disincentive.
 
hindsight2020 said:
You beat me to it :D.

Though if an engine pukes itself it's still on you unless you purposely take it to a row of trees and sever the wings. If you Chuck Yeager it and it lands in one piece, you cost yourself money. Talk about disincentive.
Click to expand...

I have been told on more than one ferry flight, "If anything goes wrong, make sure you total the plane.", "No worries, can do."
 
flyingmoose said:
And many people have flown thousand of hours in them with no issues also. Nobody is saying they don't have problems, but your experiences are not the norm. Not sure if a brake line failure is an emergency, but its your flight.
You will ultimately fly airplane in your future that have other p*** poor locations of equipment im sure of it.
Click to expand...

Never said the brake like failure was my other emergency. Pretty sure I referred to it as an "issue"
 
DavidWhite said:
Never said the brake like failure was my other emergency. Pretty sure I referred to it as an "issue"
Click to expand...
Well ok then lets review. You said:
the other one I had a brake line that blew and I had no brakes on the right side.
Click to expand...
Then you refered to 2 emergencies here VVV
I'm not sure where you draw the "real world" line, but with 2 emergencies and 700 hours I'm pretty sure I'm there.
Click to expand...
Its really not important, just pointing it out, so with that said; apologies if my understanding of English is a bit different than yours. It must have been foolish of me to read what you wrote and think that was what you were talking about. Carry on:rolleyes:
 
DavidWhite said:
Never said the brake like failure was my other emergency. Pretty sure I referred to it as an "issue"
Click to expand...


Was the brake line failure part of the cessna retract design or was it just a hose or fitting which could break on any airplane? Pretty much all retract aircraft use a combination of hoses and ridgid lines with a swivel fitting to connect the hoses to the struts.


Was the hydraulic failure the engine driven pump type or the electrohydraulic powerpack?
 
Last edited:
Lets see,

I have seen gear issues on every retract I have ever worked on. It has moving parts, it will fail. The two most expencive fixes were a 172RG and a M20. (Hint to the electric gear mooney drivers, NEVER pull the recoil handle unless you are exactly following the instructions in the POH, or you will strip it out!)

My job is to find and correct the failure before you have a bad day.

It is up to the owner if the money he pays me and his insurance company is worth it. Retracts have advantages but there is no free lunch.
 
I've "yet to have" a gear failure in my Cardinal RG (put it that way so as not to jinx myself), but I was being checked out in a 182RG when it sprung a hydraulic leak that could have led to a gear up. Luckily we were able to pump the gear down manually. The fact that loss of hydraulic fluid makes it impossible to pump the gear down even manually is probably the weakest point in the late model 177RG gear system. Luckily the power pack is in the tail cone, so what happened to David in the 210 is not one of the failure modes.

Someone on Cardinal Flyers wrote a while ago about keeping the tow bar handy to pull the mains into locked position in case of total hydraulic failure. I do carry my tow bar but I have no idea if that's even feasible, much less any kind of a solution given that the nose wheel would require the same, and I don't see how it's even reachable through a cracked-open door.
 
I was presented with a simulated hydraulic failure in the 172RG, I was able to lock the mains by yawing the plane back and forth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top