C172 RG First annual coming up, looking for advise

digitalpilotnm

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
15
Display Name
John Brown
Hi, the annual on my 172 RG Cutlass is coming up next month. This is the first annual since I purchased the plane.
She has been flying good and no real squawks.

This is not my first plane or first annual, but it is my first 172RG annual. So I'm interested in any words of wisdom on things that typically are problems with this model.
Total airfram time is around 13K, Engine is around 1000 TSMOH.
Just put in new panel (2xG5, GNC355, GNC 215, GMA 345, GTX 345)

Thank you in advance.
 
Make sure the IA/AP mechanic that checks the gear rigging knows what they are doing and has the proper go/no gauge for the mains and doesn’t do it by feeler gauges. This is critical. Only fix gear related items if they need fixing. Ie- don’t let them overhaul gear components that are functioning fine/not leaking. Improper gear rigging and maintenance induced failures can be quite expensive if the gear fails to extend or folds up on roll-out. On these old aircraft, don’t fix what ain’t broke.
 
Only fix gear related items if they need fixing. Ie- don’t let them overhaul gear components that are functioning fine/not leaking.
That is asking for trouble. Depending on the year it was built, Cessna had a requirement that all rubber components of the hydraulic system be replaced periodically. That went to on-condition later on, when the rubber stuff was changed to a different, longer-lasting compound.

See, in the Cessna single retracts, one failure of one O-ring means you cannot get the gear extended, not even with the hand pump. You are guaranteed a gear-up landing and maybe a writeoff of the whole airplane. Every seal in that system is critical.

We did the full gear swings on the 200-hour inspections on our R182 in the flight school. One day, while doing this, the gear just stopped working. It fell down but would not go to full extension and locking. No matter what we did with the lever or the hand pump, it would not work in either direction. It turned out that one tiny O-ring in the control valve had split and was leaking fluid back to the reservoir; pressure could not be had for a million bucks. If that had happened in flight, a gear-up would have happened, all for the failure of a ten-cent O-ring.

From the 1980-1985 172RG Service Manual, Section 2:

1770747916059.png
1770747848200.png

See that Special Inspection 16?

1770747772445.png

Cessna isn't fooling there. But too many mechanics either don't have the manuals or seldom look at them. Even though the law requires it.

1770748120190.png

On these old aircraft, don’t fix what ain’t broke.
That old philosophy again. Wait until it's broke to fix it??! That has caused many inflight failures. Failed mags due to no 500-hour internal inspections. Failed vacuum pumps because the owner/mechanic disregard the time limits set by the manufacturer, or will not buy Rapco or Tempest pumps that have vane-wear provisions to avoid over-worn vanes causing rotor breakage and failure. 40- and 50-year-old seals in the hydraulic system. Worn-out alternator brushes that cause alternator failure because the 500-hour inspections were ignored. All of this stuff gets run to failure, and so we get stories on POA about being stranded far from home with a dead whatever, or worse, the lights and radios or instruments fail at night or in IMC or both.

Aviation is very unforgiving, and running stuff to failure is Just. Plain. Stupid.
 
Last edited:
I think because of insurance and increased maintenance cost.
I would be surprised if one could find a Cessna RG single that has a maintenance log history which verified the 100 hour inspections Dan posted above had been performed.
 
I would be surprised if one could find a Cessna RG single that has a maintenance log history which verified the 100 hour inspections Dan posted above had been performed.
There out there. But only on those aircraft where the owner required the use of the OEM inspection guides or used hybrid guides/checklists that incorporated the important OEM stuff like motor brush inspections, etc. Forutnately/unfortunately that level aircraft rarely makes it out in the public domain sale area and are usually sold to similar minded owners.
 
Make sure the IA/AP mechanic that checks the gear rigging knows what they are doing and has the proper go/no gauge for the mains and doesn’t do it by feeler gauges. This is critical. Only fix gear related items if they need fixing. Ie- don’t let them overhaul gear components that are functioning fine/not leaking. Improper gear rigging and maintenance induced failures can be quite expensive if the gear fails to extend or folds up on roll-out. On these old aircraft, don’t fix what ain’t broke.
Thank you for the info. Do you have a recommendation on a source for the Go / No-Go gauge(s) ???
 
Thank you for the info. Do you have a recommendation on a source for the Go / No-Go gauge(s) ???
Cessna/textron sells these but, I would only use a mechanic that has them and has performed gear 177/210 gear rigging before.
 
not sure I follow??
factory-built. nvm, I see you're more of a lurker; it was just an inside barb/reference. it's all good.

Personally I would go with a 182 for long term ownership if I were inclinded to stay on that side of this hobby. I prefer the Lyco, but not willing to eat the RG woes over the straight leg 182. As others have highlighted, the orphaned gear support and parts pricing of said gear components looking at the 2030s just isn't worth the cruise speed increase over the straight leg. Certainly hasn't been true for me since the mid 2010s, and TAA made these trainers obsolete a long time ago. For you that may be sunk cost since you already sank crazy (to me) money into the panel, and admitedly 182 pricing jumped the shark half a decade ago anyways.

I have alright memories of the gutless. Did my initial CFI check on it, my favorite thing about it was the fuel tank offering over the original 172. 180hp is too puny for my old family mission, for a 2 person plus bag long distance cruiser I think it's a sleeper choice, especially now that it has been phased out of training fleets. Again, a 182 is a real sweet setup, and the market has spoken.

good luck with the annual.
 
Back
Top