Cessna Cutlass 172RG

K

KennyFlys

Guest
My boss is considering getting a Cutlass to cover requirements for commercial students. I did not see a great performance of the Cutlass from a school in Atlanta and there tended to be more than average mechanical issues.

I've also heard insurance companies are beginning to no longer insure a newly acquired 172RG by flight schools. I've got some calls in to a couple carriers checking into this.

What can anyone here tell me about their experience with the plane? Is it a worthwhile "adventure"?

I'll leave out the concerns I've heard until I hear from others.

My personal preference would be a 182RG but that comes with a bit more fuel costs. He's not all that favorable to the extra few gallons an hour.
 
KennyFlys said:
My personal preference would be a 182RG but that comes with a bit more fuel costs. He's not all that favorable to the extra few gallons an hour.
Click to expand...
With only 180 hp you couldn't use the 172RG for high-performance endorsements, while the 235-hp R182 would qualify for both h-p and complex.

It's been a while since I flew a 172RG, but as I recall it would true out about 135 KTAS at 8,000 ft and go a fair distance with its 62-gallon fuel capacity.
 
Pilawt said:
With only 180 hp you couldn't use the 172RG for high-performance endorsements, while the 235-hp R182 would qualify for both h-p and complex.

It's been a while since I flew a 172RG, but as I recall it would true out about 135 KTAS at 8,000 ft and go a fair distance with its 62-gallon fuel capacity.
Click to expand...
My experience as well. I loved both the 172RG and the 182RG. Flying the 172RG for my commercial was a joy and the cost to operate was not that far out of line as compared to a fixed gear 172. The 182RG had insurance requirements on it that required pilots to have 500 hours or no solo. That kept it on the ground a lot more. Which was ok with me as it made it easier to rent.
 
KennyFlys said:
My personal preference would be a 182RG but that comes with a bit more fuel costs. He's not all that favorable to the extra few gallons an hour.
Click to expand...

Well, remind him that you can do HP as well as Complex endorsements in it, and that it will be useful for more than just Commercial training - It'd be a great cross-country bird to rent people for trips. :yes:
 
Pilawt said:
With only 180 hp you couldn't use the 172RG for high-performance endorsements, while the 235-hp R182 would qualify for both h-p and complex.
Click to expand...
The "complex" is what is primarily needed in order to qualify for commercial training and the practical test. I have a feeling the "high performance" would take a chunk more of insurance premiums. But, it's his call.
 
I think the Cutlass may be the most commonly used commercial trainer in the states. It's probably no coincidence that ASA's Commercial PTS guide uses this model as the template for the systems questions.

Clearly, one of the reasons is its basic similarity to a 172, so it's an easy transition, but that's not a bad thing.
 
Gas consumption and operating costs rule out the 182RG.

As an airplane the 172RG isn't nearly as nice as a Cardinal RG in any way, shape or form. On the other hand, it's probably a little more robust and a little cheaper to operate.

For a flight school on the budget its the Cutlass or Arrow. :dunno:

I've flown them both and find the Cutlass a better airplane.
 
I own a Cutlass so I'm biased but I checked out in the 172Rg for complex and a 182rg for high powered.

For the training aspect the 172rg has all the advantages.
Lower purchase cost
Lower operating cost
Flies like a straight leg 172 so easy to move into
 
JimNtexas said:
Gas consumption and operating costs rule out the 182RG.
Click to expand...

If you want one plane to do both complex and high performance endorsements, and you have renters who want a 150-knot traveling machine, the mission calls for a 182RG. The 172RG is what you want if you want a Cessna and you ONLY want to do complex training.

As an airplane the 172RG isn't nearly as nice as a Cardinal RG in any way, shape or form. On the other hand, it's probably a little more robust and a little cheaper to operate.
Click to expand...

You've probably got that right. I wish there was a Cardinal RG I could rent somewhere nearby...

For a flight school on the budget its the Cutlass or Arrow. :dunno:

I've flown them both and find the Cutlass a better airplane.
Click to expand...

I've never flown a 172RG, but I must disagree simply from a systems perspective. The 172RG's landing gear has been subject to expensive AD's, must be cranked down, and if there's no fluid you're screwed. The Arrow has pretty stout gear that can simply be gravity-dropped. If you have a gear failure in IMC, which would you rather have?

Generally, I also favor the equivalent Pipers over Cessnas - Gentler stalls, easier to land, much more positive feel on the nosewheel steering on the ground. I fly the 182 'cuz Piper never made a bird like the 182. :no:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I've never flown a 172RG, but I must disagree simply from a systems perspective. The 172RG's landing gear has been subject to expensive AD's, must be cranked down, and if there's no fluid you're screwed.
Click to expand...
Pumped, not cranked. Hydraulic pressure.

What is the insurance cost difference between a 172RG and Arrow? If they are similar, that means the gear thing really isn't all that big of a risk.
 
Uh, you can always throttle back in a 182 and save fuel.
 
jesse said:
Pumped, not cranked. Hydraulic pressure.

What is the insurance cost difference between a 172RG and Arrow? If they are similar, that means the gear thing really isn't all that big of a risk.
Click to expand...
When I was looking to buy a plane I looked at both and the insurance costs were very similar, usually within $100 of each other (1970 Arrow vs. 1980 172RG). I think that most gear accidents are pilot related not mechanical.
 
We have gear up problems a lot. This seems to be the typical reason for the aircraft to be grounded. The problem is, the gear is a very sensitive system, too many hard landings and retracting and extending the landing gear tend to get the best of it after a while which is unlike 152s that can take a little bit more of a beating from students. In my opinion, Cessna designed their retractables a little funny. Not only do they retract but they fold backwards. Other than the landing gear, the airplane is just a typical 172 that cruises a few knots faster than its fixed gear counterpart. I'm not quite sure if the gain of a few knots is really worth the gear problems so I can't say it would be my first choice but I do know that it tends to be a common commercial trainer in flight schools.

...my two cents
 
Last edited:
Tristar said:
In my opinion, Cessna designed their retractables a little funny. Not only do they retract but they fold backwards...my two cents
Click to expand...
Airplane design is always a series of compromises to get the strongest, lightest, fastest, most fuel efficient thing into the sky. Cessna's gear design is an artifact of the high wing.

-Skip
 
jesse said:
Pumped, not cranked. Hydraulic pressure.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bad choice of words. Ya do have to screw in the crank to pump it. ;)

Still, the Arrow is far easier. I don't think the 172RG is impossible by any means (Tris showed us that, opening the spam can!) but I prefer the simpler system.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Sorry, bad choice of words. Ya do have to screw in the crank to pump it. ;)
Click to expand...
What type of 172 or 182RG did you fly in?

The ones I did you simply pulled the handle out from between the left and right seater and started pumping. Never had to screw anything in. Took forever to pump up the gear and it was fun to do while flying the plane!
 
I owned a Cutlass for nine yr. It was in a club at which I taught and, yes, it was mostly used for commercial and CFI training. I taught advanced training and had occasion to use it for many hours. They are great little planes, I think, and are just fine for what they were designed. Besides putting three factory remans in it at TBO, I had no unusual mx hassles. Students loved it, it was so easy to transition to from a Skyhawk.

In the leaseback situation, it flew a lot, and was one of two the club had. They also had a few 182s [one an RG]. For cross-countries, people usually tried to snag one of the 182s for their speed and hauling abilities. However, the Cutlass from a business aspect rented a lot. It would often log a hundred hours a month. Or near that. Not always, of course, but it definitely paid for itself.

One of my commercial students was a software engineer who had made it his goal to check out and become proficient in every make and model the club had. I don't feel like figuring out how many that was right now, but we had over thirty planes in all, including singles and twins. He wrote a program to figure out which plane in the fleet had the best "mileage" and cost per mile for his typical trip, which if I recall was two people, baggage, and maybe 500 nm. His program showed him that the Cutlass was the best value per rental dollar for his particular trips. The AA5B came in second, if I recall correctly.

I sold my plane in 2002, so I am not current as to insurance co's feelings toward the model. There were no problems for me back then.
 
We had two of the very last C172RG's built at our school in Colorado, and it served very well. The AD's mentioned re: the landing gear was something which was resolved about 4 years ago. If the aircraft is flying, it had to be done way back then. At the time it was between $3-4K for that AD, and the worst was waiting for parts to come available.

It is a very serviceable machine, and like many have said, an easy transition for those coming out of a straight 172. It is simple and docile, making it an ideal teaching aircraft. It's performance wasn't something which could get out of hand too quickly, but sufficed to meet the needs of commercial and CFI training.
 
Kenny,
I'm not sure of the rest of your fleet. If it's 152/172s, then it might be a decent choice...but it's hard to argue the value of an Arrow in this role. The gear on an Arrow is dead simple. If you lose hydraulics, you simply hit the emergency gear extension and they drop out underneath the airplane. It's almost foolproof. If I were going to be choosing one to put on the line with no other influencing factors, then I think I'd go with the Arrow (even though I've found that I like flying Cessnas much more than Pipers...but that's a different subject :D).
 
I second the Arrow - you can assume your CFIs and instructors will be practicing the emergency gear extension, and that's where the simpleness of the Arrow (and others) really shine over systems like the Cessna or Mooney - there's much less to go wrong, and there's little to no additional "wear" on anything when you practice emergency gear extensions 4+ times a day in an Arrow.
 
Nobody wants to pay HP rates to fill the complex square for commercial/CFI. As the Cutlass is both lower in power and carbureted, it can be run cheaper than an Arrow as long as the gear maintenance issues (there's an expensive AD out there) have been addressed. Further, it's basically a retractable 172, which means folks trained in 172's are right at home in it. Whether it's more popular than the Arrow as a commercial/CFI trainer, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure those are the top two. As long as insurance issues aren't an issue (and I have no information either way on this), it's a good flight school choice for the commercial/CFI programs.

For any other purpose, it's a dog -- a Tiger is faster, carries more, and costs less to operate, insure, and maintain.
 
KennyFlys said:
My boss is considering getting a Cutlass to cover requirements for commercial students. I did not see a great performance of the Cutlass from a school in Atlanta and there tended to be more than average mechanical issues.

My personal preference would be a 182RG but that comes with a bit more fuel costs. He's not all that favorable to the extra few gallons an hour.
Click to expand...


If you want to stay Cessna: Personal airplane=182RG, Training/leaseback airplane =172RG.

I'd probably use a Seirra though for the application.
 
First for training purposes I don't think the 182 is going to use much more fuel than a 172. You are not really going anywhere, so there is no need to use full power or anywhere near it.

Second if pilots that are going for their Comm are landing hard in a 182 they need to back up and learn how to land in a 172. By the time you get to comm I would hope you could land without landing hard. (Don't let students that cannot land correct rent it.)

The 182 is more versatile for renting. Yes it does use more fuel but it gets there quicker also, so the total cost is about the same to the pilot.

I did my Complex in a 182RG it took .5 hr 3 landings one of which was a pump the gear down type. Read the POH and land by the numbers and it is no big deal.

Dan
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Sorry, bad choice of words. Ya do have to screw in the crank to pump it. ;)

Still, the Arrow is far easier. I don't think the 172RG is impossible by any means (Tris showed us that, opening the spam can!) but I prefer the simpler system.
Click to expand...
Didn't someone give me a hard time for not exactly saying what I mean? :)
 
I'd rather have the 182RG. And, as mentioned, the gear has been an issue on the Cutlass. I was at the school that had the gear up back in January, the very plane I was to take my CFI ride in. The FAA guys on site at the time of the landing stated the Cutlass had a bad gear history. Later, the school made a policy of no student solo flight in the Cutlass.

I'm leaning toward the same with regard to student training. That may make insurance cheaper in the end. It may also a help with such a policy in a 182RG.

I had one school I interviewed with tell me his insurance would no longer cover a Cutlass beyond the couple he already owned. Once they are gone, it's on to something else.

I suppose we should take a look at the Warrior. There's no rush on the issue but there's more data to be gleaned given what I saw earlier this year.

Thanks for all the input.
 
stingray said:
The 182 is more versatile for renting. Yes it does use more fuel but it gets there quicker also, so the total cost is about the same to the pilot.
Click to expand...

The 182 is more versatile because you can fill the seats carry fuel and baggage.

The 182RG burns 12 gallons per hour versus 9.5 for comparable power and altitude settings for the 172RG or 25% faster. Cruise speed was about 15% or 20 nm or so faster.

Comparable planes will cost around 67% more for the 182RG, same basic gear issues.

If the 172RG fits the requirements it's a cheaper Cross country flyer than the 182RG.
 
RMCN172RG said:
Comparable planes will cost around 67% more for the 182RG, same basic gear issues.

If the 172RG fits the requirements it's a cheaper Cross country flyer than the 182RG.
Click to expand...
I've not seen a terribly increased cost in the plane but the fuel for operation is a different story. Keep in mind, it will burn near max for a lot of training.

I've been hearing the 182's power pack is not quite the same. Stronger and heavier-built? Is this the case or are they precisely the same?
 
Kenny, I fly the 172RG at Superior on a regular basis. Well, a bit less now that I'm flying a friend's Commander.

I like traveling in the 172RG, just wish that one had an AP. Dual 430's (and the databases are out-of-date) and no AP? Sigh.

If your fleet is mostly/solely Cessna, then I'd say 172RG or 182RG. I'm with others here that the 182RG would be great for trips. The combination of more useful load and more speed is great for traveling. But if they just want a comm trainer plane then it might not be as beneficial.
 
RMCN172RG said:
The 182 is more versatile because you can fill the seats carry fuel and baggage.

The 182RG burns 12 gallons per hour versus 9.5 for comparable power and altitude settings for the 172RG or 25% faster. Cruise speed was about 15% or 20 nm or so faster.

Comparable planes will cost around 67% more for the 182RG, same basic gear issues.

If the 172RG fits the requirements it's a cheaper Cross country flyer than the 182RG.
Click to expand...

My Bellanca has basically the same engine just more HP. I can throttle it back and burn 9 GPH. If your going to compare you have to compare speed not power. Set the 172 up for 125 kts and do the same for the 182. I think the FF will be about the same.

Dan
 
Renters run at 75% no matter what you tell them (and they don't lean, either), so the 182RG will be about $15/hour more expensive to operate at today's fuel prices, and no getting around it unless you rent it dry. If you're putting a plane on the line for initial commercial/CFI, you'd better limit yourself to a 172RG, Sierra, or Arrow (or maybe a 177RG) unless you want to get undercut by the competition and/or scare off the customers with your hourly rates.
 
Ron Levy said:
Renters run at 75% no matter what you tell them (and they don't lean, either), so the 182RG will be about $15/hour more expensive to operate at today's fuel prices, and no getting around it unless you rent it dry. If you're putting a plane on the line for initial commercial/CFI, you'd better limit yourself to a 172RG, Sierra, or Arrow (or maybe a 177RG) unless you want to get undercut by the competition and/or scare off the customers with your hourly rates.
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm leaning toward the 172RG but will check out the Archer as well. This isn't a rush but we're at least looking ahead.

As far as the competition on the field, the couple other active instructors around here are pretty good friends with my boss. One will be doing my II. The rest are at a school down at the south end and you're lucky the CFI may speak as much English as most of the students. So, competition won't be so much an issue. We are often getting referrals from the FBO owner who sells that school fuel... at full price. Us and the other FBO won't sell to them.

The other thing to think about is even allow an RG to be rented solo. I'm hearing the liability would be considerably cheaper if it were mandatory dual on RGs. Any word on that one?

I know some here hate it that schools and FBOs place such limits on rentals. But, we all know insurance companies have a huge say what happens in the flight training industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top