Cessna Cutlass 172RG

KennyFlys said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are multiple schools/clubs in Atlanta that rent retractable planes non-dual. Limiting that whether for insurance or "our focus is training" will reduce your rentals and training to only those that want to check off the box on their training. I've seen schools that have twins for "dual only" and I just keep looking as I'd want to travel with it. For those just wanting the training it's a perfect fit. What does your school/club want to do?

I talked to a new club/school a couple of weeks ago and they want 300 hours to fly an Arrow solo. That's what their insurance limits are, but that's also what they bought (i.e. there are other insurance options). Other places in the metro area have far lower limits; I got my complex sign-off at 143 hrs and flew it solo w/ 145 hrs. What I found odd is that the requirements for flying their Seneca are the same, other than a multi engine rating requirement. I may do my multi engine training there as they're nearby and rent the Seneca at a low dry rate.
 
KennyFlys said:
Yep, I'm leaning toward the 172RG but will check out the Archer as well.
Click to expand...
That's "Arrow" -- A-R-R-O-W.
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?
Click to expand...
Short of calling a broker and asking, probably no good word to be had. However, I expect that to be affordable, you'll probably need at least 25 hours of dual or 100 hours of retractable time for any renter to take the plane non-dual. As a point of comparison, when we put the Cougar on the leaseback line, the insurer was more concerned about retractable time (100 min) than ME time (25 in type or 50 ME+5 in type).
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.
Click to expand...
Sad, but true.
 
KennyFlys said:
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?
Click to expand...

Where I did my 172RG checkout the plane was used much more often by a couple of us as a solo rental versus in dual training. That will depend on your operation. They sold their twin because it wasn't renting enough to justify keeping it it in the fleet just for the limited instruction use.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's "Arrow" -- A-R-R-O-W.
Short of calling a broker and asking, probably no good word to be had. However, I expect that to be affordable, you'll probably need at least 25 hours of dual or 100 hours of retractable time for any renter to take the plane non-dual.
Click to expand...
Most FBO's I've flown with require 5 hours of dual for a RG. If the FBO requires more then 5 hours I will have nothing to do with their retracts and they will lose my money.

The Sierra I used to fly required a checkout. A hour or so later I had my complex endorsement and was able to fly it solo.
 
RMCN172RG said:
The 182RG burns 12 gallons per hour.
Click to expand...

More like 14 - 15 GPH at full "rental" power settings. Unlikely you'd see 12 under this environment.

Greg
Former 182RG Owner
 
Because fuel prices are fluctuating so much the FBO by me has went to Dry prices. Otherwise he would be changing rates by the day. Fuel can vary too much on a CC.

Dan
 
ggroves said:
More like 14 - 15 GPH at full "rental" power settings. Unlikely you'd see 12 under this environment.

Greg
Former 182RG Owner
Click to expand...


The comparison was based on how I would fly the plane if I owned it for my own mission cost comparison;)
 
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...
Wouldn't the Commander 112 make a good commercial trainer?
 
gprellwitz said:
Wouldn't the Commander 112 make a good commercial trainer?
Click to expand...
I'm with Henning - I think it would be a great trainer. They're built like a tank. I've only got book knowledge and two rides in 112's, so I can't claim any expertise, but I haven't heard of any nasty "gotcha" items with them - I think the only reason they weren't more popular was they were slow (wide and heavy for their power), which isn't a bad thing in a complex trainer. Parts availability might be an issue.
 
As always, appreciate the discussion fellas. Checking out in a 172RG at Y14 tomorrow morning, first complex/retract. Wish it were a touch cheaper to rent, but I guess you've got to pay to make the wheels go up.
 
they fly pretty nice, i've got about 50 hours in one, and it never surprised me. Made it from MYF -> OAK in about 3.5 hours IFR
 
Not bad. I plan on taking her to Minneapolis and NE Wisconsin a few times...I'll try and remember to report a true number.
 
I have about 15 hours in a Cutlass. I really like it, and enjoy 135-140 KIAS vs the 110 KIAS in a Skyhawk.
 
With 180 hp, Power Flow, exhaust fairing and flap gap seals on my 172N, it cruises within about 5 to 7 knots of the 172RGs I used to rent.

7YQ%252520-%252520C-172RG.jpg


The big 62-gallon fuel capacity of the RG, though, was really nice. We took one nonstop from Van Nuys to Medford, Oregon, then on to Victoria BC.
 
I'm looking forward to those tanks. A lot of my trips have been just barely within VFR range w/reserves in PA28s and C172s, and I always end up stopping about 2/3 of the way just to play it safe.
 
Always liked the Gutless. Got a lot of hours in one that I particularly liked. Poor thing was sold to a school and has had the holy hell beaten out of it for a long time now. Definitely not the well maintained airplane I once flew.
 
Loved it. AviationDB revealed a few incidents, but I appreciated how up front Legacy Aviation was about disclosing them, encouraging me to check all the logs, etc. Seems to be very smooth, well maintained airplane. Looking forward to x-countries.
dtpmD.jpg
 
My flight school had a 172RG. It was termed "Gutless." I thought it flew like a turd compared to any other 172.
 
Sac Arrow said:
My flight school had a 172RG. It was termed "Gutless." I thought it flew like a turd compared to any other 172.
Click to expand...


Really? I'll admit climb performance is poor, but I can get 135-140 KIAS in cruise. I'll take that over any 172.
 
nddons said:
Really? I'll admit climb performance is poor, but I can get 135-140 KIAS in cruise. I'll take that over any 172.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to climb performance but yes I admit it does get better cruise. Then again it was a training aircraft, in an area with a fair amount of terrain, so most of the time was spent climbing and descending.
 
A 172RG is a retract for the sake of being a retract, I wouldn't get one.

Maybe a PA24 or a Navion, betcha folks would rent those more too
 
Pilawt said:
With 180 hp, Power Flow, exhaust fairing and flap gap seals on my 172N, it cruises within about 5 to 7 knots of the 172RGs I used to rent.

7YQ%252520-%252520C-172RG.jpg


The big 62-gallon fuel capacity of the RG, though, was really nice. We took one nonstop from Van Nuys to Medford, Oregon, then on to Victoria BC.
Click to expand...

That mixture looks quite rich for the altitude.
 
I like Cutlasses, and when renting them, I've felt that they provided a good compromise between economy, speed, and range for cross country flights. I've heard that parts availability can be a problem for owners though.
 
I'm not a fan of the 172 Gutless. The one I've flown feels overly heavy/sluggish on the controls versus the straight-leg 172N/R's I've flown. It could have been the rigging on that particular aircraft, as it was a typical FBO RG-trainer which had been ridden hard and put away wet. No love had been shown to the RG for interior/exterior appointments.

It does its job as a complex trainer, I suppose, but it's not something I would ever own.
 
As they say, "Different strokes for different folks."
 
I have flown the 172RG and own a turbo 182RG. I may be biased by the ****ty example of Cutlass that I flew out of Centennial (KAPA) but we called it the Gutless. It was a dog. And it's the only one on the field AFAIK. It got 300-400 fpm climbs on a typical cool morning and 200 fpm on one particular flight to Leadville on a cold March morning in 2004. We were in a climb seemingly the whole way. But we also flew it to Kansas and it did fair. Also had a nice alternator failure in it.

So I'm not a fan of the Cutlass at all for high DA ops but then I'm not a fan of the straight-leg 172 in that situation either. It'd probably be OK at low elevation for complex (but not HP) work.

I have had zero trouble with the gear on my TR182 in several hundred hours but I will say that a previous owner did a huge amount of work on the gear, replacing the power packs and going through all the bearings. All my mechanic has had to do is grease the bearings and make sure the down locks are properly adjusted and the thing has hydraulic oil. We did replace some worn ball joints on the gear doors. Not a big deal.

I have made some world class ****ty landings and have yet to cause a problem for the gear. I will keep trying. :D
 
I imagine there are quite a few planes that are dogs compared to a turbo 182RG, especially in a state where the ground elevations are above 5000 MSL!
 
Palmpilot said:
I imagine there are quite a few planes that are dogs compared to a turbo 182RG, especially in a state where the ground elevations are above 5000 MSL!
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing it to a TR182. I called it the Gutless in 2004 before I had ever even flown a C182. It is a dog compared to a C172 except in cruise.

Yes, elevation matters. Which is why I would only recommend it for low elevation work.
 
petrolero said:
...It is a dog compared to a C172 except in cruise...
Click to expand...

Now THAT baffles me. I have a lot of hours in both, and it sure doesn't seem that way to me. The only times I have experienced poor climb performance relative to the straight-leg version was when I forgot to put the gear up. :dunno:
 
James331 said:
That mixture looks quite rich for the altitude.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. The photo was taken 32 years ago, though, so I'm a little fuzzy on the particulars. :)

petrolero said:
we called it the Gutless. It was a dog.
Click to expand...
My more favorable memory of the type is probably skewed because all of my time in them was in the early 1980s, when the ones I flew were just two or three years old.
 
petrolero said:
I wasn't comparing it to a TR182. I called it the Gutless in 2004 before I had ever even flown a C182. It is a dog compared to a C172 except in cruise.

Yes, elevation matters. Which is why I would only recommend it for low elevation work.
Click to expand...

Unless that 172 is an XP (which isn't really a 172), I'm having a real hard time understanding how climb in a Cutlass can be worse than a 172 at any altitude, as long as the gear is up.

Now, they are quite draggy when the gear is down. And you do need some altitude before sucking them up, as it takes 12 seconds and gets even more draggy during the cycle.

The Cutlass was clearly designed as a complex trainer, and it has stuff you don't need otherwise. Like an electric fuel pump (it has a primer, too, and the POH tells you to pump the accelerator).
 
Pilawt said:
Narco?! It would have been better if they were Narco! Those are the crummy Cessna house-brand (ARC) boxes that came standard with the "Cutlass RG II" package.

cessna_172rg_1981_pnl.jpg
Click to expand...
Oh, you're right. I guess I've only seen them with the beige face plate

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
 
It was pretty cool on Saturday morning when I took that lesson, but we were seeing well over double those climb rates even during pattern work. It does have a STOL kit installed (don't know by whom yet). Somebody also mentioned a 12 second up/down time - this one sure seemed a lot quicker than that, but I didn't put a stopwatch to it. I can understand the altitude concern, but that doesn't sound too different from the standard 172s (especially before the 180hp upgrade). One more reason I love the great plains! My primary mission is training through at least commercial, secondary is 400nm or shorter cross-countries. Should do well for those, I think.
 
MAKG1 said:
Unless that 172 is an XP (which isn't really a 172), I'm having a real hard time understanding how climb in a Cutlass can be worse than a 172 at any altitude, as long as the gear is up.

Now, they are quite draggy when the gear is down. And you do need some altitude before sucking them up, as it takes 12 seconds and gets even more draggy during the cycle.

The Cutlass was clearly designed as a complex trainer, and it has stuff you don't need otherwise. Like an electric fuel pump (it has a primer, too, and the POH tells you to pump the accelerator).
Click to expand...

Only extra drag I can think of is the cowl flaps being open during climb for engine temp control. Shouldn't be too big of a penalty though.
 
MAKG1 said:
The Cutlass was clearly designed as a complex trainer, and it has stuff you don't need otherwise. Like an electric fuel pump (it has a primer, too, and the POH tells you to pump the accelerator).
Click to expand...
I'd been told that the Cutlass RG needed an electric fuel pump because of the way the carburetor was mounted. It's a different arrangement from the fixed-gear 172s because of the nose wheel well.

Carbureted, fixed-gear Cardinals all have aux pumps, too, because at extreme nose-up attitudes the wing tanks are not high enough above the carb to ensure adequate fuel flow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top