Cessna Cutlass 172RG

Well, Cardinal wings are low enough that short people bang their heads on them.

The Cutlass does have a sidedraft carb (which is why pumping the accelerator isn't stupid), so there will be several inches of height difference. I never noticed a fuel problem in slow flight.

My OWT is that it's there to clear vapor lock, especially on the Cardinal (the injected Cardinals got that BAD).
 
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...

Interesting as a 172RG empty is actually less weight than a 172SP empty.
 
Palmpilot said:
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:
Click to expand...

Again, this an n of 1. This particular aircraft was poorly maintained and was/is somewhat notorious. It could be anomalous, but they're known as the Gutless by many pilots.
 
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...

You're comparing theory to a single airplane. Again... this is one airplane and each time I flew it (with two people on board) it just stunk. That airplane is notorious. That's all I can tell you. The comparison is to a 172SP at the same field. If I remember right, the limitation on climb was the oil temp or CHT - I forget which. Yes, the thing might theoretically be able to blow the 172 away but this one merely matched it. I don't recall any splendid airspeeds either.

YMMV.
 
petrolero said:
You're comparing theory to a single airplane. Again... this is one airplane and each time I flew it (with two people on board) it just stunk. That airplane is notorious. That's all I can tell you. The comparison is to a 172SP at the same field. If I remember right, the limitation on climb was the oil temp or CHT - I forget which. Yes, the thing might theoretically be able to blow the 172 away but this one merely matched it. I don't recall any splendid airspeeds either.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

I thought you meant that the Cutlass climbed WORSE than a fixed-gear 172. I could believe that it might only match it, especially when comparing to an SP, which has the same horsepower. The POH only claims about a 10% better rate of climb than an SP at sea level, and only about 2% better at 6,000 feet.

I suspect that most of the people who call it "Gutless" do so because most retractibles have higher performance.
 
Palmpilot said:
I suspect that most of the people who call it "Gutless" do so because most retractibles have higher performance.
Click to expand...

:yes: It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare it to a Mooney or Bo, even though the engine/complexity might be similar. It's a step up (or at least sideways) from a 172, not a step down from a HP cruiser. I say that as a guy who's only flown PA28s and C172s - felt like a slight improvement to me.
 
I mostly appreciate the higher cruise speed and the longer range.
 
Ive yet to see 1 person happy as an owner of a Cutlass... Not dogging Cessna per se but the 172RG (really a Cessna 175) is quite a demanding lady to the checkbook.

for the $$ you can do much better. , many other types mentioned here that will much better dispatch reliability.


side note..but seems like the gear on the 172RG was a work in progress its entire production life.:dunno:
 
I don't have empty weights handy but we can all extrapolate based on equipment installed:

1967 Cessna 172H held 36 gallons usable with 145 horse & fixed pitch prop

1968 Cessna 177 holds 48 gallons usable with 150 horse fixed pitch prop

1978 Cessna 177B fixed gear (much lighter than than the RG) holds 49 gallons usable 180 horse constant speed

172 Cutlass RG (probably even heavier than the 177B ) and holds even more fuel at 62 usable and no additional horsepower, 180hp and constant speed


Most people who call airplanes "led sleds" or "gultless" must not be able to figure out simple loading comparative analysis.

S35 bonanza at 285 horse with standard tanks only holds 44 usable gallons


:idea:
172H holds .248 gallons per horse

68' 177 holds .32 gallons per horse

172RG holds .34 gallons of fuel per horse

S35 Bo with standard tanks holds .15 gallons of fuel per horse

Which is a lead sled topped with gas?

The S35 with long range tanks holds 74 usable which is still only .258 gallons per horse.

The 172RG holds a LOT of fuel don't it? and heavier empty to boot...
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
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.
Click to expand...


N5330R (blue and white), or the brown one?
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Well i my self have flown in a cutlass and it is a really go and reliable aircraft so really i think it is a very reliable aircraft
 
The commuter I used to fly for had a Gutless in its FBO fleet that we used for parts runs and crew shuttles. Oink, oink. Their 160 hp C-172 instrument trainer climbed better, flew slightly faster and burned less fuel than the RG. And never made a gear-up landing. The RG had two of those on its record. We weren't allowed to use the 172 for utility runs because the school was doing a land office business with it.
 
I'm upset because my club lost their Cutlass! :(
 
commutercapt said:
What happened?
Click to expand...
All the planes at my club are lease backs, and the owner apparently took it off the line. Beyond that, I don't know, but I do know that it had reached TBO, and since this is a very by-the-book club, I'm thinking that maybe the owner didn't want to overhaul the engine based on hours alone, and maybe the club wouldn't let him keep it in the club past TBO. But that's all pure speculation on my part.
 
Palmpilot said:
All the planes at my club are lease backs, and the owner apparently took it off the line. Beyond that, I don't know, but I do know that it had reached TBO, and since this is a very by-the-book club, I'm thinking that maybe the owner didn't want to overhaul the engine based on hours alone, and maybe the club wouldn't let him keep it in the club past TBO. But that's all pure speculation on my part.
Click to expand...

Owner: “I’m losing money on this deal.”
Club: “Don’t care.”
Owner: “See ya!”

;)
 
asicer said:
By "club", I wonder if that's management or if that's membership (excepting @Palmpilot of course :)).
Click to expand...

Heh. Who knows.

When I had access to a Gutless through a club long ago, I flew the hell out of it. Nobody wanted to get checked out in the retract. So while everyone else fought over the Skyhawk, I’d fly the Gutless or the Mooney M20C and never once had a schedule conflict.

Per flight mile and the tiny few knots faster, the Gutlass operated for essentially the same price as the 172. The Mooney for long XCs was an absolute steal.

I should have flown it more back then, but that was just prior to eight year hiatus, first because I was busy and broke, and later to quit digging our debt hole bigger and actually shoveling money into it.

All three of those airplanes were spotless and nice and it was the only rental operation I ever really liked. Was operated as a true IRS recognized non-profit, too. Volunteers did the jobs, and the two airplane owners really seemed to like the setup too.

Which is of course why the commercial rental place with trashed airplanes and higher prices did everything they could to run the club off of the airport.

And eventually succeeded.
 
denverpilot said:
When I had access to a Gutless through a club long ago, I flew the hell out of it. Nobody wanted to get checked out in the retract. So while everyone else fought over the Skyhawk, I’d fly the Gutless or the Mooney M20C and never once had a schedule conflict.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I did the same thing. There was a 172RG on the line that very few people rented. It had a 430 in it, but the owner (leaseback) didn't pay to keep the database up-to-date, so people largely just rented it to get the complex sign-off.

That meant it had plenty of availability. I got a Jeppesen database subscription and was set. I just swapped out my card for the one in the plane when I flew it. No, I didn't leave the updated card in there as I didn't want more people to start using it. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top