Cessna single retractable gear

B

bill834

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
1
Location
Arizona
Display Name
Display name:
billb
Hey guys,
I am new here.

What are folks thoughts and experience with Cessna singles retractable gear?

Nightmare or good, reliable system?

Thanks
 
I have limited experience in a 172 RG. It's been a long time but as I recall the extra weight made it climb like a turd. Mechanically the gear is complex, and partial gear landings REALLY suck.
 
Which Cessna?

172RG and 182RG are pretty robust systems, with just a few points/parts of modest concern for a reasonably well maintained plane. 210s can have issues, but with proper attention to rigging, they are readily manageable.

The biggest concern is Cessna is gradually reducing their support for some of the more critical replacement parts, and unless you can find reasonable salvage yard pieces, Cessna prices for some RG parts can approach unobtanium levels.
 
Depends on the model and year. I own a '76 Cardinal RG and am generally happy with the gear system, though I have had a couple of headaches. You can expect some increased maintenance costs, and if you don't inform yourself of possible gotchas and spend whatever it takes to deal with them, any retractable system can be a nightmare. But for the most part, the '76 (and later, from what I understand) Cardinal systems are fairly reliable.

I can't speak to other models.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I have limited experience in a 172 RG.
Click to expand...

I've got about 25 hours in a 172RG, and thought it was a decent-performing bird if you treat it like 2 place or light 3-place plane. Reasonable fuel burn for the speed.
 
It's not as nice as some systems like the johnson-bar gear on early mooneys, as far as reliability goes. But it's not what I'd call a "nightmare" either. It's important to keep the system well maintained.
 
I never had a problem with the 172 retract, just a little slow in climb out.
 
just like any other retractable gear system they have weak points but generally work fine if maintained properly.

i had a nose gear on a 182RG fail to lock once which resulted in a bent up propeller hanging up in my garage.
 
After thirty years of hammering on them I've come to the conclusion that if they are properly maintained they are no problem so long as the pilot remembers to lower them when landing. :D
 
bill834 said:
Hey guys,
I am new here.

What are folks thoughts and experience with Cessna singles retractable gear?

Nightmare or good, reliable system?

Thanks
Click to expand...

jpower said:
Paging Mr. White, the white courtesy phone please.
Click to expand...

I've had the full Cessna retract experience, and it's not a good one. Unless you like declaring emergencies and becoming friends with the fire department.
 
DavidWhite said:
I've had the full Cessna retract experience, and it's not a good one. Unless you like declaring emergencies and becoming friends with the fire department.
Click to expand...

I vaguely recall your story, David. Briefly, was it because the gear hydraulic line comes into the cockpit?
 
nddons said:
I vaguely recall your story, David. Briefly, was it because the gear hydraulic line comes into the cockpit?
Click to expand...

O-ring on a hydraulic screen on my side of the firewall blew out. That caused the hydraulic pump to kick on and stay on until it produced smoke with the hydraulic fluid. Manually pumped the gear down and burned my hand in the process because the handle was very hot due to the fact the hydraulic pump is located right behind it.

I'm pretty sure Cessna went to a Jiffy Lube in Guadalajara for ideas on how to design it.
 
how long did the pump run before it started smoking?
 
DavidWhite said:
Correct, and the 210 I was flying didn't have a light to let you know when the pump was on.
Click to expand...

:confused: I thought that light was an AD that came out decades ago. I remember putting them in a few 210s in the early 90s.
 
Henning said:
In general it's a decent system.
Click to expand...

^^ This ^^

I owned a '79 182RG for 7 years in a 2 person partnership. I bought in after the AD on the pivot assemblies was performed (SEB90) in 2001. The system performed well with no problems. We were putting 200-250 hours per year on it. In the 6 years since I sold out, they haven't experienced any problems, either.

Complex compared to a Johnson bar - yes. Otherwise - no.

The key is routine maintenance and a mechanic who understands the system. Performing a pack overhaul when needed (approx. $750), and inspecting/replacing lines (approx. $200) on a regular, consistent basis is the key.

The power pack on the 172 / 182 RG is in the rear.
 
Last edited:
chartbundle said:
I assume you mean the 182RG. The 1980(at least) 172RG has the power pack between the pilot and copilots rudder pedals.
Click to expand...

Thx for the clarification. I thought the 172 and 182 were configured the same.
 
I've got over 250 hours in my 182RG and couldn't have picked a better airplane for what I do. I've also gotten 3 ratings in it working on my 4th. It's a great airplane with a great useful load (1300 pounds), with 88 gallons of usable fuel and cruises at almost 160 true.


People have emergencies in everything. Just because one person (or a couple) have had trouble with the system doesn't mean everyone will. I've seen Mooneys, Bonanzas, twins etc gear up too, have fires... It's not JUST Cessna retracts that have issues. :rolleyes:
 
jpower said:
Paging Mr. White, the white courtesy phone please.
Click to expand...

These were my exact thoughts.

I realize I am pretty much alone in my thoughts here, but my car has roll down (hand cranked) windows, and manual doorlocks. Heck, a manual gear box as well (stick shift).

In general, I like low and slow airplanes with very simple systems (including fixed gear).

I guess, I just figure, less to fail.

Kimberly
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
These were my exact thoughts.

I realize I am pretty much alone in my thoughts here, but my car has roll down (hand cranked) windows, and manual doorlocks. Heck, a manual gear box as well (stick shift).

In general, I like low and slow airplanes with very simple systems (including fixed gear).

I guess, I just figure, less to fail.

Kimberly
Click to expand...

That's because you're poor and live in CA.:rofl:;)
 
Henning said:
That's because you're poor and live in CA.:rofl:;)
Click to expand...

No. That's because, among other things, I'm a personal assistant to a CEO.

Recently, he was away on business and asked me to help with the routine maintenance of his Audi Q7.

When at the dealership, they were shocked when I told them it sat outside (in CA weather) for 2 weeks and didn't need a jump.

I literally told them I had crank-up windows in my Honda Civic (with 150,000 miles).

They laughed and said, "if our cars had crank windows, our service department would be out of business".

(His car was in for service because several of the "computers" weren't behaving. 200 bucks later, and though I showed them the issue upon check in, they couldn't duplicate it, kept the car for two weeks, and did nothing)
 
But yes, I should not be a pilot, because I am "poor" and can't afford to fly very often.

If I didn't live in California, I wouldn't like flying as much. We have such varied terrain (ocean, lakes, mountains, populated and un-populated land). I get lost on land a lot, but in air - we are lucky to have many landmarks to guide the way.
 
chartbundle said:
I assume you mean the 182RG. The 1980(at least) 172RG has the power pack between the pilot and copilots rudder pedals.
Click to expand...

The 182RG that I maintained ('78) had it up front as well. Nasty place to get at stuff.

Those systems work well if they're maintained as per Cessna's instructions. The O-rings and other seals can't be expected to last forever and they should get changed more often than once in 30 years. Cessna recommends five years. If one lousy piston O-ring in one actuator fails, it will bypass the fluid and prevent pressure building far enough to get the mains down, and even the hand pump will make no difference. The mains will not free-fall into place, either. The nose will. A pump that doesn't shut off probably has a pressure switch way out of calibration, or the primary relief valve is leaking. There's another relief valve as well, and we regularly checked pressures on all three items. Preventive maintenance on all this stuff is far cheaper than a gear-up event with prop and engine and belly damage.

The main gear pivot is prone to cracking and costs $16K for a new one. The older main gear actuator castings also tend to crack and cost $9K or better. Each.

Dan
 
Henning said:
:confused: I thought that light was an AD that came out decades ago. I remember putting them in a few 210s in the early 90s.
Click to expand...

What AD would that be? I can't see such an item in the database.

Dan
 
Generally the biggest weaknesses in high wing retract Cessnas are neglected hoses, sticky switches and/or (possibly) aged wiring and aged orings.

The cracking pivots in the 172/182 kinda give me the willies, get educated about the potential problems prior to buying

The 210 series has many different pump and selector setups and different gear arrangements.

The 177RG has a pile of different wiring & switch variations but are for the most part the same mechanically between all years.

172&182 have actuators more similar to late model 210s. All have a electric driven hydraulic motor.

Aged hoses, wiring & switches is not limited to Cessna retracts, it's a GA fleet wide issue. But since these products are used in cessna retractable landing gear systems, they tend to get labeled as poor designed and high maintenance.
 
Last edited:
The last failure to extend I saw on Cessna Pilots Association, was caused be the nose gear extend hose was chafed through where it was contacting the actuator. The airplane belonged to the same owner for 30ish years and he was sure no hoses had ever been replaced under his ownership.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
True, but belly landings typically aren't all that bad.
Click to expand...

When compared to regular landings on a runway with the wheels down, relatively speaking, yeah - they are pretty bad.
 
It isn't that the Cessna's have more issues that the pipers or the Beech. It is that the secondary system wasn't well designed.

Example.
My primary Gear system is an electric pump driving hydraulics and failed. Would l Like to
A. Pump that same Hydraulic system by hand? While using some of the same fluid and valves as the primary system?
B. Bypass the Hydraulic system and let gravity take over.
C. Bypass the Hydraulic system and hand crank it down?
D. It will fail anyway, so it doesn't matter?

Just the fact that they designed it the way that they did, shows poor judgement... Even if it was rock solid compared to everything else.
 
ja_user said:
It isn't that the Cessna's have more issues that the pipers or the Beech. It is that the secondary system wasn't well designed.

Example.
My primary Gear system is an electric pump driving hydraulics and failed. Would l Like to
A. Pump that same Hydraulic system by hand? While using some of the same fluid and valves as the primary system?
B. Bypass the Hydraulic system and let gravity take over.
C. Bypass the Hydraulic system and hand crank it down?
D. It will fail anyway, so it doesn't matter?

Just the fact that they designed it the way that they did, shows poor judgement... Even if it was rock solid compared to everything else.
Click to expand...

Well, given the high wing and the "frog leg" gear that necessitates, how would you propose B & C be designed?
 
DavidWhite said:
No the Beech design was definitely a better one.
Click to expand...

Yep, just make sure the up limit switch is rigged correctly.If the worm gets a chance to drive up on the block of the quadrant, you have to get in the back and jump up and down on the extension handle to break it loose and get the gear down.
 
DavidWhite said:
No the Beech design was definitely a better one.
Click to expand...
I am not a big fan of the "Reach behind the seat and corkscrew for a while" method either. But at least it is mechanical, even if it can break if not used properly.. At least the gear comes down...

Henning said:
Well, given the high wing and the "frog leg" gear that necessitates, how would you propose B & C be designed?
Click to expand...

So you are saying a High wing can't be designed any other way, so that gravity or mechanical methods for release of the gear or not possible? Or you asking me to spend hours designing something and submit it for peer review here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top