Complex trainer- 172rg vs 177rg vs 182rg

W

warthog1984

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,447
Location
Chicagoan exiled to California
Display Name
Display name:
LanCA'r
Hey all,

Of the Cessna light-single retracts, is there any meaningful difference between the 172rg and the 177rg?

On the flip side, I could do complex/HP in a 182rg if I'm willing to drive further- any advantage/disadvantage to using the 182rg for complex training vs using one of the smaller planes for complex and a straight-leg 182 for HP?
 
The 172 feels and flies like a 172 with the gear down.

The 177 is much more comfy for the passengers, but W&B is screwy. You will likely need ballast if the back seat is empty. Performance is very similar to the 172, but the sight picture is different. For reasons I don't understand, every landing I make in a Cardinal RG is very smooth. Engines are not fun to hot-start, but they are otherwise fine.

All my 182 time is fixed gear, so I can't comment on the RG.

I see a BIG advantage in learning the CS prop and cowl flaps in a fixed gear aircraft, and then adding the gear. You want almost all your attention on the gear when transitioning to a retract for the first time.
 
Last edited:
warthog1984 said:
Hey all,

Of the Cessna light-single retracts, is there any meaningful difference between the 172rg and the 177rg?

On the flip side, I could do complex/HP in a 182rg if I'm willing to drive further- any advantage/disadvantage to using the 182rg for complex training vs using one of the smaller planes for complex and a straight-leg 182 for HP?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Which one do you want to rent later? That's how I would choose since you can get double duty between training and rental checkout time. For me that answer would be the 177RG. The 182RG does get you HP as well, and if you want the extra load hauling ability, a perfectly fine way to go. You could also do it in an Aztec or 310 and get Complex, HP, and Multi at the same time.:D

Seriously though it doesn't matter much which of those three you choose learning wise, the systems are nearly identical, the 182 just needs more nose up trim for landing.
 
If the gear fails, you land on the belly, no worries, happens often enough, rarely ever is there an injury. Piper is hydraulic as well, and has all the inherent risks of the SE Cessna gear. I'll take the Beech gear personally, or Mooney.
 
Last edited:
Huge difference between 177RG and 172RG gear. The 172RG and 182RG main landing gear pivots are plagued with cracking issues. There is now a company repairing aluminum ones at a cost near $5k a pop. New ones push >$8k with a 14+ month lead time. Even the steel ones in one 182RG was recently found cracked. Buyer beware.

As much as I like David, he's no mechanic. there are many airplanes with hydraulics very similar to cessnas. Basically if a hydraulic hose fails on a hydraulic gear, nothing is gonna is gonna guarantee the gear goes down except luck or maybe blow down bottles, some free fall ok, cessna do not.
 
Back on topic, I'd pick the 182RG. But, I might be partial. :)
 
What's the purpose for the endorsement? Is it something you just want to have or do you want to rent the airplane you got the endorsement in after you're through?

If you just want the endorsement to have it I'd do it in whatever is cheapest and most convenient. Otherwise do it in what you want to fly later.
 
bnt83 said:
Huge difference between 177RG and 172RG gear. The 172RG and 182RG main landing gear pivots are plagued with cracking issues. There is now a company repairing aluminum ones at a cost near $5k a pop. New ones push >$8k with a 14+ month lead time. Even the steel ones in one 182RG was recently found cracked. Buyer beware.

As much as I like David, he's no mechanic. there are many airplanes with hydraulics very similar to cessnas. Basically if a hydraulic hose fails on a hydraulic gear, nothing is gonna is gonna guarantee the gear goes down except luck or maybe blow down bottles, some free fall ok, cessna do not.
Click to expand...

Huge difference in the detail yes, in the system type and design from a pilot checkout perspective, they are the same.
 
Henning said:
Huge difference in the detail yes, in the system type and design from a pilot checkout perspective, they are the same.
Click to expand...

Right. If just renting, I'd pick the most easily available vs cost.

The most fun would probably be the 182RG.

The only other differences from pilot view is fuel injection vs carb.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
The only other differences from pilot view is fuel injection vs carb.
Click to expand...

There are LOTS of differences. Some 182 retracts are turbonormalized. Some have glass panels. Some have 3 blade props. 172RG engines have sidedraft carbs and the POH calls for pumping the throttle to prime. 177RG gear pumps are not accessible in flight. 177RG and to a lesser extent all 182s are prone to excessive forward CG with two up front and full fuel. 172RG doesn't require a stepladder to stick the tanks; others do. The sight picture is noticeably different for all three models (but the 172RG does look like a 172). 177RG sits really low on the ground and has huge doors that like to fly open in the wind. 177 windows can't be opened at high airspeed.

None of that is all that hard to deal with, but it's really misleading to say they are the same.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
There are LOTS of differences. Some 182 retracts are turbonormalized. Some have glass panels. Some have 3 blade props. 172RG engines have sidedraft carbs and the POH calls for pumping the throttle to prime. 177RG gear pumps are not accessible in flight. 177RG and to a lesser extent all 182s are prone to excessive forward CG with two up front and full fuel. 172RG doesn't require a stepladder to stick the tanks; others do. The sight picture is noticeably different for all three models (but the 172RG does look like a 172).

None of that is all that hard to deal with, but it's really misleading to say they are the same.
Click to expand...

Minor differences, mostly irrelevant. I say do it in the one you want to rent when you're done with the endorsement.
 
I've flown all of the candidate airplanes, and the 177RG is my favorite. The Cardinal is just a better all around airplane.

Those other Cessnas are narrow and the visibility out of them is crap. They are high drag cow airplanes compared to their slicker prettier cousin.

The Cardinal flies more like a real high performance airplane.

If you need to lift a load of gold bars then go with the 182, I'll give the Skylane that.

The 172 is inferior in all respects to the Cardinal.
 
timwinters said:
All retract systems require maintenance...some more than others...
Click to expand...

FWIW the SB/AD I believe David is referring to was also in an AOPA video about a fire/emergency landing does NOT cover all high winged Cessna retracts. It does not cover: 177RGs, 337s, or 210s w/ engine driven hydraulic pumps.

The issue on that fire was a heavy gauge wire terminal shorting out causing a full blown real fire. That rental 172RG was not equipped with a fire extinguisher.

A loose terminal causing an electrical fire could happen on virtually any airplane.
 
Henning said:
If the gear fails, you land on the belly, no worries, happens often enough, rarely ever is there an injury. Piper is hydraulic as well, and has all the inherent risks of the SE Cessna gear. I'll take the Beech gear personally, or Mooney.
Click to expand...

A partial gear up in a Cessna can be a really bad thing though.

I've had a couple gear failures in Pipers. No issues. The failure mode is down. Just dump the hydraulic pressure and the gear falls in place. Beech gear takes a concerted effort to lower manually.
 
The 182RG would be nice for the extra high performance endorsement. Otherwise, I'd go for the 177RG. Of course I'm partial since I fly a Cardinal every week about 800-1000 miles across Texas. I'm not sure what the poster above was talking about saying that the 177 gear pumps are not accessible in flight because I've done a couple of manual extensions myself with no problem in the Cardinal. It's really a sweet aircraft.
I've flown two 172RGs that both had cooling issues on maneuvers.
Oh, and I've flown the same 210 that David despises so much, but I love that bird and would fly it in a heartbeat. I taught David how to do the emergency gear extention in it during his checkout so if things weren't working he would know what to do, so I don't think it's all fair that he bashes them so much. He did exercise good judgment in the situation and the plane's back up system allowed him to get it on the ground safely.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
I taught David how to do the emergency gear extention in it during his checkout so if things weren't working he would know what to do, so I don't think it's all fair that he bashes them so much. He did exercise good judgment in the situation and the plane's back up system allowed him to get it on the ground safely.
Click to expand...

Cessna Retracts & Gulfstream Girl. Everyone has to have a few things to kick around or life wouldn't be fun. David's no exception. :)
 
RyanShort1 said:
The 182RG would be nice for the extra high performance endorsement. Otherwise, I'd go for the 177RG. Of course I'm partial since I fly a Cardinal every week about 800-1000 miles across Texas. I'm not sure what the poster above was talking about saying that the 177 gear pumps are not accessible in flight because I've done a couple of manual extensions myself with no problem in the Cardinal. It's really a sweet aircraft.
I've flown two 172RGs that both had cooling issues on maneuvers.
Oh, and I've flown the same 210 that David despises so much, but I love that bird and would fly it in a heartbeat. I taught David how to do the emergency gear extention in it during his checkout so if things weren't working he would know what to do, so I don't think it's all fair that he bashes them so much. He did exercise good judgment in the situation and the plane's back up system allowed him to get it on the ground safely.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what model or year that 210 it was?

I know a guy who learned the hard way that you must return the selector valve to neutral, if it doesn't do it automatically, on an "open center" system with a engine driven pump of a 1964 Cessna 210D. He said he could smell something insanely hot about 10 minutes after departure and nearly burned himself when he touched the gear selector that was still in the "retract" position. He popped it to neutral and flew home and then replaced the hydraulic pump.

The engine driven hydraulics on an older 210 (Pre 197?) remind me of an old tractor.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I'm not sure what the poster above was talking about saying that the 177 gear pumps are not accessible in flight because I've done a couple of manual extensions myself with no problem in the Cardinal.
Click to expand...

The HANDLE is accessible. The pump is in the tailcone.

In 172RGs, the pump is between the rudder pedals and there are some tall tales floating around about people topping them off with whatever is at hand when they leak. If a 177RG leaks, you're landing (half) gear up and there is nothing at all you can do about it. The same is probably true for other Cessna retracts, but people seem to hope they can pour stuff into the pump….

This means a real important part of preflight is to inspect the pump and gear for evidence of leaks. That handle won't do a dang thing if there is air in the hydraulic line. It won't even hold the gear up.
 
The last Cessna gear up I remember reading was a TR182 and a nose gear hose broke. When they got the thing in the shop they discovered a wear spot in the hose that crosses over top of the actuator where it had been contacting it for years. The owner said himself "IDK how old the hoses are but they have never been replaced in the 18 years I've owned the airplane". The saddest part, that hose is visible on the ground and could have been caught easily on a detailed preflight.

The last 177RG gear failure I remember was the rod end bearing failing on the main landing gear actuator. Its the only piece that connects the sole main gear actuator to a gear wedge, the wedge looking thing has teeth that mesh with a pinion looking things bolted to each landing gear pivot. Its a well known problem yet there was no record or evidence it had ever been replaced per the owner.

I was doing a prebuy on a old 210 the other day and found the pressure and suction hoses from the engine driven pump were religiously replaced every 5 years for like the last 30. I'm guessing someone leaned a hard lesson there too.

Sometimes you're just screwed. I saw one 210 where a flare on a rigid pipe had cracked. Another one had a corroded spring and broke on a check valve that allowed fluid to bypass on the "extend" cycle. That's why any little corrosion on springs and hardware get thrown out in turbine land, in addition to crazy overhaul intervals.
 
Last edited:
warthog1984 said:
Of the Cessna light-single retracts, is there any meaningful difference between the 172rg and the 177rg?
Click to expand...
As a complex trainer? No.
On the flip side, I could do complex/HP in a 182rg if I'm willing to drive further- any advantage/disadvantage to using the 182rg for complex training vs using one of the smaller planes for complex and a straight-leg 182 for HP?
Click to expand...
If you really want both endorsements, it's probably cheaper to do them both at once in the 182RG than one at a time in a 172RG/177RG and straight 182.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you really want both endorsements, it's probably cheaper to do them both at once in the 182RG than one at a time in a 172RG/177RG and straight 182.
Click to expand...

Plus, both endorsements would carry more weight, being in a more complex high performance airplane, much like a multi earned in a Baron vs. a Seminole.
 
nosehair said:
Plus, both endorsements would carry more weight, being in a more complex high performance airplane, much like a multi earned in a Baron vs. a Seminole.
Click to expand...

Huh?

What are the operational differences? All have the same controls. In what sense is a 182RG more complex than either of the other two trainers? It's an accident of regulation wording that prevents the 177RG from being considered "high performance." It's rated at exactly 200 HP.

I've been asked several times if I had a high performance endorsement. I've never been asked what I got it in. Similarly, my complex endorsement is good for any retract with one engine and tricycle gear.
 
Cowl flaps. Constant speed prop (some cardinals also have them but not all...I think).
 
If you can get your hands on a 177RG, they are actually pretty good for what they are. They sit much lower than 172s and 182s and have really big doors, so passengers really like them. And performance with the gear up is surprisingly similar to a fixed gear naturally aspirated 182 (I've compared P, Q, and R models, T soon to follow). At 10 GPH instead of 12.5. The wings are higher and there is no strut, so no Cessna forehead. And the wing sits far enough back that you can see in the pattern! But that's also the reason for the screwy W&B. It also has a stabilator, much like a PA28 (except it's a whole lot beefier), so there is lots of pitch control at low speed.

It's actually a very reasonable choice for a complex endorsement provided it can be rented. I got into that because it's $50/hour cheaper than a 182Q at Palo Alto, for pretty much the same performance. Though I can find more reasonable 182s elsewhere.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I've had a couple gear failures in Pipers. No issues. The failure mode is down. Just dump the hydraulic pressure and the gear falls in place.
Click to expand...

This is what I remember from my Piper time. Hydraulic pressure goes and the gear falls down and locks. The emergency extension procedure on the Arrow is just to flip a valve that releases hydraulic pressure and gravity does the rest. Pretty neat.

To the OP- If you don't need to haul a lot of stuff, I would pick the Cardinal RG. I have time in the fixed gear Cardinal, the fixed gear Skylane and lots of Cutlass time. The Cardinal really is an improvement over the Skyhawk/Cutlass. It would be my choice just to save money in fuel. However, as has been pointed out, you could get both complex and high performance in the Skylane and save money that way too.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Cowl flaps. Constant speed prop (some cardinals also have them but not all...I think).
Click to expand...

All 177RGs have constant speed props. The 177 and the 177A (both are fixed gear) do not have the constant speed prop. The 177B (fixed gear) does have a constant speed prop.
 
nosehair said:
Plus, both endorsements would carry more weight, being in a more complex high performance airplane, much like a multi earned in a Baron vs. a Seminole.
Click to expand...


No. You either have the endorsements or ratings, or you don't. There's no 'weight'.
 
Sac Arrow said:
A partial gear up in a Cessna can be a really bad thing though.

I've had a couple gear failures in Pipers. No issues. The failure mode is down. Just dump the hydraulic pressure and the gear falls in place. Beech gear takes a concerted effort to lower manually.
Click to expand...

No, not really, there is no partial. Either you will be able to pump it or it will be limp with a rupture in which case they just frog back on their pivots. Look on You tube, there's likely several examples.

Doesn't much matter what type of plane, even the B-1B that bellied in did ok, and I think someone did a gear up in a B-2 as well, that would have to take the cake for most expensive gear up landing. The only time you read about a guy getting hurt on a gear up is when they do a stupid pilot trick like shut down the engine on final to avoid a prop strike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top