Flying a 172RG Cutlass this weekend

[nddons]

I'm sick of the flight school that I rent from, and the condition of their equipment.

There's another operation on the field with an immaculate Cutlass. I'm meeting with an instructor on Saturday to get my complex in this plane and begin renting it. (I started work on my complex/HP endorsement 3 years ago in a 182RG, but couldn't finish as I briefly lost my medical. That plane has since been sold by the other flight school, and I never got back to it.)

I've got about 250 hours in Skyhawks. Anything I should be aware of on a Cutlass (well besides the gear and prop of course)?

I've copied a POH (not sure yet if it's the same year) and will study that before Saturday. I always try to understand the systems, and commit the V speeds and emergency procedures to memory before flying something new.

 

[warthog1984]

Due to the gear extending before retracting, be ready for the plane to sink when you raise the gear.

 

[GCA319]

Gear and prop are the obvious ones in addition to cowl flaps (Though, not as huge of an issue with the O-360 as with the more powerful engines). There is an aux fuel pump, but it doesn't get used unless the fuel pressure drops below 0.5 psi. Be sure to check the hydraulic fluid level during the preflight (iirc, the dipstick is under the panel on the front
left side). Other than that, it's an easy transition from a straight legged 172. It's a little heavier on the controls (almost like a 182 without the nose heaviness) and the nose wheel steering will feel heavy/strange at first, but other than that, there are few differences in terms of flying characteristics.

 

[MAKG1]

Read the POH!

The engine start procedure -- particularly priming -- is not the same as for any other 172. It has a sidedraft carb, and not only can you prime with the throttle because of that, the POH tells you to do so for normal starts.

And, good luck preflighting the intake air filter.

 

[spiderweb]

Have fun!

 

[us AAirways]

Haven't flown one in about 15 years, but they are heavier than a regular 172. Carrying a little power on landing helps smooth them out.

 

[RussR]

Bring a rag with you for when you check the hydraulic fluid. It's a bit of an art getting the dipstick back in the hole, and you're guaranteed to get your hand a bit dirty as a result the first few times.

Other than the prop and gear, I'd say it flies pretty much like a 172. You shouldn't have much trouble.

 

[Sac Arrow]

It's been years since I've flown one, but I recall it climbing like a turd compared to a 172.

 

[MAKG1]

It's been years since I've flown one, but I recall it climbing like a turd compared to a 172.

Doesn't jive with my experience. That is, unless you left the gear down.

I find it flies almost exactly like a 172 with a CS prop.

The gear is draggy, though, especially during its interminably long cycle.

 

[Witmo]

It's been years since I've flown one, but I recall it climbing like a turd compared to a 172.

There's a reason its nickname is "Gutless."

 

[nddons]

It's been years since I've flown one, but I recall it climbing like a turd compared to a 172.

There's a reason its nickname is "Gutless."

Flew the RG today, and yes, it climbed like a turd. That first 500ft AGL is a little uncomfortable, IMO. Of course, we had two guys, full fuel (66 gal v 53 in a 172) and a humid day.

On the other hand, tucking the gear and getting to about 135 kts is a thrill for someone who has 250+ hours in a 172 cruising at 110 kts.

Overall impression? Pretty good alternative to a straight leg 172. I think I'm going to stick with this as my go-to rental. And at $130 wet, not a bad deal.