Cessna 172 RG Cutlass
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 172 RG Cutlass
I am thinking of buying an RG Cutlass. Has anyone had any direct experiance of these they can share.
The aircraft is a very nice example in need of some more modern avionics but otherwise may suit my needs. It has had the gear AD's complied with.
I operate out of a 500m grass strip a lot of the time, but also want it as an IFR tourer (usual comments about icing etc).
Comments welcome.
The aircraft is a very nice example in need of some more modern avionics but otherwise may suit my needs. It has had the gear AD's complied with.
I operate out of a 500m grass strip a lot of the time, but also want it as an IFR tourer (usual comments about icing etc).
Comments welcome.
Nice enough aircraft, as long as you don't expect to put 4 bums, fuel fuel etc in it. That's more the province of a C182. Still a C172 airframe so no more room than one of those. Cruise TAS around 130-140kts. Fuel flow ~40lph.
I'd rather one of these than Piper's PA28R equivalent, but I Iike high wings for their utility, & Cessna for the L & R cabin doors.
Strongly recommend the strut step add-ons if this one doesn't them it already.
I'd rather one of these than Piper's PA28R equivalent, but I Iike high wings for their utility, & Cessna for the L & R cabin doors.
Strongly recommend the strut step add-ons if this one doesn't them it already.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Front of Beyond
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-x,
As Tinstaafl says the 182 RG is a better bet from the point of view of load carrying - you can get 4 adults and full fuel in one, and it has a bit more space than the 172.
Sorry, it doesn't really answer your question, as I haven't flown a 172 RG, but given my experience with the 182, I'd expect a 172 RG to be pretty similar to a 172 FG, just a bit faster.
Out of interest does the 172 RG have a more powerful engine to allow a greated MTOW (due to the extra weight of the gear) compared to the 172 FG?
Brooklands
As Tinstaafl says the 182 RG is a better bet from the point of view of load carrying - you can get 4 adults and full fuel in one, and it has a bit more space than the 172.
Sorry, it doesn't really answer your question, as I haven't flown a 172 RG, but given my experience with the 182, I'd expect a 172 RG to be pretty similar to a 172 FG, just a bit faster.
Out of interest does the 172 RG have a more powerful engine to allow a greated MTOW (due to the extra weight of the gear) compared to the 172 FG?
Brooklands
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RG has the 180hp engine and a usefull load of 1000lb. It also has the benefit of 4 cylinders and not 6 which equates to cheaper overhaul.
8 Hour fuel range on it with max tanks. 130kt cruise.
Load carrying is not a primary concern allthough the RG will carry 4 adults and 4 hours fuel (which exceeds my bladder anyway!) with ease and still get in and out of my 500m strip.
Still looking for people who have any experiance of operating one!!
8 Hour fuel range on it with max tanks. 130kt cruise.
Load carrying is not a primary concern allthough the RG will carry 4 adults and 4 hours fuel (which exceeds my bladder anyway!) with ease and still get in and out of my 500m strip.
Still looking for people who have any experiance of operating one!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bose X
I have flown 145-160hp 172 and 235hp 182 and IMHO these are very different machines in load carrying, climb rate, and cruise speed. Horses for courses. The only thing I ever heard about the 172RG was a rather uncomplimentary nickname "gutless cutlass". As there are not many around, perhaps there are some serious negatives?
I have flown 145-160hp 172 and 235hp 182 and IMHO these are very different machines in load carrying, climb rate, and cruise speed. Horses for courses. The only thing I ever heard about the 172RG was a rather uncomplimentary nickname "gutless cutlass". As there are not many around, perhaps there are some serious negatives?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Have you thought about...
the Cessna 172 Hawk XP?
It has 195hp but fixed gear so less complicated. If you look at UK flights point to point then a few knots difference in cruising speed is not the main advantage.
It has better load carrying capability and less maintence due to fixed gear. There was a problem with heat treatment on early engine accessory gears but one today should be OK
Worth considering in my 'umble etc
Sir George Cayley
It has 195hp but fixed gear so less complicated. If you look at UK flights point to point then a few knots difference in cruising speed is not the main advantage.
It has better load carrying capability and less maintence due to fixed gear. There was a problem with heat treatment on early engine accessory gears but one today should be OK
Worth considering in my 'umble etc
Sir George Cayley
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bose x
I flew a few hours on a Cutlass some years ago, vmc/vfr only.
My notes say...
- typical 172 handling
-cruises at 125kts 23/2300
- fuel burn circa 9US/hour (not dipped or calculated, info supplied by renter)
I didn't record the ROC, but don't recall it being exceptionally low or high.
All in all, a very pleasant and competent aeroplane - btw, the gear makes a bit of a racket when you cycle it and the genuflections of the main legs are pretty amazing to watch!
Ithough I generally prefer PA28s to C172s, in this instance I prefered the Cutlass to the PA28RT (Arrow 4 T-tail), which I flew a couple of years later and this was mainly a function of the elevator control in the flare, which seemed to provid more authority and accuracy than the Arrer's high mounted stabilator.
I flew a few hours on a Cutlass some years ago, vmc/vfr only.
My notes say...
- typical 172 handling
-cruises at 125kts 23/2300
- fuel burn circa 9US/hour (not dipped or calculated, info supplied by renter)
I didn't record the ROC, but don't recall it being exceptionally low or high.
All in all, a very pleasant and competent aeroplane - btw, the gear makes a bit of a racket when you cycle it and the genuflections of the main legs are pretty amazing to watch!
Ithough I generally prefer PA28s to C172s, in this instance I prefered the Cutlass to the PA28RT (Arrow 4 T-tail), which I flew a couple of years later and this was mainly a function of the elevator control in the flare, which seemed to provid more authority and accuracy than the Arrer's high mounted stabilator.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for the comments guys, still looking for as many as possible.
I have a bit of thing about Cessnas and prefer them to the the pipers! Also the most of the pipers struggle in and out of our strip even when very light. Hence the reason for another Cessna.
I dont want to get into 182 territory as I dont really carry passengers often enough to warrant the extra space for them. When I need to carry 4-6 people I fly the twin. Also the costs of maintaing a 6 cyl engine are to high.
Its baggage and range that I need as well as good short field.
I have a bit of thing about Cessnas and prefer them to the the pipers! Also the most of the pipers struggle in and out of our strip even when very light. Hence the reason for another Cessna.
I dont want to get into 182 territory as I dont really carry passengers often enough to warrant the extra space for them. When I need to carry 4-6 people I fly the twin. Also the costs of maintaing a 6 cyl engine are to high.
Its baggage and range that I need as well as good short field.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I considered it by the are rare to find at the right place. And yes Derby are definatly the place to go. Davis Jones maintains both of my current Cessna's and does a stunning job of it!
