Are there 172 models to avoid?

[mkosmo]

I'm not sure how to parse the necro-reply, either.

 

[Clark1961]

I'm not sure how to parse the necro-reply, either.

I think he is asking for opinions on the gutless Cutlass. You know, the 172/175 that was used to prove the performance of the model really couldn't be improved much by folding the wheels.

 

[Pilawt]

I'll throw in my two pfennigs here ...

I rented a 172RG in the early 1980s and flew it from Van Nuys to Canada and back. I liked it. It flew like a 172, which is not a bad thing, and cruised at 130-135 KTAS. The 62 gallon usable fuel gave it long legs. We went nonstop from Van Nuys to Medford, Oregon, which in my 172N (180 hp) with standard 40 gallon tanks would be at least one fuel stop enroute.



My fixed-gear 172N has the same carbureted 180 hp engine, but with fixed pitch prop, power flow and gap seals. It's only a difference of about 5 to 10 KTAS in cruise speed between my 172N and the 172RG.



So if you plan to do a lot of long-distance traveling, the 172RG might make sense. Otherwise, look for a good welded-gear 172, preferably with the 180 hp conversion.

And to avoid confusion ... the retractable 172RG (built 1980-85, under the 175 / R172 type certificate) was called "Cutlass RG". Cessna also built a fixed-gear Model 172Q (1983-85) with fixed-pitch 180 hp Lycoming and called it "Cutlass". The 172Q was built under the 172's type certificate, and is essentially identical to a 172M, N or P with the Penn Yan or Air Plains 180 hp conversion.

 

[RyanB]

I'll throw in my two pfennigs here ...

I rented a 172RG in the early 1980s and flew it from Van Nuys to Canada and back. I liked it. It flew like a 172, which is not a bad thing, and cruised at 130-135 KTAS. The 62 gallon usable fuel gave it long legs. We went nonstop from Van Nuys to Medford, Oregon, which in my 172N (180 hp) with standard 40 gallon tanks would be at least one fuel stop enroute.

View attachment 56068

My fixed-gear 172N has the same carbureted 180 hp engine, but with fixed pitch prop, power flow and gap seals. It's only a difference of about 5 to 10 KTAS in cruise speed between my 172N and the 172RG.

View attachment 56067

So if you plan to do a lot of long-distance traveling, the 172RG might make sense. Otherwise, look for a good welded-gear 172, preferably with the 180 hp conversion.

And to avoid confusion ... the retractable 172RG (built 1980-85, under the 175 / R172 type certificate) was called "Cutlass RG". Cessna also built a fixed-gear Model 172Q (1983-85) with fixed-pitch 180 hp Lycoming and called it "Cutlass". The 172Q was built under the 172's type certificate, and is essentially identical to a 172M, N or P with the Penn Yan or Air Plains 180 hp conversion.

That first photo is nostalgic. Southern California, classic car, old airplane...love it!

 

[Pilawt]

That first photo is nostalgic. Southern California, classic car, old airplane...love it!

Actually that was Medford, Oregon, 1983. We stopped over there for a couple of days on our way back from Canada. The car was the '68 Dodge Dart my grandfather bought new. In the '80s it was kept at my great-aunt's vacation house near Gold Hill, Oregon, and we'd use it when we were in the area.

 

[noob]

I'm going to have to channel my inner @mscard88 while he's on vacation, and ask why would you want to avoid 172 models?

 

[Pilawt]

why would you want to avoid 172 models?

There's a whole lot more maintenance there than in any winged 172, I guarantee you that.