Cutlass RG Opinions???

[VWGhiaBob]

After going back and forth and back and forth in my first year back flying, I'm zeroing in on a 172 for purchase. Why, when I've wrote on this board about my adventures in and love for Saratoga, SR22, and 182?

Simplicity, reliability, easy to buy, easy to sell, and great IFR rating platform. I'll maintain currency in those other planes and rent when I need the load.

Now...my question...are there any opinions about a retract 172? My spouse, being an artist, loves a high wing retract...amazing view. And it looks like I get an extra 15 knots or so.

Any other thoughts about this plane? Any links or places I should go on the web to learn more about it...on this site or elsewhere?

Thanks, members!

 

[bnt83]

After going back and forth and back and forth in my first year back flying, I'm zeroing in on a 172 for purchase. Why, when I've wrote on this board about my adventures in and love for Saratoga, SR22, and 182?

Simplicity, reliability, easy to buy, easy to sell, and great IFR rating platform. I'll maintain currency in those other planes and rent when I need the load.

Now...my question...are there any opinions about a retract 172? My spouse, being an artist, loves a high wing retract...amazing view. And it looks like I get an extra 15 knots or so.

Any other thoughts about this plane? Any links or places I should go on the web to learn more about it...on this site or elsewhere?

Thanks, members!

my only real problem is pivot and actuator cracks. when a main landing gear pivot or actuated cracks you can end up looking for one for many months. cessna doesn't seem to stock these parts and getting one made costs around $10k. There is a 182RG on cessna.org right now that has probably been paying insurance and hangar rent for 14 months and can't fly because of it.

everything else is much easier to fix.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Thanks BNT. Just found a long detailed article on Aviation Consumer. They gave it a great review....stellar safety record, bullet-proof engine, high useful, low consumption, flies like any 172, high cruise speed, but...lots of landing gear issues, sensitive to crosswinds due to narrow wheelbase, noisy, and cramped back seat.

 

[Pilawt]

And it looks like I get an extra 15 knots or so.

Comparing a 172RG with a 172N or P with the 180-hp STC, no. 5 to 10 knots, maybe.

Here's a composite panel photo -- the bottom one is a 172RG I rented in the 1980s; the top photo is a recent photo of my 172N with 180 hp, fixed-pitch prop, Power-Flow, full factory wheel and brake fairings, and flap gap seals. Not enough difference in my mind to justify the folding gear.

That said, I enjoyed flying the 172RG. One advantage is the huge 62-gallon fuel capacity (the 172N only carries 40). On one trip we went nonstop from Van Nuys CA to Medford, Oregon; then from there nonstop to Victoria, British Columbia. Nice! If you can safely and comfortably skip a fuel stop, that makes up for a lot of cruising speed.

I never owned a 172RG, though, so I've never had to deal with maintenance of the gear.

 

[poadeleted20]

The retractable gear of the Cutlass is there for one purpose only -- to create a Cessna complex trainer competitor to the Piper Arrow -- my fixed-gear Tiger is faster and carries more load. The landing gear system maintenance issues were mentioned above. If you want a high-wing retractable in that class, you'd do a lot better with a Cardinal RG -- roomier, faster, and fewer maintenance issues, and better resale market (although more expensive for that same reason -- people want them). Two other positive factors are the strutless wing (which your wife will probably love for getting in and out) and the much better visibility into turns due to the different cabin/wing positioning. The comparatively huge doors should also be popular with passengers (but be darn careful opening them in a wind from the rear because a high wind can rip them right off the plane).

 

[Sac Arrow]

I concur. My limited experience with them is they flew like turds compared to a standard 172.

 

[BiffJ]

From the flying standpoint I thought they were great. Flys like a 172. I flew one over the top of mount St Helens many years back and it was no big deal to clear the peak by 2K feet from troutdale airport on the columbia.
From the mechanic standpoint I'd ask myself seriously if I was willing to put up with the maintainence issues to get a plane not a whole lot faster than the straightleg 172 with a cost much higher. If you really want an RG there are others out there that will cost less in the long run. Reduced real load carrying is only one issue....
For the money the 177 and 182 RG are a better deal and so are the arrow, mooney and others. There is a reason there aren't that many 172RGs out there.

Frank

 

[Fearless Tower]

The retractable gear of the Cutlass is there for one purpose only -- to create a Cessna complex trainer competitor to the Piper Arrow

This. And consequently, it can be a challenge to find one that isn't beat to crap and high time airframe.

If you want something like a retract version of a 172 for a personal airplane, I think you will find better quality examples looking at Cardinal RGs.

 

[Z06_Mir]

A 182RG, or even a 177RG is a much better platform.

 

[bnt83]

A 182RG, or even a 177RG is a much better platform.

I saw a turbo 182RG with dual 530W, Stech autopilot, factory airconditioning, beautiful paint & interior with mid time engine for about $58k a while back. When I called they said they had a cracked pivot and just wanted out of the airplane.

 

[MAKG1]

A 182RG, or even a 177RG is a much better platform.

A retract 182 is s LOT better than a 177RG if you want to shoot any photos 'cause you can open the FN windows. The view is better in the Cardinal.

 

[bnt83]

The most frustrating part is that the type clubs (have massive $$$$ invested in this fleet) have yet to get organised enough to solve their own parts issues. This is a prime example where it would would be worth the effort to collectively support an STC/PMA replacement parts path.

 

[hindsight2020]

my only real problem is pivot and actuator cracks. when a main landing gear pivot or actuated cracks you can end up looking for one for many months. cessna doesn't seem to stock these parts and getting one made costs around $10k. There is a 182RG on cessna.org right now that has probably been paying insurance and hangar rent for 14 months and can't fly because of it.

everything else is much easier to fix.

That's what kept me away from cessna when I decided to upgrade out of the warrior. That's way too much mx dinero when juxtaposed to cheaper low wing retracts of comparable performance. As such, I went Arrow instead of cardinal. Plus it was cheaper to acquire, avionics being equal.

My gear is just stupid simple. It's so stupid, it always wants to come down lol (auto-retrac system, no uplocks, gravity fail mode). Parts are plentiful and the major moving bits are not crack-prone nor made out of unobtanium. Pitch control is rachety and unharmonized, as any PA-28 is expected to be, but mx is not a nightmare, which is more bang for the buck to me.

The cessnas are absolutely more comfortable, practical to ingress/egress and pax-friendly, hands down, but having the gear on the wing structure is a benefit for the low-wing planes in terms of simplicity and robustness.

 

[Z06_Mir]

I saw a turbo 182RG with dual 530W, Stech autopilot, factory airconditioning, beautiful paint & interior with mid time engine for about $58k a while back. When I called they said they had a cracked pivot and just wanted out of the airplane.

So for $10k, $68k total, you could have had an awesome airplane. I have about 10 hours in a TR182 (but with original Cessna radios ) and 300 some in a regular R182. The turbo is nice, the fuel consumption is not nearly as nice as on my n/a bird. But hey, I get paid to fly the turbo so I'm OK with that.

 

[hindsight2020]

So for $10k, $68k total, you could have had an awesome airplane. I have about 10 hours in a TR182 (but with original Cessna radios ) and 300 some in a regular R182. The turbo is nice, the fuel consumption is not nearly as nice as on my n/a bird. But hey, I get paid to fly the turbo so I'm OK with that.

A recurring 10K expense? No thanks. Unscheduled engine overhauls have better ROI than that.

 

[N747JB]

Fixed gear 182 is bigger, simpler, similar speeds, but burns a little more gas.
I agree with the others, if you want a retract, I'd look at a Cardinal. If you are looking for 3-4 people with 130-140 knots a straight leg 182 is pretty hard to beat. But, like everybody on here I'm biased!

 

[frfly172]

I like the cutlass,to rent. Flys like a standard 172 ,just a little faster. Own one,no thanks can't afford the gear upkeep.

 

[Z06_Mir]

A recurring 10K expense? No thanks. Unscheduled engine overhauls have better ROI than that.

Recurring? So a 35yr old airplane that needs a $10k in mx is recurring? It's not like you replace the thing every year. It's likely a one-time expense.

 

[Palmpilot]

This thread is very timely for me, because I was just yesterday thinking again about looking for a Cutlass to buy, because I love flying them, and am tired of the restrictions inherent in renting. I had heard that there were maintenance issues, but this is the first thread that has given me enough details to see that it really could turn into a nightmare.

One question I have though, is why do Cardinals have less of a problem in this regard?

 

[Palmpilot]

Recurring? So a 35yr old airplane that needs a $10k in mx is recurring? It's not like you replace the thing every year. It's likely a one-time expense.

The concern I have about that is, how much of a hassle is it going to be to find the drawings and specifications and a shop this is qualified to manufacture the part, what kind of FAA approval process is required, and what is the likely downtime to get all that done?

 

[Fearless Tower]

A retract 182 is s LOT better than a 177RG if you want to shoot any photos 'cause you can open the FN windows. The view is better in the Cardinal.

I'd wager there are more 177RG photo ships than 182s. They just have photo window mods.

 

[kayoh190]

I can't see any reason for someone other than a flight school owner/operator to purchase a 172RG. I'm normally a big believer in the 'different strokes for different folks' mindset, but there are simply too many other better options for similar or less money.

 

[MAKG1]

This thread is very timely for me, because I was just yesterday thinking again about looking for a Cutlass to buy, because I love flying them, and am tired of the restrictions inherent in renting. I had heard that there were maintenance issues, but this is the first thread that has given me enough details to see that it really could turn into a nightmare.

One question I have though, is why do Cardinals have less of a problem in this regard?

I think you have access to the same Cutlass and Cardinal I do. 6WG has been landed gear up due to failure to extend. That particular Cardinal is poorly maintained.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think you have access to the same Cutlass and Cardinal I do. 6WG has been landed gear up due to failure to extend. That particular Cardinal is poorly maintained.

I'm not currently in that club.

 

[poadeleted21]

If you want folding gear at that price point. Get an old Bo, Comanche or arrow instead, maybe even a turbo arrow. RG high wings are goofy. Especially the 172 variant.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Join the Cessna Pilot Association www.cessna.org and ask there. The best $65 you'll spend.

 

[James331]

The retractable gear of the Cutlass is there for one purpose only -- to create a Cessna complex trainer

Indeed

If you want a better cross country machine look at commanchies, or better yet in the experimental arena, a nanchang, glass air, etc.

Fixed gear, check out the Grummans (AA5-AA1)

IMO the waddle gear cessnas are mostly all crap compared to their competitors, especially the 172RG, next the 182RG, 177, and finally the 210 which is the least crappy of the lot.

 

[poadeleted20]

From the flying standpoint I thought they were great. Flys like a 172.

I think I should point out that to many of us, "flies like a 172" is not a compliment. :wink2:

 

[skylanerg]

Indeed

If you want a better cross country machine look at commanchies, or better yet in the experimental arena, a nanchang, glass air, etc.

Fixed gear, check out the Grummans (AA5-AA1)

IMO the waddle gear cessnas are mostly all crap compared to their competitors, especially the 172RG, next the 182RG, 177, and finally the 210 which is the least crappy of the lot.

Have you actually read the opening post? Bob has time in the PA-32R, SR22 and 182. Bob has sufficient, rounded experience to form a qualified opinion. The fact that he can have spousal support to acquire any aircraft (in this case a high wing retract) is huge. EXTREMELY HUGE!

Your opinion that Cessna retracts are "mostly all crap" compared to competitors is based on what direct experience with each type? How long did you, or have you, owned and maintained any Cessna retract? Or any aircraft for that matter? In particular I'd love to hear your experience owning and maintaining the C82R.

Didn't think so. Your opinion may be nothing more than a steaming pile.

 

[poadeleted20]

A 182RG, or even a 177RG is a much better platform.

I agree that a 182RG is a very good airplane for someone needing a 4-adult hauler, but it's not comparable to the lower powered Cardinal RG. If you need the 182RG, the Cardinal RG won't do, and if the Cardinal RG suffices, the 182RG is more expensive overkill. Some folks may be happy to put significantly more money into both purchase and operational costs for things they don't need, but if that extra capability isn't essential, recognize that you're talking about two different classes of airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

One question I have though, is why do Cardinals have less of a problem in this regard?

Different airplane from the ground up, including structures.

 

[Henning]

After going back and forth and back and forth in my first year back flying, I'm zeroing in on a 172 for purchase. Why, when I've wrote on this board about my adventures in and love for Saratoga, SR22, and 182?

Simplicity, reliability, easy to buy, easy to sell, and great IFR rating platform. I'll maintain currency in those other planes and rent when I need the load.

Now...my question...are there any opinions about a retract 172? My spouse, being an artist, loves a high wing retract...amazing view. And it looks like I get an extra 15 knots or so.

Any other thoughts about this plane? Any links or places I should go on the web to learn more about it...on this site or elsewhere?

Thanks, members!

For the view and photography you can't beat the 177RG, and the gear system is sturdier than the Cutlass.

 

[Norman]

Indeed


IMO the waddle gear cessnas are mostly all crap compared to their competitors, especially the 172RG, next the 182RG, 177, and finally the 210 which is the least crappy of the lot.

YEP! Your opinion. I hammered on all types for thirty years and didn't find the Cessna single retracts to be any more trouble than the rest.

 

[Henning]

A retract 182 is s LOT better than a 177RG if you want to shoot any photos 'cause you can open the FN windows. The view is better in the Cardinal.

They make a camera door for the window. It really is a great photo platform with no strut.

 

[MAKG1]

There is also a camera door for the rear windows in 182s, and the strut is much, much less of a problem from that position.

 

[James331]

I have no idea who the OP is, I have a job and life so I really don't get into the "bios" of every person who registered a free account on this site.

I just some random ATP who makes a good living flying. I've flown a few of em, 177, 210, also flown the pipers, currently flying a low wing turboprop.

As someone with nearly 4,000hrs now in all sorts of stuff, and cessnas ranging from a 120 to a C208B and as someone who flys nearly everyday I think the waddle gear cessnas are not as good as the competition.

My experince owning one lol I just said they fly like crap why would I own one?!

Ether way different strokes, some people love driving Kias and Hyundais, whatever you thing is have fun.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

I agree I have never seen an owner/operator with a 172RG. The only ones have been flight schools. I think the R172K with the 210 hp STC is pretty much on par with the 172RG speed wise.

 

[Z06_Mir]

I agree that a 182RG is a very good airplane for someone needing a 4-adult hauler, but it's not comparable to the lower powered Cardinal RG. If you need the 182RG, the Cardinal RG won't do, and if the Cardinal RG suffices, the 182RG is more expensive overkill. Some folks may be happy to put significantly more money into both purchase and operational costs for things they don't need, but if that extra capability isn't essential, recognize that you're talking about two different classes of airplane.

I don't disagree with that at all. If you can handle hauling 3 instead of 4, or better yet 2, the 177RG will work. The 177 is still more capable than the 172. Obviously i'm a supporter of the Cessna retracts, because the 182RG fulfills my mission beautifully. YMMV.

 

[JimNtexas]

A retract 182 is s LOT better than a 177RG if you want to shoot any photos 'cause you can open the FN windows. The view is better in the Cardinal.

You can get an STC camera window for the Cardinal, it's pretty cheap as airplane things go. The camera window has a door in the side window that you can open in flight.

 

[Fearless Tower]

You can get an STC camera window for the Cardinal, it's pretty cheap as airplane things go. The camera window has a door in the side window that you can open in flight.

Yup, and every Cardinal I've flown had one.