C172RG - worth a checkout?

[DeflectionShot]

Anyone have experience with the C172RG? I'm thinking of getting a checkout in it, but wanna see if it's really worth it, since it's a touch pricey compared to the fixed gear 172s. I've read they were partly aimed at filling the "complex" aircraft requirement for FAA CPLs.

[vanNostrum]

I got a few hours in the Cutlass some time ago so my comments are on a IIRC basis


The extra 20 HP gives a 100 fpm climb advantage over the 172 and around 100 Lb more useful load
It cruises maybe 20 K faster and has a higher service ceiling
The Cutlass was the first CSP/RG airplane I flew, the gear and propeller systems are easy to manage
My check out was around 1.5 hr with most of the time expended dealing with landing gear failure and  procedures
demonstrating lowering the gear 3 or 4 times with the hand pump
The prop control knob is located between the throttle and mixture, bit different size and colour
The CS prop is easy to set ,no need to constantly look at the RPM ,the change in the sound pitch is enough
to get you close to the RPM you want ,tach is just for fine tuning
[font=Verdana][size=2]The Cutlass  is as docile and easy to fly as any 172 , I'm just an average pilot and  I was able to [/size][/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]do 300NM  plus XC next day after my check out[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I did some hood time , found it to be an excellent platform for Instrument training[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]It is IMHO the ideal first RG/CSP [/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Is it worth it getting check out ?[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Yes as long as is not treated as the Space Shuttle and a lengthy check out is required ''for insurance purposes'' [/font] >:D

[Colonel]

You should fly the Gutless.  Once.

Mostly for the education on Cessna's whacky landing gear system.

It uses an electric motor to spin a hydraulic pump to move the gear.
If the motor dies, there is a handle to pump.  You run out of hydraulic
fluid, you try to pee in the reservoir tank on the firewall, IIRC.

Gear is bizarre, retracting into the fuselage instead of the wing.  Drag
increases during activation.  There is paper to remove the gear doors.

[ScudRunner-d95]

Never flew the RG but plenty of time in a 172 flying charters and sightseeing. As always I would say the more planes you can gain experience on the better you will be, go for it and let us know your take on it.

[Rookie Pilot]

[quote author=ScudRunner link=topic=5379.msg13895#msg13895 date=1484414881]
Never flew the RG but plenty of time in a 172 flying charters and sightseeing. As always I would say the more planes you can gain experience on the better you will be, go for it and let us know your take on it.
[/quote]


Agree with Scud. You will learn a lot on systems while it's not too fast no problem keeping up. I have a few hundred hours in the gutless, affectionate nickname. Empty In winter, not too bad. Loaded in summer, like a 172. Slow climb.

[JW Scud]

It's a really nice plane that goes noticably faster. Have a lot of time in one.

[Colonel]

There are actually quite a few models of Cessna singles
that use that whacky RG design:

172
177
182
210

Only you can determine if the extra speed is worth the
extra bucks.  I might mention that the RG versions tend
to use smaller tires, and are not the best for grass.  RG
is best on pavement.

Honorable mention:

337

It's the closest thing to a single, that a twin could ever be.
Like flying in two engine compartments at the same time.
Get an A20.  Hardest thing about it, is noticing a (rear)
engine failure.  Not a normal multi.  Logged time is even
counted differently (center-thrust).

[Trey Kule]

It has been a long time, but Idont remember the 172RG offerring any performance advantages over acregular 172.  It was a plane sold to pilots with egos who wanted to fly a "retractable", with fancy cowl flaps...

An hour for fun, but other than that I would not waste my money on it.  The dufference between flying a lower cost 172 and the RG is pretty much all about ego.IMO.

[anofly]

I think it was meant to introduce , retractable gear, and the like to 172 pilots. a familiar plane, with a gear switch.
Remember the Beech Musketeers with "fake " gear switches? they had a landing gear switch, with up and down  lamps, for retractable  gear ,that did not work or exist on the plane, just so you could practice for a few years, before getting your sierra, or better yet your F33, V35 or A 36 step up plane...
you flipped the switch and the lamp changed from down to up , and up to down... LOL

[Chris]

From an insurance perspective, would there be any value in someone looking into buying an RG airplane to first rack up a handful of hours in a Cutlass? Not my situation, I'm just curious.