Another thing to watch on the Cutlass is for signs of hydraulic leaks running down the gear legs. It probably is not from the gear but more likely from a brake. The brake lines run inside the gear legs from the trunnions. (The bit on the upper end of the leg). If the aircraft has had a hard landing (or a lot of not so hard landings), the trunnions can crack or, if the owner is lucky just displace a little. Either way you lose brake fluid and ultimately a brake. So if you fly a Cutlass for any length of time you might not only get the odd electrical failure but maybe a brake loss too. Landing with one brake is not too much of problem - if you have tarmac in front of you. Meanwhile, reporting this to the owner may well result in acute depression leading on to suicidal tendancies as trunnions are not the cheapest replacement items on Cessna retractables. (There is a recent A/D on the 172RG on this area.)
They are still a great aircraft - and these things make them an even better commercial trainer. As for the weight, I believe the Cutlass is not much more in basic weight than an Archer III, without the retrac or CS prop. A Cutlass will certainly carry more, faster and much further. But then when you compare say a Grumman Tiger or Robiin on the same power, one wonders why they ever bothered with the constant speed/retrac in the first place. Anyone know how a Cutlass compares to a new 180HP 172SP? Not getting anywhere near nice new shiny things, it would be interesting.