Many of the smaller piper indians all use gravity to extend the wheels in an emergency. all the lever does is release the uplocks so the gear can fall out. Need to check that the uplocks are OK at each inspection, but its a pretty foolproof system I hear.
The Beech Bonanza series (33-36's) and twins (95, 95-55 and 58) all use manual extention to wind down the gear by hand. 50 turns. The manual handle disenagages the electric motor, and you replace its action with muscle power. Must always check the uplock rollers on these as well, because if they bind no amount of muscle power will allow you to wind down the wheels.
Heap of crap. The only thing I can say is that its pretty fast for a 100 series. Don't fly anything under a 182 - it is Cessnas first aeroplane. The ones below the 182 belong in a toy shop for children to play with.
If you want a real single a 206 or 210 is the answer.
Not_another_pot, the post related specifically to C172 series and no other.
You're correct re. 100 series Cessnas all using hydraulic pressure for gear extension.
But since you raise the point...
Many other types don't. Think of the typical Piper single mechanism: Remove hydraulic pressure & the gear free falls. Alternatively, the Beech Bonanza (& Baron) series uses a mechanical drive. Alternate extension involves disabling the electric motor drive & substituting your own muscle.
Piper's PA23 series involves a manual hydraulic pump (which requires hydraulic fluid, same as the Cessna 100 & 200 series). The only difference is that it's a direct replacent for the electric motor, unlike Cessna's 'gear extension only' system.
NB. The PA23 series also has the option of a nitrogen 'blow down' opton as well. If that doesn't work then even a gear up landing only screws the gear doors & possibly the props. I reckon the designer must have had a few too many 'gear up' frights!
Have not flown the Cessna 200's but did most of my flying in the fixed C-172 before flying the C-172RG.
Found that the usefull load was alot better (you actually could fit in 4 POB, fuel and bags), and it flew a good cruise speed (all things considered).
I only did about 60 hours in the RG and the particular RG I flew was starting to get pretty tired but none the less was a welcomed upgrade from the trainer 172's - with the addition for me being my first CSU a/c.
Dont know how the cabin size compares to the 182 but would assume its about the same. Flap speeds are pretty good too - 130kts/100kts. Fuel I used to plan for 40ltr/hr (35ltr/hr fixed 172) and never experienced any major tech. probs.
If your buying the a/c Id prob go for the 182 as sounds like it preforms much the same but with the fixed gear I guess is one less thing to go wrong ($$$$), also theres a lot more of them (spares etc), but if its just for hire go for it! - a fun 4 seat single piston x-country machine.
It's not to buy!! Sorry I should have made that clear.
It's for commercial training, and at the flying school, it's either that or an arrow. Sure, I'd love to fly a 210, 206 even a 182 as well, but these are the two types that are available through this school and also, the going rate for a 210 or 206 these days I can't quite afford
I just thought, Cessna time - whether it be a 172RG or a 182 - would be better than Piper time with regards to finding that first job. I'm not going to re-ingnite the debate piper vs. cessna, but the people I have talked to say that any Cessna retrac/CSU time is better than anything.
Have owned a Cutlass - have to say its was a bit boring, except when it got the prerequisite electrical problems. Often, it just needed a flick of the master switch to reset the regulator and off it went again. So if you notice the radios getting a bit quieter, try that first. Of course, when it really wants to test you it will flatten the battery in about 10 seconds and no amount of playing around with master switch will get it to recharge. This is fun because you lose everthing electriical - flaps, radios, gear the lot. Not too bad on a sunny day but a bit scary at night with 1200 ft cloud base - believe me. I always carried a handheld radio and GPS in that aircraft.
One thing you have to watch is to make sure that little yellow light comes on after you put the gear up. If not, the motor continues to run, gets very hot and eventually leads to alternator breaker popping - and guess what, complete electrical failure. If the little yellow light does not come on after about 20 seconds max (I think the book says it should take 5), pull the gear circuit breaker. On one occasion, the motor did get really hot (yeah, I know I should have watched the yellow light closer) and actually melted the static lines which run close to some of the hydraulic lines. Result was I got complete electrical failure and loss of static instruments - again at night.
I have heard of a few Cutlasses having these kinds of problems. I replaced the hydraulic powerpack, regulator, various, capacitors and many other bits and pieces, but still had problems with that little yellow light and the alternator randomly tripping from time to time. I guess many Cutlasses have had quite a hard life as commercial trainers and have an 20 year old electrical system that is about the same standard (and dare I suggest condition) as a 1978 Cortina.
However, overall, I would have to say they are a bloody good aircraft. They carry quite a reasonable load (mine was basic 750kg, MAUW 1202Kg). It has to be said the gutlass cutlass name is very, very well deserved at max load on a hot day! It would go along at 130 kt quite happily and burn only 33 l/hr if leaned a bit. 235 l usable meant it would go quite a long way. I flew mine 600 nm nonstop many times with plenty in reserve. No, it is not a 182, but really there is very little advantage in a 182 unless you are carrying full load. 182's do burn one hell of a lot more fuel for about the same speed. The good old 0-360 in the RG is a much more durable engine than that fragile cylinder cracking 0-470 in the 182 and hence generally the Cutlass is much more economical prospect.
Compared to the Arrow, the Cutlass is better. The big flaps the ability to maintain some sort of glide performance, better short field performance and nicer Cessna general handling make it a much better commercial trainer to my mind.
Just finished about 20 hours in the "Gut-less" we use for IFR training. Found it a lot heavier in the controls than the standard 172's but nice to see some bigger numbers on the ASI. Climbs like a sack of sh*t , I suppose thats what you get when you've got something thats weighs about the same as a 185 and only 180hp up front. Pretty good for first RG/CSU type though.
Had a few probs with electrics lately though, a full electrics failure and magneto probs too. Still, thats GA for ya!
Flown C152 throught to 402s. Found the 172RG a great aircraft. Maybe not the pick up "i.e. rate of climb, not payload" but it does have a nice cruise speed. The great thing about them is the high gear and flap(first stage) speed relative to the cruise speed. Need to stop, hit the air brakes. The bigger faster aircraft (C210s, Mooneys) tend not to like slowing down.
Despite my complaint (above) about the electrics, I have to agree it was a good aircraft for getting the CSU and retractable endorsements.
But when I had my first electrical failure I was bloody glad my instructor had made me hand-pump the gear down during training, and was consequently not so worried about it when I had to do it for real.
As for whether it would be better to do the CPL training on the Cutlass or the Arrow - it's a long time since I've flown either but I suspect the Arrow is a more comfortable and quieter aircraft.
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.
Just for the record guys, the aircraft was designed and built in direct response to the US CPL training requirement of 180HP, CSU and retract.
It does all the good Cessna stuff, but was never intended to be a slippery dude that could leap over tall buildings etc, just to provide the training environment and a simple transition from the C172 without the capital and running expense of the C182RG or C210.
It does what it was supposed to do, very well.
Most people get it into their head that because it is retractable and has a CSU it will go like the clappers. Fact is the C172 fixed gear profile drag isn't all that much different from the retractable version, it's the extra grunt and CSU prop efficiency that does it but we're only talking about an 13 extra cruise BHP here for a 113kg heavier aircraft. The HP/weight loading is about the same.