172RG Question

TrinidadGT20 · February 2nd, 2004, 13:23

I recall reading a while ago that there is a sizeable demand for used 172RG airplanes. I don't understand why the feature of having the front gear retract is such a big deal. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks!

NJA_Capt · February 2nd, 2004, 13:47

[ QUOTE ]
I recall reading a while ago that there is a sizeable demand for used 172RG airplanes. I don't understand why the feature of having the front gear retract is such a big deal. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you mean by singling out the nose gear. All 3 of the wheels on the RG's retract. Not just the nose. The only aircraft that I know of that ONLY the nose gear retract are the "Quickie" series homebuilts.

mtsu_av8er · February 2nd, 2004, 13:50

[ QUOTE ]
I recall reading a while ago that there is a sizeable demand for used 172RG airplanes. I don't understand why the feature of having the front gear retract is such a big deal. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to take that aircraft in to the shop...

TrinidadGT20 · February 2nd, 2004, 13:58

I guess I need to take another look as it appeared that only the front gear went up. I've never actually seen one up close--only in pictures.

Nonetheless, what makes a 172RG such a sought after item versus a regular 172?

jtrain609 · February 2nd, 2004, 14:05

The same things that make the Arrow more attractive over a Warrior. Both planes have about the same performance. I think it comes down to being able to do your commercial in a 172RG as opposed to a 172. It fly's faster than a 172 and has more power, yet fly's very much like a 172 (from what I'm told).

Cheers

John Herreshoff

TrinidadGT20 · February 2nd, 2004, 14:08

OK, in fairness to me, by looking at this picture it does not look like the rear gear retracts--only the front.

Airliners.net Cessna 172RG

ready2fly · February 2nd, 2004, 14:10

The landing gear fold up backwards into the fuselage. Ther's not a door to speak of... just a small bay that the gear saddles into. You can't see it in that photo.

SUSPilot · February 2nd, 2004, 14:19

[ QUOTE ]
The same things that make the Arrow more attractive over a Warrior. Both planes have about the same performance. I think it comes down to being able to do your commercial in a 172RG as opposed to a 172. It fly's faster than a 172 and has more power, yet fly's very much like a 172 (from what I'm told).

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing the Arrow to the Warrior is a little different than comparing the Cutlass to the C172. Yes in both cases you have the same basic fuselage as the fixed gear, but the Arrow has 200 horsepower to the Warrior 150 or 160. While the Cutlass has 180 horsepower to the C172 150, 160, or 180 depending on model. In the Cutlass case it was built almost solely to be a complex trainer, and doesn't have much more performance than a 172, while comparing the Arrow to the Warrior you will see about a 30 kt increase in speed, a substantial jump in climb performane, and a large increase in useful load and gross weight. Even when comparing the Arrow to the Archer(180 horsepower), the extra 20 horsepower, constant speed prop, and reduced drag from the gear being retracted will lead to a greater performance difference than folding the legs and putting a constant speed prop on a 172. Neither plane is difficult to make the transition to, but it is a bigger difference between the Arrow and the Warrior than it is between the C172RG and the C172.

jtrain609 · February 2nd, 2004, 14:22

Unless you fly a 180 HP Arrow like me

TrinidadGT20 · February 2nd, 2004, 14:27

What is a constant speed prop?

ready2fly · February 2nd, 2004, 14:29

[ QUOTE ]
What is a constant speed prop?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a prop where the pilot controls the pitch and RPM.

Unlike a 172 or Warrior, which have a fixed pitch prop.

E_Dawg · February 2nd, 2004, 15:18

Main gear door

dissappearing mains

stuckingfk · February 2nd, 2004, 15:30

In response to your question about the 172 RG, the gear fold back into the fuselage. In the first picture that you gave, you can see actually see where the gear retracts into, you just have to look closer.

Jeff_S_KDTW · February 2nd, 2004, 20:19

[ QUOTE ]
In response to your question about the 172 RG, the gear fold back into the fuselage. In the first picture that you gave, you can see actually see where the gear retracts into, you just have to look closer.

[/ QUOTE ]In the future I would appreciate it if you would post the LINK to the airliners.net photo, rather than putting it on your website.

Here is the link:http://www.airliners.net/open.file/473499/L/

BTW, JLS_Photo is me.

stuckingfk · February 2nd, 2004, 20:29

Yeah I can do that, sorry that you had a problem with it, but I am going to ask you something. What is the difference if I post a pic here or post a link leading to the same thing?

Jeff_S_KDTW · February 2nd, 2004, 20:34

Thanks.

Technically, the difference between the two is a matter of ownership and permission to use. Airliners.net has a nice page dedicated to the issue: http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/

That's the reason why the poster directly above you posted links only.

Ralgha · February 3rd, 2004, 01:52

I don't see why people bash the 172RG so much for being slow. I've flown both a 200HP Arrow and a 180HP 172RG, and they both go about the same speed. The 172RG trues at about 130, and so did the Arrow. Those that say the retractable gear on the 172RG makes no difference are full of it. I flew one from Redding to Corvallis with the gear down (it woudln't retract) and I was only doing about 110. That and it barely made it up to 10,000 to cross the mountains, when it easily climbed to 11,000 going the other direction with the gear up.

Yeah it's not the greatest climber, but so what. It's significantly faster than a regular 172.

Oh, I wouldn't say the Arrow has 30 knots on the Warrior either. I've also flown Warriors a fair amount, and the Arrow only has about 20 knots on it.

Flying characteristics: the 172RG is a lot heavier on the controls than a 172 is. It feels like a much bigger airplane.

Compared to the 172RG, the Arrow flies like a dumptruck. The 172RG is a much more fun airplane to fly in my opinion.

PFactor · February 3rd, 2004, 09:32

I agree, I like the 172RG much more than the Arrow. Unlike the RG if you lose the engine in the Arrow, it will drop like a rock!

mtsu_av8er · February 3rd, 2004, 09:54

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why people bash the 172RG so much for being slow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that alot of it is perception. Many people start their training in high-wing Cessnas, and they think that whenn you move up, you've got to get away from those private-pilot type Cessna airplanes!!

I've got a CFI-friend that doesn't particularly care to go above 5 or 6 thousand feet in a high-wing Cessna, but will do it all day in an Arrow or an Archer. Doesn't feel quite as "safe" in a Cessna. His reasoning: Nobody ever goes that high in a Cessna (except for me - almost never lower than 7,000

).

Ralgha · February 3rd, 2004, 13:26

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is a constant speed prop?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a prop where the pilot controls the pitch and RPM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in most cases, the pilot only controls the RPM, the prop takes care of the pitch itself.

CAVOK · February 3rd, 2004, 19:17

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is a constant speed prop?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a prop where the pilot controls the pitch and RPM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in most cases, the pilot only controls the RPM, the prop takes care of the pitch itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the pilot only controls the tension on the speeder spring inside the prop governer, and the governer takes care of balancing cetrifugal force with the flyweights, and in turn, takes care of pitch, and in turn, the RPM...

I'm a dork

Ralgha · February 3rd, 2004, 20:49

Yes but the pilot selects the tension of the spring based on the RPM they want, not the pitch angle they want, so they are, in effect, setting the RPM.

kellwolf · February 3rd, 2004, 21:16

Girls, girls! You're both pretty!

CAVOK · February 3rd, 2004, 23:55

[ QUOTE ]
Yes but the pilot selects the tension of the spring based on the RPM they want, not the pitch angle they want, so they are, in effect, setting the RPM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that is what you are moving the control for...RPM. I was just going through the order of things to describe how the selected RPM is achieved. I didn't mean to try to prove anybody wrong....all the comments so far have been correct. I was just giving too much information (purposely).

"girls, girls....you're both pretty" -- I, and I'm sure Ralgha, resent that

Ralgha · February 4th, 2004, 00:22

[ QUOTE ]
"girls, girls....you're both pretty" -- I, and I'm sure Ralgha, resent that

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, only because I'm the pretty one!

February 2nd, 2004, 13:23	#1
TrinidadGT20 Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Red Sox Nation Posts: 1,603	172RG Question I recall reading a while ago that there is a sizeable demand for used 172RG airplanes. I don't understand why the feature of having the front gear retract is such a big deal. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Thanks!

February 2nd, 2004, 13:47	#2
NJA_Capt Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Low Earth Orbit Posts: 1,389	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] I recall reading a while ago that there is a sizeable demand for used 172RG airplanes. I don't understand why the feature of having the front gear retract is such a big deal. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? [/ QUOTE ] Not sure what you mean by singling out the nose gear. All 3 of the wheels on the RG's retract. Not just the nose. The only aircraft that I know of that ONLY the nose gear retract are the "Quickie" series homebuilts.

February 2nd, 2004, 13:50	#3
mtsu_av8er Old Skool Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Utopia Posts: 12,567	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] I recall reading a while ago that there is a sizeable demand for used 172RG airplanes. I don't understand why the feature of having the front gear retract is such a big deal. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Thanks! [/ QUOTE ] You might want to take that aircraft in to the shop...

February 2nd, 2004, 13:58	#4
TrinidadGT20 Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Red Sox Nation Posts: 1,603	Re: 172RG Question I guess I need to take another look as it appeared that only the front gear went up. I've never actually seen one up close--only in pictures. Nonetheless, what makes a 172RG such a sought after item versus a regular 172?

February 2nd, 2004, 14:05	#5
jtrain609 Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Park City, UT Posts: 12,329	Re: 172RG Question The same things that make the Arrow more attractive over a Warrior. Both planes have about the same performance. I think it comes down to being able to do your commercial in a 172RG as opposed to a 172. It fly's faster than a 172 and has more power, yet fly's very much like a 172 (from what I'm told). Cheers John Herreshoff

February 2nd, 2004, 14:08	#6
TrinidadGT20 Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Red Sox Nation Posts: 1,603	Re: 172RG Question OK, in fairness to me, by looking at this picture it does not look like the rear gear retracts--only the front. Airliners.net Cessna 172RG

February 2nd, 2004, 14:10	#7
ready2fly Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: DFW Posts: 7,182	Re: 172RG Question The landing gear fold up backwards into the fuselage. Ther's not a door to speak of... just a small bay that the gear saddles into. You can't see it in that photo.

February 2nd, 2004, 14:19	#8
SUSPilot Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Baseball City, USA Posts: 367	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] The same things that make the Arrow more attractive over a Warrior. Both planes have about the same performance. I think it comes down to being able to do your commercial in a 172RG as opposed to a 172. It fly's faster than a 172 and has more power, yet fly's very much like a 172 (from what I'm told). [/ QUOTE ] Comparing the Arrow to the Warrior is a little different than comparing the Cutlass to the C172. Yes in both cases you have the same basic fuselage as the fixed gear, but the Arrow has 200 horsepower to the Warrior 150 or 160. While the Cutlass has 180 horsepower to the C172 150, 160, or 180 depending on model. In the Cutlass case it was built almost solely to be a complex trainer, and doesn't have much more performance than a 172, while comparing the Arrow to the Warrior you will see about a 30 kt increase in speed, a substantial jump in climb performane, and a large increase in useful load and gross weight. Even when comparing the Arrow to the Archer(180 horsepower), the extra 20 horsepower, constant speed prop, and reduced drag from the gear being retracted will lead to a greater performance difference than folding the legs and putting a constant speed prop on a 172. Neither plane is difficult to make the transition to, but it is a bigger difference between the Arrow and the Warrior than it is between the C172RG and the C172.

February 2nd, 2004, 14:22	#9
jtrain609 Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Park City, UT Posts: 12,329	Re: 172RG Question Unless you fly a 180 HP Arrow like me

February 2nd, 2004, 14:27	#10
TrinidadGT20 Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Red Sox Nation Posts: 1,603	Re: 172RG Question What is a constant speed prop?

February 2nd, 2004, 14:29	#11
ready2fly Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: DFW Posts: 7,182	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] What is a constant speed prop? [/ QUOTE ] It's a prop where the pilot controls the pitch and RPM. Unlike a 172 or Warrior, which have a fixed pitch prop.

February 2nd, 2004, 15:18	#12
E_Dawg Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: chicago Posts: 4,232	Re: 172RG Question Main gear door dissappearing mains

February 2nd, 2004, 15:30	#13
stuckingfk Old Skool Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: El Forko Grande Posts: 2,604	Re: 172RG Question In response to your question about the 172 RG, the gear fold back into the fuselage. In the first picture that you gave, you can see actually see where the gear retracts into, you just have to look closer.

February 2nd, 2004, 20:19	#14
Jeff_S_KDTW Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: - Posts: 129	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] In response to your question about the 172 RG, the gear fold back into the fuselage. In the first picture that you gave, you can see actually see where the gear retracts into, you just have to look closer. [/ QUOTE ]In the future I would appreciate it if you would post the LINK to the airliners.net photo, rather than putting it on your website. Here is the link:http://www.airliners.net/open.file/473499/L/ BTW, JLS_Photo is me.

February 2nd, 2004, 20:29	#15
stuckingfk Old Skool Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: El Forko Grande Posts: 2,604	Re: 172RG Question Yeah I can do that, sorry that you had a problem with it, but I am going to ask you something. What is the difference if I post a pic here or post a link leading to the same thing?

February 2nd, 2004, 20:34	#16
Jeff_S_KDTW Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: - Posts: 129	Re: 172RG Question Thanks. Technically, the difference between the two is a matter of ownership and permission to use. Airliners.net has a nice page dedicated to the issue: http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/ That's the reason why the poster directly above you posted links only.

February 3rd, 2004, 01:52	#17
Ralgha Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fresno, CA Posts: 918	Re: 172RG Question I don't see why people bash the 172RG so much for being slow. I've flown both a 200HP Arrow and a 180HP 172RG, and they both go about the same speed. The 172RG trues at about 130, and so did the Arrow. Those that say the retractable gear on the 172RG makes no difference are full of it. I flew one from Redding to Corvallis with the gear down (it woudln't retract) and I was only doing about 110. That and it barely made it up to 10,000 to cross the mountains, when it easily climbed to 11,000 going the other direction with the gear up. Yeah it's not the greatest climber, but so what. It's significantly faster than a regular 172. Oh, I wouldn't say the Arrow has 30 knots on the Warrior either. I've also flown Warriors a fair amount, and the Arrow only has about 20 knots on it. Flying characteristics: the 172RG is a lot heavier on the controls than a 172 is. It feels like a much bigger airplane. Compared to the 172RG, the Arrow flies like a dumptruck. The 172RG is a much more fun airplane to fly in my opinion.

February 3rd, 2004, 09:32	#18
PFactor Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 135	Re: 172RG Question I agree, I like the 172RG much more than the Arrow. Unlike the RG if you lose the engine in the Arrow, it will drop like a rock!

February 3rd, 2004, 09:54	#19
mtsu_av8er Old Skool Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Utopia Posts: 12,567	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] I don't see why people bash the 172RG so much for being slow. [/ QUOTE ] I think that alot of it is perception. Many people start their training in high-wing Cessnas, and they think that whenn you move up, you've got to get away from those private-pilot type Cessna airplanes!! I've got a CFI-friend that doesn't particularly care to go above 5 or 6 thousand feet in a high-wing Cessna, but will do it all day in an Arrow or an Archer. Doesn't feel quite as "safe" in a Cessna. His reasoning: Nobody ever goes that high in a Cessna (except for me - almost never lower than 7,000 ).

February 3rd, 2004, 13:26	#20
Ralgha Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fresno, CA Posts: 918	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is a constant speed prop? [/ QUOTE ] It's a prop where the pilot controls the pitch and RPM. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, in most cases, the pilot only controls the RPM, the prop takes care of the pitch itself.

February 3rd, 2004, 19:17	#21
CAVOK Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 123	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is a constant speed prop? [/ QUOTE ] It's a prop where the pilot controls the pitch and RPM. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, in most cases, the pilot only controls the RPM, the prop takes care of the pitch itself. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, the pilot only controls the tension on the speeder spring inside the prop governer, and the governer takes care of balancing cetrifugal force with the flyweights, and in turn, takes care of pitch, and in turn, the RPM... I'm a dork

February 3rd, 2004, 20:49	#22
Ralgha Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fresno, CA Posts: 918	Re: 172RG Question Yes but the pilot selects the tension of the spring based on the RPM they want, not the pitch angle they want, so they are, in effect, setting the RPM.

February 3rd, 2004, 21:16	#23
kellwolf Old Skool Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 13,838	Re: 172RG Question Girls, girls! You're both pretty!

February 3rd, 2004, 23:55	#24
CAVOK Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 123	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] Yes but the pilot selects the tension of the spring based on the RPM they want, not the pitch angle they want, so they are, in effect, setting the RPM. [/ QUOTE ] Of course that is what you are moving the control for...RPM. I was just going through the order of things to describe how the selected RPM is achieved. I didn't mean to try to prove anybody wrong....all the comments so far have been correct. I was just giving too much information (purposely). "girls, girls....you're both pretty" -- I, and I'm sure Ralgha, resent that

February 4th, 2004, 00:22	#25
Ralgha Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fresno, CA Posts: 918	Re: 172RG Question [ QUOTE ] "girls, girls....you're both pretty" -- I, and I'm sure Ralgha, resent that [/ QUOTE ] Well, only because I'm the pretty one!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode