C172 Cutlass RG

jspeed87

Well-Known Member
I see good deals for the Gutlass on trade-a-plane all the time. My goal is to become an aircraft owner in the near future, and this plane seems to fit
my mission profile for the most part. I'm looking for an aircraft to fly mainly solo or with 1 other person on 200 NM trips and discovery flights for kids. This would
be my mission about 90% of the time. The other 10% would be long distance flying. I always wanted to fly myself around the world, it has been a dream of mine.
I know the C172 RG is (or 172 in general) is not a good choice for around the world flights. At the very least I would love to fly it down to South America from the States and back. This would probably be something done 1 every other year with proper planning. So I just have several questions if anyone with RG experience/knowledge wanted to chime in...

** My annual budget for owning and operating (not including acquisition cost is around 12k-15k all in including maintenance, fixed, and variable cost about 100 hours. **

1: How bad is the gear system on the RG? I hear lots of negative post and recommendations to stay away.

2: How much more will maintenance be than a standard 172? I don't mind being proactive with the gear system, so long as I can stay within budget.

3: I'm an ATP with 1500+ hours, 500 hours in 172's and 50+ hours complex. What can I expect for insurance?

Any other tips and suggestions appreciated.
 

CaptainYoda

Well-Known Member
Well, what are you gaining from owning an RG?
Not much for speed, but you're gaining an increased annual bill and insurance bill and unnecessary complexity.

Also the smaller tires lock up easier, so the less experienced tend to buy tires and occasionally wheels.
 

Cessnaflyer

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I taught many hours in the Cutlass. I would go for a normal 172. I don’t know what mission that plane was built for.
 

CFI A&P

Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
If the 172RG fits your mission, then a 172 fits your mission. The performance isn’t radically better but comes with a disproportionate amount more hassle and expense.

The insurance industry is holding owner’s hostage these days with 30-40% increases for no reason. Too many hull losses recently.
 

CaptainYoda

Well-Known Member
Why not go with a square tail C172?
It has the least amount of AD's and has mechanical flaps.
Add some nice avionics with the saved money.
 

mrivc211

Well-Known Member
I'd stay away from the RG. So many people complained to the FAA about the dispatch reliability of the 172RG that they changed the rules on commercial checkride requirements. That should say enough. The maintenance headaches will NEVER go away. That gear system is going on 7000-9000 cycles on average. It wasn't designed for that.
 

mrivc211

Well-Known Member
If the 172RG fits your mission, then a 172 fits your mission. The performance isn’t radically better but comes with a disproportionate amount more hassle and expense.

The insurance industry is holding owner’s hostage these days with 30-40% increases for no reason. Too many hull losses recently.
I've been hit with 20% annual increases over the past 3 years. It's wreckless owners doing stupid stuff and the rest of us having to pay for it. Annual coverage was $1,894 in 2017. My 2020 coverage was $3,694. I'm expecting no less than $4,000 for 2021 which means they'll probably hit me with $5,000.
 
Top