Airtest – Cessna Cutlass RG

In Europe, France became midwife to the Reims Rocket which hit the inner circle – if not the bull’s eye – with a 210hp engine.

Then, in 1977, Wichita brewed up the magic formula which produced the Skyhawk 100 with its 160hp Lycoming, and launched the Hawk XP with a 195hp Continental plus a constant-speed propeller.

And now enter the Cessna Cutlass, powered by the same donk that energised the fixed-legged Cardinal which died about three years ago.

It’s a bold step; there hasn’t been much apparent change in design since the rejig aft of the wing in the 60s.

One should definitely not run away with the idea that Wichita has fitted the Skylane’s retractable gear to the 172, given the smaller beast a new name and hoped for the best.

Cessna has embarked on a diamond-hard marketing program (and Cessna is among the world’s best marketeers) which is bravely steering a head-on course with the opposition – and with less horsepower.

Although the guts of Wichita’s marketing strategy haven’t yet been revealed south of the Equator, it’s safe to predict the main thrust will be the marketing of the cheapest retractable single plus extolling the Cutlass’ virtue of being the cheapest to operate.

Brand X’s four-seat folding-feet types – the popular Arrow, Mooney’s very fast 201 and the Beech Sierra 200 – have 200hp fuel-injection motors. Cessna is confronting this powerful trio with 20 less horses which nonetheless brings the Cutlass within a whisker of at least the Arrow and Sierra.

Perhaps the strongest trump in the hand is the fact that the Cutlass engine has a 2000 recommended TBO against the others’ 1600 hours. How Wichita made the Cutlass’ legs fit out of sight is simple – and interesting. The mains simply swing back into the bottom of the baggage compartment; the nose wheel goes forward and up, into the space previously occupied by engine accessories and battery.

From spinner to firewall there is a slight difference; the older Skyhawk didn’t have a pair of cowl flaps, or a slight bump over a retractable nosewheel it didn’t have …

“Betters” about the Cutlass include a bigger useful load (106016) over the Skyhawk, and a practically foolproof c of g envelope.

Inside, the difference between a Skyhawk and the Cutlass RG 11 is marked; carpeting covers the entire cabin floor and lower half of the walls, rear seats can be fully reclined (depending on what’s in the baggage compartment), front seats have more rear travel than the Skyhawk’s, and one can load baggage through a left-hand side door.

The already gqod 172 elevator response at low speeds has been further enhanced by recontouring the leading edge.

Electrically, the Cutlass RG II boasts an avionics master switch just above the circuit-breaker bank on the pilot’s left-hand side. One of the advantages for Australian pilots is that the Cutlass’ higher wing loading (through increased weight) has eliminated that dreadful floating feeling on short finals and flare, when days are nudging the 40-degree mark in the waterbag.

To find out more about this super-Cessna, AADR contacted official Cessna distributor Rex Aviation at Bankstown and was supplied with the first Cutlass RG II in Australia plus staff check pilot, Trevor Howie.

The copy supplied still bore the US registration of N5515R. It had been the first to arrive in Australia, but already had relatives in Brisbane and Goulburn, according to Rex’s Frank Bonnor.

He waxed politely indignant when we asked him if the new Cutlass RG II was any relation to the late lamented retractable Cardinal – after all, it had much the same engine. The question was really both impertinent and inaccurate, and we knew it before uttering it.

There was about as much identity between the “in-between” Cardinal with its folding feet and (when we flew it) unbearably hot and greenhouse-like cockpit, and the Cutlass RG II as Idi Amin and my favourite maiden aunt.

On a walkround there isn’t much difference from the standard 172 drill, apart from checking the doorless main wheel wells and the nosewheel well and doors.

Like their research into speed increases if they cleaned up the Cessna wings, Wichita have apparently concluded that the doors of the mains when retracted would produce minimal speed increase for a disproportionate amount of cash.

The Cutlass wing, like its bigger brothers in the singles range, is a wet one holding 66 gals/US (62 usable).

Centre of gravity exercises are a non-problem with the Cutlass; we found it logically impossible to load outside the limits – but expect even at this stage to collect a brickbat from some smartie who’s managed to do it by loading some compartment or seat with lead bricks.

For our sortie, the test Cutlass was about 25016 under gross, with three souls on board and full fuel. Maximum takeoff weight is carded at 265016, the same as max landing weight; ramp weight is 265816.

A manual study disclosed that 10 degrees of preselected flap are preferred; this clashed with earlier non-Australian briefing we’d heard when nil flap was listed in the Manual.

Start drill? Mixture RICH, prop to HIGH RPM, throttle CLOSED, Master ON, auxiliary fuel pump (a surprise for vintage Cessna drivers) ON, advance throttle to get between 8- 10gph fuel flow, then close throttle. Aux. fuel pump OFF.

Then start your beast and warm up at between 800- 1000rpm.

Taxiing out produced no surprises – typical 172 stuff, with the Cutlass boasting about a 27ft turning radius.A quick look round the office while setting QNH and getting the groundborne feel of the beast produced the following scan: Left section; flight instruments; avionics Master on pilot’s left; lighting switches, circuit-breakers, e n g i n e temperature/pressure gauges. Centre section; nav/com, Nav-O-Matic auto-pilot, undercarriage selector, throttle, mixture, pitch (latter two with verniers), pre-select flap switch selector.

Rudder and elevator trims are standard. We wound in slight right rudder to offset the expected torque, and did our run-up at 1800rpm.

We left the flappage housed, noted an OAT of +22 and opened the taps. The Cutlass strode purposefully forward, need little foot boost for the trim already fed in. As the ASI needle passed through 55 indicated the nosewheel was lifted gently and N5515R was airborne and climbing gear cycling UP, in far less than the carded 940ft at max. gross ISA conditions.

Gear retraction produced a slight nose-up reaction which balanced the stick-pull necessary to get our Cutlass off the deck – a neat cancellation.

Trimmed out, the test aircraft clambered away tidily at 80 knots indicated, making a nonsense of the Manual’s 800fpm climb rate. Max climb power permitted is listed as full power 2600rpm, with between 85 and 95 on the clock.

Settings were eased back from the take-off readings, to 22/2300 cruise-climb configuration, and then brought further back to 20/2250. With IAS (indicated airspeed) showing 100 knots and outside air temperature (OAT) registering+ 18, this equated to a respectable TAS climb speed of nearly 120 miles an hour.

Preliminary handling produced the reaction from both members of the AADR evaluation team that this Cutlass wasn’t all that much different from the older sister 172, apart from cowl flaps and prop pitch plunger – and better performance numbers.

And they were really better numbers, even when checked against the Manual. At 2000ft we were getting fully 106kts indicated from a miserly setting combination of 21/2250 (significantly less than 60 per cent power which gives 119kts IAS, 8gph), which tried out at 111kts.

Higher settings in cruise produced 131kts IAS from 74 per cent settings (24/2500) which in turn gulped a scant 9.9gph; at 6000ft the Cutlass made good a true airspeed of 143kts with settings of 65 per cent (22/2300), and fuel consumption of 8.8gph.

On computation – although regretfully we didn’t have time to try it – 63 per cent (20/2400) at 10,000ft would give an indicated 129kts, with fuel consumption coming back to 8.6gph.

Much of the time in our evaluation sortie was spent in jockeying with a chase plane for pictures, across the Blue Mountains’ foothills.

However, we had time to appreciate the Cutlass low-speed qualities and warning systems; for example, with gear up an intermittent warning ·sounds off if the pilot throttles back below about 12in, or drops more than 20 degrees of flap.

A clean stall approach initiated a continuous warning bleep at 55kts, with a gentle pitch-down experienced at 45 indicated. A touch and go at Haxton Park en route to Bankstown produced nothing startling in the way of techniques – rather, an obedient aircraft reluctantly followed the over-control techniques of a pilot too long away from 172s.

Cessna takes on the established four place retractables with the new Cutlass – Piper’s Arrow, Mooney’s 201 and Beech’s Sierra 200 – Cutlass is 20bhp behind these three yet, apart from the Money, comes within a few knots of them all and has a 2,000 hour Time Between Overhaul to boot as against the oppositions 1,600 hours TBOThe following landing at Bankstown proved a face-saver and also proved the Cutlass RG 11 to be a non-floater as promised.

Even in the relatively brief handling period we felt the old surge of affection and confidence in an utterly competent aircraft come welling back (Yes, we began our Australian private flying segment in Cessnas and admit to having more than a soft spot for them).

Summing up, the Cessna Cutlass RG II is an aircraft calculated to fan the flames of competition by virtue of its cost-effectiveness, tractability, long legs – an aircraft which Where it all happens, the primary difference between a 172 and a Cutlass is the Retractible Gear gives an undeniably fast-moving feeling with its tuck-up undercard, constant-speed prop, great comfort and steadiness throughout the speed range.