Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Cessna Cutlass  
User currently offlineArch89U From United States of America, joined May 2001, 188 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

Why does this airplane feel so sluggish in all aspects of flight? Is it because of the flat attitude which it is constantly occupying? I felt like if I pulled it up beyond a 5 degree nose-up attitude it would not climb and would possibly stall. However, all my flight experience in it is in above 90 degree temperatures at 1000 ft. or above altitude airports.

Share your thoughts on the legendary "Gutless." I look forward to hearing from all of you,

Arch89U

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCptSpeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4679 times:

haha the Gutless Cutlass...yes...

Thats what i'm doing my CFI training in and I hate it as well...I did my commercial in an Arrow and at least I can push the pedals all the way down in that airplane...in the Cutlass I need a huge pillow behind me because the seat doesn't go forward enough for me to do stalls properly.

I wouldn't mind taking it on a longer trip just because it is a faster airplane than the regular fixed-gear 172 and it is a very stable airplane, but for maneuvers it sucks.

As for the performance issues...it may feel sluggish because of being an older airplane. In the Cutlass I fly, the control cables are well worn, so there is a lot of play in the controls before they actually moves anything. The sound may be psychologically affecting your "sluggish" feelings as well just because it is carbuereted and sounds like it isn't running as many RPMs as it actually is...thats just my experience...

Your CptSpeaking



...and don't call me Shirley!!
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4644 times:

Well, you have a 172 with:

A hydraulic system for the landing gear
A controllable pitch prop
No more horsepower than a new SP

You have a bunch of extra weight on that aircraft. You were also flying it in a high density-altitude situation where any aircraft is going to feel sluggish. I tell my students to get the gear up as fast as "positive rate, no usable runway" happens because it gives the R-ghetto (as we have nicknamed ours) 200fpm or so greater climb rates with the gear up.



DMI
User currently offlineArch89U From United States of America, joined May 2001, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4608 times:

Are you aware of the practice to leave the gear down until all obstacles are positively cleared on a go-around even after positive rate has been established due to the increased drag coming from the retracting gear's profile?

On my CFI ride, I received a lot of flak from the FAA inspector for doing this. I advised him that that was how my two CFI's had taught me to go-around in the Cutlass, as retracting the gear before obstacles were cleared could lead to a "settling" into the ground. He said he would look into it, and he advised me that was the correct practice as there is accident data from the RG Cessna's to back the practice up.

Also, I felt as if the plane was responsive, although I noticed it only needed about 15 degrees of roll-out lead on the steep turns, whereas a typical Skyhawk needs the rule-of-thumb 25.

Too bad it was such a hot summer in Upstate. It would have been so much easier if the density altitude wasn't so high every day.

CptSpeaking-why the switch from the Arrow? From what I hear you made a nice downgrade.

Also, I have an interesting training practice that my CFI put me through to get done with the Comm and CFI, I'll share that at a later date.

Arch89U


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

Quoting Arch89U (Reply 3):
Are you aware of the practice to leave the gear down until all obstacles are positively cleared on a go-around even after positive rate has been established due to the increased drag coming from the retracting gear's profile?

I was not. I'm in a pretty flat part of the country but that makes sense. Our checklists do mention to not touch the gear until clear of obsticles when making a short-field takeoff and you should always fly the airplane above all else. I will take a look at the accidents, but I would imagine that a number of them also occur due to a couple factors. First, the gear drops down before retracting and as a result, being premature in lifting the lever could cause the gear to strike the ground as the cycle begins. Second, the squat switch is on the nose. If you're in ground effect, or making a soft field takeoff this could result in issue number 1 coming back to haunt you.

Arrow or Cutlass (or muskateer) I think you'll find all of them "sluggish" compared to their non-complex bretheren. They were designed to meet commercial standards using existing platforms. As a result you have the same airframe, the same controls, and the same basic engine trying to lift an extra 400-500 pounds of crap.

I think we'll see the FAA change the standards soon becuase there is only one legitimate complex single in production. Most of the aircraft that are out there are used and abused. I have one student driving 150 miles each weekend becuase we have the only complex single within 300 miles of his home.



DMI
User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2287 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4390 times:

I personally think its a complete waste of money. Its not High-Performance (*cough*piper arrows*cough*). It is a good introduction to Complex operations but as for the money they rip you off for the speeds you get, you mind as well go get an old beat up Grumman Cheetah and speed by the cutlass. (Or a Cherokee 180 with speed mods).

If you want a good retract, go with the 182RG. Thats got some guts. (in teh single engine field).


ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineIahflyr From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4372 times:

Quoting ATCT (Reply 5):
If you want a good retract, go with the 182RG. Thats got some guts. (in teh single engine field).

Quite a good choice tower dude, if ya can't grab a C210!  Smile



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2287 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

Quoting Iahflyr (Reply 6):
if ya can't grab a C210

Problem with 210's is the price tag. Ouch! (but definitely worth it if you can afford to fork over the dough!)

With the new contract I'll be lucky to get a 182RG...let alone a Centurion. (have 3 hours in a T210, beautiful aircraft.)

Know of any good flying clubs in the houston area? (or small partnership deals...like 5 owners etc.)

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineArch89U From United States of America, joined May 2001, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

I'd take the straight-legged 182 any day over the Cutlass.

You get better speeds and it just flies better in every aspect in my opinion.

I'd love to get in a 182RG or 210, but nobody around here rents them.

Do any of you have any experience with a straight-tailed Piper Lance? I might be getting involved with a flying club with one.


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4262 times:

Quoting ATCT (Reply 5):
Its not High-Performance (*cough*piper arrows*cough*).

Arrows aren't high-performance either. High-performance is greater than 200 horsepower. Arrows are 200hp, not more.

The Cutlass RG (they made a non-RG version too) that I flew (1985, second to last one built) was just as fast in cruise as an Arrow, carried more, used less fuel, was cheaper, and much more nimble. The Arrow flew like a dump truck in comparison.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineBAW2198 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 637 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4137 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 9):
The Arrow flew like a dump truck in comparison

I've flown both (the arrow for only an hour for a check ride). Your right, the arrow flew like a dump truck and lands like a 767.
I've got 35 hours in the gutlas cutlas and loved every minute of flying it vs a straight legged 172. The guy that owned it and leased it to the aero club put a factory fresh "0" time engine in it. I would make trips to MDW every so often and it would true out at about 137kts at 7500 running 24 24. Landings, the plane doesn't like power off landings (meaning power on until over the numbers vs power off throughout the final like with the 172 and 150's). Other than that, wish I could offord one to buy that hasn't had the crap beat out of it.



"And remember, Keep your stick on the ice"--->Red Green
User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2287 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4127 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 9):
Arrows aren't high-performance either. High-performance is greater than 200 horsepower. Arrows are 200hp, not more.

Yes I know, hence the *Cough*. I was implying the other POS known as the Piper Arrow. (just give it some new plugs and a tuned exhaust and bam, you'd have a high performance acft, but nope).

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4120 times:

Quoting ATCT (Reply 7):
Know of any good flying clubs in the houston area? (or small partnership deals...like 5 owners etc.)

When you get to town we'll chat sir......there are some spots around, but I had a sweet deal with a 210 about 4 yrs back.......$85 an hour and not a dog either, 3 axis autopilot, gear door mods, excellent paint/panel/interior.....the guy just never flew it, leased it back to the FBO at DWH and let few fly it, he kept close tabs on the fuel burn etc.......my first experience with the Garmin and loved it.

[Edited 2006-10-18 03:03:52]


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineTg 747-300 From Norway, joined Nov 1999, 1318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4103 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 9):
The Cutlass RG (they made a non-RG version too) that I flew (1985, second to last one built) was just as fast in cruise as an Arrow, carried more, used less fuel, was cheaper, and much more nimble. The Arrow flew like a dump truck in comparison.

Couldn't agree more. I did most of my Commercial and CFI training in the Cutlass. To me it was a nice flying airplane with quite good cruise speed. etc. But as most of you are pointing out, not the best airplane for maneuvers.

Now when I'm teaching the only complex i fly is the Piper Arrow. Nice airplane but its not easy to fly (like the cessnas). Performance is quite bad, like a flying brick. One thing it teaches you though, is attention to speed, and stabilized approaches. And for engine out performance? Just one word, you're dead. Scary stuff. Anyway ours is loaded with cool gadgets.

BTW: talking about the gear retraction in a Cutlass. The POH actually cautions the pilot not to retract the gears when within ONE foot of the surface due to the main gears moving slightly downwards when retracting.

tg 747-300



intentionally left blank
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

Quoting Tg 747-300 (Reply 13):
The POH actually cautions the pilot not to retract the gears when within ONE foot of the surface due to the main gears moving slightly downwards when retracting.

Why would you ever even think of that unless an emergency and if that close to the surface, I'm on the ground.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4098 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 12):
a 210 about 4 yrs back.......$85 an hour

Bloody hell. Does he have any aircraft-owner buddies in the CVG or DAY areas?



2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineTg 747-300 From Norway, joined Nov 1999, 1318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4096 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 14):
Why would you ever even think of that unless an emergency and if that close to the surface, I'm on the ground.

I've always been wondering the same thing. But guess that its only one more way to CYA for Cessna.

tg 747-300



intentionally left blank
User currently offlineArch89U From United States of America, joined May 2001, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4069 times:

Urban legend has it that you always get the occasional idiot who retracts the gear before the start of the takeoff roll and relies on the squat switch to keep the gear down until airborne. Apparently it looks cool to people watching.

User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1649 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4063 times:

Having flown every Cessna single Rg model since the 210A, I can tell you that you have to treat that gear like a newborn babe. Smacking the gear down on the runway in mid-retraction is not a happy thing. The KISS operations manual says to wait until you have crossed the far end of the departure runway to begin gear retraction and why not? You in THAT big of a hurry? Fantasizing that this is an F-86 off to MIG alley? Hornchurch control just gave you 30-plus at angels 20 over Kent?

Besides, if you are VFR and the engine conks out, nice to know that the gear is still down and locked. You have plenty of other things to do if IFR; reduce fuel flow to 108 pph, TO flaps up, turn to the departure heading, pick your clipboard up off the deck.

I had a mains gear lock failure in a 210A and averted a belly scrape by distrusting the Cessna gear. You do the same, OK?


User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting BAW2198 (Reply 10):
I've flown both (the arrow for only an hour for a check ride). Your right, the arrow flew like a dump truck and lands like a 767.

That's interesting that any would would prefer the Cutlass to the Arrow. I have time in the Arrow and got my complex checkout in a Cutlass.

The Cutlass was complete pile of junk. I seriously hated flying that thing. In its defense, the one I'd been flying had been through two gear-up belly landings in its long life. It never flew quite right, and even if everything was loaded properly (just me and a CFI, for instance) it always felt like the CG was out of whack.

I actually like the Arrow. Drops like a Rock on an engine out, but it is relatively fast, smooth, and I thought it handled a hundred times better than that POS Cutlass I flew.


User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2287 posts, RR: 38
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4006 times:

Quoting FSPilot747 (Reply 19):
I actually like the Arrow. Drops like a Rock on an engine out, but it is relatively fast, smooth, and I thought it handled a hundred times better than that POS Cutlass I flew.

Name any SEL aircraft (other than motorgliders and Cubs) that doesnt?

 Smile

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineArch89U From United States of America, joined May 2001, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3990 times:

The 172M will glide you in from at least 10 miles out to an airport if you are at 4000 feet AGL. It actually has what I would call "respectable" glide performance. The Cutlass on the other hand...

FSPilot...the Cutlass I flew was formerly Columbian registered (you draw your own conclusions from that)...and had been through two gear up landings in the US. Maybe this is the common vein of its sluggish performance.

Arch89U


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

Quoting ATCT (Reply 20):
Name any SEL aircraft (other than motorgliders and Cubs) that doesnt?

Anything made by Diamond.



DMI
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3966 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Arch89U (Reply 21):
The 172M will glide you in from at least 10 miles out to an airport if you are at 4000 feet AGL

Are you sure? According to the book, the 172P and 172R can only glide 6 miles from 4000 feet AGL. I'd be really surprised if the M model had a ~65% better glide ratio than either of those...

Edit - For what it's worth, the Beech A24 Sierra can glide 6.8 miles from 4000 AGL.

Edit #2 - Bloody hell. I think I just found the winner in the "Best Single-Engine Non-Cub or Motorglider Glide Ratio" contest. It's rather surprising. Anyone care to guess what it is?



2H4





[Edited 2006-10-19 06:25:20]

[Edited 2006-10-19 06:34:29]


Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

I would guess a Mooney. The Mooney Mite has a glide ratio of 15:1, and the M20J Missile has a 16:1 ratio.


09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
25 2H4 : The Pilatus PC-12 was the one I had in mind....it also has a 16:1 ratio. From 4000 AGL, that's a distance of 10.4 nm... 2H4
26 Post contains images ATCT : Just remember those distances when your engine quits. Believe me, its alot shorter ATCT
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The Cessna Cutlass
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why 40° Flaps On The Cessna 150? posted Fri May 14 2004 20:48:04 by Bragi
What Will The Next Cessna Piston Be? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 12:25:11 by KBFIspotter
The Ultimate Cessna 172 Trivia Thread posted Sat Jan 15 2005 01:03:20 by 2H4
Flying The Parabolic Arc In A Cessna 152 posted Sat Mar 8 2003 20:09:45 by Beefmoney
How Is It To Fly A Cessna For The First Time? posted Mon May 27 2002 00:07:34 by Apuneger
Throttle On Cessna And The Like. posted Fri Apr 5 2002 01:02:23 by Mirrodie
Isn't Cessna The Biggest Aircraft Manufacturer? posted Fri Oct 5 2001 00:38:57 by Nicolaki
Did You Know About The DC9-70? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 05:14:13 by 747400sp
Why Does The Tower Give Out Altimetric Reading posted Fri Nov 10 2006 02:58:14 by YULspotter
Tri-motor - What's That On The Wing? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 00:50:53 by TimePilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format