
However, the ~80 kg added by the gear retraction mechanism also upped the empty weight, now standing at 740 kg vs the P’s 660. You can definitely tell it apart in a normal Skyhawk crowd! The new prop also made for slightly better after take-off climb performance ( 800 fpm vs 700), while the increased fuel tankage gave a pretty chunky range boost, from 440 up to as much as 770 NM.Ĭutlass #2 undergoing a wheels-up restoration after a (heh) wheels-up landing in Germany. Performance-wise, the extra grunt (particularly the increased efficiency of the constant speed prop) and cleaner lines meant the RG could pull up to a 20 knot lead over the stock P, with High Speed Cruise pegged at 140 knots. and a 1,202 kg MTOM (vs the 1,088 of the P).

a 66 USG fuel capacity (up from the standard 42).a 180 HP Lycoming O-360-F1A6 w/ constant speed prop (vs the standard 160 HP O-320 and fixed pitch unit).a longer snout to house the nose gear when retracted.To immediately get an idea of why the 172RG stands out like a sore thumb within the traditionally conservative Skyhawk family, it seems best to start off with its main party pieces, as compared to the stock 172P of the same period (1980): A mint 172RG, in a modern paint scheme, under clear skies on a beautiful summer morning… I could do worse for a pre-dawn spotting session I must admit!
