Review: C172RG Cutlass II From Alabeo

Flight Model

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In my humble opinion, the flight model is (or should be) the most important aspect of building an aircraft model for X-Plane. This is a flight, "simulator," after all, not merely a flying game, and I think the utmost effort ought to be made to make payware airplane add-ons fly as closely as possible to their real world counterparts and not just look and sound good. Fortunately, Alabeo and Carenado have largely been able to combine the best of both worlds (with some of their latest models, especially) and their new Cessna 172RG Cutlass II isn't too bad here, either.

I'll start off with the things I like and keep the few negative issues I had short and to the point. I've spent a good chunk of time testing this airplane and putting her through her paces recently and overall came away pretty impressed. When compared to Carenado's Cessna 172N, I like the way the Cutlass flies much better. It feels a lot more like a 172 to me. I tested the airplane largely at gross weight and actually preferred the way it handled in that configuration than when lightly loaded. It made the aircraft feel, "heavier," and more authentic in a way that I can't quite put into words. Of course this is only my opinion, here, and others may prefer it differently.

       

I found Alabeo's aircraft performed very realistically in both climb and cruise when contrasting it with my own experience in a real Cutlass. Despite having a 180 hp Lycoming O-360 on the nose, the added weight of the engine itself, the constant speed prop, and retractable landing gear don't really give the Cutlass stellar climb performance. Hence the nickname, "gutless Cutlass," something the flight instructor who rode with Dad and I was amused to tell me. Still, the added horsepower combined with low-drag retractable gear help to get the Cutlass up to about 140 knots true at max cruise. I asked the flight instructor about this number and he suggested that the 120's to 130's are more realistic cruise figures, adding that they never run their Cutlass that hot.

I like flying fast (okay, fast for a 172), so I took Alabeo's Cutlass up to 8000 feet to try to see 140 KTAS under simulated no wind standard day conditions. I will add here that I took off at gross, climbed a little shallower than Vy, and referenced the provided, "Performance Tables" pdf within the Documentation folder. At 8000 feet with the 2700 RPM, 22" of manifold pressure and burning 10.3 gph, I was able to see that 140 KTAS...exactly the book number! How is that for flight model precision? Now, I must add the caveat that I would never run my airplane like this (at least not for any extended period of time) if I cared at all about engine life as I pretty much had all three knobs to the firewall. Fortunately, X-Plane is just a computer program so I don't have to worry about an expensive and early engine overhaul! At any rate, just because an airplane will do it, doesn't mean you ought to!

       

I did some other speed runs at more reasonable cruise settings and found that Alabeo's Cutlass essentially perfectly matches up with all the published book speeds that I tested. This makes me really happy and tells me a lot about the attention to detail paid to the flight model. Well done here, Alabeo!

Now I want to take a moment to touch on the area that I really didn't like at all about Alabeo's Cutlass, and that is the landing approach phase of flight. The provided, "Normal Procedures," pdf file shows the recommended speeds to be flown on approaches. They are as follows: Normal approach with flaps up: 65-75 KIAS, normal approach 30 degrees (full) of flaps: 60-70 KIAS, and short field 30 degrees of flaps: 63 KIAS. It was my experience that flying approaches at those speeds with those flap settings was nearly impossible. The flaps seem to be modeled with far too much drag and required an unrealistically hefty application of power just to see these appropriate approach speeds. Also, when deploying flaps, I was experiencing a severe nose up pitch that required a combination of stick forward force and nose down trim to correct. So much nose down trim was required, in fact, that I eventually would run out of trim and would have to hold the nose forward with my joystick on approaches anywhere between 60-70 KIAS. The more notches of flaps I added, the greater nose forward pressure on my joystick was required. I tested my joystick to ensure that the problem was not my hardware and found it to be in proper working order. Furthermore, this is the only airplane file I have where this has been an issue. Needless to say, this aspect of the flight in Alabeo's Cutlass is a disappointment for me. I also should add that this was just my experience, here, and may not be representative of what others experience with the file.

       

On a brighter note, the flare during landing is much improved versus some of the Carenado files I own (which tend to land fast), notably the 172N whose landing manners I find to be quite unlike the real thing. Alabeo's Cutlass, in sharp contrast, floats nicely in the flare and lands around Vso like a real 172 does. Now if the trim/flap situation could be fixed (if it is, indeed, a problem outside of my experience), I believe X-Plane would have the most realistic flying Cessna 172 in Alabeo's Cutlass.

Conclusion

Alabeo's Cessna 172RG Cutlass is, for the most part, another wonderful addition to the X-Plane line up of General Aviation aircraft. The visual and audio fidelity combined with a decent flight model and reasonable price point makes this file a real value that should appeal to many X-Plane users interested in GA airplanes.

       

I recommend it for users who may have just learned to fly in the simulator but are now ready to develop their skills with a complex airplane, just like a real Cessna Cutlass is so often used for. Other, more advanced users may find that they prefer a more modern cockpit with GPS and an autopilot. If that describes you, than you'd probably get bored with Alabeo's Cutlass. As for me, I can honestly go either way. I enjoy the modern amenities like those found in the aircraft manufactured these days, but can also see the appeal of hand flying a simpler airplane like this one. Good thing we've got plenty of options!

Shawn Weigelt

Purchase Alabeo - C172RG Cutlass II