New from Alabeo: C172 Gutlass

[glennc]

http://www.alabeo.com/index.php?accion=product&correl=99

Ill pick it up tonight.

Glenn

[falcon409]

Hi Downloading as I type. I think you got the name wrong there should read CUTLASS not GUTLASS
lol, yea, saw that and was wondering if that was an intentional shot at the airplane or just a typo, lol.

[Agpilot25]

Lol I flew one back when i was working on my commercial and thats what we called it "gutlass".

[glennc]

As agpilot says, it was intentional. :wiggle:. The one I flew a time or two had a double tilt airframe. When I took off, the pilot's seat rotated a few degrees more than the rest of the airplane. If I remember right, the RG was worth only about 10 knots over the "down and bolted" airplane. I don't remember if it had a constant speed prop, but the intent was as an intro to a complex airplane.

Glenn

[Matt Wynn]

nice... the 'Gutless Cutlass' (heard that name a LOT of times at airfields before!) a worthy addition to my hangar! hope the Pipersport is next!

thanks for the H/U! :jump:

[PutPut]

Here is the original "Gutless Cutlass". The early models were so under powered a carrier wave-off taught the pilot Real Terror!

Best, Paul

3077

[Roger]

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2014/01/22/3wflZ.jpg

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2014/01/22/okjpQ.jpg

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2014/01/22/TdVsw.jpg

[monk1]

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd382/prtscrn/Z172d.jpg

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd382/prtscrn/Z172f.jpg

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd382/prtscrn/Z172g.jpg

[Barfly]

So.... how does it fly...

[pilottj]

Ahh yes, the Gutlass, the only airplane I ever rode on where I felt uneasy. I was in the back seat observing an instructor/student. During his slow flight dirty manuvering, gear flaps down....full power would just maintain level lol. Sadly the 172RG was involved in ERAU Prescott's first fatalities. Felt much more comfortable in the 177RG. I even felt more comfortable as a passenger in a TU-154 LOL. Nonetheless, the Alabeo model looks like a fine rendition of the Gutlass, might grab during next year's Alabeo christmas sale.

Cheers
TJ

[Flyboy208]

I have quite a few hours in the real thing ... for the price, I might be tempted to get it ... Mike :running:

[Alpha Two Zero]

Hi,
Not a bad addon for the price. Heres mine re-done to a UK reg.
312331243125

[BrittMac]

Ahh yes, the Gutlass, the only airplane I ever rode on where I felt uneasy. I was in the back seat observing an instructor/student. During his slow flight dirty manuvering, gear flaps down....full power would just maintain level lol. Sadly the 172RG was involved in ERAU Prescott's first fatalities. Felt much more comfortable in the 177RG. I even felt more comfortable as a passenger in a TU-154 LOL. Nonetheless, the Alabeo model looks like a fine rendition of the Gutlass, might grab during next year's Alabeo christmas sale.

Cheers
TJ

What made it so bad power-wise? Adding the equipment for the retracts? I just assume that adding that kind of weight would basically cancel out much of the "at speed" benefits and almost all of the lower speed benefits, because of the added weight. Just guessing though, looking forward to whatever insight you may have. Wondering why it would be so much different than the "regular" 172.

[bstolle]

The Cutlass is not bad at all performance wise. She's 20kts faster than the 172, climbs better and can carry a 190lbs higher load.
Last but not least the Alabeo version has a real classic cockpit, only VOR/DME and ADF, so IFR only for those who can really navigate!

[KevinJH]

I don't currently own any Alabeo products but this 172 looks very impressive (as do all their aircraft). I believe there is some kind of tie-in to a certain extent with Carenado and my question is to what degree of procedural operation can I expect with this 'plane - same as Carenado's or to A2A 's level ?

Appreciate any feedback and thank-you in advance :encouragement:

[bstolle]

Alabeo planes are basically identical with Carenado planes but Alabeo does the systems/avionics wise less complex planes, e.g. no GPS in the Cutlass.

[KevinJH]

Ok, Bernt - many thanks for your reply, appreciate it ;)

[Rudyjo]

I have most of Alabeo's Planes, I usually ask myself why they don't spend just a little more time going over things before they release them.
It seems like they are in too much of a hurry to get them out.

This is one I will pass on, I know we're comparing apples and oranges, but I think I would constantly be comparing this plane with A2A's C-172.

[Alpha Two Zero]

Hi Guys,
Not sure if this is correct but has anyone noticed that on the texture C-GGAL one wingtip is missing the dark texture. I have re-done mine now to show the CESSNA logo on the ends.

Missing Wingtip texture
3133

New Wingtips
3134 3135

[dvj]

Not hammering Alabeao, because I like their GeeBee and classic props, but I'll save a few more dollars and go for the A2A 172. Much more real simulation involvement.

[adi518]

Definite pass for me.. waiting on that c195. Hopefully it releases next Tuesday or so.

[big-mike]

Definite pass for me.. waiting on that c195. Hopefully it releases next Tuesday or so.

The same here.
Mike

[Rudyjo]

Not hammering Alabeao, because I like their GeeBee and classic props, but I'll save a few more dollars and go for the A2A 172. Much more real simulation involvement.

You won't be sorry. Be sure you get the update that came out last week.

[pilottj]

What made it so bad power-wise? Adding the equipment for the retracts? I just assume that adding that kind of weight would basically cancel out much of the "at speed" benefits and almost all of the lower speed benefits, because of the added weight. Just guessing though, looking forward to whatever insight you may have. Wondering why it would be so much different than the "regular" 172.

Any airplane is going to struggle more in hot and high conditions like summer in the AZ high desert, but the Gutlass seemed to struggle a little more than the 180hp 172FGs did. The 172RG is no doubt fine if you keep your weights low. I think had they used the Hawk XP's engine....the 210hp (or 195hp derated) Continental IO-360 the Cutlass might have been a better plane. Of course at that point you might as well pay for the 2 extra cylinders and 25 more HP in the a 182RG lol. A true 4 seater. Interestingly the Hawk XP made a much better float version of the 172 then did the standard Skyhawk.

With the 177RG, you have the same basic Lycoming O-360 engine uprated to 200HP, cleaner airframe with less drag...no wing struts.

Of course in FSX, we as simmers actually like the challenge of flying underpowered airplanes at MGTOW:biggrin-new:

For those on the fence with the Cutlass, I would just wait until it hits the F1 wrapper, that way you can return it if you don't like it.

I am definitely going for the Alabeo 195


Cheers
TJ

[monk1]

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd382/prtscrn/zyella.jpg

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd382/prtscrn/zyellc.jpg