My former aeroclub in Italy had a 172S (180hp) and I flew it quite a lot between 2006 and 2012. My current club in Germany has a 172R (160hp) and I just put it through its paces on my flight to Great Britain last weekend.
During the flights, I often mused about the differences between the “restart 172s” (built after 1996) and the “legacy” models, say the “N” or “P” (160hp, built between 1977 and 1986).
Generally, I do think that Cessna did a lot of things right when they restarted production (as apposed to Piper, who did almost nothing beneficial to their aircraft when the Warrior III and Archer III were introduced in the mid-90s, including the placement of switches in an akward “overhead” position).
Here are my “likes” and “dislikes” of the R and S model 172s. Would be interested in other views or experiences.
Likes:
Dislikes:
Here’s the mentioned photo. 2000 feet, 109KIAS (didn’t bother to set the “true airspeed indicator” correctly), 2100 RPM, 29lph. And this particular aircraft is without wheel pants (“spats”)…
Wow. Fuel flow in liters. Ours is in Gallons. We have the NAV II non G1000.
Empty weight is 762kg. We operate of a 500 mtr grass strip. With some practice it will use a lot less for landing, but sometimes most of it for takeoff!
I agree with most of your points.
800kg is quite lardy for a 172!
A 1946 Stinson 108 with a Lycoming -360 has an EW of 590kg and is recognised as being built as a tank and sports a 380kg useful load, apologies for thread drift but even early 182s came in with EW below 800kgs.
I agree the 172SP has been updated with some 21st century safety features: G1000, 26G seats, air bags, fuel injection – a very capable aircraft with a decent safety record.
Compare it to the C172M with the 150hp O-320 (until 1977). This was the last model that was lightweight and still had the Mogas-certified engine. The successor N with the 160hp engine only caused trouble and lost its extra HP by extra weight. My average fuel consumption (including takeoff) was always exactly 28l/h.
The restart 172s are fat ladies that need a lot more gas. I never understood why Cessna allowed this to happen. Of course the 8 or 9 drain valves add a lot of value…
Are the G1000 planes heavier? They should not be. The individual avionics are very heavy – especially a gyro horizon.
Our Cessna 172S G1000 has an empty weight of 796kg, so in essence a 2-seater + luggage if you need the range and top off the tanks.
On the flight school I remember there were both older Cessnas and the new ones.
When flying both airplanes regularly one notice the handling difference. The newer one being heavier (and newer) is more stable and more precise.
This is one of the first items on my “likes” list.
We have a Cessna 172b from 1961 with the smoothest O300, 626kg empty and a MTOM of 998kg. On our trip to the Aero she did 107KTAS in FL75 at 20 something kilos below MTOM burning 30lph incl. Climb (partially to FL95) Take off, Taxi, etc. with 2450 RPM.
Looks like the real legacy models are indeed quite competitive. And she has all the good stuff. 40degrees manual flaps and trim, sexy fastback fuselage, short nose wheel fairings, and good VFRavionics (sixpack plus NAV, COM, Mode S, DME, ADF, GPS)
I think 2014 could be looking at the ‘beginning of the end’ of the C172 production. The R model is no longer manufactured (or last none were produced last year). Right now, we had 106 S models built in 2013, the trend line would suggest below 100 for this year. I feel Cessna will cease production soon – there will be too much competition from companies who are more interested in their product – think Tecnam P2010 or FlightDesign C4.
Will Cessna keep the production line open when quantities drop to 90,80,70,60 p.a.? I don’t think so.
Well piper have produced a diesel and there was a large marketing push for the 172td in the past so it wouldn’t take much to revisit. If it brings say 15% reduction in operating costs then I am sure they would sell.