Instead of 26G, I think you mean 18G seats;
Sec. 23.561
General.
(a) The airplane, although it may be damaged in emergency landing conditions, must be designed as prescribed in this section to protect each occupant under those conditions.
(b) The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable chance of escaping serious injury when—
……..
Quote
Pilot_DAR wrote:
The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable chance of escaping serious injury when the items of mass within the cabin, that could injure an occupant, experience the static inertia loads corresponding to the following ultimate load factors— (i) Upward, 3.0g; (ii) Forward, 18.0g; and (iii) Sideward, 4.5g.
It’s not obvious to me how this particular requirement could relate to the ability of the seats to reduce the inertial forces on the body induced by the mass of the occupants themselves acting on the seats or seat mounts for a short period. If it is intended for that function (as if written by a non-engineer) I’d guess that the requirement would be for 3g seat plus 18g seat belt (or 18g air bag). If the intent was for that intepretation, I think it’s very poorly written.
Martin wrote:
I believe she threw the frog against a wall in the original
You remember correctly. The randy old frog wanted to climb into her bed… so I guess the kissing version must be American 
Pilot_DAR I think Cessna used 26G seats from the 172R onwards – I don’t know whether this is just for forward, or in other axes. They are advertised as 26G and I believe are quite heavy.
Just an update, after visiting quite a few 172 models from E to S, I ended up with a 1977 Warrior II. It was low hours TT but the engine needed overhaul as it was last overhauled over 12 years ago, and the intention is to lease it to a good flying school. Apparently the CAA is thinking of going with a 24 year rule, but that is not likely to happen until next year, if it indeed happens.
The airplane came with Horton wing tips, and the speed mods (aileron, flap seals and wing root fairings) – which makes it a very respectable cruiser. Usually these speed mods add only 2 knots, but in this case, at least compared with the typical 100-105 KTAS from a Club Warrior, there seems to be more of an effect. The Norvic overhauled engine needed breaking in, and 2400 RPM yielded a respectable 108-112 KTAS at around 2,000’ – this implies an honest 120 KTAS at 65-70% power at higher cruise altitudes – on 8.5 USGPH. It was flown over the Atlantic originally, but not sure if ferry tanks were installed for the Atlantic crossing – or the 600nm VFR reserve range sufficed.
The Horton tips do appear to have some effect on landing distance – the Warrior having an all flying stabilator, and a reasonably clean wing, has a tendency to float if you are not on the correct approach speed. With the Horton tips the approach speed is about 5 knots lower. It’s no STOL performer, but then compared to the Super Cub makes it feel like you need to calculate V1.
I haven’t done the paper STC that takes the MAUM from 2325lbs to 2425lbs, but with the STC useful load would be just shy of 900 lbs. In effect a three person plus luggage aircraft with fuel at the tabs (approximately 2 1/2 hours with good VFR reserves). With the 791 useful load it still carries three 170 lbs persons, 50 lbs luggage and 220lbs of fuel, in effect tabs plus.
The panel had an S-TEC 20 plus some other minor goodies: voltmeter/OAT, chrono, EGT, overhead ventilation with fan option. One -155 has been upgraded to a GNC255, it also came with Mode S and a BRNAV compliant GPS.
It found a home quite quickly and I will now see if the expected 10-15% return on investment (before tax) materialises.
The average European Warrior is a 10,000 -15,000 hour veteran, with only 3,000 TT this one is very presentable. Will try and find another.
At only 15 KTAS slower than an Arrow II, I love the fixed gear/fixed pitch simplicity. The longer you are at this game, the attractions of predictable, low maintenance dominate.
Silvaire that actually looks very interesting. You would still need to spend another 30k for EASA stuff and getting the engine OH for aerial work reasons. In the UK they keep thinking of extending from 12 to 24 years the calendar overhaul requirement but hasn’t happened yet. This one would need an OH either way.
An update by Dick Collins on the safety record for the type. 0.5-0.75 fatals/100,000 hours (unfortunately they never quote confidence intervals on these statistics) remains impressive. If you had to advise a friend or relative what aircraft they might fly in without a professional multi crew, the Cessna 172 would come top of the list, especially today with airbag safety belts.
https://airfactsjournal.com/2016/07/whats-wrong-cessna-172-pilots/
…and in the comments to the article is a link to a .pdf on the PA28.
@robertL18C
Any update on how your Piper investment is going?
