Musings about the "restart" 172s

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:

1. the fuel injected IO-360 engine; runs smoother and is actually more fuel efficient, since one can run it somewhere near peak EGT. Also sounds much better than the O-320. Better utility for IFR.
2. somewhat improved overall aerodynamics
3. Points 1 and 2 combined make for some very respectable economy cruise performance. The R can be flown, low-level, at 2100 RPM and close to peak EGT, which yields 109 KIAS at 29 litres per hour (see photo at the end). In order to get Ns or Ps to run 109 KIAS, one has to push them really hard and the fuel flow will be 33-34 litres). The Rs and Ss can actually be run at 24 lph and still do 100 knots. That’s almost the fuel flow of a 152.
4. The S model is a decent short-field performer.
5. stuff just tends to “work” (which is obviously a consequence of these being much younger than the legacy Cessnas.
6. The big 201 litre fuel tanks. This, in combination with point 3 gives the aircraft a very respectable range.
7. much improved panel lighting

Dislikes:

1. has been said very often: they are simply too damn heavy. The lightest ones (the very early ones, with six-pack) are somewhere around the 750kg mark. Many are in the 770kg range. Those with the G1000 (2006 and after) even weigh around 800kgs. While the MTOW has also gone up, power has remained equal (at least for the R models) and overall, useful load has decreased.
2. I hate the seat belt arrangement in the front seats. The reel mechanism is akward. The shoulder strap tends to rub on the neck (I know, the “old” should strap wasn’t any better…) Also, the shoulder straps (plus the headrests) totally block the view for the rear passengers. A number of people has made the remark to me that they felt “isolated” in the back.
3. in the earlier versions, the front headseat jacks are in an awful position (on the front doorpost) – the cables constantly get into one’s way. This has been changed after a few years.
4. the number of fuel drain valves. A bad joke…
5. the lack of the 40 degree flap setting. I know this was changed earlier (1980) but it becomes much more apparent in the R and S models. Probably due to their overall aerodynamic improvements, it is damn difficult to make good short field landings. When alone on board, one has to cross the threshold at 50 knots or so, and even then, the aircraft will still float quite a bit and continue fly until under 40 knots indicated before it wants to land. Probably just a matter of practice and getting used to, but so far, I found it much more difficile in the short field landing scenario.
6. no support for mogas (as opposed to the P model). I guess some private owners use it anyway, but on paper there is no ceritifcation.
7. in a “club scenario”: people just don’t get around the correct start procedure for the injected engine and often flood it or drain the battery. Not really a flaw of the aircraft, but still a fact.

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”)…