172's, Late vs. Early
Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:34 pm
172's, Late vs. Early
I've had no experience with 172's, but my cousin and I were talking about them, and noticed that the late models are several hundred pounds heavier than the earlier ones. What caused that? It almost seems ridiculous, how heavy the new ones are.
“Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.”
-Pratchett
-Pratchett
Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:25 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
Totally different airframe lots more interior room. plus they added more crap!
Keep the Greasy side down!
Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:12 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
TangoFox wrote:Totally different airframe lots more interior room. plus they added more crap!
In this case, what is crap and is it removable?
“Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.”
-Pratchett
-Pratchett
Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:52 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
You will never get a late model 172 to be as light as early. Here are 2 instrument panels one has a bunch of "Crap" you don't really need
Articulating seats are also Heavy, More wiring, fancier upholstery etc it all adds up.
172's are great airplanes straight tail as well as later wide bodies.
STOL wise a 180hp straight tail is hard to beat.
Comfort wise the wide bodies are better
Articulating seats are also Heavy, More wiring, fancier upholstery etc it all adds up.
172's are great airplanes straight tail as well as later wide bodies.
STOL wise a 180hp straight tail is hard to beat.
Comfort wise the wide bodies are better
Keep the Greasy side down!
Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:14 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
I didn't realize the bodies got wider on the 172... how much wider are they? Not as wide as a later 182, so are they in between? Now I need to go measure the 60 fast back and a 72 for width...TangoFox wrote:You will never get a late model 172 to be as light as early. Here are 2 instrument panels one has a bunch of "Crap" you don't really need
Articulating seats are also Heavy, More wiring, fancier upholstery etc it all adds up.
172's are great airplanes straight tail as well as later wide bodies.
STOL wise a 180hp straight tail is hard to beat.
Comfort wise the wide bodies are better
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:58 am
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
I've owned a 1960 172A swept tail for 34 years. It's been a great airplane!! Love the manual flaps, and the narrower fuselage is only a problem with big guys. But the simple solution is to stagger the seats. The trusty old Conti O-300 has taken me all over the lower 48 without problem. Wished many times I had the 180 HP, but I have gotten by with common sense and flying the plane to it's full potential.
Personally I like the older models.
Personally I like the older models.
Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:23 am
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
Well, it's easy to cast aspersions at later 172s when it comes to "equipment", but it's also important to understand the market that Cessna built those airplanes for: Training.....and the 172 has been and will likely continue to be, one of the most common instrument trainers out there. So, a lot of that "crap" serves a purpose in the role the airplane typically fulfills: That as a basic and advanced trainer in a flight school fleet.
Now, look at all the instrument panel upgrades that are documented hereabouts......for "backcountry" airplanes.....just sayin.
Interiors have gotten "fancier" and likely heavier, but that's not too difficult to change.
All in all, the 172 is simply one of the best all round basic airplanes ever built. Even the older ones have lots of mods available to make them into pretty much whatever you'd like to fly....including tailwheel conversions, fer crying out loud.
MTV
Now, look at all the instrument panel upgrades that are documented hereabouts......for "backcountry" airplanes.....just sayin.
Interiors have gotten "fancier" and likely heavier, but that's not too difficult to change.
All in all, the 172 is simply one of the best all round basic airplanes ever built. Even the older ones have lots of mods available to make them into pretty much whatever you'd like to fly....including tailwheel conversions, fer crying out loud.
MTV
Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:00 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
mtv wrote:Well, it's easy to cast aspersions at later 172s when it comes to "equipment", but it's also important to understand the market that Cessna built those airplanes for: Training.....and the 172 has been and will likely continue to be, one of the most common instrument trainers out there. So, a lot of that "crap" serves a purpose in the role the airplane typically fulfills: That as a basic and advanced trainer in a flight school fleet.
Now, look at all the instrument panel upgrades that are documented hereabouts......for "backcountry" airplanes.....just sayin.
Interiors have gotten "fancier" and likely heavier, but that's not too difficult to change.
All in all, the 172 is simply one of the best all round basic airplanes ever built. Even the older ones have lots of mods available to make them into pretty much whatever you'd like to fly....including tailwheel conversions, fer crying out loud.
MTV
Geez mike no need to get your undies in a bunch!
The guy just asked why the difference in weight. If someone is looking for a light plane then obviously the straight tail is lighter!
He was asking why.
For most pilots unless training they will never use an ADF unless they want to listen to talk radio while flying, While 2 nav coms can be nice, one com only will suffice especially if it has the ability to listen to the standby station, How many people actually navigate with VOR's these days? I know I don't, Do you really need a glideslope in a 172 other than for training? Foreflight is way better and lighter!, If you are flying day VFR only like most private pilots do then do you really need an artificial horizon? or a vacuum system?
So to me anything you don't really use or need is "crap" that can be removed to be able to take off and land a little shorter or to haul more passengers or cargo.
"Crap" in one plane may not be "Crap" in another
it all depends on your personal preferences fer crying out loud!
Keep the Greasy side down!
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:53 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
CPA’s Cessna buyers guide by John Frank has the cabin width increased by 4 in. in 1958 with redesigned door panels. Swept tail begins in 1960 with the A model. Omnivision windows in the ‘63 D model. And manual flaps go away in’65 with the F model. NV
Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:42 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
Yes, but all of those still weigh a lot less than the R and S.redbird wrote:CPA’s Cessna buyers guide by John Frank has the cabin width increased by 4 in. in 1958 with redesigned door panels. Swept tail begins in 1960 with the A model. Omnivision windows in the ‘63 D model. And manual flaps go away in’65 with the F model. NV
“Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.”
-Pratchett
-Pratchett
Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:04 am
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
I think it is a lot of little things. One example is the number of fuel sump drains, only a couple of ounces each but when you add several of them you add pound. Seat structures a heavier designed to a higher standard, seat tracks are heavier. Larger fuel injected engine, fuel boost pump. You get the idea.
Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:01 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
I guess that depends on what you mean by "early". Yes an R or an S will weigh a bunch more. For starters, all of them have epoxy primered airframes on the inside. All of them have IO-360 Lycomings, Fuel Pumps, IFR avionics, and nice stuffed upholstery. The bare empty weight "quoted" by Cessna on the previous generations didn't even include the Co-Pilot yoke options.
Looking at actual weights of comparable airplanes will give you a better idea of what you are up against. My bet is a 1970's C172M/N with a O-360 or IO-360 conversion, IFR avioncis and nice paint won't be all that much lighter.
That said, if your missions is VFR backcountry, then perhaps the early bird unmodified would fit your mission fine.
Looking at actual weights of comparable airplanes will give you a better idea of what you are up against. My bet is a 1970's C172M/N with a O-360 or IO-360 conversion, IFR avioncis and nice paint won't be all that much lighter.
That said, if your missions is VFR backcountry, then perhaps the early bird unmodified would fit your mission fine.
- WorkingWarbirds offline
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 9:21 pm
- Location: Upland
- Aircraft: Champion 7GCBC
Mooney M20E
Globe Swift
Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:00 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
I agree with WorkingWarbirds. I flew M and N models ten thousand hours and some 0-360 conversion which I didn't like. The airplane just burned more gas and flew heavy nosed. I didn't climb all day, so that might be what others are looking for in the conversion.
- contactflying offline
- Posts: 4972
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:36 pm
- Location: Aurora, Missouri 2H2
Download my free "https://tinyurl.com/Safe-Maneuvering" e-book.
Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:26 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
We picked up this R172K Hawk XP a few months back... 26 gallon tanks and factory Continental IO-360 K upgraded to 210 HP and constant speed prop... Dad flew it from the airport is sat for over 13 years to our place and promptly removed the interior to recover the seats and replace all the junk plastic...
Guys that know say the only reason Cessna stopped making them was because they ate into 182 sales..
Brian
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Brian-StevesAircraft offline
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:13 pm
- Location: Beagle (White City) Oregon
Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:54 am
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:
We picked up this R172K Hawk XP a few months back... 26 gallon tanks and factory Continental IO-360 K upgraded to 210 HP and constant speed prop... Dad flew it from the airport is sat for over 13 years to our place and promptly removed the interior to recover the seats and replace all the junk plastic...
Guys that know say the only reason Cessna stopped making them was because they ate into 182 sales..
Brian
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ummm, Brian, technically, that’s NOT a “172”, it’s a 175.
At least it’s on the 175 TC, not on the 172 TC.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Great airplane in any case.
MTV aka “175 Owner”.
Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:27 am
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:..... Guys that know say the only reason Cessna stopped making them was because they ate into 182 sales..
....
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!
Wed Nov 24, 2021 5:33 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
x
Last edited by skyward II on Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
- skyward II offline
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: Upland, CA/Etna, Wy
Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:38 pm
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
The 172s I flew in college weighed 1700lbs. They had G1000s and O-360s derated to 160hp, they flew like dogs.
- alaskadrifter offline
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:39 pm
- Location: Anchorage
Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:20 am
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
alaskadrifter wrote:The 172s I flew in college weighed 1700lbs. They had G1000s and O-360s derated to 160hp, they flew like dogs.
The R is easily upgraded to 180 hp, btw. I flew S models and Warriors in a college flight training program, and found both types to be superb trainers IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. Which, of course, is the environment they were designed for.
So, why didn’t you Learn to fly and get all your certificates in a Carbon Cub?
MTV
Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:22 am
Re: 172's, Late vs. Early
The 172s with the 0-320 Lycomings were by far the most popular pipeline airplanes. That was because of parts avaibility and 3,000 hours effective TBO.
TBO will increase with most any engine that runs 25 hours per week, but those 150 or 160 hp carbueratored engines started easy hot or cold and were simple to operate.
TBO will increase with most any engine that runs 25 hours per week, but those 150 or 160 hp carbueratored engines started easy hot or cold and were simple to operate.
- contactflying offline
- Posts: 4972
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:36 pm
- Location: Aurora, Missouri 2H2
Download my free "https://tinyurl.com/Safe-Maneuvering" e-book.
DISPLAY OPTIONS
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
Latest Features
-
Live to Tell
A Minnesota pilot is surprised to learn that the sudden asymmetric drag of an out-of-rig ski can…Read More -
Creators
Working in some of the Yukon's most beautiful and remote environments, photographer Simon Blakesley captures aircraft in…Read More -
Aircraft Ownership and Maintenance
Upgrading to big tires can make a huge difference in backcountry performance, but with those gains come…Read More -
Tales from Yesteryear
In this tale from bush flying yesteryear, Don Cogger signs up to help Atlee Dodge Jr recovery…Read More
Latest Knowledge Base
-
Destinations
A regional guide with ideas for winter camping destinations in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona.Read More -
Aircraft
Finding an affordable aircraft that can handle the backcountry for $80K or less? A challenge for sure, but with the…Read More -
Aircraft
01.29.2018 - Zane - Updated tire diameter graphic to add 8.50x10 Guide to tires for use in the backcountry and off-airport landing…Read More -
Pilots
12.22.2013 - Initial article format Operating aircraft on skis and negotiating a snow-covered landscape is an entirely unique skillset and environment.…Read More
