mtv wrote:

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

Well I did most of my real learnin’ in a 65hp Tcart, but it’s hard to do IR, commercial, etc in one of those. The 172s were just fine for a collegiate training environment, if I remember right we weren’t even allowed to land on a runway less than 3,000’ without a special checkout so performance never was an issue. Obviously I was spoiled by a sweetheart of a plane as my first, but their 172s always felt heavy in almost every regard. With two people and lots of gas in the Texas heat I was wishing they had sprung for the extra 20 ponies! The school actually switched to doing primary instruction in Citabrias.

I've read that the D model 172s or so (about 1964) and after were built off of the 175 air-frame. The 175s were built beefier and thus heavier due to the larger engine and more hp, and Cessna used this air-frame going forward for 172s.

Cessna offered light weight airplanes but nobody was buying them by the late 60s. Basically anything not required to legally fly was available as an option. In 1971 you could get a 172 with no gyros, no radios, single controls, no rear arm rests, no beacon and only partial paint.

When they restarted production in the 90s the most basic 172 you could get was a pretty usable airplane. The only real options were additional avionics packages, and even then the standard setup included a KMA28 audio panel, KLN89 VFR GPS, KX-155A nav/com with KI-208 CDI and a KT76C transponder.

I have a 71 172L and the standard airplane with no factory options was 1260.7 lbs. With installed optional equipment my plane was 1423.1.

I'm actually really interested in low-option Cessnas from the late 60s onward but I only know about a single 1972 172L that was pretty definitively not originally a "Skyhawk".

Here you go.....

Johntoo wrote:I've read that the D model 172s or so (about 1964) and after were built off of the 175 air-frame. The 175s were built beefier and thus heavier due to the larger engine and more hp, and Cessna used this air-frame going forward for 172s.

All the earlier Cessnas had a lot of commonality, especially in the aft fuselage.

The big change in the 172 came when they increased the width of the fuselage, and no, that's not anything like a 175 fuselage. I'm not sure about structures, or exactly what year that happened, but the 172 and 182 both got wider, while the 180 and 185 retained the narrower fuselage.

I can't help but believe those wider fuselages weigh more.

But, the newest Cessnas have pretty heavy avionics and interiors at least, plus the larger, heavier engines. The newer 182s have Lycoming engines, which are heavier than Continentals, and the 172s all have the 350 engines from Lycoming.

The 175 series spawned the Hawk XP, and all the T-41 military airplanes were 175s, as was the 172D model.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Johntoo wrote:I've read that the D model 172s or so (about 1964) and after were built off of the 175 air-frame. The 175s were built beefier and thus heavier due to the larger engine and more hp, and Cessna used this air-frame going forward for 172s.

All the earlier Cessnas had a lot of commonality, especially in the aft fuselage.

The big change in the 172 came when they increased the width of the fuselage, and no, that's not anything like a 175 fuselage. I'm not sure about structures, or exactly what year that happened, but the 172 and 182 both got wider, while the 180 and 185 retained the narrower fuselage.

I can't help but believe those wider fuselages weigh more.

But, the newest Cessnas have pretty heavy avionics and interiors at least, plus the larger, heavier engines. The newer 182s have Lycoming engines, which are heavier than Continentals, and the 172s all have the 350 engines from Lycoming.

The 175 series spawned the Hawk XP, and all the T-41 military airplanes were 175s, as was the 172D model.

MTV

I can't find any info on the wider width 172. How much wider did they get? The 182 is very noticeable wider but I've not noticed a huge difference in any 172s besides the doors seemingly shaped to give more space.

A1Skinner wrote:

mtv wrote:

Johntoo wrote:I've read that the D model 172s or so (about 1964) and after were built off of the 175 air-frame. The 175s were built beefier and thus heavier due to the larger engine and more hp, and Cessna used this air-frame going forward for 172s.

All the earlier Cessnas had a lot of commonality, especially in the aft fuselage.

The big change in the 172 came when they increased the width of the fuselage, and no, that's not anything like a 175 fuselage. I'm not sure about structures, or exactly what year that happened, but the 172 and 182 both got wider, while the 180 and 185 retained the narrower fuselage.

I can't help but believe those wider fuselages weigh more.

But, the newest Cessnas have pretty heavy avionics and interiors at least, plus the larger, heavier engines. The newer 182s have Lycoming engines, which are heavier than Continentals, and the 172s all have the 350 engines from Lycoming.

The 175 series spawned the Hawk XP, and all the T-41 military airplanes were 175s, as was the 172D model.

MTV

I can't find any info on the wider width 172. How much wider did they get? The 182 is very noticeable wider but I've not noticed a huge difference in any 172s besides the doors seemingly shaped to give more space.

Maybe that’s all there is, but it seems like the “Omni vision” planes have more elbow room.

MTV

I don't think they ever widened the 172, but in about 1974 they moved the interior door handles and it made some more room in the shoulder area.

Jack,

You are correct. The 172 was never widened. The 182 was widened 4" starting in 1962.

That’s interesting, because a later model 172 seat will not fit in my 175. Conflicts with the seat belt attach tabs, which are as far apart as they can go. So, is the tunnel smaller on 172s?

MTV

mtv wrote:That’s interesting, because a later model 172 seat will not fit in my 175. Conflicts with the seat belt attach tabs, which are as far apart as they can go. So, is the tunnel smaller on 172s?

MTV

172s from the mid-60s onward don't have a tunnel, the floor is flat.

Jack R wrote:

mtv wrote:That’s interesting, because a later model 172 seat will not fit in my 175. Conflicts with the seat belt attach tabs, which are as far apart as they can go. So, is the tunnel smaller on 172s?

MTV

172s from the mid-60s onward don't have a tunnel, the floor is flat.

Bingo....

MTV