Ideal replacement to the 172?

40YearDream

40YearDream

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
375
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Display Name
40YearDream
Home Airfield
08C
A bit of engineer's brainstorming: Since the 172 is such a popular airplane for training - despite it's many drawbacks - if one could start with a 'clean sheet' for a trainer, what things should be changed (a.k.a. 'design out' the problems) ?

for instance: a) Corsair engine, to burn straight auto gas b) 2 seats like a 150, but with a realistic usable load (for today's fat Americans!) c) parachute like a Cirrus d) design for quick(er) assembly e) all 3 tires the same size etc. etc. ?
 
Find a way to mass produce the Sling TSI and to compete against the Piper/Archer gorilla for the big orders.

Be careful what you wish for though; those contracts are the only thing keeping those product lines open.
 
The cost of a new 172 is getting outrageous for a four seat trainer the light sport airplanes are starting to compete in cost alone,also some of the light sport aircraft have more advanced glass panels.
 
TCABM said:
Find a way to mass produce the Sling TSI and to compete against the Piper/Archer gorilla for the big orders.
Click to expand...
Except he'd have to certify the Sling to compete at the Part 141 level. Or change the rule prevented E/AB use.
 
Bell206 said:
Except he'd have to certify the Sling to compete at the Part 141 level. Or change the rule prevented E/AB use.
Click to expand...

Or pivot to sling NGT

FAQs

Sling Pilot Academy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
www.slingpilotacademy.com www.slingpilotacademy.com
 
My 1st thought from the title "What is the best replacement for a 172" was a 182.
But that wasn't the question, For a trainer? "despite it's many drawbacks" I guess step one would be to identify these drawbacks and my opinion is the reason the 172 is so popular is there just aren't very many.
I came up with
1. The pitch up (trim stall) tendency when adding power (go around) with more than 20 degrees flaps.
2. They cost to much.
3. Seat track issues? (have mostly been mitigated)

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Just curious, could a 182 be used for PP training since a high performance endorsement is needed? Can a student pilot be given that endorsement?
 
kjwalker01 said:
Just curious, could a 182 be used for PP training since a high performance endorsement is needed? Can a student pilot be given that endorsement?
Click to expand...
I bought and used a 182 for most of my PP training. IIRC, the endorsement was given prior to my check ride. I don't think I would have been qualified for PIC for a check ride without the endorsement, would I???
 
brcase said:
For a trainer? "despite it's many drawbacks" I guess step one would be to identify these drawbacks and my opinion is the reason the 172 is so popular is there just aren't very many.
I came up with
1. The pitch up (trim stall) tendency when adding power (go around) with more than 20 degrees flaps.
2. They cost to much.
3. Seat track issues? (have mostly been mitigated)
Click to expand...
4. Takes a fair bit of MX to keep the nose wheel shimmy away (more than a free castering one would anyway)
5. Door latch issues (also mostly mitigated from 172P onwards, but not completely).
6. A few more KTAS wouldn't hurt.
 
I trained for my instrument rating in a Symphony. Roomy two place, 160 hp, high wing, check out a Glastar. The Symphony was what the Cessna 150 should have been.
 

TEXAS AIRCRAFT | Texas Aircraft

Texas Aircraft Manufacturing is totally commited to helping pilots achieve their dream of aircraft owership.
www.texasaircraft.com www.texasaircraft.com

The Colt and the Stallion are basically filling this role.
 

Attachments

  • RED_5849.JPG
    RED_5849.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 17
I'll bite... I'll start with saying that to develop anything better than something else, it's a good plan to figure out what the goal is, to lead you to determine what "better" means. And then follow up with questioning some assumptions. First, why is a 172 is a popular trainer, and does that matter to the goal? I'd say it's a popular trainer now because there were a lot of them made many years ago, as general purpose GA aircraft, combined with the facts that it's relatively inexpensive to fly, has a very good safety record, and has handling and flying characteristics that are generally considered "good". So if you buy all that, does that make it a good trainer? And again, what does good mean? Inexpensive? Easy to teach with? Safe? Quicker to learn in than other aircraft? Able to be used to create "better" pilots after X hours? (Depending on what we mean by "better"). I'm also curious as to the "many drawbacks".

All that said, if we define "best" as "given X hours making pilots with the best stick/rudder skills", I'd say a 172 or a PA28 or Diamond aren't the best trainers, a Cub or a Champ are better. Because, IMO, learning tailwheel first will teach the fundamentals of VFR flying better, and that initial memory and skill set is valuable. But...that's not going to be the cheapest or fastest option, and it might not be the safest option.

Is the goal trying to qualify pilots for airline flying at the lowest possible cost? That's a different thing. For one, you can probably make it smaller, because they all have to pass that class 1 medical. 172 payload is perfectly fine.

Or is the goal to try to make as inexpensive a trainer as reasonably possible, to try to make GA flying affordable to more people? That's a different thing, too.

If we call that last one "goal 3", then I have some ideas, but I'm already rambling too much. I'm not sure if anyone's done that last one, and I say that because airplane companies are in business to make money selling airplanes, not to solve problems.
 
Something I frequently hear is that the old designs, like the 172, require a lot of skilled craftsmanship to manufacture. Two things I think would be important in a 'modern' design are manufacturability and repairability. I would want the design to accommodate as much machine aided manufacture as feasible while staying somewhat modular, such that repeated hard landings won't stress the un-replaceable fuselage (or similar...). Beyond that... hmm...

I think I like the philosophy of the PA-28-140 or PA-20. Share as many parts as possible with other designs.

None of that touches on the flying characteristics though.
 
In the seventies we learned in a C150. Did all cross countries and flying in them. Remember being told every landing fill it up.
Kids got it so good today. Heck FIT just bought three place all glass Archers for the flight line.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
Two things I think would be important in a 'modern' design are manufacturability and repairability.
Click to expand...
FYI: The Cirrus SR20 and Columbia 350 are considered a modern design from 25 years ago and greatly reduced the build times over a 172 or PA-28 monocoque structure build. And both were repairable for the most part depending on the extent of damage.
 
Last edited:
Great machines for sure. I'm befuddled that Cessna still sells new ones at that price. Who are these people buying new 172s for halfa million?
 
moparrob66 said:
Great machines for sure. I'm befuddled that Cessna still sells new ones at that price. Who are these people buying new 172s for halfa million?
Click to expand...
Probably large flight schools who get a package deal / aren't paying retail.


A replacement for the 172? It's the most produced model of an airplane by any nation in history. I would design a clone with the same performance, but in a way that took advantage of modern manufacturing and materials. "Modern" defined as being found to be tried and true in the last 25 years.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Hopefully it was given prior to your first solo.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think he forgot to endorse it until just prior to the check ride….although I had over 170hrs in the 182 at that point (waiting on a medical).
 
An ideal replacement for the 172 would have to be faster, cheaper and safer. You may choose only one.
 
40YearDream said:
A bit of engineer's brainstorming: Since the 172 is such a popular airplane for training - despite it's many drawbacks - if one could start with a 'clean sheet' for a trainer, what things should be changed (a.k.a. 'design out' the problems) ?
Click to expand...
What drawbacks does the 172 have as a trainer?
 
WDD said:
Probably large flight schools who get a package deal / aren't paying retail..
Click to expand...
That’s exactly who’s buying them and their Piper counterparts. Those customers are the only reason the assembly lines are open for those products.
 
ateamer said:
What drawbacks does the 172 have as a trainer?
Click to expand...
The old ones are...old and the new ones are...redonkulously expensive. Other than that they are wonderful. If an antique rents for $170/hr and a millennial model is $250/hr, then the ragged ones get more and more ragged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top