Ideal replacement to the 172?

[ateamer]

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.

I’m surely in the minority these days, but I’d rather train in as simple a plane as possible for the lowest cost. Paint, upholstery, and electronics don’t contribute anything toward stick-and rudder skills, pilotage, and svisually scanning for traffic and other hazards. The former two just drive the cost up for students who are probably on a tighter budget than at any other point in their flying career, and avionics can be a significant distraction to a low-time pilot.

Plus the more complex they are, the more opportunities there are for a checkride bust. Do private and commercial with a single navcom and steam gauges, and IFR with dual navcoms and DME. Go advanced afterward, when there is no chance of failing a test and (there should be) less pressure to learn it in a given time frame.

I understand that this might not apply the same to students who are training solely to become professional pilots, but even then getting private in a mid-60s 172 or Cherokee 140 with faded paint, sagging seats and one radio saves money and time.

 

[moparrob66]

Agreed. I'd gladly dust the chalky bits of dilapidated interior plastic panels off my clothes after each lesson to save $50/hr over the fancy touch screen gizmos and faux leather. I suddenly feel a lot older after typing that....

 

[Corin]

The engine drinks Avgas and a lot of it. The Rotax 915 sips unleaded with 10% ethanol and plus there's none of that mixture stuff.

I don't know how long-lived the 915 will be but the 912 is good for 4000 hours easy

915 technically has a TBO of 1200 cylinders, while the 916 has a TBO of 2000 hours(They get better cylinders). I'm not sure how many overhauls they can do or how many total hours each new engine can do.

Agreed. I'd gladly dust the chalky bits of dilapidated interior plastic panels off my clothes after each lesson to save $50/hr over the fancy touch screen gizmos and faux leather. I suddenly feel a lot older after typing that....

Digital in a new aircraft is more inexpensive, then steam at this point. I think the price delta has more to do with the psychology of people not wanting to fly old technology, so willing to pay a premium to fly glass, then that the aircraft themselves are actually more expensive. The reason older aircraft with glass are more expensive than older aircraft with steam instruments is that labor is expensive, but it would be just as labor intensive if you installed a brand new vacuum system, and all brand new steam instruments into a 50-year-old Grumman. It's just that there is no reason to do that.

 

[Witmo]

Hopefully it was given prior to your first solo.

You need a tailwheel endorsement to fly solo in a cub, why would it be any different flying solo in a high performance or a complex?

 

[NordicDave]

low wing.

I always wondered, if low wings are so great... How come God never made a bird with a low wing?

 

[JeffB]

Switch the engine to a Rotax 915is. Use the 100lb weight savings to add a BRS. For a more extreme change, keep the airframe shape but switch to 100% carbon fiber to simplify construction and save additional weight. Call it the new "Carbon Cessna 172NG"

 

[AvNavCom]

Switch the engine to a Rotax 915is. Use the 100lb weight savings to add a BRS. For a more extreme change, keep the airframe shape but switch to 100% carbon fiber to simplify construction and save additional weight. Call it the new "Carbon Cessna 172NG"

Sure, but now every ding a student puts on it is a structural catastrophe and every ten years you buy the price of a half-engine overhaul to repack the chute, in addition to the actual engine overhaul cost. There's something to be said for designing an aircraft that you can take a hammer to and still have it be flyable.

 

[Dana]

What drawbacks does the 172 have as a trainer?

It's too easy to fly?

You need a tailwheel endorsement to fly solo in a cub, why would it be any different flying solo in a high performance or a complex?

The student has to be signed off to solo... wouldn't a solo signoff for a high performance airplane implicitly be a high performance endorsement?

 

[WDD]

The student has to be signed off to solo... wouldn't a solo signoff for a high performance airplane implicitly be a high performance endorsement?

No

 

[pfarber]

Switch the engine to a Rotax 915is. Use the 100lb weight savings to add a BRS. For a more extreme change, keep the airframe shape but switch to 100% carbon fiber to simplify construction and save additional weight. Call it the new "Carbon Cessna 172NG"

found the guy who doesn't understand the price and headaches of carbon fiber.

 

[JeffB]

found the guy who doesn't understand the price and headaches of carbon fiber.

I know it's very costly initially. But for a high production plane once the molds are made etc. and you switch to modularity and pre-fabricated components the speed of assembly should be similar. Right now, estimates show Cessna can produce a 172 in 10-12 days, which is similar to the SR20 time at Cirrus.

 

[JeffB]

Sure, but now every ding a student puts on it is a structural catastrophe and every ten years you buy the price of a half-engine overhaul to repack the chute, in addition to the actual engine overhaul cost. There's something to be said for designing an aircraft that you can take a hammer to and still have it be flyable.

You'd think that would be true. But I did all my training on composite planes (Katana/DA20 ---> DA40 ---> Cirrus). I did not see planes getting composite damage or dings. Student hard landings did not rip off the gear or damage the fuselage. Most problems were engine related, rare prop damage, and electrical system issues. The parachute issue is too difficult to answer briefly since everyone has a strong opinion on that.

 

[pfarber]

I know it's very costly initially. But for a high production plane once the molds are made etc. and you switch to modularity and pre-fabricated components the speed of assembly should be similar. Right now, estimates show Cessna can produce a 172 in 10-12 days, which is similar to the SR20 time at Cirrus.

there is little economy of scale with carbon. it's expensive, hard to handle, has lots of issues with other materials etc etc etc. is a pita to repair quite a few other things I won't mention.

it's not a realistic option for the next 172-ish airframe.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

Excellent point. I'd have to go with, in no particular order: Cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate (easier to maintain, lower fuel burn), wider range of missions fulfilled (faster and more useful load without sacrificing too much in other departments), better looking.

The wider range of missions fulfilled should also help with the "cheaper to buy" part, the more buyers you have the more units you can produce and sell and the better economies of scale you can get.

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.

We also shouldn't forget the Cessna themselves failed at making the ideal replacement to the 172. That's what the 177 Cardinal was supposed to be, but it was underpowered at first and frankly, just different than the 172: https://www.aviationconsumer.com/uncategorized/cessna-cardinal/

 

[DJTorrente]

Except he'd have to certify the Sling to compete at the Part 141 level. Or change the rule prevented E/AB use.

Say it louder for the folks not paying attention who believe its just economics, not regulation, that keep GenAv from expanding.

 

[Lindberg]

Say it louder for the folks not paying attention who believe its just economics, not regulation, that keep GenAv from expanding.

General aviation is expanding.

 

[Bell206]

Say it louder for the folks not paying attention who believe its just economics, not regulation, that keep GenAv from expanding.

Sure. SO WHICH PART OF "GenAv" ARE YOU STATING REGULATION IS HOLDING IT BACK?

 

[DJTorrente]

General aviation is expanding.

Only as clay expands between the fingers of the fist that squeezes it (see, e.g., E/AB).

 

[Lindberg]

Only as clay expands between the fingers of the fist that squeezes it (see, e.g., E/AB).

I don't know what that means.

 

[bonefishpete]

General aviation is expanding.

True for training possibly. True for corporate flying. Personal single engine piston flying no.
That's my perspective looking at the local airport and adsb.

 

[asicer]

General aviation is expanding.

Especially around the pilots' waistline.

 

[Lindberg]

True for training possibly. True for corporate flying. Personal single engine piston flying no.
That's my perspective looking at the local airport and adsb.

Single engine piston flying is the oldest and least-efficient segment of the market. That's like concluding that highway transportation is losing popularity based on declining station wagon sales.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Single engine piston flying is the oldest and least-efficient segment of the market. That's like concluding that highway transportation is losing popularity based on declining station wagon sales.

Eh, not really. That would be like concluding that highway transportation is losing popularity based on declining personally owned vehicles, and saying that it's thriving because buses and limousines are carrying the load.

Also, least efficient how? My Mooney burns 0.28 gallons per passenger seat mile. That's comparable to airliners at the same range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

 

[pfarber]

True for training possibly. True for corporate flying. Personal single engine piston flying no.
That's my perspective looking at the local airport and adsb.

Fun fact there are approximately 300+ EABs registered every year for an airworthiness certificate.

to say that GA is not growing is kinda incorrect.

you can train for a certificate in an E/ABif you find a CFI that will do it and get an LOA... so that route is a possibility... but the probability???

 

[Dana]

Fun fact there are approximately 300+ EABs registered every year for an airworthiness certificate.

How many are deregistered every year?

you can train for a certificate in an E/ABif you find a CFI that will do it and get an LOA... so that route is a possibility... but the probability???

You don't even need a LOA, if the aircraft isn't provided by the CFI.

 

[bonefishpete]

General aviation is expanding.

I guess you have to define General Aviation. I consider corporate jets and fractional ownership is something different. Almost but not quite airliners in their schedules and duration of flights.

 

[Lindberg]

I guess you have to define General Aviation. I consider corporate jets and fractional ownership is something different. Almost but not quite airliners in their schedules and duration of flights.

I don't have to define it because the ICAO already has.

General aviation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bonefishpete]

I don't have to define it because the ICAO already has.

General aviation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So you taking the word of some 32 other countries? Maybe let’s keep the thread about what’s appropriate in the United States.

I would also say General Aviation is vastly different in most of those.

 

[Lindberg]

So you taking the word of some 32 other countries? Maybe let’s keep the thread about what’s appropriate in the United States.

I would also say General Aviation is vastly different in most of those.

Maybe you make up a term that means whatever you want it to mean and then we'll discuss that.

 

[Bell206]

So you taking the word of some 32 other countries? Maybe let’s keep the thread about what’s appropriate in the United States.

Well ICAO has 180+ country members all of which signed an agreement to accept those common definitions and others. And yes the FAA uses the same definition and has for decades. Those definitions are equally critical in tracking how the industry moves. Some smaller groups have their own versions but thats mainly for tracking economic trends. So, in general terms, to use the last data I saw several years ago, for the US with approx. 205,000 registered aircraft, minus the 15,000 aircraft used for airlines and N-reg based outside overseas, gets you 190,000 general aviation aircraft in the US.

So based on the established industry standard, 65+% of those 190k GA aircraft are used for business or commercial purposes which leaves 67,000 "private" aircraft. Now break the 67K number into LSA, E/AB, and helicopter groups and the remaining will give you a ballpark on how many Part 91 recreational aircraft are flying. Its these numbers why Textron will spend millions certifying the new Beech Denali for 65+% group and zero dollars for the Part 91 group.

 

[tsts4]

I dunno, but anecdotally in my neck of the woods GA seems to be thriving. Seems hangar wait lists continue to grow in length vs decline which would seem to be an indicator that demand continues to increase. Maybe not a perfect barometer but it is a data point.

Also SnF is shaping up to be a record year despite some nasty weather to the North. There also seems to be an increases in airframe manufacturers and vender attendance despite that many only attend Osh due to cost.

 

[Brad Smith]

GA is thriving for those with money. It’s dying out for those with empty pockets. It a constant you can depend on in GA.

 

[FormerHangie]

I always wondered, if low wings are so great... How come God never made a bird with a low wing?

Do you fly an ornithopter?

 

[aterry1067]

I always wondered, if low wings are so great... How come God never made a bird with a low wing?

Well, he didn’t give gills to whales either, but they’re pretty good swimmers.

 

[NordicDave]

Do you fly an ornithopter?

I absolutely loved those early aviation videos of guys trying to fly planes with flapping wings! hilarious!

For me, I actually fly the best aircraft ever invented.... A Cessna 182P fixed gear turbo with a Robertson STOL kit.

 

[Witmo]

It's too easy to fly?

The student has to be signed off to solo... wouldn't a solo signoff for a high performance airplane implicitly be a high performance endorsement?

The FAA doesn't recognize "implicit" endorsements.

 

[Dana]

Seems hangar wait lists continue to grow in length vs decline which would seem to be an indicator that demand continues to increase.

That's because so many airports have closed there are less hangars to go around.

 

[tsts4]

That's because so many airports have closed there are less hangars to go around.

Maybe in some parts of the country, but not around where I live. Again it’s not a perfect barometer.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Maybe in some parts of the country, but not around where I live. Again it’s not a perfect barometer.

You live in the state where all the old people with money go (and take their planes).

It'd be interesting to see what the pilot population is by percentage in each state, but I would not be at all surprised if Florida is the highest, especially if you remove active airline pilots from the equation - They're going to skew any state that has a hub.

That's going to change the equation as far as whether airports close.

 

[tsts4]

Well I’ll concede the point about hangars. In any event SnF is hopping and it ain’t a bunch of old rich white guys either. Now I have no idea how sales are going but the vender presence is the best I’ve seen in the past 5 years. To paraphrase Mark Twain, “the rumors of GA’s demise have been greatly exaggerated”.