Why don't they make Kit "Cessna 172s"?

Morgan3820

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,753
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name
Display name:
El Conquistador
I can buy a 'kit' 1969 Chevy Camaro. Everything that is needed to assemble the body is available. The original sheet metal dies are used to make the panels. Other items are 'factory' reproductions. All you need is a motor and a VIN tag and you have new 1969 Chevy Camaro. Admittedly it costs more than a used original but it is all new.

Given the popularity and utility of C172 and C182s why is there not an experimental, kit 172? An all new plane to replace the aging fleet.

Curious
 
Why would you want an experimental 172? You can buy an old one for cheaper, and it's nearly the same as a new one except for the avionics. You get a kit plane to have something other than standard Beech/Cessna/Piper.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I can buy a 'kit' 1969 Chevy Camaro. Everything that is needed to assemble the body is available. The original sheet metal dies are used to make the panels. Other items are 'factory' reproductions. All you need is a motor and a VIN tag and you have new 1969 Chevy Camaro. Admittedly it costs more than a used original but it is all new.

Given the popularity and utility of C172 and C182s why is there not an experimental, kit 172? An all new plane to replace the aging fleet.

Curious
Click to expand...

There is a kit Cessna 180 (or is it a 185?) called a Cyclone IIRC.
Answer me this, why would I build a 172 when I can buy one for $20k or a new one with a G1000 for less than it would cost me to build even excluding my time value? Add to that, I wouldn't be able to use it in a commercial operation. You can't get a kit 172 because a kit 172 makes no sense.
 
Henning said:
There is a kit Cessna 180 (or is it a 185?) called a Cyclone IIRC.
Answer me this, why would I build a 172 when I can buy one for $20k or a new one with a G1000 for less than it would cost me to build even excluding my time value? Add to that, I wouldn't be able to use it in a commercial operation. You can't get a kit 172 because a kit 172 makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No sense at all. If I'm going to go thru the effort of building my own airplane it will be something that performs much better than a 172, which has not changed in basic design since introduced. Or it may make sense to build something unique, but if I want a 172 I would just buy one because I can get the basic airframe cheap.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
And once the implementation of the part 23 re-write goes through, you won't have to. You'll be able to further modify the ready-made airframe to your hearts content, even cheaper than building it from scratch. As others have said. There's no reason to offer such a kit.
 
More than an old 172, but what I would build if I wanted a new high wing.


5073653990_a8235b104f.jpg
 
With a rewrite of part 23 ,and other kits that out preform the 172 ,why would you want a 172 kit? The cost for old technology would be prohibitive.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Why would you want an experimental 172? You can buy an old one for cheaper, and it's nearly the same as a new one except for the avionics. You get a kit plane to have something other than standard Beech/Cessna/Piper.
Click to expand...

For the same reason that someone sells a 'new' 1969 Camaro for 3x the price of a used one
 
Morgan3820 said:
Does this have a back seat?
Click to expand...


Affirmative.

Maybe someone who has seen one in person can chime in, but I hear the back seat is smallish. More like for two kids, or one big person.

The utility of the Sportsman is very good. They can be put on floats, wheels, skis, tundra's, or tri-gear (I think).
 
The Sportsman does have a back seat, but it is rear facing.
 
I think the OP has a good question. After all, there are several kit versions of the Piper Super Cub.

Why wouldn't the same objection that has been posed here about cost, used vs new kit, keep someone from building a new super cub variant as a kit?
 
Heard they were going to kit a composite C-172 but decided bondoing in fake rivet heads was too much work for most homebuilders.:rolleyes2:
 
Morgan3820 said:
For the same reason that someone sells a 'new' 1969 Camaro for 3x the price of a used one
Click to expand...

I sort of get that but I think a more valid comparison would be building a new 1974 Pinto for three times the price of a used one.

Actually, it would be more like several hundreds of times the price of a used one, assuming it's running.
 
hindsight2020 said:
And once the implementation of the part 23 re-write goes through, you won't have to.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath waiting for it -- it could happen next week, it could happen after you have another couple of hundred hours in the log.

Likewise the driver's license medical for PP's.

Both of these are Really Good Things that we should all be writing letters to get, but until then we're stuck with the current rules, and that's what we need to plan for.
 
Morgan3820 said:
For the same reason that someone sells a 'new' 1969 Camaro for 3x the price of a used one
Click to expand...

People want 69 Camaros (though I prefer either a 67 or a 70 1/2) and people want Super Cubs, people settle for a 172 because they are cheap and plentiful and you can put them on leaseback with a flight school.
 
Why in the hell would you want to build an underpowered, 60 year old design with no real capability for anything, then limit by having it be experimental and not LSA?????
 
Morgan3820 said:
I can buy a 'kit' 1969 Chevy Camaro. Everything that is needed to assemble the body is available. The original sheet metal dies are used to make the panels. Other items are 'factory' reproductions. All you need is a motor and a VIN tag and you have new 1969 Chevy Camaro. Admittedly it costs more than a used original but it is all new.

Given the popularity and utility of C172 and C182s why is there not an experimental, kit 172? An all new plane to replace the aging fleet.

Curious
Click to expand...

I think there are several reasons, some of which have already been addressed.

A 172 "kit" wouldn't cost much less than something like an RV-10. You might save $10-$15k on engine/prop.

One reason I haven't seen addressed is that the 172 is an amazingly complex design compared to a modern homebuilt kit. The firewall design, the landing gear, the seats, and so on are more complex than anything I've seen in a Sportsman 2+2/RV-10/etc. Not that the complexity is bad - the landing gear in particular is more robust than most homebuilts, for example - but it is not something which lends itself to being built in a garage or hangar with simple hand tools.
 
ChiefPilot said:
I think there are several reasons, some of which have already been addressed.

A 172 "kit" wouldn't cost much less than something like an RV-10. You might save $10-$15k on engine/prop.

One reason I haven't seen addressed is that the 172 is an amazingly complex design compared to a modern homebuilt kit. The firewall design, the landing gear, the seats, and so on are more complex than anything I've seen in a Sportsman 2+2/RV-10/etc. Not that the complexity is bad - the landing gear in particular is more robust than most homebuilts, for example - but it is not something which lends itself to being built in a garage or hangar with simple hand tools.
Click to expand...

First post..... Welcome to POA.... :cheers:..

Ps.... Some of us have created pretty unique homebuilts in our garages....:wink2:
 
Building your own airplane requires a major time and effort commitment. This requires inspiration. 172s do not inspire.
 
RoscoeT said:
Building your own airplane requires a major time and effort commitment. This requires inspiration. 172s do not inspire.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Sure there are kit Shelby Cobras, Mustangs, Camaros etc etc. There are no kit 1992 Toyota Camrys...
 
Inverted said:
Why in the hell would you want to build an underpowered, 60 year old design with no real capability for anything, then limit by having it be experimental and not LSA?????
Click to expand...

Unless you're going to use it to make money, experimental is hardly limiting.
 
ateamer said:
Unless you're going to use it to make money, experimental is hardly limiting.
Click to expand...

The only real practical use for a 172 today is to train, and or rent with. It isn't a go places airplane, it isn't modern, it isn't fast, it isn't efficient, it doesn't fly high, and it isn't very capable.
 
I think a better comparison to a 172 would be Why don't they make a kit of a F150.

Same answer because there are a lot od them out on the used market.
There really is nothing special about it.
 
e.pie said:
The Sportsman 2+2 is everything the 172 should have evolved in to.
Click to expand...

The Sportsman (formerly GlaStar) is not anything that a 172 would have evolved into. It's an odd conglomeration of welded tube frame and stressed skin monocoque structure bolted to a composite shell. If Cessna had continued to design and develop new models after the 1970's they would have evolved along the lines of the Cardinal 177 which was the most modern iteration of their basic platform. It has it's rough edges but was well thought out in regards to both comfort and ease of access for both passengers and maintenance.

They are very easy planes to work on.

Of the thousands of kitplane designs put out over the years I think there are many that sought to emulate the 172. I don't know why you'd expect someone to produce an exact copy though. The only production plane I can think of that someone produce a relative exact copy of would be the Piper Supercub and yes, Piper did file a lawsuit against CubCrafters...
 
A Piper TriPacer can out haul and outfly a 172. It would make a more sensible kit.

A 172 kit would sell about as well as a 1980 Ford Granada kit.

Dan
 
Inverted said:
The only real practical use for a 172 today is to train, and or rent with. It isn't a go places airplane, it isn't modern, it isn't fast, it isn't efficient, it doesn't fly high, and it isn't very capable.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty decent personal airplane for people who can't afford better performers. Judging by the number of owner-flown 172s that aren't being used for training, I'd say it's still very viable for that market.
 
ateamer said:
It's a pretty decent personal airplane for people who can't afford better performers. Judging by the number of owner-flown 172s that aren't being used for training, I'd say it's still very viable for that market.
Click to expand...

If you can't afford a better performer, you can't afford to build a new one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top