A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

C172S Landing accident



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 31st 03, 07:33 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| "C J Campbell" wrote:
|
| I think that it is better to put a solo
| student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a
run-out
| $34,000 jalopy.
|
| Which "modern safety features" would those be? Front and side airbags?
| Front and rear anti-lock brakes?
|

Cessna claims more than 140 safety improvements: fuel injected engine,
better seat tracks, seats stressed for higher g loads, re-routed fuel lines,
an auxiliary fuel pump, dual vacuum system, improved electrical system, more
reliable avionics and radios, strengthened airframe, more fuel sumps,
greatly improved seat belts, better lighting, improved engine
instrumentation, more reliable fuel gauges, separate fuel shut-off valve,
higher gross weight allowance, wider flap operating airspeed range,
electronic annunciator panel, more fire resistant cockpit interior, more
sound proofing, higher useful load, improved landing gear, split avionics
busses each with their own avionics master switch, etc. The 172 SP has more
redundancy and is better built than almost all single engine piston aircraft
that came before it. The 172 SP is not simply 172 P with some cosmetic
improvements. It is different enough that, for all effects and purposes, it
is a different type of aircraft.

I also find it a great sales tool. Most of my students can afford the 172 SP
and they prefer it over the older models. They are more comfortable in a
newer airplane and most of those who have flown both find the 172 SP easier
to fly and to land. The airplane looks safer and it is.


  #2  
Old July 31st 03, 07:49 PM
Kev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| "C J Campbell" wrote:
|
| I think that it is better to put a solo
| student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a
run-out
| $34,000 jalopy.
|
| Which "modern safety features" would those be? Front and side airbags?
| Front and rear anti-lock brakes?
|

Cessna claims more than 140 safety improvements: fuel injected engine,
better seat tracks, seats stressed for higher g loads, re-routed fuel

lines,
an auxiliary fuel pump, dual vacuum system, improved electrical system,

more
reliable avionics and radios, strengthened airframe, more fuel sumps,
greatly improved seat belts, better lighting, improved engine
instrumentation, more reliable fuel gauges, separate fuel shut-off valve,
higher gross weight allowance, wider flap operating airspeed range,
electronic annunciator panel, more fire resistant cockpit interior, more
sound proofing, higher useful load, improved landing gear, split avionics
busses each with their own avionics master switch, etc. The 172 SP has

more
redundancy and is better built than almost all single engine piston

aircraft
that came before it. The 172 SP is not simply 172 P with some cosmetic
improvements. It is different enough that, for all effects and purposes,

it
is a different type of aircraft.

I also find it a great sales tool. Most of my students can afford the 172

SP
and they prefer it over the older models. They are more comfortable in a
newer airplane and most of those who have flown both find the 172 SP

easier
to fly and to land. The airplane looks safer and it is.



I find that the 172SP is harder to land. Maybe it's just my experience, but
it seems to want to float along the runway longer than the old 172P models,
it just doesn't want to settle onto the runway... The fleet at my flight
school is a 4 new/8 old mix and I've experienced the "floating" with all of
the new ones, and none of the old ones. I much prefer the new ones, except
for warm starts on a warm day...

Kev


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Six aboard USS Kitty Hawk injured in F/A 18 landing accident Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 January 31st 05 10:50 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Instrument Flight Rules 117 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons Curtl33 General Aviation 7 January 9th 04 11:35 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.