C172S Landing accident

"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.

"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