![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |