C172 crash at Coney Island

James Robinson wrote:
Guy Elden Jr wrote:

This is probably the only time I'm willing to speculate here,
because I
fly a 172SP

According to the FAA database, was a 172S. Does that change your
comments any?

Aren't the 172S and 172SP the same plane? I believe the official
model number is 172S, and SP is the name Cessna puts on it.

The 172R was the new version 172 introduced in '96 or '97 with the
derated IO-360 at 160 hp. The follow on was the 172S with less derated
IO-360 at 180 hp. I think those are the only two current models of
the 172.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

In article .com,
says...



James Robinson wrote:
Guy Elden Jr wrote:

This is probably the only time I'm willing to speculate here,
because I
fly a 172SP

According to the FAA database, was a 172S. Does that change your
comments any?

Aren't the 172S and 172SP the same plane? I believe the official
model number is 172S, and SP is the name Cessna puts on it.

The 172R was the new version 172 introduced in '96 or '97 with the
derated IO-360 at 160 hp. The follow on was the 172S with less derated
IO-360 at 180 hp. I think those are the only two current models of
the 172.

I think so too. Not only are they the only two current, but I don't
think there ever was an "S" that was not an "SP". It's often called
"172S - Skyhawk SP". The useful load for the "SP" is a bit higher than
the "R", but both, with all their creature comfort and tech goodies,
are significantly lower than the older series, "M" etc. I often fly
older and newer - I wiould check W/B very carefully, using real weights
of the individuals, before putting four in an older 172. I would not
even consider putting four adults in a newer 172.

G Faris