C172 Still In Production After 60 Years.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cabin must have been a bit festy after 2 blokes spent a couple of months airborne in it...
I reckon if he'd got into shape I could have taken 10-gals more
fuel!!! 
Originally Posted by clearedtoreenter
Speaking as a fully paid up member of the largely educated, why in the year 2017 do I still need to manage the mixture knob at all?
If you want FADEC and Toyota-like carefree engine management, buy a Cirrus. But be prepared to pay and pay and pay...
The Rotax injected engine has Two of everything; ECU, MAP sensors, temperature sensors, airbox temp and pressure, knock sensor fuel pumps, eight injectors and plugs, coil packs and of course Two permanent magnet alternators with automatic fail over from one to the other and space for a belt driven alternator as well.
There is both an ECU box and a "fuse box". You require seven switches to control the beast (ECU A & B, alternator tie (for starting), start, fuel pumps 1 & 2 and emergency battery mode. The use of a key switch is not advisable because they can be unreliable, I am using only MS 35059. Then of course you will need an EFIS or a $3000 engine display unit because all data is provided by an automotive CAN bus protocol. The supplied wiring loom has plugs on it that must not be inserted/removed from the ECU more than 20 times or you need to replace the wiring loom (plug connect/disconnect must be entered in the engine log).
But wait, there is more, each cylinder has an EGT probe and. at less than 97% power, the engine runs in "ECO" mode which probably means its running LOP (rotax doesn't say) and you adjust required power by setting fuel flow.
Since the engine will immediately stop if it loses fuel pressure even for a fraction of a second, you need a header tank capable of flowing 70 ltrs per minute with no bubbles, a seven micron high pressure fuel filter and of course the aforesaid Two alternators and two fuel pumps.
the benefits of the technology are greater fuel economy and a smoother engine for a few extra kg of electronics.
So yeah, I don't understand why Lycoming and Continental aren't falling over themselves to install cheap, simple automotive EFI instead of those complex, inefficient and unreliable carburettors and WWII era injection... complete with mixture control..
There is both an ECU box and a "fuse box". You require seven switches to control the beast (ECU A & B, alternator tie (for starting), start, fuel pumps 1 & 2 and emergency battery mode. The use of a key switch is not advisable because they can be unreliable, I am using only MS 35059. Then of course you will need an EFIS or a $3000 engine display unit because all data is provided by an automotive CAN bus protocol. The supplied wiring loom has plugs on it that must not be inserted/removed from the ECU more than 20 times or you need to replace the wiring loom (plug connect/disconnect must be entered in the engine log).
But wait, there is more, each cylinder has an EGT probe and. at less than 97% power, the engine runs in "ECO" mode which probably means its running LOP (rotax doesn't say) and you adjust required power by setting fuel flow.
Since the engine will immediately stop if it loses fuel pressure even for a fraction of a second, you need a header tank capable of flowing 70 ltrs per minute with no bubbles, a seven micron high pressure fuel filter and of course the aforesaid Two alternators and two fuel pumps.
the benefits of the technology are greater fuel economy and a smoother engine for a few extra kg of electronics.
So yeah, I don't understand why Lycoming and Continental aren't falling over themselves to install cheap, simple automotive EFI instead of those complex, inefficient and unreliable carburettors and WWII era injection... complete with mixture control..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
button push ignored
I own a 1973 Cessna 172M.
I chose the Cessna over the competition because I believe it to be the best choice as a Primary/Intermediate trainer for my three children to learn to fly in.
The reason I chose the M model produced between 1973/1976 is for the 150 horse power Lycoming O-320 E2D. You can run these engines on 87 octane ethanol free car gas if you gave a Mo-Gas supplemental type certificate.
The Cessna 172 N model produced between 1977-1980 was a disaster for Cessna. The O-320 H2AD had bad lifters from a Ford 302 engine that were not adequate. The H2AD with 160 hp is a very problematic engine that should be avoided. Many N models engines have been replaced by the larger O-360 180 hp engines.
The P model from 1981 to 1986 is a good plane. But needs either 100LL av-gas or 92 octane mo-gas.
The R model had a lot of problems when production resumed. The Cessna 172 was not produced for a number of years due to liability insurance. So to say. it's been in continuous production is inaccurate.
I own a 1973 Cessna 172M.
I chose the Cessna over the competition because I believe it to be the best choice as a Primary/Intermediate trainer for my three children to learn to fly in.
The reason I chose the M model produced between 1973/1976 is for the 150 horse power Lycoming O-320 E2D. You can run these engines on 87 octane ethanol free car gas if you gave a Mo-Gas supplemental type certificate.
The Cessna 172 N model produced between 1977-1980 was a disaster for Cessna. The O-320 H2AD had bad lifters from a Ford 302 engine that were not adequate. The H2AD with 160 hp is a very problematic engine that should be avoided. Many N models engines have been replaced by the larger O-360 180 hp engines.
The P model from 1981 to 1986 is a good plane. But needs either 100LL av-gas or 92 octane mo-gas.
The R model had a lot of problems when production resumed. The Cessna 172 was not produced for a number of years due to liability insurance. So to say. it's been in continuous production is inaccurate.
You say the C172P can use 100LL or 92 MOGAS. Is that the only fuels they recommend. What about 95 or 98 MOGAS.
I hear C172 on the radio flying from two airfields close to me. Sixty years on and they are still flying every day within 5nm of my home.
Last edited by Acrosport II; 18th Mar 2017 at 13:01.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stationair8 Cessna C172N, also nicknamed nasty due to problems with the engine.
Most of the 1977 N's were grounded in Australia for an engine mod in mid 1977.
Most of the 1977 N's were grounded in Australia for an engine mod in mid 1977.
I didn't fly them until the 80s, so they should have been modified.
I never heard of any issues during that time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
button push ignored
The original razor back/fast back, straight tail Cessna 172 from 1956 thru 1959 is a wonderful classic plane, that is great fun to fly.
The landing gear is very close together and it sits very tall in the saddle, so you have to be very careful taxing in strong winds as it's easy to tip over.
I absolutely LOVE the manual flaps, much more than any later electric flaps.
You get to fly by the 'seat of your pants' by looking outside as you fly by feel of the plane in the air.
The Continental O-300 six cylinder engine is a smooth running engine, but costs more to maintain and rebuild than a later Lycoming.
It also does not last as long as a Lycoming.
If you buy one, you'll love it, but do not upgrade it.
It is a classic plane, and should be treated as such.
These engines run much better on 87 octane car gas than 100LL aviation gas.
They then changed to the Omni-Vision style that you know.
The Cessna of the 1960s are rather nondescript.
The early ones have the Continental O-300 six cylinder before they switched to four cylinder Lycoming in 1964.
You can tell a Continental engine one from a Lycoming by the two exhaust pipes on the six cylinder machine.
In 1976 a Cessna 172 was $16,000. The average wage was about $8000.
So it was possible for a working man to buy a plane and pay for it over three years.
Today the average wages are about $53,000 but the cost of a Cessna has grown to over $350,000.
Putting it out of reach for the average working man.
Thankfully there are plenty of used Cessna's available, but beware that any old aircraft will require a lot of work to make it a safe machine.
You can not operate a plane for 40 years on a shoe string budget and expect to have a safe plane without doing a complete major overhaul.
I just spent nine months and over $60,000 giving my plane a major overhaul.
The Cessna from the early 1970s are in my opinion the 'best of breed'.
I much prefer a 150 horse powered machine for flight training.
I think 180 horses is too much for a new pilot student.
I own a 1973 Cessna 172M model.
I chose the Cessna over the competition because I believe it to be the best choice as a Primary/Intermediate trainer for my three children to learn to fly in.
The reason I chose the M model produced between 1973 and 1976 is for the 150 horse power Lycoming O-320 E2D engine.
You can run these engines on 87 octane ethanol free car gas if you have a Mo-Gas supplemental type certificate.
The Cessna 172 N model produced between 1977 and 1980 was a disaster for Cessna.
The O-320 H2AD had bad lifters from a Ford 302 engine that were not adequate.
The H2AD with 160 hp is a very problematic engine that should be avoided.
Many N models engines have been replaced by the larger O-360 180 hp engines.
The P model from 1981 to 1986 is a good plane. But needs either 100LL av-gas or 92 octane mo-gas.
The Cessna 172 was not produced between 1987 and 1997 due to liability insurance.
So to say. it's been in continuous production is inaccurate.
Production resumed in 1998 as an R model.
The early R models should also be avoided.
The engine size had now grown to an O-360 but was de-rated to 160 hp by limiting the engine RPMs.
A few years later came the S model that is still in production.
This fuel injected engine is probably the best engine ever built.
And there lies the problem with the modern 180 hp Cessna's.
The only benefit of a bigger engine is slightly shorter take off distance.
The downside is far greater. More noise, more fuel burn.
And yet the standard fuel tanks remained at 40 gallons usable.
An O-320 will burn about 8 gallons per hour, but and O-360 will burn closer to 10.
With standard fuel tanks and O-360 powered machine does not have much range.
I would not want an O-360 powered Cessna 172 without optional 50 gallon long range tanks.
The original razor back/fast back, straight tail Cessna 172 from 1956 thru 1959 is a wonderful classic plane, that is great fun to fly.
The landing gear is very close together and it sits very tall in the saddle, so you have to be very careful taxing in strong winds as it's easy to tip over.
I absolutely LOVE the manual flaps, much more than any later electric flaps.
You get to fly by the 'seat of your pants' by looking outside as you fly by feel of the plane in the air.
The Continental O-300 six cylinder engine is a smooth running engine, but costs more to maintain and rebuild than a later Lycoming.
It also does not last as long as a Lycoming.
If you buy one, you'll love it, but do not upgrade it.
It is a classic plane, and should be treated as such.
These engines run much better on 87 octane car gas than 100LL aviation gas.
They then changed to the Omni-Vision style that you know.
The Cessna of the 1960s are rather nondescript.
The early ones have the Continental O-300 six cylinder before they switched to four cylinder Lycoming in 1964.
You can tell a Continental engine one from a Lycoming by the two exhaust pipes on the six cylinder machine.
In 1976 a Cessna 172 was $16,000. The average wage was about $8000.
So it was possible for a working man to buy a plane and pay for it over three years.
Today the average wages are about $53,000 but the cost of a Cessna has grown to over $350,000.
Putting it out of reach for the average working man.
Thankfully there are plenty of used Cessna's available, but beware that any old aircraft will require a lot of work to make it a safe machine.
You can not operate a plane for 40 years on a shoe string budget and expect to have a safe plane without doing a complete major overhaul.
I just spent nine months and over $60,000 giving my plane a major overhaul.
The Cessna from the early 1970s are in my opinion the 'best of breed'.
I much prefer a 150 horse powered machine for flight training.
I think 180 horses is too much for a new pilot student.
I own a 1973 Cessna 172M model.
I chose the Cessna over the competition because I believe it to be the best choice as a Primary/Intermediate trainer for my three children to learn to fly in.
The reason I chose the M model produced between 1973 and 1976 is for the 150 horse power Lycoming O-320 E2D engine.
You can run these engines on 87 octane ethanol free car gas if you have a Mo-Gas supplemental type certificate.
The Cessna 172 N model produced between 1977 and 1980 was a disaster for Cessna.
The O-320 H2AD had bad lifters from a Ford 302 engine that were not adequate.
The H2AD with 160 hp is a very problematic engine that should be avoided.
Many N models engines have been replaced by the larger O-360 180 hp engines.
The P model from 1981 to 1986 is a good plane. But needs either 100LL av-gas or 92 octane mo-gas.
The Cessna 172 was not produced between 1987 and 1997 due to liability insurance.
So to say. it's been in continuous production is inaccurate.
Production resumed in 1998 as an R model.
The early R models should also be avoided.
The engine size had now grown to an O-360 but was de-rated to 160 hp by limiting the engine RPMs.
A few years later came the S model that is still in production.
This fuel injected engine is probably the best engine ever built.
And there lies the problem with the modern 180 hp Cessna's.
The only benefit of a bigger engine is slightly shorter take off distance.
The downside is far greater. More noise, more fuel burn.
And yet the standard fuel tanks remained at 40 gallons usable.
An O-320 will burn about 8 gallons per hour, but and O-360 will burn closer to 10.
With standard fuel tanks and O-360 powered machine does not have much range.
I would not want an O-360 powered Cessna 172 without optional 50 gallon long range tanks.
Last edited by Acrosport II; 18th Mar 2017 at 13:04.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Rotax injected engine has Two of everything; ECU, MAP sensors, temperature sensors, airbox temp and pressure, knock sensor fuel pumps, eight injectors and plugs, coil packs and of course Two permanent magnet alternators with automatic fail over from one to the other and space for a belt driven alternator as well.
There is both an ECU box and a "fuse box". You require seven switches to control the beast (ECU A & B, alternator tie (for starting), start, fuel pumps 1 & 2 and emergency battery mode. The use of a key switch is not advisable because they can be unreliable, I am using only MS 35059. Then of course you will need an EFIS or a $3000 engine display unit because all data is provided by an automotive CAN bus protocol. The supplied wiring loom has plugs on it that must not be inserted/removed from the ECU more than 20 times or you need to replace the wiring loom (plug connect/disconnect must be entered in the engine log).
But wait, there is more, each cylinder has an EGT probe and. at less than 97% power, the engine runs in "ECO" mode which probably means its running LOP (rotax doesn't say) and you adjust required power by setting fuel flow.
Since the engine will immediately stop if it loses fuel pressure even for a fraction of a second, you need a header tank capable of flowing 70 ltrs per minute with no bubbles, a seven micron high pressure fuel filter and of course the aforesaid Two alternators and two fuel pumps.
the benefits of the technology are greater fuel economy and a smoother engine for a few extra kg of electronics.
So yeah, I don't understand why Lycoming and Continental aren't falling over themselves to install cheap, simple automotive EFI instead of those complex, inefficient and unreliable carburettors and WWII era injection... complete with mixture control..
There is both an ECU box and a "fuse box". You require seven switches to control the beast (ECU A & B, alternator tie (for starting), start, fuel pumps 1 & 2 and emergency battery mode. The use of a key switch is not advisable because they can be unreliable, I am using only MS 35059. Then of course you will need an EFIS or a $3000 engine display unit because all data is provided by an automotive CAN bus protocol. The supplied wiring loom has plugs on it that must not be inserted/removed from the ECU more than 20 times or you need to replace the wiring loom (plug connect/disconnect must be entered in the engine log).
But wait, there is more, each cylinder has an EGT probe and. at less than 97% power, the engine runs in "ECO" mode which probably means its running LOP (rotax doesn't say) and you adjust required power by setting fuel flow.
Since the engine will immediately stop if it loses fuel pressure even for a fraction of a second, you need a header tank capable of flowing 70 ltrs per minute with no bubbles, a seven micron high pressure fuel filter and of course the aforesaid Two alternators and two fuel pumps.
the benefits of the technology are greater fuel economy and a smoother engine for a few extra kg of electronics.
So yeah, I don't understand why Lycoming and Continental aren't falling over themselves to install cheap, simple automotive EFI instead of those complex, inefficient and unreliable carburettors and WWII era injection... complete with mixture control..
Point two.....hmmmm Lycoming have tried. But the sensors are the issue. The dated complicated and hard to use red knob replaces all that. As you have eloquently stated above, all you need instead is a well balanced F/A ratio and a mixture knob and some very simple knowledge that results in the Big Mixture Pull.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flaps 40 was eliminated for the 1981 P model.
There were two reasons for this.
1st reason. Was the climb gradient on a balked landing (go-around) with flaps 40.
Apparently people got into trouble on the go around by using incorrect procedures.
2nd reason. Was STC 5A2196CE that increased gross take off weight if the flaps were limited to 30.
Again based on an immediate return to landing with a go around.
My opinion is flaps 40 are an asset, especially for short field landings.
You just have to get used to using them, and know when to land flaps 30, and how to go around with flaps 40.
A bit of history.
The Cessna 170A had non slotted - fowler type flaps that went to 50 degrees.
The 170B had regular type flaps 40.
The Cessna L-19 Bird Dog has flaps 60.
There were two reasons for this.
1st reason. Was the climb gradient on a balked landing (go-around) with flaps 40.
Apparently people got into trouble on the go around by using incorrect procedures.
2nd reason. Was STC 5A2196CE that increased gross take off weight if the flaps were limited to 30.
Again based on an immediate return to landing with a go around.
My opinion is flaps 40 are an asset, especially for short field landings.
You just have to get used to using them, and know when to land flaps 30, and how to go around with flaps 40.
A bit of history.
The Cessna 170A had non slotted - fowler type flaps that went to 50 degrees.
The 170B had regular type flaps 40.
The Cessna L-19 Bird Dog has flaps 60.
Yes I'm sure the 172N (and the others I flew) had 40* Flaps.
The LSA I fly now could benefit from 40* flaps on landing, not sure how it would go doing a go-round though, which may be why they have limited the full flap setting.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are wondering why the cost of new GA aircraft is so high.
When Cessna restarted the 172/182 and 206 production lines I was speaking with a Cessna US guy who came out with the first couple inported into Australia. He stated hat 50% of the cost of the Cessnas was the cost of liability insurance for 20 (or may have been 25 years) for that airframe. If you look at production costs for other items and how they have risen, this makes sense. Cessna stated that they could resume production when the GA revitalisation bill was passed in the States that limited liability to 20 years (25?). So a 100% markup on each airframe to pay for this is the cost of the US litigious society.
I can't speak to the rest of the argument on manufacturers not wanting to change the status quo. The only thing I do know is, it was economically feasible it would have been done. I am sure the latest technology could be incorporated into aircraft engine making them more economical, more reliable(?) lighter, etc etc. but if it does not make economic sense then it won't be done.
Cheers
CB
When Cessna restarted the 172/182 and 206 production lines I was speaking with a Cessna US guy who came out with the first couple inported into Australia. He stated hat 50% of the cost of the Cessnas was the cost of liability insurance for 20 (or may have been 25 years) for that airframe. If you look at production costs for other items and how they have risen, this makes sense. Cessna stated that they could resume production when the GA revitalisation bill was passed in the States that limited liability to 20 years (25?). So a 100% markup on each airframe to pay for this is the cost of the US litigious society.
I can't speak to the rest of the argument on manufacturers not wanting to change the status quo. The only thing I do know is, it was economically feasible it would have been done. I am sure the latest technology could be incorporated into aircraft engine making them more economical, more reliable(?) lighter, etc etc. but if it does not make economic sense then it won't be done.
Cheers
CB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are wondering why the cost of new GA aircraft is so high.
When Cessna restarted the 172/182 and 206 production lines I was speaking with a Cessna US guy who came out with the first couple inported into Australia. He stated hat 50% of the cost of the Cessnas was the cost of liability insurance for 20 (or may have been 25 years) for that airframe. If you look at production costs for other items and how they have risen, this makes sense. Cessna stated that they could resume production when the GA revitalisation bill was passed in the States that limited liability to 20 years (25?). So a 100% markup on each airframe to pay for this is the cost of the US litigious society.
I can't speak to the rest of the argument on manufacturers not wanting to change the status quo. The only thing I do know is, it was economically feasible it would have been done. I am sure the latest technology could be incorporated into aircraft engine making them more economical, more reliable(?) lighter, etc etc. but if it does not make economic sense then it won't be done.
Cheers
CB
When Cessna restarted the 172/182 and 206 production lines I was speaking with a Cessna US guy who came out with the first couple inported into Australia. He stated hat 50% of the cost of the Cessnas was the cost of liability insurance for 20 (or may have been 25 years) for that airframe. If you look at production costs for other items and how they have risen, this makes sense. Cessna stated that they could resume production when the GA revitalisation bill was passed in the States that limited liability to 20 years (25?). So a 100% markup on each airframe to pay for this is the cost of the US litigious society.
I can't speak to the rest of the argument on manufacturers not wanting to change the status quo. The only thing I do know is, it was economically feasible it would have been done. I am sure the latest technology could be incorporated into aircraft engine making them more economical, more reliable(?) lighter, etc etc. but if it does not make economic sense then it won't be done.
Cheers
CB
That's incredible if correct.
That would make the price of a new C172 in the USA of 180,000AUD.(Not sure what the listed price is in Aus, its so high they don't publish it on the dealers website).
All because of greedy unethical lawyers. (eg: suing Cessna, Piper for a pilot error CFIT and blaming it on the aircraft or systems).
Unfortunately Australia wants to follow USA warts and all. This liability thing is out of control here now too.
Real shame, and even bigger shame the USA and AUS govts don't have the b***s to stop it with sensible legislation.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's incredible if correct.
That would make the price of a new C172 in the USA of 180,000AUD.(Not sure what the listed price is in Aus, its so high they don't publish it on the dealers website).
All because of greedy unethical lawyers. (eg: suing Cessna, Piper for a pilot error CFIT and blaming it on the aircraft or systems).
Unfortunately Australia wants to follow USA warts and all. This liability thing is out of control here now too.
Real shame, and even bigger shame the USA and AUS govts don't have the b***s to stop it with sensible legislation.
That would make the price of a new C172 in the USA of 180,000AUD.(Not sure what the listed price is in Aus, its so high they don't publish it on the dealers website).
All because of greedy unethical lawyers. (eg: suing Cessna, Piper for a pilot error CFIT and blaming it on the aircraft or systems).
Unfortunately Australia wants to follow USA warts and all. This liability thing is out of control here now too.
Real shame, and even bigger shame the USA and AUS govts don't have the b***s to stop it with sensible legislation.
Australia, in contrast, over-regulates, equally doubling the price of aviation, but due regulation. Of course, the litigation aspect still prevails due to our commercial and legal relationships with the country of origin of the aircraft.
But because we don't have the population or aviation density to design and manufacture our own light aircraft, we pay the existing double US price, and then double it again to operate it in Australia, then add shipping and GST and whatever else and no wonder no-one can afford to purchase and operate a new C172 in Australia.
Maybe someone with internet skills can compare the 1970 price of a C172 to a similarly priced BMW or Mercedes or John Deere tractor, and recompare the difference to equivalent plant today.
I suspect you would find that a BMW purchaser in 1970 could easily have been in the money for a Cessna, but today would be out by a factor of 5 or more. Meanwhile, the BMW's have evolved and sport the latest and greatest gear, while the Cessna has hardly changed since 1970.
BMW can afford to constantly improve the engine reliability and crash safety of it's vehicles because the regulation and litigation costs allow them too. The same doesn't apply to Cessna or Lycoming.
People still crash and die in BMW's, but if it happens in a Cessna, the cost continues to rise, because it's somehow "not acceptable".
Why is this?
Prior to the 1970's, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation was to innovate, build and fly great aircraft.
At some point after that, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation became to ensure that no-one could afford it.
Last edited by Derfred; 19th Mar 2017 at 18:34.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 170 and 170A have plain, non slotted flaps. The 170B has slotted fowler flaps. (just like most other cessna singles from the early '50's on)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defred,
You could be right about a new C172 in Aus costing four times what it should.
I too don't understand why there is a 'zero' tolerance to any aircraft death (ie: Overregulate to such an extent it is unaffordable to most) yet other activities are acceptable.
I personally would never skydive, yet many do. There has been deaths around the world from people, swimming, racing cars, racing motorbikes, scuba diving, Mt climbing, working at your job, driving on the roads, bee stings, shark attacks, shooting, boating, jet skiing, skiing, abseiling. You name it.
Accept there is a risk with whatever sport / hobby / job, we do, but don't over regulate it until it doesn't exist.
If the wings fold inflight in a new aircraft, they have a case to answer, if pilot error causes and accident. Don't sue the Manufacturer. Change the law to common sense law.
Like your comment here.
Never a truer word spoken in jest'
You could be right about a new C172 in Aus costing four times what it should.
People still crash and die in BMW's, but if it happens in a Cessna, the cost continues to rise, because it's somehow "not acceptable".
Why is this?
Why is this?
I personally would never skydive, yet many do. There has been deaths around the world from people, swimming, racing cars, racing motorbikes, scuba diving, Mt climbing, working at your job, driving on the roads, bee stings, shark attacks, shooting, boating, jet skiing, skiing, abseiling. You name it.
Accept there is a risk with whatever sport / hobby / job, we do, but don't over regulate it until it doesn't exist.
If the wings fold inflight in a new aircraft, they have a case to answer, if pilot error causes and accident. Don't sue the Manufacturer. Change the law to common sense law.
Like your comment here.
Never a truer word spoken in jest'
Prior to the 1970's, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation was to innovate, build and fly great aircraft.
At some point after that, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation became to ensure that no-one could afford it.
At some point after that, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation became to ensure that no-one could afford it.
Last edited by Acrosport II; 20th Mar 2017 at 08:38.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that a representative of BMW or any other current auto manufacturer would be surprised to discover that they aren't heavily regulated and aren't subject to lawsuits.