How would you change the Cessna 172
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
Take off the ICE and replace it with an electric engine, with at least 2 hours of endurance, so flight training and recreational flying will become affordable, again.
cliff
KGRB
Take off the ICE and replace it with an electric engine, with at least 2 hours of endurance, so flight training and recreational flying will become affordable, again.
cliff
KGRB
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Move the main wheels forward, remove the front wheel and add a small one to the tail. If such a conversion tranforms the 172 the same way the 152 benefited, it would be nearly perfect 
Keep it the way it is, rugged, simple, reliable, easy to fly and to repair and long lasting and build plenty of them to make it cheaper. No hightech-plugins required. They will just ruin the price.
If you prefer a cirrus buy a cirrus.
If you prefer a cirrus buy a cirrus.
Last edited by Less Hair; 18th Nov 2010 at 12:26.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider using this book from www.cessna172book.com. It describes all the systems in details.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more serious note: put a parking brake in it that actually works. Never found one!
In my experience, the vast majority of pilots of Cessna singles use feet on the rudder pedals instead of using the parking brake when stationary. Yet funniliy enough pilots don't use this technique on big jets... And not only that, if by chance the parking brake was inoperative on a 737 et al you can be sure it would have been written up and promptly fixed. The same principle should apply to general aviation types.
If instructors did their job properly then students would use the parking brake for the purpose for which it was designed. Most parts or systems in aircraft play up occasionally and legally the pilot should record the defect and let the mechanics earn their keep.
Give it a low, cranked wing, with the inner and outer portions at different angles of attack, which gives good take-off performance and then excellent cruise performance due to reduced drag once the airspeed increases. Give it a huge wrap around canopy, large fuel tanks and the ability to carry full fuel with 4 people. Finally give a proper stick rather than yoke and pleasant, vice free handling.
Alternatively buy a Robin DR400 which already has all of the above. The best light aircraft in this class by a large margin in my opinion.
Alternatively buy a Robin DR400 which already has all of the above. The best light aircraft in this class by a large margin in my opinion.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lateral thinking
Like the previous posters, I agree that the C172 is pretty good at being a C172, so if you think on conventional lines, you will just end up designing the C182.
But, I would rush out and buy a C172+ instantly if it had (1) no extra payload at all, (2) went 10% slower, (3) cost just as much money to buy, but (4) was as quiet inside as a typical modern small car.
But, I would rush out and buy a C172+ instantly if it had (1) no extra payload at all, (2) went 10% slower, (3) cost just as much money to buy, but (4) was as quiet inside as a typical modern small car.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let's face it, the Skyhawk is a dinosaur. Struts. Rivets. Wing Fat. Corrodes. Fixed Pitch. Carburetor. Butt Ugly. But I made my all time best landing in one. I first soloed in one. It gets stares from any lady who isn't too into aircraft. It is sweet, docile, and forgiving, which cannot be improved upon, only degraded. Let's leave it alone.
The Robin, Trinidad, Cirrus (Angelina owns one), Swift, Stinson, etc. all have their ......cachet, as it were.
there is an a/c for any mission, even the 172.
bear
The Robin, Trinidad, Cirrus (Angelina owns one), Swift, Stinson, etc. all have their ......cachet, as it were.
there is an a/c for any mission, even the 172.
bear
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 172 was and is an excellent, inexpensive, simple design: both to fly, and to manufacture.
Most of what can be done to the 172 has already been done. That said, one of it's shortcomings was always the interior. Modern iterations of the airplane have improved somewhat, but in the quest for a lightweight, easily manufactured interior, the plastics were never a good solution. They were a pain for removal and installation, and tended to scuff and break easily. Various interior panels covered in carpet were also a royal pain.
Removal of the rear bench seat for inspections, and removal of the side panels beneath the instrument panel were always a pain in the butt, especially for frequent repeat-removals for 100 hour inspections, and the like.
The nosewheel assembly tended to be subject to shimmy; the Lord damper needs frequent rebuilding, especially when tortured by inexperienced pilots. Likewise, the engine mount and nosewheel attachment lends to firewall damage from mishandling; this could stand some improvement.
The use of the muffler shroud for heating lead to longstanding issues with the potential for carbon monoxide in the cockpit; a better design, and not one reliant on the clamping assembly that was used, would be in order. Even something as simple as no-slip slips over the end of the heater sleeve would be a big improvement.
The carb air box is weak, and a carburetor air temperature gauge would have been a positive improvement (as it ought to be on any carbureted piston powered airplane).
Modern improvements with electronic ignition would certainly be an enhancement over magnetos.
More firewall clearance for changing the oil filter, or a remote filter mounting would be nice.
The cowling could stand some improvement; they tend to wear too easily with removal and installation, and the quick fix for screws at the front of the cowling was never a good idea. It's hard to find a cowl assembly, especially on older 172's, that isn't worn through at the screw points, and that isn't using oversized washers to make up for the damage.
Later versions of the 172 used rudder trim. While not necessary, it was a nice addition. Especially for long climbs under takeoff power at higher angles of attack (when heavy).
The original Cessna ARC radios were never stellar. More modern avionics make a big difference.
The Fuel and fuel vent system, using a cross-vent between tanks, and a ram pressure vent on one side, could have stood more improvement. A screen on the vent would be nice to prevent insections such as leaf-cutter bees from entering the vent and plugging it. Likewise, the drain system for the tanks was never great, involving a requirement to raise and lower the tail repeatedly and rock the wings to ensure water/contaminant removal. Later versions of the 172 address fuel drain issues by adding numerous new fuel drain points, but this effort still failed to fix the problem, and only complicated things.
The door, while lightweight, is subject to flexing and a failure to properly lock and seal. It's better than the 152 solution, as it offers a more positive over-center locking ability, but the pawls on the door are still subject to wear and could stand to be a better design.
Slippage from aluminum seat rails has been addressed by AD, but presented an unsafe conditions which could have easily been fixed using steel parts, safety catches (later available), or a different design to allow adjustment. The vertical adjustement concept in the seat was simple, but never very good.
A means for opening baggage from the inside would have been a good idea for egress purposes.
Access to fuel lines in the fuselage, particularly beneath the floor, is a pain; better access should have been afforded in the original design.
The rear tie-down mooring ring attach point was wholly inadequate, and suffered frequent damage from student efforts in short/soft field takeoff and landing technique...leading to damage of the surrounding structure by bending the tiedown point. A retractable ring, same as the wing strut arrangement on many of the 172's would have helped solve this problem. A small wheel on a spring steel skid would also have been helpful, especially on airplanes used for substantial student training.
While the 172 was largely the essence of simplicity, it still suffered from temperature issues at climb speeds on a hot day. Cowl flaps would have been nice. The alternative on very hot, desert days, is to increase climb speed to 100 knots, but when loaded to gross, it makes for an extremely slow climb.
Despite opinions to the contrary, the 172 makes a great short and soft field airplane. I spent a lot of time flying them with people and cargo in and out of tight mountain airstrips at high density altitudes, always loaded to the gills, without difficulty. It's a very economical airplane. I did tours in them for a time, as well as charters, and they had the best profit margin of any of the airplanes we flew. They were the least expensive to operate, quite capable for their use, and in turn left a bigger profit margin than other airplanes like the 182, 206, or 207. Obviously they couldn't haul as much, but then they were different tools for slightly different jobs.
The interior air vents were never very good. Not a bad basic idea or design, but something more robust, a little more simple, would have been nice. Perhaps a simple, rotatable vent, rather than one that pulled out and pushed in, which was often subject to falling out, would have been welcome.
The fuel caps were frequently troublesome on the 172, leading to various efforts to exclude water and add ventilation.
Overall, the 172 is really hard to improve upon. Some here have suggested different spars, perhaps carbon fiber spars. I've worked on a lot of 172's, and operated quite a few, and haven't seen spar issues being a problem. The aluminum structure is easy to work on, easy to repair, and easy to inspect. I'd like to see bigger inspection holes for bellcrank and pushrod access. I'd like to have seen access panels on top of the glareshield, too. A better glareshield, less subject to cracking, with a rigid handhold for making seat adjustments would have been nice; a lot of users grab the glareshield and crack or break it; others grab the bottom of the instrument panel when moving their seat. The panel grab can cause broken wires or cause one to stick one's finger on an interior screw.
The trailing edge of the flight controls has been mentioned; later 172's used a rolled trailing edge to minimize the forehead crinkles that come from wearing a baseball cap around the 172. The original trailing edge serves best for draining the control surface, however, which aids in preventing corrosion, and preventing imbalance.
Many modifications have been STC'd over the years; some are useful, most don't do much but add expense and weight. STOL kits and flap gap seals are typical of expensive modifications that do little to improve the airplane.
Personally, these days it's hard to beat the value when considering the cost of a used 172 for a personal airplane, especially if one doesn't have far to go. Spend whatever you'd spend making modifications on fuel, instead, and enjoy the airplane just as it was designed; a simple, easy-to-fly every-man's airplane that's inexpensive to operate, that can go most anywhere you want to go, still haul a reasonable load, and won't break the bank in the process.
Most of what can be done to the 172 has already been done. That said, one of it's shortcomings was always the interior. Modern iterations of the airplane have improved somewhat, but in the quest for a lightweight, easily manufactured interior, the plastics were never a good solution. They were a pain for removal and installation, and tended to scuff and break easily. Various interior panels covered in carpet were also a royal pain.
Removal of the rear bench seat for inspections, and removal of the side panels beneath the instrument panel were always a pain in the butt, especially for frequent repeat-removals for 100 hour inspections, and the like.
The nosewheel assembly tended to be subject to shimmy; the Lord damper needs frequent rebuilding, especially when tortured by inexperienced pilots. Likewise, the engine mount and nosewheel attachment lends to firewall damage from mishandling; this could stand some improvement.
The use of the muffler shroud for heating lead to longstanding issues with the potential for carbon monoxide in the cockpit; a better design, and not one reliant on the clamping assembly that was used, would be in order. Even something as simple as no-slip slips over the end of the heater sleeve would be a big improvement.
The carb air box is weak, and a carburetor air temperature gauge would have been a positive improvement (as it ought to be on any carbureted piston powered airplane).
Modern improvements with electronic ignition would certainly be an enhancement over magnetos.
More firewall clearance for changing the oil filter, or a remote filter mounting would be nice.
The cowling could stand some improvement; they tend to wear too easily with removal and installation, and the quick fix for screws at the front of the cowling was never a good idea. It's hard to find a cowl assembly, especially on older 172's, that isn't worn through at the screw points, and that isn't using oversized washers to make up for the damage.
Later versions of the 172 used rudder trim. While not necessary, it was a nice addition. Especially for long climbs under takeoff power at higher angles of attack (when heavy).
The original Cessna ARC radios were never stellar. More modern avionics make a big difference.
The Fuel and fuel vent system, using a cross-vent between tanks, and a ram pressure vent on one side, could have stood more improvement. A screen on the vent would be nice to prevent insections such as leaf-cutter bees from entering the vent and plugging it. Likewise, the drain system for the tanks was never great, involving a requirement to raise and lower the tail repeatedly and rock the wings to ensure water/contaminant removal. Later versions of the 172 address fuel drain issues by adding numerous new fuel drain points, but this effort still failed to fix the problem, and only complicated things.
The door, while lightweight, is subject to flexing and a failure to properly lock and seal. It's better than the 152 solution, as it offers a more positive over-center locking ability, but the pawls on the door are still subject to wear and could stand to be a better design.
Slippage from aluminum seat rails has been addressed by AD, but presented an unsafe conditions which could have easily been fixed using steel parts, safety catches (later available), or a different design to allow adjustment. The vertical adjustement concept in the seat was simple, but never very good.
A means for opening baggage from the inside would have been a good idea for egress purposes.
Access to fuel lines in the fuselage, particularly beneath the floor, is a pain; better access should have been afforded in the original design.
The rear tie-down mooring ring attach point was wholly inadequate, and suffered frequent damage from student efforts in short/soft field takeoff and landing technique...leading to damage of the surrounding structure by bending the tiedown point. A retractable ring, same as the wing strut arrangement on many of the 172's would have helped solve this problem. A small wheel on a spring steel skid would also have been helpful, especially on airplanes used for substantial student training.
While the 172 was largely the essence of simplicity, it still suffered from temperature issues at climb speeds on a hot day. Cowl flaps would have been nice. The alternative on very hot, desert days, is to increase climb speed to 100 knots, but when loaded to gross, it makes for an extremely slow climb.
Despite opinions to the contrary, the 172 makes a great short and soft field airplane. I spent a lot of time flying them with people and cargo in and out of tight mountain airstrips at high density altitudes, always loaded to the gills, without difficulty. It's a very economical airplane. I did tours in them for a time, as well as charters, and they had the best profit margin of any of the airplanes we flew. They were the least expensive to operate, quite capable for their use, and in turn left a bigger profit margin than other airplanes like the 182, 206, or 207. Obviously they couldn't haul as much, but then they were different tools for slightly different jobs.
The interior air vents were never very good. Not a bad basic idea or design, but something more robust, a little more simple, would have been nice. Perhaps a simple, rotatable vent, rather than one that pulled out and pushed in, which was often subject to falling out, would have been welcome.
The fuel caps were frequently troublesome on the 172, leading to various efforts to exclude water and add ventilation.
Overall, the 172 is really hard to improve upon. Some here have suggested different spars, perhaps carbon fiber spars. I've worked on a lot of 172's, and operated quite a few, and haven't seen spar issues being a problem. The aluminum structure is easy to work on, easy to repair, and easy to inspect. I'd like to see bigger inspection holes for bellcrank and pushrod access. I'd like to have seen access panels on top of the glareshield, too. A better glareshield, less subject to cracking, with a rigid handhold for making seat adjustments would have been nice; a lot of users grab the glareshield and crack or break it; others grab the bottom of the instrument panel when moving their seat. The panel grab can cause broken wires or cause one to stick one's finger on an interior screw.
The trailing edge of the flight controls has been mentioned; later 172's used a rolled trailing edge to minimize the forehead crinkles that come from wearing a baseball cap around the 172. The original trailing edge serves best for draining the control surface, however, which aids in preventing corrosion, and preventing imbalance.
Many modifications have been STC'd over the years; some are useful, most don't do much but add expense and weight. STOL kits and flap gap seals are typical of expensive modifications that do little to improve the airplane.
Personally, these days it's hard to beat the value when considering the cost of a used 172 for a personal airplane, especially if one doesn't have far to go. Spend whatever you'd spend making modifications on fuel, instead, and enjoy the airplane just as it was designed; a simple, easy-to-fly every-man's airplane that's inexpensive to operate, that can go most anywhere you want to go, still haul a reasonable load, and won't break the bank in the process.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't seen it mentioned but the Cessna made you more proficient at crosswind landings than the low wing trainers. However I didn't like the lack of view in the direction that I was turning. Did like flying the C177b an awful lot though.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not certain that the 172 makes one any more proficient at crosswind landings, but perhaps more proficient at landing a 172 in a crosswind. Being proficient at crosswind landings in a 172 doesn't make one more proficient at doing them in a J-3 or a B747. Just in a 172.
Much is made of visibility issues in high wing airplanes in a turn, just as much is made of the restrictions to vision in a low wing airplane.
The truth is that in the B747, I can't see cross-cockpit into a turn, either. All aircraft have their limitations, simply because we've got to have some structure around us. Even a hang glider has serious impediments to vision under various conditions. These aren't really blights on the airframe, but merely adaptations we make to each aircraft we fly.
Much is made of visibility issues in high wing airplanes in a turn, just as much is made of the restrictions to vision in a low wing airplane.
The truth is that in the B747, I can't see cross-cockpit into a turn, either. All aircraft have their limitations, simply because we've got to have some structure around us. Even a hang glider has serious impediments to vision under various conditions. These aren't really blights on the airframe, but merely adaptations we make to each aircraft we fly.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I didn't like the lack of view in the direction that I was turning. Did like flying the C177b an awful lot though.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing!
To say that the C72 is a mature design would be a severe understatement.
I'm pretty sure that Cessna has improved everything which could be improved without having to design and certify a new airframe, or add an unacceptable amount of empty weight to the airplane as it now exists.
The 172 does a good job of keeping those without a great deal of experience, like me, out of trouble.
It is a durable and forgiving machine, and has had a good record of getting the SOBs back to earth without failure in bad conditions.
The 172 is not a fill the tanks and fill the seats airplane, but it was also designed in an era when the typical American was smaller and lighter.
If you want an airplane that can usually carry four pax and full fuel, Cessna would be very happy to sell you a 182.
If you need yet more useful load, there is always the 206.
Both are more expensive airplanes that will use more fuel and cost more to maintain.
I'm pretty sure that Cessna has improved everything which could be improved without having to design and certify a new airframe, or add an unacceptable amount of empty weight to the airplane as it now exists.
The 172 does a good job of keeping those without a great deal of experience, like me, out of trouble.
It is a durable and forgiving machine, and has had a good record of getting the SOBs back to earth without failure in bad conditions.
The 172 is not a fill the tanks and fill the seats airplane, but it was also designed in an era when the typical American was smaller and lighter.
If you want an airplane that can usually carry four pax and full fuel, Cessna would be very happy to sell you a 182.
If you need yet more useful load, there is always the 206.
Both are more expensive airplanes that will use more fuel and cost more to maintain.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visibility in turns
My Taylorcraft had an all-Plexiglas cockpit roof. It was lightly smoked, so glare wasn't much of a problem. It was the only T-craft I didn't feel claustrophobic when flying. 
Visibility in turns
The skylights were an option in the C172M, they helped but lifting the wing worked better.
As others have said the C172 is great at being a C172, if you want more speed buy a Cirrus, more load buy a 182 etc
As others have said the C172 is great at being a C172, if you want more speed buy a Cirrus, more load buy a 182 etc
