How would you change the Cessna 172
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South East UK
Age: 35
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would you change the Cessna 172
Firstly, sorry if this is not considered a tech Q.
I am currently conducting an investigation into how to improve the Cessna 172 design (about 60 years old!), taking inspiration from 'next generation' designs such as the Diamond DA40.
I would like to have any of your insights into how you think it would be possible/desirable to change the design (eg. composites/new engine/ higher cruise speed etc). Obviously I need to take into account that all aircraft design is a compromise between performance/price/maintenance etc, but I would value other people's opinion.
Thanks
I am currently conducting an investigation into how to improve the Cessna 172 design (about 60 years old!), taking inspiration from 'next generation' designs such as the Diamond DA40.
I would like to have any of your insights into how you think it would be possible/desirable to change the design (eg. composites/new engine/ higher cruise speed etc). Obviously I need to take into account that all aircraft design is a compromise between performance/price/maintenance etc, but I would value other people's opinion.
Thanks
Before anyone can answer you need to refine your question ie change the C172...to make it better at what?
If hold 4 bums + lots of fuel + some bags then the answer is: Trade it in on a C182. But if the answer is to fly with 2 or 3 adults and only occasionally take 4, and long range isn't too important then the answer might be to do nothing.
I like the C172. I think it does a good job in its niche. Having said that, more nags under the cowling is usually appreciated until I have to buy fuel or maintain additional cylinders &/or turbos. Lots of avionic goodness is always appreciated - unless I have to pay for the installation, repair or subscription weather services.
The sorts of changes I'd make apply to damn near every aircraft I've flown:
* More storage space (racks/bins/compartments) for charts, approach plates & POH size books.
* Bigger vents and more of them so that lots of airflow can be brought in & directed where desired. Except for the BN2 Islander. Why the hell designers from a cool to cold country couldn't manage a steering linkage that didn't allow an icy blast through into the footwell is beyond me.
* Places to put pens/pencils
* Approach plate holder. Not just strong enough to clip on a page removed from Airads/Jepps but also able to hold a bound booklet *and* provide support so anything clipped there doesn't flop around. Also put in a position that doesn't obscure things and has a narrow spot of light directly onto it.
* 12v power outlets all seats, even in 24v aircraft
* Sunvisors that work no matter where the sun is.
* Decent control locks
* All cylinder engine data monitors (and balanced injectors, if appropriate)
* Certified to run on alternate fuels. I tend towards avtur because of its ubiquity.
* Standardised parts eg L&R tailplanes, elevators, ailerons & flaps and the like to be mirror images of each other so that repair & replacement is cheaper
* Centralised warning lights eg the way later PA31s have them all on the coaming instead of scattered all over the bloody place like earlier models.
Probably more if I thought about it longer but it's time for bed...
If hold 4 bums + lots of fuel + some bags then the answer is: Trade it in on a C182. But if the answer is to fly with 2 or 3 adults and only occasionally take 4, and long range isn't too important then the answer might be to do nothing.
I like the C172. I think it does a good job in its niche. Having said that, more nags under the cowling is usually appreciated until I have to buy fuel or maintain additional cylinders &/or turbos. Lots of avionic goodness is always appreciated - unless I have to pay for the installation, repair or subscription weather services.
The sorts of changes I'd make apply to damn near every aircraft I've flown:
* More storage space (racks/bins/compartments) for charts, approach plates & POH size books.
* Bigger vents and more of them so that lots of airflow can be brought in & directed where desired. Except for the BN2 Islander. Why the hell designers from a cool to cold country couldn't manage a steering linkage that didn't allow an icy blast through into the footwell is beyond me.
* Places to put pens/pencils
* Approach plate holder. Not just strong enough to clip on a page removed from Airads/Jepps but also able to hold a bound booklet *and* provide support so anything clipped there doesn't flop around. Also put in a position that doesn't obscure things and has a narrow spot of light directly onto it.
* 12v power outlets all seats, even in 24v aircraft
* Sunvisors that work no matter where the sun is.
* Decent control locks
* All cylinder engine data monitors (and balanced injectors, if appropriate)
* Certified to run on alternate fuels. I tend towards avtur because of its ubiquity.
* Standardised parts eg L&R tailplanes, elevators, ailerons & flaps and the like to be mirror images of each other so that repair & replacement is cheaper
* Centralised warning lights eg the way later PA31s have them all on the coaming instead of scattered all over the bloody place like earlier models.
Probably more if I thought about it longer but it's time for bed...
All aircraft design is, hopefully, aimed at a specific purposes.
The C172 is used for many roles, from flying training to border patrol (yes - really: the Irish Air Corps use them for this).
Before identifying potential improvements, first you need to work out what you want to use it for.
It's also worth bearing in mind that Cessna have been changing that design for most of those 60 years already.
That said, purely speaking from piloting enjoyment, yes, I'd turn it into a C182 !
G
The C172 is used for many roles, from flying training to border patrol (yes - really: the Irish Air Corps use them for this).
Before identifying potential improvements, first you need to work out what you want to use it for.
It's also worth bearing in mind that Cessna have been changing that design for most of those 60 years already.
That said, purely speaking from piloting enjoyment, yes, I'd turn it into a C182 !
G
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew the C172 with and without the retractable gear during my training and found it to be a comfortable plane to learn to fly in. The RG version hangs a little better in the air and is a very nice IFR platform for the IR training.
On the basis that this aircraft is supposed to do just this, otherwise, the 182 would be the better choice for travel, perhaps anything that makes it cheaper to operate would be good. Wherever you can, reduce drag, find a more efficient engine etc.
/LnS
On the basis that this aircraft is supposed to do just this, otherwise, the 182 would be the better choice for travel, perhaps anything that makes it cheaper to operate would be good. Wherever you can, reduce drag, find a more efficient engine etc.
/LnS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South East UK
Age: 35
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers for the opinions guys.
My thought was that compared to, for example, a DA40-180 Fixed pitch, the 172 is similarly priced, and has a slower cruise, higher fuel burn (as far as I can tell) and has a similar useful load.
So why would anyone still buy the Cessna over a DA40??
If it was made from something other than coke cans, as captjns said, (ie composites) and used a powerflow exhaust, maybe a new airfoil and addition of constant speed prop....do you think that would appeal to pilots? Or would that cause costs that are unnacceptable (and do you think this is too close to the current 182??)
Thanks again
My thought was that compared to, for example, a DA40-180 Fixed pitch, the 172 is similarly priced, and has a slower cruise, higher fuel burn (as far as I can tell) and has a similar useful load.
So why would anyone still buy the Cessna over a DA40??
If it was made from something other than coke cans, as captjns said, (ie composites) and used a powerflow exhaust, maybe a new airfoil and addition of constant speed prop....do you think that would appeal to pilots? Or would that cause costs that are unnacceptable (and do you think this is too close to the current 182??)
Thanks again
Guest
Posts: n/a
It already is everything it can possibly be. Trying to turn an airframe into wonder woman is a big mistake. Eventually one is spending more money than the cost of acquisition of the "step up to" machine. I thought RG on the Skylane was a waste of money and other things. I simply purchased a T206, "gear down and Fixed". If speed and complexity is your thing, the 210 fills the bill. The 152 is a waste of aluminum, as a trainer, it is too cramped, too noisy, and too old. the Skyhawk is a swell trainer,with FI especially. As a Cross Country bird, it sucks. Not enough fuel, speed or Useful Load. Enter the Skylane,etc. Four Fannies, big Fuel, and cargo means 182, 206,or 208. With the Caravan, every box is checked, and I passed on a nice used Grandy for just under a million bucks twenty years ago.
If one's goal is to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a big fortune. It's all money, marbles and chalk.
If one's goal is to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a big fortune. It's all money, marbles and chalk.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: n/a
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree - turn it into a C182.
......ohhh and either make it sit a little higher or have a "blunt" trailing edge on the flaps - flap impression on forehead not so cool when one walks into it.....
......ohhh and either make it sit a little higher or have a "blunt" trailing edge on the flaps - flap impression on forehead not so cool when one walks into it.....
Golball
If this is a paper excercise or a thesis project then the sky is the limit at what could be done.
However, the reality in this modern world of certification standards, etc. mean that you are looking a lots of dosh to see things through.
The easiest way to improve performance is to reduce weight, or add power, no way to do this cheaply in a certified design.
In the light-sport/experimental field however there are many good things happening. If you take a look at the classic piper cub-type aircraft for instance, there are a few manufacturers here in the US who are offering their version of a modern "cub", with modern engines, and/or carbon-fibre parts in the structure.
There is an article in the recent Flight magazine about one of these,
http://www.flyingmag dot com/aircraft/lsa/sport/carbon-cub-ss
or you could check out one of the manufacturers website at the following;
http://www dot cubcrafters dot com
I still regard my initial 12 hours of piloting in a 1946 J-3 as being the most fun I ever had while flying.
Cheers,
f
If this is a paper excercise or a thesis project then the sky is the limit at what could be done.
However, the reality in this modern world of certification standards, etc. mean that you are looking a lots of dosh to see things through.
The easiest way to improve performance is to reduce weight, or add power, no way to do this cheaply in a certified design.
In the light-sport/experimental field however there are many good things happening. If you take a look at the classic piper cub-type aircraft for instance, there are a few manufacturers here in the US who are offering their version of a modern "cub", with modern engines, and/or carbon-fibre parts in the structure.
There is an article in the recent Flight magazine about one of these,
http://www.flyingmag dot com/aircraft/lsa/sport/carbon-cub-ss
or you could check out one of the manufacturers website at the following;
http://www dot cubcrafters dot com
I still regard my initial 12 hours of piloting in a 1946 J-3 as being the most fun I ever had while flying.
Cheers,
f
Last edited by fleigle; 16th Nov 2010 at 21:26. Reason: added link to flight article
Slight thread creep apologies but it is pertinent to a 172.
When i did my training in Florida many years ago the examiner on a checkride told me that you could set a specific power (RPM with the fixed pitch prop) and with each 10 deg of flap the IAS would drop 10 kts, and if you timed it right you could fly around the circuit from join all the way to the landing without touching the throttle. Something like that anyway. Anyone know what i'm talking about?
When i did my training in Florida many years ago the examiner on a checkride told me that you could set a specific power (RPM with the fixed pitch prop) and with each 10 deg of flap the IAS would drop 10 kts, and if you timed it right you could fly around the circuit from join all the way to the landing without touching the throttle. Something like that anyway. Anyone know what i'm talking about?
I've done about 500 hrs (instructing) in new G1000 172 SP's (180Hp) in the last 16 months. Great training aeroplane.
Get a better stall warning system, it sounds like someone is strangling a cat.
The airvent system is good, but when taxiing with the wind at certain angles you get that flapping sound through the vents......i sooo hate that.
The seats are the most comfy in the business......are you listening PIPER. You seats suck.
G1000, what can I say, simply stunning.
Landing lights poor, having only 1 stuck out on the left wing, and underpowered at that is simply not good enough. Recently I saw a new 182 with landing lights on both sides...plus wingtip aftermarket landing lights. Lit up the runway like the Sydney Cricket Ground during a 20/20 night game.
Pitch control, way too light, when i converted to the cessna after doing 2500 hrs in the Warrior, every time i tried a medium level turn I i climbed 500ft.
Nav, position, beacon lights all LED or HID. Fantastic, never have to cancel a night nave because of blown globes. And it has drink holders, doesnt that make a difference.
The interior looks nice and professional, especially the instrument panel. But the interior is still flimsy and wont look so good after 4000 hrs TTIS. Sidewall trim, especially on the doors needs to be more durable.
Wish they would replace the toggle switches for landing lights n stropes etc. Pushbutton modern switches would be mush better.
Engine, good reliable unit and easy to start, but needs to be more fuel efficient. Bring on FADEC.
Electical system, S bus, M bus, volts and amps to a decimal place. WTF...Mr Cessna, I came from an era where the alternator was working or it wasnt, and you flight manual doesnt explain anything. Can someone in Cessna please write a flight manual that explains what this fancy stuff says....Im just a dumb instructor.
Overall I love the Cessna, but still would go for an Archer 111 with a G1000, and a better (fuel injected ) engine over the Cessna.
I forgot to add, the windscreen is great except in the corners wher the light distorts. At night there is a hirrible spot after liftoff, the runway light reflects high up in the windscreen as you pass through about 50 feet, the first time I had that happen, for split seconnd i thought I'd gone inverted. very uncomfortable feeling.
Only complaint about the G1000 is at night, there is not enough contrast between the symbols drawn on the screen and the back lighting.So when you turn the backlight up enough to see the data, there is so much light there is almost nil forward vis. Wish Garmin could fix that.
Get a better stall warning system, it sounds like someone is strangling a cat.
The airvent system is good, but when taxiing with the wind at certain angles you get that flapping sound through the vents......i sooo hate that.
The seats are the most comfy in the business......are you listening PIPER. You seats suck.
G1000, what can I say, simply stunning.
Landing lights poor, having only 1 stuck out on the left wing, and underpowered at that is simply not good enough. Recently I saw a new 182 with landing lights on both sides...plus wingtip aftermarket landing lights. Lit up the runway like the Sydney Cricket Ground during a 20/20 night game.
Pitch control, way too light, when i converted to the cessna after doing 2500 hrs in the Warrior, every time i tried a medium level turn I i climbed 500ft.
Nav, position, beacon lights all LED or HID. Fantastic, never have to cancel a night nave because of blown globes. And it has drink holders, doesnt that make a difference.
The interior looks nice and professional, especially the instrument panel. But the interior is still flimsy and wont look so good after 4000 hrs TTIS. Sidewall trim, especially on the doors needs to be more durable.
Wish they would replace the toggle switches for landing lights n stropes etc. Pushbutton modern switches would be mush better.
Engine, good reliable unit and easy to start, but needs to be more fuel efficient. Bring on FADEC.
Electical system, S bus, M bus, volts and amps to a decimal place. WTF...Mr Cessna, I came from an era where the alternator was working or it wasnt, and you flight manual doesnt explain anything. Can someone in Cessna please write a flight manual that explains what this fancy stuff says....Im just a dumb instructor.
Overall I love the Cessna, but still would go for an Archer 111 with a G1000, and a better (fuel injected ) engine over the Cessna.
I forgot to add, the windscreen is great except in the corners wher the light distorts. At night there is a hirrible spot after liftoff, the runway light reflects high up in the windscreen as you pass through about 50 feet, the first time I had that happen, for split seconnd i thought I'd gone inverted. very uncomfortable feeling.
Only complaint about the G1000 is at night, there is not enough contrast between the symbols drawn on the screen and the back lighting.So when you turn the backlight up enough to see the data, there is so much light there is almost nil forward vis. Wish Garmin could fix that.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not having flown a 172 for a few decades -
Make the wing from composites - Lighter, & less parasitic drag
Cut back the inboard LE (a la some old cabin Wacos) for visibility
Restore the straight tail (from the 50s/early 60s) - less friction!
Constant speed prop - and integrate w/ throttle (single control knob)
Optional taildragger (like the original 170B)
Making it into a 182 defeats the purpose - consider cost of operation!
Make the wing from composites - Lighter, & less parasitic drag
Cut back the inboard LE (a la some old cabin Wacos) for visibility
Restore the straight tail (from the 50s/early 60s) - less friction!
Constant speed prop - and integrate w/ throttle (single control knob)
Optional taildragger (like the original 170B)
Making it into a 182 defeats the purpose - consider cost of operation!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cost of operation is a crucial point for an FBO. But an FBO isn't going to train with the Skylane, except for the HP rating, so cost is a balance between mission and money. A private owner will pay more for gas in a Skylane, but he gets to take three friends and fuel to the fishin' hole. There is a model for everyone, and I stand by my belief that a more expensive (read, capable) Skyhawk, is a poor competitor for a Skylane, a basic Skylane. Lipstick on a Pig, as it were. I would rather have a STOL kit on a skylane than retract. I recently flew the new Skyhawk, with FI and CS Prop. It was delightful, just as sweet as I remember. But I still can only take two friends and half tanks to my destination. All the other "upgrades" I see here shouldn't be considered so. Since when is a nice interior, fit/finish, and capable lighting with decent glass an option? On a 250k dollar a/c?
bear
bear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South East UK
Age: 35
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks very much for all your opinions guys and gals.
Anyway, all the opinions are much valued. Has given me a lot to think about.
fleigle, thanks for your advice and useful link, I want one of those!!! For the report I will of course be considering the cost of the project, however I feel it is not the main focus (the main focus being on how to improve the design if money was not in short supply perhaps), therefore it gives me more freedom to look at different materials etc.
Something tells me you've had a bad experience of this in the past!! 
This is the sort of thing I was thinking about. I'm trying to imagine a 172 that could compete with the DA40 in terms of cruise speed, economy etc (not placing all my efforts on its cost, although it will be a factor)
I get the impression that everyone (including me, but i'm trying to be impartial) is 'concerned' about the useful load in relation to the 182, and that will be a big consederation. But I am trying to remain within the 180hp range as a maximum, and potentially looking at slightly lower powered diesel powerplants, too.
So, in summary so far, good changes would be the following:
Higher payload?
More efficient -C/S prop and maybe diesel?
Cheaper to buy?
Thanks
Anyway, all the opinions are much valued. Has given me a lot to think about.
fleigle, thanks for your advice and useful link, I want one of those!!! For the report I will of course be considering the cost of the project, however I feel it is not the main focus (the main focus being on how to improve the design if money was not in short supply perhaps), therefore it gives me more freedom to look at different materials etc.
......ohhh and either make it sit a little higher or have a "blunt" trailing edge on the flaps - flap impression on forehead not so cool when one walks into it.....
Make the wing from composites - Lighter, & less parasitic drag
I get the impression that everyone (including me, but i'm trying to be impartial) is 'concerned' about the useful load in relation to the 182, and that will be a big consederation. But I am trying to remain within the 180hp range as a maximum, and potentially looking at slightly lower powered diesel powerplants, too.
So, in summary so far, good changes would be the following:
Higher payload?
More efficient -C/S prop and maybe diesel?
Cheaper to buy?
Thanks
