To any A&Ps out there.......

[CAP1]

Well seeing as how certified aircraft technology hasn't change much since the 1940's, there is really little difference between a 1963 Cessna and a 2011 Cessna.  Just little things like smaller lighter starters, alternators instead of generators, more comfortable seats, and updated avionics are the only real difference.

I read a paper once where somebody took a 2007 Cessna 172 and looked up all the patents for all the technology on it.  As I recall the only patent newer then the 1950's was for the seat rails, which was 1990 sumthin'.  Think about it, air-cooled reciprocating engines go back to the 1900's.  Magnetos and lead acid batteries both go back to the 1860's.   Newer planes might have some newer avionics tech in them ala Garmin G1000, but the basic airframe and powerplant technology is at least 80 years old.

Because all the old technology has proven to be so rock solid reliable, the FAA drags their feet for years, and years on certifying any new technology, all the exciting stuff is happening in the experimental field.

By the way, I'm only a "P" so far, working on my "A" now.

i've flown a 62 172, a 64 172, several mid 70's 172's, a couple mid 80's 172's, and a 2k's 172sp. there are significant differences between the 60s ones, and the newer ones.

also, you realize an 07 172 is fuel injected, right?

[saggs]

i've flown a 62 172, a 64 172, several mid 70's 172's, a couple mid 80's 172's, and a 2k's 172sp. there are significant differences between the 60s ones, and the newer ones.

also, you realize an 07 172 is fuel injected, right?

Such as?

I mean I know the interiors are more comfortable, and the avionics are now electronic instead of vacuum.  They've installed bigger engines for better performance, and like I mentioned lighter starters, and alternators instead of heavy generators.

But what has changed in the basic airframe or powerplant technology since the 60's?   Besides some creature comforts, and a bit more power, what's the difference?

I can think of nothing.

also, you realize an 07 172 is fuel injected, right?

 

Yup, fuel injection on aircraft engines whether TCM or Lycoming is 1940's technology (FW-190 or ME-109 anyone) and it's been pretty common in GA since the late 60's.  It is really just a refinement of pressure carburetor technology, it is nothing at all like the modern EFI on cars, and not nearly as efficient.  

EDIT:  I did think of one powerplant tech advancement.  FADEC.    but you won't find that on very many GA planes.

[Tupac]

Another quick question, how much would a new glideslope cost with installation?

[flight17]

Coming from someone who is ignorant of all this..


why in the world would you want to buy something from 1963 and go several thousand feet in the air in it? O.o

well lets see...

1964 172 http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-172-SKYHAWK/1964-CESSNA-172-SKYHAWK/1189191.htm? ~28,000

2011 172SP http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-172S-SKYHAWK-SP/2011-CESSNA-172S-SKYHAWK-SP/1171758.htm? ~310,000

see the difference?

Im sure anyone would want a newer plane, but not everyone has the money for it. Hell, i would just like to have a plane, dont care what its age is.

[saggs]

Another quick question, how much would a new glideslope cost with installation?

Can't you get a quote from a local FBO?  Would be a lot more accurate then a WAG from some loser like me on the interwebs.

[Tupac]

Can't you get a quote from a local FBO?  Would be a lot more accurate then a WAG from some loser like me on the interwebs.

I'm gonna call the local aero service tomorrow. I just want to know what tonexpect.

[saggs]

Back on topic... ... as for the O-300 I've never heard of any inherent problems with it, and 6 cylinders would be smoother running then 4.

It's kind of like some people just like Continental and some like Lycoming, they both proven to be dead-nuts reliable though.  Only reason I can see not to get the 300 it is if you want more power.  

PS:  looks like a sweet plane, hope you get it.

[CAP1]

in addition to what saggs said..........stop jumping too far ahead. get the plane first. make the deal.....fly and enjoy it a bit....then worry about the upgrades. 

[Tupac]

I'm told that to install a glideslope I also need to replace the VOR head and NAVCOM?

[Bodhi]

Get a mechanic you trust to do a very thorough prebuy inspection.  Specifically, look for corrosion in the wings and in the tail. 

[Masherbrum]

2 words

Air-head

 

[saggs]

Get a mechanic you trust to do a very thorough prebuy inspection.  Specifically, look for corrosion in the wings and in the tail. 

Might now be a bad idea to get the whole thing Corrosion X'ed while he's got all the inspection panels off too.

[Warspawn]

Coming from someone who is ignorant of all this..


why in the world would you want to buy something from 1963 and go several thousand feet in the air in it? O.o

Lol!

It's a trade-off with affordability.  I ended up buying a 1977 Aztec (they call them Aztrucks up in Alaska because of their usefull load, and some even have a Nomad float conversion) and am absolutely in love with it.  Flies forever, safely, six passengers + luggage, and is truly the most fun you can have with your clothes on!  

[CAP1]

i've got a fri3end that flies a bonanza....he's partners with his business partner in that one. he owns a super decathalon on his own.....loves em both. he tends to fly the bonanza almost like it's a t-34 sometimes.......

[EskimoJoe]

Lol!

It's a trade-off with affordability.  I ended up buying a 1977 Aztec (they call them Aztrucks up in Alaska because of their usefull load, and some even have a Nomad float conversion) and am absolutely in love with it.  Flies forever, safely, six passengers + luggage, and is truly the most fun you can have with your clothes on!  

(Image removed from quote.)

I wouldn't every fly that thing!!
... With my clothes on