Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cessna 172 Old V New Avionics  
User currently offlineRsg85 From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 257 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11617 times:

Im looking for opinions from those who have flown both earlier models and the later models with glass cockpit.
Of course the aircraft performance and interiors more comfortable but im wanting to know what you prefere in terms of avionics.
I have some hours on the 172N but never in an R/S, looking at photos though i think i would prefere the avionics in the earlier models, although i am only going on pictures, the airspeed and altitude seems very small on the screen, is this just photos deceiving me? are the screens very visible in sunlight?
On a tech question, if i were to hire one of the R/S models i would need to be certified with the new cockpit?

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2556 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11558 times:

You wouldn't need to be certified for the new avionics, but it would be really, really stupid to go fly without sitting in the bird for a while and figuring things out. I do remember the old 172s with the crappy factory radios-Mom and Dad have one. I remember doing basic radio navigation taking fixes off of two ground based radios to plot our location. The screens are pretty well visible unless there's direct glare on them-thus the need for the glare shield on the instrument panel. All in all, they're not that bad-you just have to get used to them.


"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineFlybaurLAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11545 times:

It just depends how much you're willing to spend an hour if you're renting them. If you want one with the G1000, typically you'll have to pay an extra $30-40 an hour more per hour. I personally do not feel the need to use the G1000 in a 4 seat a/c, but that's just me. I haven't flown one, but my friend has, and he likes it, but then again that's what he learned on......a shame in my opinion, because most small a/c don't have glass panels, so he was spoiled.


Boilerup! Go Purdue!
User currently offlineUAL727NE From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11495 times:

Well I've flown a 182 G1000 of my buddies and did't mind it to much. I like modern cockpits alot but there's something about it I didn't like I guess. I used to fly a 172 with full garmin stack with the 430, I liked that alot better. I don't know why. For a 172 If I where to buy one...Id go with one with a nice panel with a full garmin stack. I'll save flying with glass cockpit when I fly corp. or airlines. That's my opinion.


Gotta love 3 holers!!! MD11,DC10,L-1011,B727 for life!!!!
User currently offlineGulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 11462 times:

G1000 is nice, flown a 182T. Lots of gadgets - it's nice to have XM weather and radio as well.

Overall, I think that the G1000 creates exceptional situational awareness but it really comes into it's own when you're flying IFR.

I must admit, though, I love the traditional steam guages on the 172 the ones I have flown have been 1999 or later so R and S models.

172SP cockpit:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Birgir Steinar Birgisson



172SP G1000 cockpit:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Watts



I believe that the new Citation Mustang cockpit has the same system, apart from the big screen in the middle.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian g nichols




I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1630 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11440 times:

I did my private pilot training in a standard six pack Cessna 172R model, and a six pack Diamond DA-20. I enjoyed flying all those planes, and there was nothing wrong with those airplanes and said avionics. Now, I'm working on my instrument rating, in Cessna 172S models, with the Nav III avionics package (aka G1000). Its great for maintaining situational awareness, like has already been said. The G1000 is very, very easy to use. Especially if you familiarize yourself with it on flight sim. If only it allows you to figure out where stuff is on the panel, so your not searching in the air for something. However, I feel that I would not be able to jump straight into a six pack, and fly in the instrument environment. Once I get my instrument done, I can't wait to get back to a six pack, and do some real flying, at an affordable cost.

Rental wise, if you go to rent a Cessna 172, I'd be willing to bet a checkout in a standard avionics equipped aircraft is going to run you about. Most places want a more complex checkout when your going to fly something with the G1000 or similar avionics package.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineGulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11431 times:



Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 5):
I can't wait to get back to a six pack, and do some real flying, at an affordable cost.

I agree with your post.

In fact the flying club/school I use here in the US used to have a C172 with the G1000 but they had to get rid of it as everyone wanted to use the 4 or 5 C172 R/S models with the standard bits and bobs.



I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Old Vs. New posted Tue Feb 12 2008 22:26:46 by Alaska737
Old Vs. New Livery Comparison posted Fri Mar 30 2007 02:15:55 by PHLBOS
AirTran Color Scheme: Old Or New? posted Sat Aug 12 2006 16:38:21 by KSUpilot
Spotting Decks, Old Or New posted Thu Sep 22 2005 01:33:49 by Crox1
New Funny Aviation Slogans To Replace Old Ones posted Fri Apr 22 2005 04:52:12 by Garri767
New Vs. Old DHL Colo(u)rs posted Tue Apr 12 2005 13:55:34 by Ps76
Recycle Old Boeing #s For New Aircraft? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 23:42:43 by 7E72004
Piper 28 Or Cessna 152/172 To Learn How To Fly? posted Tue Aug 3 2004 05:07:15 by Flymia
Old School V. New School posted Sat May 15 2004 01:10:39 by CougarAviator
PH-KRI Cessna Reims 172 Pictures/scans Please posted Fri Feb 21 2003 11:38:13 by JetMark