AOPA Pilot Magazine - June 2013 - 73

“I can load up my girlfriend with our two
full-size bicycles and go explore Alaska.”
—Jon Ahlgren

“The major improvements that were
done to the 1996 airplane are that they
were corrosion-proofed at the factory; they
redesigned the fuel system, particularly the
fuel tanks; they remodeled the seat-latching system, modeled after the Caravan
seat-latching system; and they changed
the electrical system,” Frank said. “Models
1986 and earlier had used the airframe as
a ground. Now, all electrical equipment
runs to its own ground points. They put in
a J box that contains the major electrical
components.” That solved some electrical
problems associated with the 1986 and earlier models.
“There isn’t anything that the brandnew 172 does, performance-wise, that the
earlier 172s don’t also do,” Frank added.
“The one big exception is the Garmin
G1000. [See “To Garmin or Not to Garmin.”]
There’s no way to make a 172 go fast or
carry a lot. [The 1997 and later models] will
go a little faster, burning a little more gas.
Economy is a little better on the new airplanes because of the fuel injection.” He
estimates the 180-horsepower 1998 172S is
only a few knots faster than the same engine
derated to 160 horsepower on the 1997 172R.
The Garmin G1000 glass cockpit was
not added until 2005; both the older cockpit with round-dial instruments and the
newer G1000 suite with information presented on two display screens were offered
that year.

A WORD FROM OUR DEALER. While Van
Bortel can charge more for the 1997 and
newer models, he predicts you will eventually pay that higher price by buying an
older 172 and maintaining it.
“They have a lower return on investment and many have some kind of damage
history just due to age. The 1986s were
not equipped with factory airframe corrosion-proofing except the seaplane version;
which is extremely rare,” he said.
“Our financing source is not excited
about financing these older aircraft—they
prefer aircraft less than 20 years old—and
require more down payment, a higher
interest rate, and a much shorter term.
These aircraft are 27 years old. As a general rule, I don’t think they are as safe; it is

not economically feasible to comply with
all of the factory mandatory service bulletins on these aircraft, and most are not in
compliance with them,” Van Bortel said.
Frank noted that when the production
line began anew, most of the older FAA airworthiness directives were corrected, with
fixes built into the 1997 and later aircraft.
IT’S NOT REALLY PART 23. Cessna representatives made much of the claim that the
new-production 172s were built to the new,
stricter FAA Part 23 regulations. However,
that is impossible in some cases.
“That was true, except Cessna and
the FAA struck a deal,” Frank said. “The
FAA wanted it certified to Part 23, but in
1996, Part 23 had things in it that you just

TO GARMIN OR NOT TO GARMIN?
That is the question. If you want to Garmin—that is, buy a Cessna 172
with a G1000 primary and multifunction flight display—you’ll need to
reach up to the more expensive 2005 model year. That year, Cessna
offered both cockpits with old-style round-dial instruments and
gauges, and the Garmin glass cockpit. There are two engines to choose
from, the 172R with a derated 160-horsepower Lycoming IO-360, and
the full-power 180-horsepower 172S SP model. The 172 with the more
powerful engine will chew about $150,000 out of your bank account,
although you may be able to find the lower-power model with a
G1000 for $130,000. The G1000 avionics suite amounts to $25,000 to
$40,000 of the cost, depending on which expert you ask. “The nonG1000 airplanes can be a pretty good value because everyone wants
the glass cockpit,” the Cessna Pilots Association’s John Frank said.
www.aopa.org/pilot AOPA PILOT | 73

http://www.aopa.org/pilot

AOPA Pilot Magazine - June 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - June 2013