AOPA Pilot Magazine - June 2013 - 74

PROS AND CONS
1986 172P
Pros

1997 172R and 1998 172S
Pros

Cons

Cons

weren’t going to be able to do.” In some
cases, Cessna had to instead certify to older
amendments to Part 23 that were issued
decades ago. Those amendments aren’t
much different than the old Civil Aviation
Regulation 3 used prior to 1965, Frank said.
For example, certain parts like the wing
spar must either be fail-safe, or there must
be a secondary load path to carry the load
in case the part fails. If neither condition
exists, there must be a time limit at which
the part must be retired.
That’s why Cessna’s Special Inspection
Documents now put a life limit on the
Cessna 172 airframe (and a few other single-engine models, as well) of 30,000
hours. Cessna created a Supplemental

Inspection Document aimed at tracking
airframe fatigue, but it is valid only for aircraft that have fewer than 30,000 hours on
the airframe. “Beyond this, continued airworthiness of the airplane can no longer
be assured,” the Supplemental Inspection
Document says. “Retirement of this airframe is recommended when 30,000 flight
hours have been accumulated.” The document is listed on a portion of the Cessna
Aircraft Web site that requires registration and a password. The limit applies to
100-series Cessna airplanes (1953-1968),
150-series (1969 through 1976), the 152
(1978-1985), the 172 (1969-1986), the 182
(1977-1986), the 180/185 (1981-1985), and
177 (1976-1981) models. The 1986 172 and

• Super-reliable 160-hp Lycoming
O-320-D2 engine
• Lower acquisition cost
• Carries decades of airworthiness
directives
• Maintenance likely to be higher

• Fuel injected IO-360-L2A engine derated
(172R) or 180 hp (172S)
• Factory corrosion-proofing
• Higher acquisition cost
• Early difficulties with the engine,
now resolved

earlier models are subject to it, as are the
1997 and newer models.
That means the 30,000-hour limit
applies to Frank’s favorite model, the 1974
Cessna 172. An average price for the 1974
model in this depressed, buyers’ market
is less than $40,000, although a newly
restored 1974 172 is currently priced at
$55,000.
BEST WAY TO GO. Frank is an expert on all
things Cessna, so it is no surprise that he
feels the 172 is the best first airplane a pilot
can buy. Those in other owners groups for
other brands of aircraft might disagree.
Here’s his reasoning.
“The 172 is the best first airplane for
anyone. They can buy one and fly it for a
year or two years, and probably sell it for
what they paid for it,” Frank said. “They’ll
know what they really want.
“Aircraft ownership is a very expensive education, but the tuition is going to be
the cheapest with a 172. Everyone knows
how to work on them. The parts are readily available. It’s cheap to operate, easy to
insure. It’s a great aircraft unless someone
weighs 350 pounds. Then there’s a problem,” Frank said.
AOPA
EMAIL alton.marsh@aopa.org

“We’ve owned a 1980 C172N 160 horsepower (O-320-H2AD) since new. It’s easily
maintained and parts are readily available. It’s straightforward and predictable,
operates well on hard or soft fields, and
offers good range with modest loads and
an adequate baggage compartment. It’s
provided 100-percent dispatch reliability
over 33 years and now has a direct operating cost of $60 per hour including engine
reserve. Excellent!”
—Ken Peppard (pictured) and Jim Davis

74 | AOPA PILOT June 2013
AOPA Pilot Magazine - June 2013

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