I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by Beefitarian »

Edit: I changed the title because I think flyinthebug answered the question pretty well. I invite more discussion on the topic of how they could have improved them more.

In another thread In response to someone asking about inflation, the good colonel posted this excellent post on how far things have advanced yet come down in price since the eighties.

What stood out to me was not the value increase but the technology improvements.

I wondered again. If cars have improved so much? And they have. Seriously, compare a 1974-1984 of the same model car. They are vastly different, though they have come up in price there is way better value.

Why not the C-172? It has fuel injection also but most people don't feel it has improved significantly. I like the new ones but I don't think they are nearly improved enough. Certainly not to the point of being comparable in advancement to highway vehicles.
Colonel Sanders wrote:
I don't know of anything else that is the same price as in 1980.
Today you spend far less money to get far more desktop
computer (thousands of times more computer) than you
did in 1980.

This is true of both hardware and software.

Also - in 1980, what would home fast internet access cost?
If you had phoned up Bell in 1980 and asked for fractional T3
to your house, they would have laughed and laughed.

And in 1980, what would an iPhone have cost? The CIA
didn't have anything like it - including the hardware, software
and cell phone tower/network infrastructure - regardless
of the billions you might be prepared to spend.

Let's say in 1980 that you wanted an electronically-controlled
fuel-injection system on your car or motorcycle. Not available
at any price. Motorcycles sucked in 1980 compared to today.

Cars sucked in 1980. Compare a 1980 Corvette with a
ZR-1. Compare a Mustang II (Pinto) with a 2012 Shelby
GT500. Foreign stuff was equally junky in 1980.

Let's say in 1980 that you wanted GPS, ANR headsets and a
huge glass panel on your 172/182 or homebuilt. Yeah, you
couldn't get that, either.

Let's say you wanted to buy an economical, reliable piston
helicopter that would carry 4 people. In 1980, everyone
would laugh at you. Today you buy an R44.

I couldn't get a 3-blade composite prop at any price in 1980.
It's revolutionized the aerobatics we can fly without breaking
the crankshaft. Compare the all-composite MX2 today with
the top-of-the line aerobatic aircraft in 1980 - no comparison!

There are many, many things that are thousands of times
cheaper/better than they were in 1980. Don't give me the
crap about the "Good Old Days" - I lived through them, too.

I chuckled when someone mentioned Air Canada being in
aviation for 75 years - my grandfather soloed 95 years ago,
and aeroplanes were total pieces of sh1t back then.
I'd like to add HO scale trains while going up in price quite a bit have become computer controlled remotely so you can run several on the same track.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Beefitarian on Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: Why is it Cessna singles have not improved enough?

Post by lownslow »

Define 'better.' If the 172 could have been replaced by an airplane that made Cessna more money, it would have by now.

LnS.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

I'm comparing them to land vehicles.

Are you suggesting you can not tell the difference in quality between a 1980 Ford pick up and a 2012? They are not even close, the new one is way better.

While the C-172s I have learned to fly on and rented are mostly 1979 models and flown by students. In fact last year I took recurrency training and flew in some of the same planes I initially learned to fly on in the 1990s. In the mean time I have worn out many used cars.

Of course I realize there is significantly more required maintenance done on aircraft but it wouldn't help in the case of cars. If you find a restored 1980 mustang. Not updated but restored it's nothing like a new one.

I flew a newer (can't remenber a 2000 model I think) C-172 in California and other than the carb heat control was missing it was the same plane. Granted some of that is intentional but for the jump in cost I don't think they have the significant increases in value/quality like a car does.

I'm not slagging on old cars. I love nice restored 1955 - 1972 Chevys. I think in many ways they are like the Cessna singles from the 1970s. Excellent machines. I can't compare them to the brand new ones though. Sure in a straight line some of them might be close in performance if you provide several times more fuel.

If you know what points are pertaining to the ignition system, terrible. The brakes, steering and suspension, not so great.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Genetk44
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:31 pm

Re: Why is it Cessna singles have not improved enough?

Post by Genetk44 »

Beef...are you a train guy??
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyinthebug
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
Location: CYPA

Re: Why is it Cessna singles have not improved enough?

Post by flyinthebug »

Beefitarian wrote:
Why not the C-172? It has fuel injection also but most people don't feel it has improved significantly. I like the new ones but I don't think they are nearly improved enough. Certainly not to the point of being comparable in advancement to highway vehicles.
Although I agree with you in your assessment of the good Colonel`s post and its validity, I would suggest that Cessna has only had to make minor improvements to remain the pinnacle of single engine aviation. Why mess with a good thing? I would also suggest that Cessna has advanced along with the car companies in their production of the C208 which has proved to be a pretty reliable and capable bird over the years. Head and shoulders above the C206/207 etc etc.

Besides their obvious leap forward with the C208 (that was just a concept in the time frame the Colonel is referring to) they really were decades ahead of the competition in the 70s and I feel the improvements they have made thus far are equal to that of the car companies and other manufacturing industries. The car companies on the other hand needed to improve the quality of their product (i.e Hyundai Pony 1985 vs Hyundai 2012) what a huge and dramatic improvement in the quality...but they needed to...while Cessna simply didnt need to take the giant steps to improve an already impressive product that was ahead of it`s time.

IMHO of course 8)

Fly safe all.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by flyinthebug on Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
sarg
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:44 pm

Re: Why is it Cessna singles have not improved enough?

Post by sarg »

lownslow wrote:Define 'better.' If the 172 could have been replaced by an airplane that made Cessna more money, it would have by now.

LnS.
I'd have to agree define better. The ZR-1 is better than an 80's Corvette, I perfer the 65 Stringray, but they're not the same vehicle totally redesigned to take advantage of the changes in technology and material, without having to go through a costly and lengthy recertification process.

Take a look a real world aviation comparision, the DC-10 or L1011 to the new B787 both doing roughly the same job, passenger load, but look at the difference in performance. Now as for value best info I could find was about $40m cost for a DC-10 in 1970 adjusted for inflation 2012 cost $237m in the ballpark of a B787.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

Maybe I'm just ignorant of the improvements flyinthebug, but in the case of cars they are noticable. Sounds like the 208 vs 206/207 is an example of how I wish they treated the 172 series. Kind of like glass panels have come a long way. I just think other parts should have evolved that much too. I just want to learn and discuss opinions. I had made a thread discussing opinions of the favorite (best) 172. The "M" came out the favorite by a pretty good margin.

Granted new technology is not always best fore everything. Look at the cub, everyone loves the cubs from the 1940s but that is not really the same, again it's like a nice vintage car. Do some minor upgrades and they are something absolutely marvelous. A 1972 Chevy pick up would be great fun, not so practical for the trip to Oshkosh pulling my wife's trailer with the dog and kids.

I like the new C-172s, they are a little better. No carb ice due to injection but they seem to be just as costly or more to operate. The windows or doors still get drafty little detail stuff like that.

Seems if you own a real nice 1979 C-172 you should look at a brand new one and think,"I sure wish I could get one of those. They're so much better." instead I look at the new ones and think,"Wow, those are way over priced."
Genetk44 wrote:Beef...are you a train guy??
Wait, doesn't everyone love toy trains? I have a dcc CP AC6000 by broadway, a throttle and some rolling stock. I take it to the Alberta freemo meet in big valley once a year. I started the plywood frame for a module. This is the same locomotive as mine at one of those great club layouts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

Hold on. The 208 is the caravan.

Yes I'm so slow I had to google to be sure. Don't they still make the 206?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Re: Why is it Cessna singles have not improved enough?

Post by Beefitarian »

Yes they do make 206s. I think maybe the comparison is good conversation. However it is kind of more like comparing the Ford GT to the Mustang. One has been improved the other is a new thing.

I think you answered the question in the title quite well bug. They didn't have to/the 172 was ahead if it's time some in quality.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Old Dog Flying
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:18 pm

Re: Why is it Cessna singles have not improved enough?

Post by Old Dog Flying »

In 1968 I purchased a new C172 straight from the factory with all the latest King radios and other goodies..total price $17,600 Cdn. The other day I looked at a 2012 C172 with the latest Garmin avionics, G1000 pack...$317,000 Cdn.

I realize that times are a changing but 300K increase for the same old airplane?
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyinthebug
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
Location: CYPA

Re: I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by flyinthebug »

Good points beef. If we are speaking just about the 172 specifically then I agree that there hasnt been much improvement or advancement. Certainly not enough to justify the HUGE jump in cost that old dog flying just pointed out.

My initial answer though stands. The 172 was a huge step forward when it was first produced and ahead of its time... and now only time will allow for newer technology to catch up and make improvements that have some real teeth.

The 208 vs 206 is kind of apples and oranges I agree. When I replied though, I was looking at Cessna as a company overall and their progress vs just specific changes to the 172 model (i.e. In my Hyundai comparison above, the 85 Pony vs Hyundai 2012, obviously they dont make the pony anymore, but as an overall company, they have reached head and shoulders above where they were in 85. That was my point.)

Cheers and fly safe!

PS... Beef, the 206 was produced in the mids 60s (I believe it was 64 or 65) and they stopped production in 1986 for over a decade. They started producing them again in 98 and I believe they still do.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by flyinthebug on Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
sarg
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:44 pm

Re: Why is it Cessna singles have not improved enough?

Post by sarg »

Old Dog Flying wrote:In 1968 I purchased a new C172 straight from the factory with all the latest King radios and other goodies..total price $17,600 Cdn. The other day I looked at a 2012 C172 with the latest Garmin avionics, G1000 pack...$317,000 Cdn.

I realize that times are a changing but 300K increase for the same old airplane?
About 100K is the adjustment for inflation, the rest would go towards product liability and increased unit cost because of low production rates I would guess.

Production of the "P" ended in 1986 and no more 172s were built for eleven years as legal liability rulings in the USA had pushed Cessna's insurance costs too high, resulting in dramatically increasing prices for new aircraft.
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/relate ... alculator/
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

Thanks bug. I agree with Barney. Even though it can be argued that the glass cockpit is an example of the advancement. Delete it and compare them.

I'm pretty nostalgic so that might be swaying my opinion but the car example keeps standing out. I prefer a 1970 Camaro by far over a 2012 Camaro unless you want to turn fast or stop.

And that Is another good point from sarg. Good old liability insurance costs on them has crept in.
---------- ADS -----------
 
sarg
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:44 pm

Re:

Post by sarg »

Beefitarian wrote:Thanks bug. I agree with Barney. Even though it can be argued that the glass cockpit is an example of the advancement. Delete it and compare them.

I'm pretty nostalgic so that might be swaying my opinion but the car example keeps standing out. I prefer a 1970 Camaro by far over a 2012 Camaro unless you want to turn fast or stop.

And that Is another good point from sarg. Good old liability insurance costs on them has crept in.
Beef you keep doing the car thing but if Ford or GM had to live by the rules govening Cessna the 2012 Camaro would look a lot different or called the Carmaro X, NG, Neo, Max or something entirely different.

A 2012 C172 is basically a hotrod version of a 1956 C172, no different than what most people do to a 34 Ford 3 window coupe.
---------- ADS -----------
 
akoch
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 2:37 pm
Location: CYPK

Re: Why is it Cessna singles have not improved enough?

Post by akoch »

flyinthebug wrote: I would suggest that Cessna has only had to make minor improvements to remain the pinnacle of single engine aviation. Why mess with a good thing?
Here is the clear answer to the original question, right there. Probably can't be summed up better.

For as long as enough people think the same way, and keep buying it will continue to be so. The development costs are long recovered, has been near zero R&D for the 172 since dark ages. It has been free money ever since. Any reason they get snobby and refuse it? Free market...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Genetk44
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:31 pm

Re:

Post by Genetk44 »

:smt023 :smt023 :smt023
Beefitarian wrote:Maybe I'm just ignorant of the improvements flyinthebug, but in the case of cars they are noticable. Sounds like the 208 vs 206/207 is an example of how I wish they treated the 172 series. Kind of like glass panels have come a long way. I just think other parts should have evolved that much too. I just want to learn and discuss opinions. I had made a thread discussing opinions of the favorite (best) 172. The "M" came out the favorite by a pretty good margin.

Granted new technology is not always best fore everything. Look at the cub, everyone loves the cubs from the 1940s but that is not really the same, again it's like a nice vintage car. Do some minor upgrades and they are something absolutely marvelous. A 1972 Chevy pick up would be great fun, not so practical for the trip to Oshkosh pulling my wife's trailer with the dog and kids.

I like the new C-172s, they are a little better. No carb ice due to injection but they seem to be just as costly or more to operate. The windows or doors still get drafty little detail stuff like that.

Seems if you own a real nice 1979 C-172 you should look at a brand new one and think,"I sure wish I could get one of those. They're so much better." instead I look at the new ones and think,"Wow, those are way over priced."
Genetk44 wrote:Beef...are you a train guy??
Wait, doesn't everyone love toy trains? I have a dcc CP AC6000 by broadway, a throttle and some rolling stock. I take it to the Alberta freemo meet in big valley once a year. I started the plywood frame for a module. This is the same locomotive as mine at one of those great club layouts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geo
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by Geo »

Speculative comment on my part, but another possible reason why the 172 design hasn't really changed a lot (despite the availability of more advanced materials, and other opportunities to really revolutionize the design) is that Liability consideration again.

If you make major changes to the design, you create opportunities for new design flaws (or for the company lawyers to FEAR new design flaws). If the existing design is selling well with only incremental changes (and a corresponding major increase in retail price!) then where is the incentive to bring in a truly revolutionary design?

I suspect the 162 hit the market to go after the LSA segment - though if I recall correctly, Cessna is now going to certify the Skycatcher?

g
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by iflyforpie »

I'll chime in, because I fly the pinnacle of 172dom, a 1976 M model with skylights. :smt040

First, the whole grandfather thing. This is why we still have new 737s (first flight 1967), and King Airs (mid 60s as the King Air, quite a bit before that as the piston Queen Air). Why mess with a good thing? Also, lots of features simply can't be incorporated into new aircraft because of new certification standards. Each of these planes is only superficially like its forebearers. Cessna tried to sell us on the Cardinal to replace the 172. It didn't work.

Second, what is better? New designs like the Cirrus and Diamond emphasize knots and range rather than easy handling and maintenance. Very few of these new generation fadec motors have proven themselves as reliable and economical as a good old carbureted Continental or Lycoming.

Third, new planes are always in poor condition because they have to fly the pants off of them to make the payments. Our 172 which is hangared and only flown by professional pilots a hundred or so hours a year is in much better shape than the average flight school R or SP.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Ok, I think we can all agree that what's in the panel
of a 2012 C172 makes a 1980 C172 look laughable.

However, Beef does have a point that the C172 airframe
and engine are essentially unchanged since 1980. Yes,
the later 172's have Lyc fuel injection but that was available
in 1980. So really, technologically, the airframe and engine
are unchanged since 1980.

Let's look at airframe improvements. Really, the revolutionary
changes for airframes is the use of composite materials instead
of metal, which was driven by porkchop sideburns aka Dick
Rutan, with his composite pickle forks, both homebuilt (vari-eze)
and certified (Beech Starship).

Cessna thought composite airframes was a good enough idea
to buy the Columbia 350/400 company, and rebrand them as
the Corvalis, or Corinthian or something.

Also, Cirrus has been wildly successful with the composite
airframe SR-20/22. They have also been wildly successful at
attracting all the weenie pilots, but the psychology of that is
outside the scope of this post.

Now we come to engines. Certified (and even homebuilt!)
engines have not changed much in many decades, and this
really bothers the sh1t out of people, because if something
isn't changing, well, it must be bad.

Porsche blew about a billion bucks to try to make a better
aircraft engine (PFM) and it was a dismal failure. It was
expensive, heavy, and underpowered. Not a terribly good
combination.

So, we are left with the wonderfully simple and light Lycoming
and Continental engines.

I might add that back on the homebuilt front, where people
aren't held back by expensive certification costs (esp for very
low production runs), do you know what the hot setup is?

Yes, the hot setup in the homebuilt world is an aluminum
airframe (same as a 172) with a Lycoming engine (same as
a 172).

You might have heard of the RV-X series of aircraft, which
actually could have been built shortly after WWII. It's odd
the very strange detours the homebuilt crowd took over
the decades, to arrive at that very plebian combination.

For decades and decades, we were told that auto engines
were the "wave of the future" for airplanes. How many
homebuilts at your airport are powered by car engines?

I did the test flying on one, and it scared the sh1t out of
me. Overheated just taxiing. Recently, of course, the
engine in it failed - fortunately not with me in it - and it
was destroyed during the landing. Really sad.

So, while people might grumble that rivetted 2024T3
and Lycomings aren't very new and trendy, gosh, they
work really well. At least according to the leading-edge
homebuilt crowd, who have absolutely no paper holding
them back.
---------- ADS -----------
 
akoch
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 2:37 pm
Location: CYPK

Re: I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by akoch »

But it is also worth mentioning that this is the crowd here in North America with the local availability of the Licoming/Continentals. Homebuilts in other places use the other local options just as comfortably and successfully. Being that Jabiru, Rotax, Vedeneev, Ivcheko etc.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

I'm with you and believe what you're saying regarding automobile engines in planes as accurate generalizations. Also all the failed attempts to use them and they just are not designed to be an airplane puller.

I've been stalking some of the home built crowd and their automobile engine conversions often don't seem to be too scarry. Some of those guys seem to be happy with them and fly around without over heating issues.

I've definately seen some that you didn't have wonder why it was going to have problems.

The reason some guys are using them is because they are too cheap to buy anything decent. Take a worn out old engine you bought for $800 after only replacing things that are visibly broken. The poor thing wouldn't last long if it was still in the car.

The 172L I flew in Maui in a few ways was different from the 2005 172 sp. I liked the newer one fine and like I mentioned it only seemed to be missing the carb heat control. But I didn't have to pay the difference in purchase price. And I would have to have much more spare money than the $35 I have now to do so.

If I were to buy a 172 I might try to find a nice M with either a blue plastic or perhaps the moss green plastic interior.
Now we come to engines. Certified (and even homebuilt!)
engines have not changed much in many decades, and this
really bothers the sh1t out of people, because if something
isn't changing, well, it must be bad.
It doesn't bother me that much. I don't think it's bad.. I just don't think it's improved as much as it should be. I'm certain it could be improved a little more. I believe it might not be worth the cost. Maybe if they improved them as much as I'm thinking they could, a new 172 would be $2million plus the G1000. Obviously there's not much market for those. :P

I'd like to mention I'm a pretty big fan of the Rotex! Guys :rolleyes: are running them with no carb heat. :shock:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Liquid Charlie
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
Location: YXL
Contact:

Re: I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by Liquid Charlie »

Perspective is a strange thing - when I was learning to fly I regarded (as did many others) that the 172 was boring and under powered and no one wanted to fly one -- lol -- we were all about cubs and 180's -- :smt040
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by Colonel Sanders »

re: composite airframes

You could actually replace the fuselage, wings
and tail feathers of the 172 with composite.

The advantage would be lighter weight, and
no corrosion.

The disadvantage would be increased sensitivity
to temperature, and increased cost, both initial
and for repairs.

Composite has gotten a lot cheaper. But if you
could shave 100 lbs by spending another $300,000
would that be a good choice for a 172? In my
example, that's $3,000 per lb of weight saving.
Would the future customers think that was money
well spent?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

They make the Columbia now I think it's called. Composite, I like it but you're a bit low on the price and I guess it's not really a 172 anymore.
Liquid Charlie wrote:Perspective is a strange thing - when I was learning to fly I regarded (as did many others) that the 172 was boring and under powered and no one wanted to fly one -- lol -- we were all about cubs and 180's -- :smt040
I'm interested in the C-180 but they are kind of pricey too. Can't even get a new one of those. I think all the new tail draggers are two seaters.
---------- ADS -----------
 
akoch
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 2:37 pm
Location: CYPK

Re: I wish new C-172s were a bit better.

Post by akoch »

Colonel Sanders wrote: Composite has gotten a lot cheaper. But if you
could shave 100 lbs by spending another $300,000
would that be a good choice for a 172? In my
example, that's $3,000 per lb of weight saving.
Would the future customers think that was money
well spent?
Seeing all the recent jets, the material composition seems to have changed and using just about everything including aluminum. Seems like the question of time, before we see more of it coming even from Cessna. All the while people will continue to cling to the "old and trusty".
In the meantime, those Cirusses and Diamonds are not any more expensive than the same year 172.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”