Cessna 172 book

Does it mention the Reims variants? I have always wondered if Cessna sent out kits for assembly to Reims aviation like wings and fuselages etc. How much of the airframe did Reims actually produce in house as I understand they were better built than Cessna factory versions. Is that true?

Includes a summary of Reims production. Virtually all aircraft were built in their entireity by Reims. Reims Rocket was effectively a European derivative of T-41 – not available for sale in US, although subsequent Hawk XP comes close to being a Rocket equivalent.

Thanks for the kind words – I have to admit to being the author … also of British Built Aircraft (The History Press).

I think a lot of European buyers were unaware that corrosion proofing was a factory option and were suffering problems when they started rotting so Reims overcame the problem by corrosion proofing as standard.

There must have been a good reason.

Also, remember the Continental engines for the Reims Cessnas were produced by Rolls Royce under license.
Perhaps to keep costs lower in the UK?
Considering the relative value of the engine to the airframe in GA aircraft, not having to pay UK import duty and tariffs on the engine must have saved a bit of money.

Any idea why Cessna entered into an agreement with Reims in the first place? I know they had equity in Reims Aviation but surely it would have been more cost-effective to export into Europe. It would be interesting to know what the various trade tariffs were for US products compared to French-made items.

Just out of interest when did the American 172s get corrosion proofing?

It was a factory option. I would guess it started in the mid-60s (on utility machines and on planes with the factory seaplane kit) but by the mid-late 70s, many (if not most) had it from the facrory. I’m basing that perception on ads I see in Trade-A-Plane that list the features of aircraft for sale.
Many American light aircraft are hangared or based in the “dry” West so many people probably didn’t consider it essential.
I don’t think anyone in the 60s expected some of these planes to remain in service as long as they have so nobody thought too much about it. As prices increased and planes were expected to last longer, people began to realize the value in the corrosion inhibitors…both factory and aftermarket.

And is 775 “far more” than 590 in terms of production? I think not.

It’s roughly a third. It depends on your definition of “far more” I’d suspect.

Just out of interest when did the American 172s get corrosion proofing? Certainly the earlier ones are starting to show their age. With respect the 182 is a different animal from the 172. An all round more substantial piece of kit which is why Rheims Aviation found the niche for a “hotter” 172. And is 775 “far more” than 590 in terms of production? I think not.

and of course there wasn’t a completely similar aircraft to the Rheims Rocket which had more power than the usual 172.

Cessna didn’t see the need of making a 210 hp 172 simply because thay had the very successful 230 hp 182 for that role.

The US military/MAP T-41B-D all had 210 hp as did the 172K “Skyhawk XP”, which was built from 1977-81. Its 210 engine was derated to 195 hp.
775 were produced, far more than thehp 590 Reims Rockets that were produced between 1968-76.

The Rocket had its beginnings from the 1963 “Powermatic” 172D (not to be confused with the standard 172D) which had a 175 hp engine. Three of the 68 made were sent to France where one was re-equipped with a 210 engine becoming the prototype Rocket.

And most later 172s did have corrosion proofing from the factory.

Yes it does mention the French versions. I’m not sure but I think Rheims Aviation actually built them from scratch after a few assembly jobs. What made them better was that they were fully corrosion proofed, unlike the American built aircraft, and of course there wasn’t a completely similar aircraft to the Rheims Rocket which had more power than the usual 172.

Does it mention the Reims variants? I have always wondered if Cessna sent out kits for assembly to Reims aviation like wings and fuselages etc. How much of the airframe did Reims actually produce in house as I understand they were better built than Cessna factory versions. Is that true?

Excellent.

Oh, ok, I’m off to the River Plate bookstore then :diablo:

It’s even less if you shop around. Hint….South American river as I said earlier.

For £8.99 you can’t really go wrong.

Just got my copy, via a certain store named after a South American river, and it does pretty much what “it says on the tin”. It’s a useful reference for the different marks and for prospective owners, gives a list of the varying payloads that each version can take. Some interesting photos too but no 3-views. Overall pretty good value.

Cessna 172 book

I dont have any experience with the book, but if the author sets up his drums like the kit on the cover, I would steer clear of this one…

Cessna 172 book

Welcome Ferdinand Im afraid I have no idea what book that might be, Im assuming it is by a British author? I cant even think of a way to look it up… Good luck finding out
_________________
http://www.ps2netdrivers.net/review/icom.ic-r6/

Does the book include three-view drawings?

Ryan

Looks like a nice book, and a good value. I’ll have a friend pick it up for me in the UK.

Forty-three thousand built, the most produced aircraft in history?

As far a longest production record, (1947 to date) it’s still probably the Bonanza, although current models don’t have a lot in common with original models.