Early model 172 six pack

[Will Kumley]

As the search for a decent airplane continues I've noticed the early model 172's have an odd six pack layout from the factory. I'm sure this isn't the only TMS that has what many would likely consider a funky layout. But if I purchase such an airplane, it is overly expensive to change the layout of the six pack so it is in a more standard format? Ultimately, when I buy a plane I plan to use it for fun flights with the wife/kids when they want but I also want to use it for IFR training. Also, short of a G5 to replace the DG, where would you put a couple VOR/GS indicators?

 

[Magman]

Possibly. Definitely maybe.

Early 172s have a lower panel that enables better visibility over the nose. The yoke/T-bar that the aileron sprockets and chains are mounted on also changed in configuration over time. These are factors to be addressed with an alteration.

My 1960 172A has had the panel redone in a more modern layout. PM and I’ll send pic. Maybe I can can post it if I can figure out the HOW. I CAN operate a dial telephone on a Party Line though.

I have encountered several aircraft that utilized the DG as the Elevator UP Stop.
Not a good idea.

So; it can be done but the results vary depending on model year, instrument mfg
and chosen avionics suite.

 

[Magman]

Hope this works.

 

[Will Kumley]

Hope this works.

Thanks for the picture. This is pretty much what I'm thinking I'll want to do if I find a good early model 172 to purchase. Almost had one a few weeks ago, sadly the level of corrosion in the wings and empannage concerned me more than I was comfortable with. It looks like you shifted the radio stack to the right to make room for the VOR indicators. I like the simplicity of yours along with the idea that its more like a traditional layout.

 

[Rgbeard]

Any time you look early 60s or older you pre-date the establishment of the “six-pack.”

I’m afraid I don’t know if it’s by regulation or moreso a manufacturer agreed standardization.

Someone smarter than I will come along shortly.

 

[Will Kumley]

Any time you look early 60s or older you pre-date the establishment of the “six-pack.”

I’m afraid I don’t know if it’s by regulation or moreso a manufacturer agreed standardization.

Someone smarter than I will come along shortly.

That makes sense as to why the older planes don't seem to have a standard layout.

 

[Bell206]

I’m afraid I don’t know if it’s by regulation

That makes sense as to why the older planes don't seem to have a standard layout.

FYI: from a regulatory point it was not a "six-pack" but a basic "T" arrangement. I believe it was one of the later CAR 3 revisions that called out for certain instruments in certain locations but when Part 23.1321 came along in the early 60s it defined those locations. The rewrite of Part 23 added some more flexibility to those locations via the applicable AC. However, those locations are not set in stone and can be easily relocated via a major alteration using the early CAR 3 rules as guidance. Electronic display installation has its own set of guidance when it comes to locations.

 

[Magman]

IIRC the dawn of light aircraft standardization was something called
“ Project Little Guy”. Unsure who was on committee.

The mod was done prior to my stewardship. Upgraded radios and circuit breakers
would have required extensive re-wiring.
I’ll see if I can get some idea of cost from records.
It may not be cost effective to do today.

 

[Magman]

I flew with an AAL Captain that wanted to reconfigure the C-54 panel to match a 727. Obviously it’s quite an undertaking. Modifying only one of a fleet can result in an oddball that could be hazardous .

USAF had “ Stand-Eval” to address standardization amongst the aircraft and Flight Crews. Their task was to standardize configurations, procedures and even language throughout a particular command.

ie When the Aircraft Captain wanted Full Power the command was “ Max Power “.
Saying Takeoff Power resulted in four engines at Idle. I do believe standardization of terms and procedures should be a given for Part 141 schools.

 

[Will Kumley]

At least I'm not looking at anything that has this:

 

[camorton]

Potential to change to a '6-pack' arrangement depends on the model year. The earliest 172s, '56-'58 had the instruments spread out across the full width of the panel (like the 140s and 195s from the late 40s). Radios and switches were mounted directly below, so these will be the hardest to convert to a modern panel. (And as a personal request - please don't chop up the panels on these antiques - they deserve to be left original!)

Then in '59 Cessna revised the panel, and while the layout wasn't the standard 6-pack arrangement we know today, it WAS in a basic grid with all of the primary and secondary instruments directly in front of the pilot. Everything is mounted in a non-structural, floating panel that can easily be replaced and you can position the instruments in a conventional layout very easily.

In '64 (maybe '63?) they changed again and went to the 'center stack' radio rack which also meant changing the control column behind the panel from the older 'T' style to the modern 'U' shape. Still not the modern 6-pack, but the panel is more roomy and easily updated as with the previous generation.

Finally in '67 they implemented a modern 6-pack arrangement. That was pretty much it until the G1000 came along.

Just my personal opinion here, but I'd say anything '59 or later would be fine for learning IFR, even with a non-standard layout. All the info is there, you will learn your scan accordingly.

C.