Seat Interchange Options

[minton]

There's a lot to watch out for when replacing the seats.
- Some newer seats have two lock pins, whereas original seat configuration has only one drilled rail. To use the newer seat you'll have to replace the undrilled rail with a drilled type.
- The lock pins on some newer seats are farther aft on the seat frame than they are on the original seat. This causes the seat to be more forward relative to the holes in the rail, so you may not be able to lock your seat as far back as you could with the stock seat. You run out of holes.
- Some newer seats have clearance problems with the forward lower wall upholstery and air vents, causing seat R&R problems. The seats can't be rolled far enough forward for the seat retainer tangs to reach the release cutouts in the rails. In that case, to remove the seat from the airplane, you have to remove the forward roller/tang assemblies from the seat frame. It's an annoying job because of the strong springs attached.
- Seat back upholstery in newer seats is often too wide to clear the window latch, so you have to open the window to move the seat past it.

There are several different kinds of newer seats, so be careful what you choose.

The two lock pins are definitely an issue as are the seat track issues when two pins are involved. I'd check with your A/I as to how to deal with that issue. You certainly would not want to press forward without the OK from him and his PMI

[GAHorn]

I have reclining seats from a 1964 Skyhawk and they are great with the exception of ,as Bruce mentioned, removal from the front. Mary loves that reclining thing though. It is also great when you have to set down at an unattended airport for a couple hours waiting for weather to pass....just flip it back a take a nap.

I tried that once in my 206. We landed at Victoria, TX (where there was no service, no open FBO) to await a double-line of cold frontal passage. It took all night long... and man! What a night!
The wind rocked and rolled us violently in the tie-downs and the windshield upper edge leaked all night onto our pants legs. We were soaked and didn't enjoy much sleep.

Next time I'll get a motel.

[bagarre]

Finally installed my 'new' seats from a '64 172.

You can not install them from the front, you need to pull the rear seat.

The reclining feature is nice BUT it's a royal PITA that the seats don't simply flip forward like the old one. It drives me nuts that I have to reach over and unlatch them every time I want to get something in the back. Really, it's a pain.

The back just barely clears the window latch. Barely. I can see how extra padded upholstery would be an issue.

I do like them but, but in hind sight I'd just get the original seats reupholstered to the same quality as I did these and be done.

[bagarre]

Yeah, I never imagined it'd be that big of a deal but it really drives me nuts.
Gonna have to install a baggage door to get over it

[GAHorn]

Some inspectors would have a problem with those seat-backs in that they might be seen to restrict egress from the back seat in case of emergency.

(Personally, I believe that argument is weaker than the one in which the original seatbacks do not protect the front occupants from being slammed forward by the rear occupants in case of same emergency.)

[bagarre]

But wouldn't the egress argument apply to the 172 that they were originally installed in as well?

I agree tho. I wouldn't want to try and exit the back seat in an emergency. With any amount of pressure on the back of the seat, the latch does not want to release and the lever is too short to really force the issue. This isn't due to wear, it's just the design of the latch.

They do recline, which my wife will love on long trips and they are height adjustable, which is important now that Dani is taking lessons in the 170. But she still needs a booster cushion to reach the pedals

[DaveF]

Here's a picture showing the problem with the '75 172 seats. When the seat is rolled all the way forward the height adjustment pivot hits the forward doorpost before the roller tangs reach the cutouts. To remove the seats I have to release the springs, remove the forward roller assemblies, then roll the seats back to the aft rail cutouts.

This, plus the other disadvantages that we've discussed before, and for what benefit? I adjusted the seats once, and there they stay. I agree with David, I'd much rather have carefully reupholstered original seats.

That's as far as it goes.

[GAHorn]

You guys have saved me a lot of time and money! I have been on the hunt for a set of newer seats FOREVER and now I feel great about totally abandoning the search. The look of the rounded seat backs matches the personality of the plane better IMO.

Yeah... I was wondering how you were going to incorporate articulating seats in the 27% project....

[170C]

I think changing front seats is like anything else, there will be positive AND negative aspects. Those who choose to stay original won't like the newer, articulating ones. I have had both (as mentioned previously) and given a choice again, I would op for the newer ones in a heart beat as I find them more comfortable and on longer trips its nice to be able to change the angle of the back. My wife likes the ability to lean the back to make it more comfortable to snooze I have never experienced the issue Dave F describes, but that might be because of different models of 172 seat designs. Of course they are like electric seats in an automobile. Yea its nice to have 8 or 12 different positions available, but in normal day-to-day operation most folks have one position they like and once set they rarely ever change them. Removal from the forward position is not possible in most cases. As someone said you might have someone in the back seat push hard enough to accomplish the task, but I think you would risk doing damage by doing so. Just remove the anchor bolts from the rear seat and allow the seat to move rearward a few inches and the newer seats will come off the tracks. What I don't like is the Rube Goldberg system Cessna used to secure the rear seat. Later Cessna's have a much, much better system.

[bagarre]

What I don't like is the Rube Goldberg system Cessna used to secure the rear seat. Later Cessna's have a much, much better system.

4 bolts straight into the floor would have been oh so much better.

[DaveF]

I've discovered yet another reason to hate the later-model seat. The lap belt attach angles have to be swapped left/right to make more room for the wider seat frames. This puts the inboard bracket right up against the flap tunnel so there's no room for a wrench. Now to remove the lap belt the entire bracket has to be removed. What was a five-minute one-man job now takes two guys and an hour.

[BWeathered]

Finally installed my 'new' seats from a '64 172.

You can not install them from the front, you need to pull the rear seat.

The reclining feature is nice BUT it's a royal PITA that the seats don't simply flip forward like the old one. It drives me nuts that I have to reach over and unlatch them every time I want to get something in the back. Really, it's a pain.

The back just barely clears the window latch. Barely. I can see how extra padded upholstery would be an issue.

I do like them but, but in hind sight I'd just get the original seats reupholstered to the same quality as I did these and be done.

I also just installed some seats from a 1964 C172E into my '49 a model. It was definitely a tight fit, and I did end up trying both seats on each side looking for a little advantageous construction variation, and ultimately they went on without removing or even loosening the rear seat. These are the seats with just the reclining back, not fully articulated seats.

Brent

I haven't flown them yet, but my observations from just sitting in them and making airplane noises are that they are very comfortable compared to the convex beach-ball-shaped original seats. They do sit you up SLIGHTLY higher than the stock seats (I am 6'9" tall so my head is intimately familiar with my headliner!). I reclined one notch to see if that helped but it felt too reclined for comfort... at least with the tail on the ground. The 172 bolted seat frames don't seem to quite as stiff as the welded frames of the original seats when adjusting fore and aft...not flimsy, but just a hair more "give". Mine clear the window latch fine. I plan to undertake an original seat rebuild while keeping the bird in the air, then will likely switch back to the originals once they are re-built!

[BWeathered]

I have reclining seats from a 1964 Skyhawk and they are great with the exception of ,as Bruce mentioned, removal from the front. Mary loves that reclining thing though. It is also great when you have to set down at an unattended airport for a couple hours waiting for weather to pass....just flip it back a take a nap.

Based on this post, I picked up some nice '64 C172E seats (reclining, but not fully articulated) to use while I rebuild my original seats. As Minton said, with some huffing and puffing, I was able to install them without removing or even shifting the rear seat. I have posted some additional observations that others have not yet mentioned in a separate post. Thanks to this forum for all the great info!

Brent
'49 C170A

[GAHorn]

Some of the articulating seats can be removed a bit easier as long as you slide them aft to remove the rear rollers first, then crank them to max height before sliding them forward to get the fronts to release. The curve of the doorpost is slightly out-ward as it goes up between the hinges, so the clearance slightly increases with height...and that makes it a close-fit but do-able.
(At least this is the case with my '62 C-172-C seats.)