Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cessna 172 Turns 50!!!
AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) ^ | April 2006 | Peter A. Bedell

Posted on 06/25/2006 5:47:21 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck

Cessna's Model 172 has taught and shaped the careers of thousands of pilots for 50 years. The list of superlatives affixed to the 172 refers to manufacturing numbers and hours amassed rather than sexier terms like "fastest" or "prettiest." It is truly an unsung hero of general aviation airplanes. It's hard to believe that the design is 50 years old and, following the darkest days of the industry, has evolved into what is now among the more advanced single-engine airplanes in the sky.

1956

2006


(Excerpt) Read more at aopa.org ...


TOPICS: Hobbies; Miscellaneous; Travel
KEYWORDS: aircraft; aviation; cessna
Earned my private pilots' license in the 172 and still spend happy hours (and dollar$)in one. Though this came out in April of this year, its' still a neat story to peruse on a hot (103 here) Sunday afternoon while soakin' up some A/C and an adult beverage.
1 posted on 06/25/2006 5:47:23 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aeronaut
C-172 50th Birthday Aviation list *ping*

Thks

~GCR~

2 posted on 06/25/2006 5:49:38 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The Clintons... are the hemorrhoids on the body politic." <- FReeper firehat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

When a design is right, it's right. It's not a sexy plane at all, but numbers and longevity tell the story. Any single plane model that you've seen in the air your whole life was done right the first time.


3 posted on 06/25/2006 6:08:10 PM PDT by Dumpster Baby ("Hope somebody finds me before the rats do .....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dumpster Baby

Basically, what they're celebrating is that general aviation aircraft design has been stagnant for fifty years. I suspect all the federal supervision of it may have had some effect.


4 posted on 06/25/2006 6:45:24 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Grut; Dumpster Baby
"...what they're celebrating is that general aviation aircraft design has been stagnant for fifty years..."

I disagree. Dumpster nailed it:"....right the first time." for this particular aircraft.

Liability attorneys and government regulation DID almost wipe out GA (General Aviation.

We're only just now seeing new designs (Sirrus, Liberty, Light Sport, etc etc.) and features.

What's being celebrated is that, thru time, the 172 has delivered in consistance of performance, flight characteristic predictability, and in a cost-effective fashion.

It's been an evolutionary aircraft; improvments made every year.

~GCR~

5 posted on 06/25/2006 7:12:58 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The Clintons... are the hemorrhoids on the body politic." <- FReeper firehat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

The 172 does what it was designed to do very well, simple as that. I've got a few hrs in them, from new ones, to some old abused beaters that should have been grounded. I got where I was going safely, and most of the time had fun enroute.

I was on the C-172/Porsche conversion project, back in the late 80's. What a pain. The project was a success in getting the STC, but it was heavier (which resulted in a lower payload), much more expensive, and more complicated, which means more maintenence (although the engine is very reliable). Sure the Porsche engine is great, but potential buyers looked at it and said, "with that price tag, I can get a nice C182, carry more and go 20 kts faster". So upon getting the STC, Porsche shelved the project.

I've been away from flying, or even hanging out regularly at the local aerodrome for years, so I don't know if Porsche has since decided to offer the C172 conversion again.


6 posted on 06/25/2006 8:06:36 PM PDT by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zuriel
Wow!

I was aware of the Mooney/Porsche conversion a few years back....but hadn't heard that it had been tried in the 172!

Learn something new every day here!!

Given that the older 172 is, with full fuel and very little baggage ( and the rear compartment is small anyway), really a three(3) person-max airplane, I wouldn't think that a heavier engine conversion would have been marketable.

'Course ... some people would buy it for that Porsche emblem. Haven't seen much on the Mooney since, either.

Ya' oughta get yourself current again. Flying has certainly helped my sanity. Up there I'm not thinking about that next world, or local, crises!!!

~GCR~

7 posted on 06/25/2006 9:17:32 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The Clintons... are the hemorrhoids on the body politic." <- FReeper firehat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck; Paleo Conservative; phantomworker

ping-a-ling!


8 posted on 06/25/2006 9:44:01 PM PDT by JRios1968 (There's 3 kinds of people in this world...those who know math and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRios1968

Which one is the Cessna?

9 posted on 06/25/2006 9:52:50 PM PDT by phantomworker (Live life so completely, when death comes like a thief in the night, there is nothing left to steal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

I haven't seen a Mooney Fork Tailed Doctor Killer in the air for a l-o-n-g time. I assumed that the brain surgeons had crashed all the airworthy ones a long time ago.


10 posted on 06/25/2006 10:21:21 PM PDT by Dumpster Baby ("Hope somebody finds me before the rats do .....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dumpster Baby
Naww....you're confused....

The V-tailed Bonanza is the infamous "doctor-killer" ;)

~GCR~

11 posted on 06/25/2006 10:35:47 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The Clintons... are the hemorrhoids on the body politic." <- FReeper firehat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
172 Memories....

That pic could have been me on a rare trip into SFO ....

On departure, I was between, on the taxi-way, *two* 747's (well back from the one ahead!) and a line of 737's, commuter jets, and turbo props....

My 'lil 172 wanted to go airborne from the jet blast(s), wings a-quiver,and I was gettin' high on the Jet-A fumes, eyeballs burning, and wishin' for an O2 bottle....

ATC Clearance 'ordained' a hard right turn "as soon as safely executable" after airborne.

Thanks to a 30kt bay wind down the runway, I think I was off in 500 feet!!!

I was "OUTTA there" PDQ!!!

~GCR~

12 posted on 06/25/2006 10:54:02 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The Clintons... are the hemorrhoids on the body politic." <- FReeper firehat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

Thanks! The first time I heard that one I cracked up because it was so appropriate. Bam, teeth, eyeballs, golf clubs all over the field.


13 posted on 06/26/2006 12:36:45 AM PDT by Dumpster Baby ("Hope somebody finds me before the rats do .....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck; Tijeras_Slim; FireTrack; Pukin Dog; citabria; B Knotts; kilowhskey; ...

14 posted on 06/26/2006 2:22:22 AM PDT by Aeronaut ("Endless repetition is not a coherent argument." —Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; ...
For the bush the 170 was better.

It did not have a tricycle undercart

Floats in summer. Big flat Elliot Brothers skis in winter (Elliot Brothers understood slush).

Hand it over to a junior pilot when the boss gives you a Norseman to fly.

I am showing my age.

15 posted on 06/26/2006 2:37:27 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck
Liability attorneys and government regulation DID almost wipe out GA (General Aviation.

I agree GCR.

But when they eliminated the depreciation allowance to write off an item such as a business plane (it was a 10 yr write down if my memory is correct) that also caused production numbers to go down dramatically. No one ever talks about it.

16 posted on 06/26/2006 3:00:23 AM PDT by taildragger (They call themselves Liberal Democrats, I call them Collaborators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck
Earned my private pilots' license in the 172 and still spend happy hours (and dollar$)in one.

Spent many an hour in a 1958 172 (4030F) back in the late 60s and early 70s. That plane still lumbers along today as an agricultural spray plane no less! Haven't flown one for years since adopting low-wing transportation (Arrows, Mooneys, Musketeers). Still remember 4030F's "Coffee Grinder" radio (NARCO VHT-3) with a whopping 6 transmit crystals in it!

17 posted on 06/26/2006 4:54:22 AM PDT by ExSES (the "bottom-line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aeronaut

Thanks for the ping - I'm one of the rare pilots trained in an American flight school who has relatively little time in Cessnas. They are and will be the workhorse of flight training, but the school I attended had all Beechcraft. My time in Cessnas are just a few checkouts and a few rentals.


18 posted on 06/26/2006 6:29:54 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

BTTT


19 posted on 06/26/2006 9:11:09 AM PDT by hattend (Stop! No more! The spirit is willing but the flesh is spongy and bruised! - Zapp Brannigan:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

Still see a few of those... A freind of mines dad crashed in one awhile back... He was an Army Colonel


20 posted on 06/26/2006 9:34:59 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Grut
Exactly,

We are celebrating the success of CFR14 FAR23 and trial lawyers for strangling American ingenuity and letting Europe to catch up.
21 posted on 06/26/2006 10:09:21 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
Product liability on the 172 cost about $25K per airplane in 1985ish. The airplane sold new for $25K in 1976..at least that is what my folks paid.

Typically you assume liability doubles the cost on a light aircraft. The cost to cert by FAR23 is on the order of $10M.

22 posted on 06/26/2006 10:17:33 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

If it ain't broke, no need to fix it.


23 posted on 06/26/2006 10:18:19 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
You know, maybe the way to energy independence is to let the FAA regulate cars, too. Ten years of that and traffic congestion and fuel consumption would be 'way down. ;^)
24 posted on 06/26/2006 10:26:16 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
"A friend of mines dad crashed in one awhile back.."

S**t happens. Even so...the 172 holds the best GA-fleet safety record.

'Course -- "The safest of all airplanes is the Piper Cub. It can only slightly kill you!" *

* = a quote but I can't recall the writer...

~GCR~

25 posted on 06/26/2006 10:56:25 AM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The Clintons... are the hemorrhoids on the body politic." <- FReeper firehat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Grut

yah, but the ones that are left would burn 10 gal. an hour.


26 posted on 06/26/2006 11:20:54 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

not the ashtrys in the 56 version - one of the few design flaws. The fuel lines in the support coluns used to drip into them.


27 posted on 06/26/2006 11:26:45 AM PDT by patton (...in spit of it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

He didn't crash in the 172, it was the Beechcraft Bonanza..
I learned in a 172, the power-on stalls sorta got to me... the p factor put us in a spin and I hurled all over :)


28 posted on 06/26/2006 11:30:29 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

My parents have owned V-tailed Bonanzas for close to twenty years now. The Bonanza is a very safe, well built, and easy airplane to fly. They simply don't suffer fools or professionals who lack the time to remain proficient yet choose to fly single pilot IFR..


29 posted on 06/26/2006 2:12:41 PM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

**I was aware of the Mooney/Porsche conversion a few years back....but hadn't heard that it had been tried in the 172!**

The conversion efforts began in Germany, of course (the early 1980s, IIRC), in some european production AC, and the C172. The US efforts began with the Mooney in the mid-80s. The FAA approved STC for the Cessna 172 was performed over a 3 yr span in the late 80s.

Before even building the prototype, Porsche had a C182 converted, but it could only be regarded as 'experimental', because of a variety of systems that were installed in a fashion that the Feds didn't approve of for production. For one, there was a raised console that contained the electric fuel pumps. Because Porsche used electronic fuel injection they figured they might as well use electronic distributors instead of magnetos. To satisfy the Feds, Porsche had to install dual alternators/regulators and batteries, with crossover wiring/circuitbreaker ability to keep one complete system going (should you lose a batt on one sytem and a alt on the other, you could still operate as normal).

On the C172 a lot was crammed beneath the floor: 1/2 in fuel lines replaced the 3/8 ones throughout (they would not fit behind the stock plastic pillar trim), two fuel pumps, fuel filter, dual wiring harnesses back to the dual regulator/battery compartment. You see, with the longer engine assy some weight had to be shoved behind the baggage area. And that wasn't enough, a lead weight (about 10#, I think) was bolted on top of the hor. stab. underneath the ver. stab. I can't remember the exact weight gain of the conversion, but it was more than 80#.

**Ya' oughta get yourself current again.**

I haven't given up. My license is just comotose for now.
Youngest still in college, and the wife went back to school as well !!!$$$$$$$$$$!!

I miss it some, and in the meantime try to watch the barn swallows when I can. Our yard is almost 2 acres, and they put on an awesome, fast moving, low level airshow. Their hyper-agility is so impressive.

A couple of day ago I was standing in the middle of their main bug hunting route, one zigzagged toward me, about ankle high, when less than 10 ft away, it pulled up just missing the top of my head. The annoying horsefly that was buzzing around me was gone right then. It was a neat experience.


30 posted on 06/26/2006 8:44:11 PM PDT by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson