Cessna 172 turns 50

[[email protected]]

This came right from the Cessna website:

>>Lakeland, Fla., April 4, 2006 - When the Cessna model 170B taildragger added the patented Land-O-Matic tricycle landing gear in 1956, the venerable 172 was born. Since then, nearly 40,000 Skyhawks have been produced, making it the highest-volume commercial airplane ever made...<<

....Snip Skyhawk history lesson...

I love the "Land-O-Matic" gear designation. Kinda fancy name for a
nosewheel - patented, even. How many new 172 pilots macked up their
airplanes thinking it would really land the plane automatically? <G>
Clearly, this was before the current proliferation of lawyers.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> This came right from the Cessna website:
>
>>>Lakeland, Fla., April 4, 2006 - When the Cessna model 170B taildragger
>>>added the patented Land-O-Matic tricycle landing gear in 1956, the
>>>venerable 172 was born. Since then, nearly 40,000 Skyhawks have been
>>>produced, making it the highest-volume commercial airplane ever made...<<
>
> ...Snip Skyhawk history lesson...
>
> I love the "Land-O-Matic" gear designation. Kinda fancy name for a
> nosewheel - patented, even. How many new 172 pilots macked up their
> airplanes thinking it would really land the plane automatically? <G>
> Clearly, this was before the current proliferation of lawyers.
>

Probably a number approaching zero. I was also before the stupidity that was
also caused by the current proliferation of lawyers.

[texasflyer]

I recently had the opportunity to fly a 1956 year model Cessna 172. It
does not fly like our 172L at all. It leaps off the ground at a mere
50MPH indicated, climbs at what appears to be a Vx of about 57MPH and a
Vy of about 65MPH. It only cruises at about 110MPH ( ~95 kts) unless
you rev the holy snot out of the engine. All speeds confirmed with a
handheld GPS so I know the ASI wasn't just reading low. Stalls were
very gentle and no wing drop tendency compared to the 172L which is
abrupt and will drop a wing in a hurry if the ball isn't centered.
With 40 degrees worth of manual lever-operated barn doors hanging off
the backs of the wings, landings can be about as short as if it were a
big Cub. A very pleasing aircraft to fly and it was amazing to think
that I was flying around in a machine a half-century old!

[[email protected]]

How'd the Land-O-Matic work for ya?? <G>

[M]

I've heard this from no less than 3 people that Cessna 172 flies like a
pig. (compared to planes like Grumman anyway).

Therefore the 172 is the biggest testament that pigs can fly!

[Ross Richardson]

Works for me. I am a Razorback (U or ARK) alumnae and own a C-172F.

Ross
KSWI

M wrote:

> I've heard this from no less than 3 people that Cessna 172 flies like a
> pig. (compared to planes like Grumman anyway).
>
> Therefore the 172 is the biggest testament that pigs can fly!
>

[george]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> Works for me. I am a Razorback (U or ARK) alumnae and own a C-172F.
>
> Ross
> KSWI
>
> M wrote:
>
> > I've heard this from no less than 3 people that Cessna 172 flies like a
> > pig. (compared to planes like Grumman anyway).
> >
> > Therefore the 172 is the biggest testament that pigs can fly!
> >
I want a better seat locking but apart from that the C172 is my second
favourite 4 seater

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-05, texasflyer > wrote:
> I recently had the opportunity to fly a 1956 year model Cessna 172. It
> does not fly like our 172L at all. It leaps off the ground at a mere
> 50MPH indicated, climbs at what appears to be a Vx of about 57MPH and a
> Vy of about 65MPH.

So it essentially flies like a 170B.

One thing I noticed - a 170A can take more crosswind than a 172N (we
landed both within minutes - the 172N pretty much ran out of rudder but
the 170A had plenty left). Of course the N model has a swept tail which
is reputed to not have the rudder authority that the original straight
tail had.

> big Cub. A very pleasing aircraft to fly and it was amazing to think
> that I was flying around in a machine a half-century old!

Well, the Auster we fly at Andreas was built in November 1945 - 11 years
before your C172 :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[[email protected]]

Jay H. said:

>>>Of course, one could also take the pessimistic viewpoint and bemoan the
lack of innovation for those 50 years. <<<

I guess there's two ways to look at that - the basic design was so
good, it's survived 50 years with updating (production figures prove
this to be a success) *or* Cessna's been building the same airplane
for 50 years and it's overdue for a major revamp.

I'm curious to see Cessna's "Cirrus killer" that we read about a few
months ago. The company has been quiet about it since the initial
announcement, although they might have more news to share at Sun N Fun
this year(?) They must've figured it was time to do something new, as
Cirrus & Columbia were/are making waves in the light GA segment.

[Ross Richardson]

OK, you got me there, Jim. Fingers and keyboard are not working well.

University of Arkansas
Razorback
Male
BSEE
Class of '69
C-172F
180 hp

RST Engineering wrote:

> Hm.
>
> U "or" ARK? thought it was U *of* AR.
>
> Alumnae? You female? Alumnus (singular) talking about yourself or alumni
> (if talking about a group of male graduates).
>
> Hm.
>
> Sounds like a typical UOA gradjuuate to me.
>
> {;-)
>
>
> Jim
> (San Diego State University, '67 alumnus, and we learnt our stuff good.)
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Works for me. I am a Razorback (U or ARK) alumnae and own a C-172F.
>
>
>

[Ross Richardson]

Jay, I can see the ground without having to look forward, backward, or
tip a wing. (I have Cherokee time). But, then again, the turn to final
is a bit obstructed.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>A very pleasing aircraft to fly and it was amazing to think
>>that I was flying around in a machine a half-century old!
>
>
> It really is amazing to think that powered flight is only a bit over a
> century old, and the Skyhawk has been flying for almost half that time.
> Cessna really got it right.
>
> Of course, one could also take the pessimistic viewpoint and bemoan the
> lack of innovation for those 50 years. But it's truly hard to argue
> with success.
>
> Now, if only they would put the danged wing on the proper side!
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[nrp]

As an engineer looking at the 170B/172 from a mechanical design
standpoint, I particularily admire the roller-track system for the
flaps. Notice how the track etc system is arranged so that the flap
extends with a single pushrod (on each side of the A/C) yet is fully
restrained in the yaw direction.

Another feature that was new then was the centered and locked nosewheel
when the nose strut is extended.

[Jose]

> Now, if only they would put the danged wing on the proper side!

So, fly it upside down. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> A very pleasing aircraft to fly and it was amazing to think
>> that I was flying around in a machine a half-century old!
>
> It really is amazing to think that powered flight is only a bit over a
> century old, and the Skyhawk has been flying for almost half that time.
> Cessna really got it right.
>
> Of course, one could also take the pessimistic viewpoint and bemoan the
> lack of innovation for those 50 years. But it's truly hard to argue
> with success.
>
> Now, if only they would put the danged wing on the proper side!
> :-)

The wing's OK it's the little wheel they got all wrong.

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>