Why the Cessna is such a badass plane (2019)
popularmechanics.com
popularmechanics.com
I own a Mooney, which burns 10 GPH and does 160kts. Fits two people just fine and three if you sacrifice fuel. A good trade off over all. Definitely think the 172 is the least badass plane with almost no upsides other than being a good trainer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20
Disclaimer: A Mooney owner myself.
(I have a turbo and TKS on my A36. Almost never need the TKS.)
Having TKS (or boots) is definitely a safety benefit in case you end up in inadvertent icing, but remember that the system can still get overwhelmed.
Avoiding icing conditions is still a good idea, even with TKS. :)
In reality most people who can afford to run a piston twin are moving down to a Cirrus or moving up to a turbine single.
Turbines give you much higher power reserves at low altitude, so they are better in icing on departure and approach, but that difference doesn't come up nearly as often as generalized maintenance issues. (Owning a 1976 piston twin was an overall negative experience. I loved the airplane, but it was a maintenance hog, mostly aging systems and aging design philosophy related.)
I agree 100% that the piston twin is a dying breed, but I think it's almost never to do with FIKI (flight-into-known-icing) issues.
That said I've heard anecdotally a 172/182 can carry ice better than a lot of other aircraft (I've only been iced up in a 172, never on a Mooney). That shouldn't matter anyways since you should avoid ice as much as possible.
I'd take a Commache 260 over a Mooney any day of the week. Not quite as fast/economical, but much more comfortable, cheaper, and easier to work on.
I owned a Twin Commache and it was a thing of beauty... but a different animal to the singles.
I would guess safety standards are much higher too, but I generally don't understand why they're so expensive.
I guess the piston engines are very different from the ones you find in cars.
As I understand it, the most lenient certification to allow someone to sell planes to masses in USA is the (special) Primary Category¹, for the General Aviation, which Cessna's two-seat 152 model seems to be in. Cessna's four-seat model 172, however, is on another category, the so-called "Utility Aircraft", which required the more costly Standard Certification². With a broader (legally permitted) use, it's kind of natural to expect an appropriate price difference.
¹ https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...
² https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...
Edit: probably the manufacturer could always be sued, but the change made it easier. I can't remember the specifics.
but i think the 172 does have some upsides:
- docile handling
- availability to rent, pretty much globally
- availability of a&p who are super familiar with it
- low insurance rates and superior safety record
- landing gear can take a lot of abuse
[1] https://airfactsjournal.com/2016/08/whats-right-cirrus-pilot...
There was a huge difference in trying (and often failing) to stay ahead of the plane even moving from a 172 to a 182.
I get that there's more things involved for a practical implementation (weight, reliability, added complexity) but still... What am I missing?
As mentioned there are alarms already, but you can drown it out if sufficiently overloaded. Its best to recognize overload, take a deep breath and go back when calm.
Pilots still land gear up, even with the alarm sounding. There is (or at least was) even a public (YouTube) video of this happening from a passenger filming.
Landing a plane is not difficult (source: I’m a pilot) but there’s a lot going on. This is clearly a UI/UX issue but innovation is relatively slow in the certified market.
And yeah, before anyone says "but the beeping!" - yup, people are fallible. I've managed to scratch a car in a similar but far cheaper setting: start up...set navigation...go into reverse...think about the traffic announcement...think about garage keys...hear parking sensors beeping...beeping intensifies...CRUNCH...facepalm, dammit I was supposed to brake! In my case, this was a low-speed, low-energy collision, so just a tiny scratch on plastic, but I can definitely see how a minor distraction can turn into a major accident.
In 1994, Congress passed GARA[1], and two years later Cessna began producing new aircraft again. But having been out of the industry for a decade, Cessna lacked some combination of the means and confidence to bring back its entire fleet; so it focused on the 172 for the training market and abandoned the 152, which never saw production again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalizatio...
My wife got her PPL and all the sudden had an opinion on what to buy. :) She's now a CFII so her opinion matters.
I still would be into getting one if my wife was sold on home built.
Plus the freedom to modify. In a Cessna, you can’t so much as run a USB charger out to the panel without the FAA coming down on you like a ton of bricks. On an experimental, if you want the latest electronics or if you want to swap in a different engine, go right ahead, sparky!
(Disclaimer: I’m 3.5 years into a RV-7 build so I’m biased)
You're not kidding. I think the cheapest annual inspection I've ever seen was around $2,000 for an old, clean 172 that needed zero actual work. More typical is ~$4,000-$10,000 for a modern-ish 4 seater, depending on what they need to do. Throw in $20,000 every several years for an engine overhaul. If you have a G1000 and they need to touch it, it's going to cost you at least half a car.
What does turbo-normalised mean in this context?
His is one of the reasons why turbodiesels are valued for hauling. They can still make (near) rated power across the Rockies, where an NA engine might be down 30-40%
For the 172 there is no much competition and that is a very bad thing; this is the only reason the 172 is so popular. When a two-seater can be bought for less than $100k new, a 4-seater is crazy expensive for no particular reason.
A legend among the pilots and plane owners is that for every plane sold Cessna was covering the manufacturing cost with half of the money and litigation with the other half. I read that in a couple of magazines too, it is hard to confirm if it is entirely true but there is something there. Also the biggest recent fail of Cessna, the 162, was built in China and still extremely expensive - almost double the price of a similar plane built in Europe (Comco Ikarus and Flight Design in Germany, Pipistrel in Slovenia or Evektor in Czech Republic).
Overall, Cessna is the Harley Davidson of the aviation world: the company that is going on inertia building obsolete products based on a brand image built decades ago.
Not in terms of safety. I mentioned below somewhere that the main feature of a Cessna 182 is probably the very slow stalling speed. Cost of operation and cost ratio of the engine is maybe where your argument is true.
I read crash reports from time to time. Pilot without a lot of experience in faster planes trades up for a faster plane and can't keep up with the situation happens time and again.
It seems like there is a sort of multi level system of pilots out there and the slower and forgiving planes keep a lot of folks safe who otherwise might be in trouble in something faster.
Additionally, the fastest of aircraft, jets, typically operate with 2 crew members so the odds of a critical mistake from both pilots falling behind at the same time is drastically reduced.
So, there's definitely an opportunity for wealthy, owner-operator pilots to fly fast aircraft that might be too much airplane for them. Turbofan aircraft do require an additional type rating (i.e. more training/qualification). Type ratings however do not expire, so one could find themselves in a situation where they're legally allowed to fly but not proficient enough to do so safely.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.58
So, while it’s technically true that the type rating does not expire, you still need annual training and certification.
I read a report where the pilot was trying out a turbofan that his employer was looking at buying. The guy selling the plane felt like the pilot was just not keeping up with the plane, didn't sell it to the charter company.
Charter company got another plane somewhere else ( it didn't say how or where ). On a flight the pilot somehow didn't notice the autopilot disconnected, plane drifted into this long turn. Once the pilot realized something was up he grabbed the controls and pulled them hard over and snapped off the wings.
Extra guy, more chances of keeping on top of things, etc.
Cessna with fixed gear, one engine, no autopilot: if suddenly you find yourself in a dangerous or scary situation there’s not much you have to check to get a troubleshooting picture of the situation.
Turbo twin with all the bells and whistles: not only are you traveling much faster (possibly in to a dangerous situation) but there a ton more inputs and variables to take in and a lot more things you can change to right the situation. It can be overwhelming.
Ah, less esoteric, probably the cowl flaps.
With fewer and fewer planes being made, the remaining planes continue to get more and more expensive. The world of general aviation shrinks each year, and as such the prices continue to climb.
Fortunately, there are a number of clubs where people pool their money into collective ownership of airplanes. Its roughly $150/flight hour (more or less, depending on the club's equipment of course). If I were to ever go into GA, I'd probably start with a club to get my earlier licenses.
$15,000 and a few months would be all you need to get your pilot's license and start flying (including the price of flight instructors / ground schools). Overall, cheaper than I expected. You wouldn't want to go into this hobby thinking you'd save money... at best you save time inside of a certain range (Cessna only cruise at 160mph, while commercial airlines cruise at 500mph. As such, GA flights need to be within 2 or 3 hours (or ~1 hour commercial flight) to even save time).
PS: A new set of paragliding equipment runs 10-15k, but it’s more like a jet pack than a traditional aircraft.
GA flights need to be within 2 or 3 hours (or ~1 hour commercial flight) to even save time).
I read a story a couple of years ago where a group of SV execs and engineers live in eastern Oregon and commute by GA, sharing expenses.
There also used to be a regular small plane service between Peachtree/Dekalb and Birmingham, AL for BellSouth personnel operated by the company. BellSouth split it's HQ between both places.
Trade-a-plane is like the eBay for GA.
I wouldn’t especially call Luscombes nice planes. I’m not a fan of their stall characteristics or ground handling. A J-3 is the most expensive airplane in the group for its capabilities. You’re paying a lot for that “Piper Cub” name.
I think Taylorcrafts are a good bang-for-your-buck. I’m also partial to Citabrias.
I’ve flown about 20 types of small taildraggers, for whatever that’s worth.
I’ve flown about 20 types of small taildraggers
If you get a Luscombe, make sure to fly it in favorable weather conditions only :)
https://jalopnik.com/apologize-for-nothing-when-you-own-the-...
https://jalopnik.com/this-near-mint-20-year-old-toyota-camry...
We enjoy having fun cars but try to always have a reliable Toyota as our daily- and long distance- driver.
> [...] A former British special forces soldier, who asked not to be identified because he still consults on active operations, says he too has faced the Hilux, which he refers to as "the technical," in both Iraq and Afghanistan. "I'd say the appeal is pretty simple," he says. "You can't underestimate the value of having a vehicle that is fast, will never break down, and is strong enough to mount a heavy weapon in the back."
https://www.newsweek.com/why-rebel-groups-love-toyota-hilux-...
The grunts are going to love whatever solves their problems. Whatever vehicle they get to ride in instead of walking is going to get massive praise because whatever it is is worlds better than walking. That doesn't mean it's a automatically better than any other vehicle.
Armies, even non-professional ones don't count "reliability" the way armchair car enthusiasts do. Armchair car enthusiasts generally take for granted the ability to get parts. Armies see that as a supply line they need to spend resources securing. Armchair car enthusiasts consider labor expensive. Armies see labor as cheap. (relatively speaking) because for them it's an issue of ratios, 20 trucks per mechanics vs 21 is a calculation but it isn't big deal compared to "we can commandeer parts for these in any town" vs "we can only get parts for these from X Y or Z".
North African and middle eastern armies run Hiluxes because the logistics for the supply chain for those vehicles exists where they are in the world already making the supply lines comparatively harder to interrupt than some foreign vehicle that has less market penetration locally.
If Yugos were what was locally available then that's what these groups would use.
[0] https://news3lv.com/features/video-vault/video-vault-plane-i...
"[I]t set a record for a non-stop endurance flight which has not been broken since. ... They'd drop down a rope, pull up a hose from this truck and just put it in the gas tank. ... The flight lasted 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes."
That's amazing. Thanks for sharing!
EDIT: Some photographs and film of the refueling are shown in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UWZhc4Bj10
Fun note. 64 days is roughly 1,500 hours which is more than 3/4 of the TBO on the Continental O-300 used on this 172. TBO is Time Before Overhaul. They flew over 3/4s of the life out of that engine in one flight. Incredible!
Then, as it turns out, this is actually a series of articles on different planes, and Cessna 172 is only #21 out of 25 in their "badass" ranking: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/g28612977...
The ranking includes all kinds of planes lumped together, some of which are obviously listed because of their technological ingenuity (SR-71 or the Concorde), while others were "workhorses" that outlived the original expectations towards them (like the C-130 and DC-3). Which of the two categories does the Cessna 172 belong to?
Even the 172 itself was out of production for over a decade (1986-1996). Peak production on the 172 (in the 60s) was ~1400/yr. In 2019 they built 52.
It’s pretty hard to stall.. I can get as slow as 40 knots indicated before it fully stalls. I can fly super slow approaches if needed or come in fast. I can take off in 715 feet, land in 675. Fly legally 27,000 feet; It has onboard oxygen. Cruise at 18.5 gallons per hour at 150kts+ true airspeed and it can hold 117 gallons of gas and has a 3800 pound gross, 6 removable seats, and about a 1300 pound useful load. With WAAS, Active Traffic, XM weather, Synthetic Vision, Terrain Awareness — it’s like flying a mini-airliner. And hundreds of thousands cheaper than a Cirrus SR22T.
The only thing I wish I had was a FIKI system, but that’s about an $80k retrofit and kills some of the useful load.
Cessna is one of the greatest aircraft manufacturers around. Cool thing about the 206 is that transitioning from the 172 is pretty simple. Similar flight characteristics, just a lot more inertia to manage. I’ve flown the Cirrus and it’s a great airplane, but a lot less forgiving a slow speeds and it can’t carry a 55 gallon drum like the 206. I also wouldn’t want to land a Cirrus on anything remotely backcountry.
As far as trainers, the 172 is hard to beat, with a Diamond DA-40 coming in a close second. I know a lot of Piper folks might disagree, but the 172 is probably the best training aircraft out there, and with the Garmin G1000, training in a 172 is great experience for flying more advanced stuff later. (Honorable mention to the 150/152, but on a hot day with full fuel, it can be a struggle.)
Mostly agree about the DA-40, but I'd actually put it ahead of the current 172. It's a bit faster, great vis, and super sweet to fly.
Your correct on the Mts, always nice to have a turbo for the big rocks here in CA.
I'll take a Cherokee 6 over a 206 any day of the week! Cherokee can haul more too. I've helped put a little Bravo snow machine into a 206, but I've carried coffins in the Cherokee...
I was lucky enough to have over a thousand hours before I flew a Cessna for the first time and I remember being shocked at how terrible it flew. They are overpriced for what they are, handle like crap, have terrible visibility, and are slow and inefficient.
It's sad that overregulation and the cost prohibitive certification process has essentially locked innovation in GA back at 60's technology.
The EAA world is where the good stuff is happening today.
Could you try using words instead of those? It makes comment hard to read for people unfamiliar with the subject, which is a shame because it looks interesting
GA: ~1.0
All helicopters: ~0.7
Commercial fixed wing: 0.05
(And the accidents that do occur on commercial flights are mostly small cargo planes... for major airlines that number would be more like 0.01 although it's hard to really get good numbers at that point because the numerator is so small... there are years when the US doesn't have a single fatal commercial passenger crash)
There are a few more extenuating factors that account for a significant fraction of the rest of the fatality rate. It's just like the driving fatality rate - by eliminating drunk driving, speeding, exhaustion, texting, etc., driving becomes significantly safer than it is on paper average over the entire population. That fatality rate certainly does not represent even a mildly experienced pilot in a 172
[1] https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2...
All helicopters: ~0.7
And I know enough about planes not to fly a GA plane with an unknown pilot. It works for me, I have my own license, so the main criteria is the plane reliability and that is different between various models.
I'm not sure anyone would say chainsaw juggling was safe, though.
Something to keep in mind about helicopters is that they're not a lot of them, so one accident makes the hourly accident rates go way up. Another is that helicopters take on dangerous missions. American Airlines isn't flying people to oil rigs or plucking you out of a car accident in a snowstorm. As a result, they enjoy better accident rates.
That being said, I think light planes are still safer than helicopters. I talked to a few helicopter pilots, I had instructors that also fly helicopters, autorotation is working sometimes, gliding works almost every time, so I prefer a light plane over a helicopter at any time.
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institut...
In the sort of conditions wher le icing is likely, VFR pilots will lose orientation and fly it into the ground (or a mountain) way before they ice up.
I've trained in both a Cessna and a Piper Supercub, both were great.
The Supercub felt dodgy with just a single stick, but it was also felt agile and like I was actually participating in flying. The Cessna felt like driving a station wagon in the sky. Rock solid and reliable.
Both are great, honestly just surprised at how the author dodged talking about one of the Big 3.
Much cooler getting around in a super cub.
One day I’ll get a Bellanca.... one day!
Just about any other aircraft in its class will be just as good or better but cost substantially less.
I should also add, the 172 is terrible for just about every mission set outside of training. They can barely only carry 3 people safely (2 with bags) but are very slow, heavy, and expensive to operate compared to a dedicated 2 seater. If you want 3+ seating and bags go buy a 182 or something :)
I have a '78 172 w/ 180HP STC, and I think it's a pretty good sweet spot. You can take a friend, a ton of bags, full fuel on long range tanks, and still climb easy on a humid day. You can also travel light, dial back the throttle and cruise around at 5.5GPH, making it similar in cost to operate to a 152 (still a 2000 vs 2400 TBO though).
Your main point is well-taken: you definitely pay a performance-per-dollar premium for using the world's most popular training platform. But you also get some benefits: the most familiar and one of the most forgiving airframes ever made; a platform that every A&P knows inside and out and every supplier stocks parts for; and a plane that can very easily get in and out of any strip you can spot.
Maybe 20 years ago.
A new one is $300k now, and pretty good used ones with steam gauges are $60k. A 2000-hour engine overhaul is $20k to $25k and outside tie-downs in the Bay Area are $500+/month.
San Jose Reid-Hillview is being closed, so keep that in mind.
San Jose Reid-Hillview is being closed,
The only way the closure will be stopped is if the State says it's needed for San Jose-area earthquake relief, which it is, and a politician realizes another one cannot be built later in a dense urban area.
(SFO, SJC and OAK operate as one airspace in the Bay Area.
SFO has limited capacity during fog because the runways were built too close together for simultaneous IFR operations. So RHV is pretty handy to keep in operation, unless, of course, you want to develop a new subdivision in the Evergreen area of San Jose.)
To use an IT analogy, those are MVPs - minimally-viable aircraft.
Most ultralights don't have closed wings, so there's no structure as the public would understand it. So spend $20,000 and get the best ultralight available if you go this route. I wouldn't take friends or family up in an ultralight since they can't evaluate the risks.
Beyond that, LSA aircraft only require a drivers licence, and look like real airplanes. But no night or IFR operations are allowed. These were supposed to be cheap, but are priced like real airplanes since buyers demand glass panels, etc.
It’s like 90% of the flight training content of the Private. For some reason, the FAA thought it would also be good to drop the minimum time from 40 hours to 20 hours when they made Sport Pilot. This especially makes no sense because almost no one finishes the Private in 40.
So AOPA, EAA and the LSA manufacturers get old guys hyped on getting a pilot’s license with only 20 hours in the cockpit plus 0 time in the doctor’s office, and they walk into my flight school. Then we have to a conversation about realistic training expectations and how if there’s “no way in hell” you’d get a medical, maybe we should consider if being pilot-in-command of an airplane is really for you.
The FAA medical exam was expanded to evaluate people for neck size/apnea. So for most overweight Americans, seeking a PPL or Sport, they're better off going LSA to avoid paying for a sleep study and risking a medical rejection, which will cause life-long FAA problems.
I would suggest that instructors should figure out if a student confuses flying an airplane with operating a boat. One is pure work, and the other is perceived as pure relaxation.
(Boating used to be equated with drinking beer, but I think it's illegal to operate a boat now while drinking, after some horrific accidents.)
So you (or your students) could check their BMI and get in shape before the exam, or just go the LSA route.
faa.gov: Decision Considerations Disease Protocols Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/av...
Somebody's personal story:
https://insidethecockpit.com/airline-pilots-with-sleep-apnea
https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2020/05/first-cessna-skycourie...
Well, it's almost never the fanciest gear, it's probably the lowest risk and best value though.
One major role though has the fact, that airplane development is quite costy, especially certification of new aircrafts and their components. That is why most engines lag quite far behind automotive designs.
There might be an interesting time coming up though, as aviation is looking into eletrification. There are already some electric airplanes available, and this is going to stir up the industry a lot. This usually means completely new designed aircraft, so companies can start with a clean sheat. Also, the expensive maintenance of the engines is radically reduced.
There isn't really a risk of flying into a traffic light post, where the opposite is true: Heavy cars are safer, as your momentum will carry you in a crash and extend contact time.
This is quite interesting, as I have flown in a diesel trial Cessna 182. They paid people some nominal amount to test their diesel engine, and there were several failures (though not fatal as far as I know). That plane was sold eventually, but it seems like overall the trial was a failure. I am not aware of technical reasons that should in theory stop a jet or diesel engine. I can only share the anecdote of small recurrent problems.
And yes, it's loud! That's true; as is the fact that the attendant at the airport will refuse to put jet fuel in your 182 until you start it or otherwise convince them that you are not mistaken.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182_Skylane#Development
Last I read (might be out of date now) Cessnas still had such modern features as manual air/fuel mix adjustment.
Correct.
> There don't seem to be too many new planes coming out in the 2-4 seat GA class.
We'll see. China bought about 20 US small mfgs. recently, including Cirrus, Mooney, Superior, etc., so it's up to them what US aviation holds. Yup, we sold our future on the altar of ROI.
> Last I read (might be out of date now) Cessnas still had such modern features as manual air/fuel mix adjustment.
172R (1996) was first model with fuel injection. But be careful what you wish for ... 172 2020 price is $398,000.00.
i was hopeful for the lsa program, but other than some bright spots it hasn't spurred the ga innovation revolution that its proponents thought it would.
the faa missing the mark with basicmed also didn't help.
(I hold a 2nd class and BasicMed.)
Had this been the United States anytime after 9/11, this Cessna would have been strewn over a cornfield somewhere and the pilot condemned as a terrorist. Our police officers routinely execute entire cars full of people for no other reason besides jewelery theft or speeding.
no. That case did very impressively demonstrate complete rottenness and impotence of the System. There is nothing to eat, no goods to buy, etc... yet at least the mighty military protects the country. And here that big Opppsss! The King wasn't just naked, his guns had completely rusted (didn't intend, yet the pun just naturally came about). The mighty military happened to be at about the same state as the rest of the country. The Berlin Wall fell 5 month late together with the others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989.
> After determining this was a slow moving commuter aircraft, Mathias Rust had a combat number assigned to him, and SAM tracking for the majority of his 3 hour flight into red square.
that tracking number was mistakenly assigned to different objects in the sky when transferred between air defense zones. Had they decided to blow it off the sky, it could have been something else entirely, not Rust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust#Flight_profile
"Air defence re-established contact with Rust's plane several times but confusion followed all of these events. The PVO system had shortly before been divided into several districts, which simplified management but created additional overhead for tracking officers at the districts' borders. The local air regiment near Pskov was on maneuvers and, due to inexperienced pilots' tendency to forget correct IFF designator settings, local control officers assigned all traffic in the area friendly status, including Rust.[1]
Near Torzhok there was a similar situation, as increased air traffic was created by a rescue effort for an air crash the previous day. Rust, flying a slow propeller-driven aircraft, was confused with one of the helicopters taking part in the rescue. He was spotted several more times and given false friendly recognition twice. Rust was considered as a domestic training plane defying regulations, and was issued least priority.[1] "
Exhilarating.
This sounds like the book The Toyota Way describe.