Cessna 172 turns 50

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.

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.

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!

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

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!

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!

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

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

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.

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.