Why the CESSNA 172 Skyhawk is Excellent

The introduction of the 172 was controversial as the 170 was a much-loved airplane, and the switch to tricycle gear was seen by some as a betrayal of tradition. Around the same time, Cessna also discontinued the taildragger 140 in favor of the all-metal tricycle gear 150. This certainly was a gamble for Cessna, ending production of popular, proven designs, but it was a gamble that paid off. The company’s new consumer airplanes, the 172 and 182, were tricycle gear designs that had long lives and prodigious production numbers while boasting two of the best safety records in light GA. Their production numbers speak for how well that equation worked for the flying public.
#Cessna172 #Cessna #172
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: [e-mail]
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.

[@tinman8972]

I learned to fly mostly in 172's. Sure, it's not fast, sexy, or cutting edge; but it's well-balanced, forgiving, reliable, and it has a great safety record.

[@vicentetroyhunt4980]

@Tin Man I was train in 172 also. I agree with you comment 100 percent.

[@twolak1972]

Skyhawks rock. If I had to choose only 1 plane to fly it would be a 172, it's not as fast as a 182 but just as reliable and safe , IF NOT MORE SO.

[@coffee8814]

i dont understand paying that much per hour, the 150 is THE PLANE for me tbh

[@user-xq5lr3sd7b]

I owned a 1974 M model for 28 1/2 years. It was a great plane and I flew it all over the country. During ownership I obtained my A&P with IA so I could maintain it myself. Sold it with a high time engine as I couldn't afford another overhaul. But sure do miss it.

[@manifestgtr]

I did a lot of training in the 172 and found it great…ultra-predictable and reliable. I’m partial to the Piper Warrior (I find it even *more* friendly and predictable…plus, I’ve always been a low wing guy) but that takes nothing away from the 172’s obvious greatness. It’s a matter of preference and experience, really.

[@ELPJM09]

The Toyota Corolla of airplanes. I did my flight training in a Cessna 152 and 172. I flew a Piper Cherokee once but didn’t like it. In my opinion the wings obscures the ground view and it only has one door. The Cessnas are much more versatile.

[@kimberlywentworth9160]

Yes, the one door in the piper was not so nice plus it was hot in that aircraft. The Cessna 172 and family is so much comfortable, good ventilation, I like the large windows.

[@LeeKobe1]

Most of my hours are in the PA28-180. I agree about the view but the 180 out-performs the C172 hands down - in overall speed, useful load, climb out, and crosswind control. In fact, so much so, that I'm having to re-learn rudder control now that I'm flying Cessna's. Not to mention, the Cherokee's have outstanding stall recovery characteristics. My take on it anyway. Cheers!

[@johnlennon1049]

Love the Cessna 172!!!

[@bernardanderson3758]

Love the manual hand flaps

[@skammer2007]

I learned to fly in a 172.....great plane......easy to fly

[@victoriacyunczyk]

I'm going for my intro flight this week. Your videos are so good and are really helping me prepare for it.

[@riskfactor5686]

How did it go?

[@victoriacyunczyk]

@@riskfactor5686 pretty good, loved it

[@davethibeault2484]

@@victoriacyunczyk did you continue training?

[@victoriacyunczyk]

@@davethibeault2484 not yet, my car quit the week after that flight and I had to buy another one. soon though

[@Cherfield-D-Blessedman]

Thanks, nice informative video.

[@danbenson7587]

I’ve flown 172, Piper Cherokees, and Grumman AA5A. The 172 has utility, the Cherokee comfort (once in it), and the Grumman speed. My l172 likes are the flaps, rough field ability, and Cessna support. 172 downside is you have to work the trim wheel like a madman with flaps...particularly on a touch and go. The cockpit is too narrow. I think the high wing worsens viz. The Cherokees seems to me to be quieter, smoother, and roomier. Flaps decent. Stabile. Slightly faster. Downside is the single door. If you want to get somewhere, go Grumman. AA5A handle and land fine, but require flying chock to chock...(a 172 =Chevy Impala and a AA5A = BMW.). They are very simple, probably 1/2 the parts of a 172. Downside..they are a ‘paved runway’ plane, the flaps are adornments, lower useful load, and no factory support. Cheers

[@tsbrownie]

If you want a faster C 172, get a T-41. My favorite 172 was a rental that had manual flaps (E?); just pull and push-no waiting on flap deployment.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@twolak1972]

One of the few planes that can fly with almost ZERO airspeed. My brother was a FI and commercial air taxi and he LOVED THE SKYHAWKS, Took me up dozens of times and whenever I saw the 172 sitting there gassed and ready I WAS ELATED cuz I knew I was coming back.

[@georise922]

Zero airspeed? Zero ground speed instead no?

[@twolak1972]

@@georise922 I said almost. It had such a ridiculously low stall speed it seemed like you were barely moving.

[@brianmorris8045]

Not only that, they are a nice neat looking aircraft, and had the luck to fly as a passenger in one for a short trip, as a 25th birthday present. Was a nice smooth flight too. Never regretted it. I like the high wing, knowing what's underneath you. But to each their own. I loved the safety feel of the plane. The pilot had thousands of hours in just the 172, add to that, his 150, and 182. He loves them all. So I felt very confident being with him. He had been a commercial pilot for some time, by the time I got in his 172. He landed it like it was a gentle feather.

[@kenfrievalt7826]

My ultralight in 1987 would fly with a negative ground speed

[@user-ql7yv7zx5s]

I love the 172, I got my PPL and first 500 flying hours in the 172 40 years ago. It looks like it's the same great plane.

[@cdsnider9496]

Love my 1977 172!

[@MeTube3]

So many learned on 150, so 172 is a relatively easy step up. Tough old bird that will go on for many years as a club / rental aircraft. When you qualify on 150 you can quickly convert to 172, then take three friends up.

[@MeTube3]

@@LeeKobe1 don’t need full tanks for little local trip with friends.

[@SlackActionBumble]

I went in the other direction. Got my license in 172, but just qualified on a 150 at our club. It's only 65 bucks an hour to rent, I can finally afford flying more than once a month.

[@PRH123]

If 2 of those 3 friends have a low body fat ratio :)

[@MeTube3]

@@PRH123 don’t need full tanks for a little local trip with friends.

[@flyboykfpr]

I debate that the 172 is the most popular trainer, the 150 by far is the most popular trainer because of cost. I owned a 172 and I love the aircraft.

[@mickyday2008]

I learned to fly in a 172. They’ll fly forever

[@LeeKobe1]

So will the Cherokee 180 - and will get there faster! I do like the high-wings though.

[@grahamthebaronhesketh.]

The best and safest aircraft ever made.

[@PDZ1122]

It's an ok all round airplane for the horsepower. But the reason it's been in production so long is not that it's such a great aircraft, it's because Cessna doesn't want to spend the money to design and certify something better. Experimental aircraft with the same power fly rings around a 172.

[@seth10261]

But are as forgiving as the Cessna.

[@seth10261]

Nothing even close to th 182 or 206,210

[@PRH123]

It’s designed to be a reliable, stable and safe training and instrument training platform. It can be tied down outside for decades and not degrade. It’s exactly what the flight school customers want. It’s not supposed to be highest performance for x horsepower. Any airplane is a compromise, if Cessna were to strive for higher performance, they would reduce the qualities that their customers want.

[@donnyyario1726]

1:52 I CAN NEVER GET AWAY FROM WORK

[@empirestate8791]

The Cessna 172 is like the Honda Accord of the skies. Sure, it's nothing fancy, but it's arguably the best general aviation plane to own due to its reliability, solid engineering, comfort, and ease of flying. It's a well-balanced airplane that does well in all categories!

[@michaelquillen2679]

The 172...🙂❤!

[@garykildea6117]

Hmmm ... interesting video. If only the voice-over stressed, say, every tenth syllable rather than every second, it'd be a lot easier to listen to. IMHO, using the (non-professional) voice of a person who actually knows what they're talking about is so much more persuasive. The pitch and the prosody of a 30 sec commercial read is not sustainable over 22 mins.

[@AN2Felllla]

Totally agree

[@rickc303]

😄😆😂

[@ronbenfield6182]

Yep, couldn’t watch more than a minute.

[@gilbertl.680]

The mispronunciations killed me. He pronounced “plagued” like “plagged”, docile like “dose-il”, and “fuselage” like “fusil-edge”. Very repetitive and the “movie narrator” shtick made it almost farcical.

[@gianthippo1285]

Play at 1.25x. Much better

[@mesillahills]

It is a highly featured aircraft in the new Microsoft Flight simulator. And it contains full and complete Garmin support with the latest avionics. When you add cloud delivery of the entire planet in fully immersive 3D textures, and full VR support as well, it is correctly called "INSANE" by many FS enthusiasts around the world. Then a new but expensive VR headset comes pretty close to recreating actual human vision. Amazing stuff now and a future that is off the charts.

[@gregfaris6959]

The strongest point of the 172, mentioned several times in the video, is its predictable handling in all circumstances. If you’re an instructor, trying to teach someone how to fly airplanes, the Cessna 172 is the best textbook out there. And it can take you all the way to the airlines, or just about. I did both instrument and commercial in 172´s though commercial at the time required complex airplane, so it had to be a 172-RG model. I disagree about the avionics. I think the G-1000 integration in the 172 is a bit clunky, and prefer the Nav II versions, which are much better for maneuvers. I’ll take a 182 any day with G-1000 and GFC-700, as you’re much more likely to be doing X-country IFR in the 130kt airplane. The redesigned interior of the newer 172´s is not just a quality decision on the part of the manufacturer ; Part and parcel of the «General Aviation Revitalization Act » was an agreement to meet CAR23 standards for seats and impact survival, so the newer 172s are definitely safer, but they are also heavier, and the purported advantage of the fuel injected engine does not fully offset the weight penalty (besides making them tricky to start). The « best » 172s, in my opinion (besides the RG «Cutlass » versions) are the latest pre-GARA 172 P, but I am also really pleased to see the model continued post -GARA in the R and SP versions. Pricing is another issue though - when the 172 hits half a million the jig’s up!

[@gulfstream7235]

Always found the 172rg very sluggish with its handling, God help you if it wasn't trimmed right...

[@maritestaylor8458]

Thanks

[@bernardanderson3758]

2019 are at over $400k with a GFC700 auto pilot or without one

[@Aviation1400]

XB-MFB (at 15:36) it’s a Cessna 172M

[@bernardanderson3758]

Production is greatly appreciated greatly because of the Market the Price has got out of control and it’s creating the older models to be way above wholesale prices and now the 2021 up at $500 throughout 2023

[@danielb516]

I have a 1964 172 e , 0-300 engine . Guys were scoffing at 40k so i kenp it . Now people fall over themselves to offer 60k. The new ones at 450k is so stupidly high. Im going experimental ch 750 zenith im thinking

[@anemazoso]

In some ways being a sales guy might be the best flying job.

[@R4002]

The C172 is like a Chevy Impala or a Toyota Camry. They’re not sexy sports cars, but they’re not supposed to be. The C172 is an attractive looking airplane in a simple utilitarian way, the way any other function-is-form tool is. I know I put this in another comment but the C172 is an excellent example of the “keep it simple” approach applied to an airplane and done successfully.

[@bernardanderson3758]

I’m flying a 1960 175 Skylark with the cruise prop and the plane always been Hangared

[@iiddrrii6051]

And now for only $100K , you can get your hands on one.

[@AN2Felllla]

Oh boy I can not take this narrator seriously lol

[@kaseyvaughn5963]

Can you haul snowboard gear with a passenger

[@gunner49er]

I remember those things were about $7000 brand new

[@Chris_at_Home]

I bought a 1965 7ECA Champ in the mid 80s for $9000. It only had 100hp. Of course you could buy a nice vehicle for less than that. I remember guys would buy new trucks one or two times a year where we worked.

[@Seadoo233]

Really?! Wow

[@Chris_at_Home]

@@Seadoo233 We worked in Prudhoe Bay in the 1980s. If you were 21 you could work there and could easily make $60G + a year. I remember a guy 2 years out of college making about $110g. That’s probably over a quarter million now.

[@scottchristian71]

Kasey Kasem at your service …. Buying a Skyhawk next week.

[@user-tm6nq3ou1v]

I have about 1,000 hours in the 172 , RG ,SP and trips across the US and on instrument flights . AS for speed it would be the 177RG .

[@wikuscombrinck512]

The Toyota Conquest of the air!!!

[@LennardA320]

What if you buy a plane and rent it out for other pilots that need for instance to making flying hours to get at least the minimum that is required. You can also have pilots that want to earn some money and fly with passengers and need a plane for that so they pay you a hourly fee so you can earn a littlebit each time to cover costs. If you buy a more modern plane with digital screens and Garmin 1000 I assume you can fly IFR with ILS instead only VFR flying with a typical 172. Buying a much more modern Cessna can be very expensive but I think if you also rent it out many pilots will use it for training flights. So instead you make a huge investment and pay yearly a lot of money for maybe 100 flying hours. Is owning and automatically renting out the best solution to keep the costs at a bare minimum? You want at the end not only the fixed costs back but also a profit. I would prefer going for flying a Cessna with Garmin 1000 so you have much more awareness where you fly. You can make a flight plans, fly even if the weather isn't great at some sectors and you can trust your instrument's to get not lost because planning and using only paper cards and something happens if you are at an unfamiliar place if you take for instance a long 5 hour flight. So a Cessna equipped with modern equipment and using a Flypad you don't have to be afraid if reading a paper chart isn't your strongest point where navigation is a very important point to be able to fly. But relying somewhat on what you have is not the biggest deal isn't it?

[@friendlyreptile9931]

To me it'S just the best looking GA plane o all times.

[@adobo1976]

I don't know. I'm in Colorado. I'd be scared trying to fly over mountains in one of these.

[@davidfranklin5270]

rather have a 170B with an O-360 STC. Better STOL, more useful load, better cruise, lower stall speed

[@gzk6nk]

I've lots of time in 172s. Very competent aeroplanes, but no 'pilots aeroplane'. It's a spam can that does the job very well but has had every trace of the airman's art designed out of it. I only flew them if someone else was paying, otherwise it was the superb Chipmunk, the amazing Yak52, or the fun Piper Cub for me. Tail wheels and aerobatics rule! (For aerial fun, that is - not necessarily for mundane transport which is what the 172 is about). It does the job, but don't expect it to be fun.

[@mikentx57]

I cannot believe that that many would complain going from steel tube and fabric construction to all metal construction. -- 600 mile range in a plane flying 105 - 110 knots is more than enough range. Who would want to sit in there for five to six hours without a break. -- The low take off and landing speed and over all slow cruise speed is do to the 172 having such huge wings. Also the move from tail dragger to tricycle gear makes the plane far easier and safer to handle on the ground. All done to make the plane safer and easier to fly. Obviously it paid off. The 172 is the most numerously produced aircraft in the world.

[@davidfranklin5270]

There is nothing wrong with tube and fabric aircraft. Stinson 108-2 or 108-3 with O-360 will outperform a Cessna 172 in most categories. The Cessna 170 with a 180 hp engine will outperform a 172. The great thing about the C-172 is how many people it has introduced to aviation. But now it is too expensive. I learned to fly in a C-150, took my check ride in new C-152. Hav flown many others including J-3, J-5, TriPacer, Citabria, Decathlon, C-140, C-170B, C-182, C-188, Warrior, Arrow, Aeronca Champ, Taylorcraft BC-12, Stinson 108 and . They all have the pros and cons. For the money, I would choose a 170B or Stinson 108-B over a C-172.

[@SoloRenegade]

Bearhawk beats Cessna 172 in payload and speed, so does the Wittman Tailwind for speed. Both are steel tube and fabric.

[@ctlt-pg4tm]

How many have had fatal crashes ? Please don't think I'm being a jerk by asking. I'm genuinely interested. I'm thinking about taking flying lessons and this is the plane the school said I will be learning in. Thanks

[@Timberns]

The safest aircraft in the sky. There have been plenty fatalities in the 172 but all of them have been pilot error. Make sure you choose a qualified CFI and not some kid who is building hours for bigger and better things…. Which the bulk of CFIs are. They’ll want to teach you stall recognition and recovery… Make sure you insist that they teach you, above all, survivable forced landings and crashes. You don’t need an engine to get down… only to get up… But most people die because they’re afraid of the ground… The ground is your friend… Just make sure that you fly to the ground instead of fall to the ground.

[@ctlt-pg4tm]

So you're saying there has NEVER been an equipment failure in a 172 that led to a fatality ? Seems odd@@Timberns

[@Timberns]

@@ctlt-pg4tm Almost what I’m saying… When I did my flight training, I spent as many hours reading through NTSB accident reports as I did actual ground school and in flight training. I never saw an accident report on a 172 that was due to equipment failure. It was usually fuel exhaustion/fuel starvation because somebody skipped a checklist and had the fuel selector knob in the wrong position, or just plain thought they had more fuel than they actually had and didn’t bother to check it like they’re supposed to then mismanaged the engine failure by not ALWAYS having an escape plan and more times than not… Stall spin it into the ground because they were scared to make an emergency landing in less than a perfect environment. As a pilot… Your primary job is to not get yourself or anybody else injured or killed. If you have to sacrifice an aircraft to meet that goal by performing a survivable crash landing… That’s what insurance is for. The 172 wants to fly… It’s the most stable aircraft ever developed. You can pass out at the yoke and with a little altitude… It will stall and recover itself several times before it hits the ground. It’s rated for light aerobatics and it has a stress limit of 3.75 +Gs and like -1.75 Gs… don’t quote me on that… it typically actually experiences an aerodynamic stall in straight and level flight between 45 and 50 mph. Don’t EVER test that limit at low altitudes other than when landing. Do not EVER get slow at low altitudes… That’s how everybody dies. With the simplicity of the 172 and the wing struts… There isn’t much equipment that CAN fail. Complacency and irresponsibility is the only thing that can get you killed in a 172 Do your flight training with your #1 priority being surviving it and the dangers are negligible. Don’t get slow… Always have an emergency landing site identified and learn how to crash a plane in a survivable manner in case you ever overlook something that you shouldn’t have and you’ll have nothing to worry about. And just because somebody has a CFI certificate doesn’t mean that you should trust him/her with your safety. Don’t get slow… Don’t skip checklists…. And if you find yourself with an engine failure at low altitude… Fly the plane all the way to the crash and make it a survivable one….Don’t let it experience an aerodynamic stall…. That’s when they fall and people die. You can survive a 50mph crash… You won’t survive a 100ft fall from the sky. Hit the softest, cheapest thing you can find…. You’ll be fine.

[@Besir355]

Citabria is the best for basic training and cheaper

[@algeriasolitaryman3662]

👌🏻👌🏻👍🏻👍🏻nice vid 🇩🇿✌🏻✌🏻

[@anthonycyr9657]

Love the 172, but the climb rate leaves somthing to be desired, 200 hp and it would be ideal, next best thing, a 182..

[@komet5420]

the R172K Hawk XP has 200 hp

[@anthonycyr9657]

Its actually rated at 195 hp because my buddy ron has one.@@komet5420

[@StarSong936]

I was taking flying lessons in 1985. I flew this aircraft and the 152. Both were easy to fly, and I very much enjoyed the experience. I never did go on the get my license, but it was one of the best experiences I ever had. Edit: the 172 I flew had a key starter, the 152 had a pull starter. There was a problem with the pull starter on the 152 model as I had to stand on the floor boards and pull as hard as I could, then I still needed the instructor to put his muscle in as well. Although I never used the autopilot, there was one on there. The model I flew and a fixed gear, so if you are trying to guess, that will eliminate some options for you. I've been in the Piper, and the Beechcraft, though I wasn't the one flying. In the piper, I was just a passenger, and in the Beach, I was the VFR navigator. Got to say, my time in private light aircraft was much more enjoyable than any commercial flying I've ever done.

[@BobC250]

7:41 - The model available today isn't strong on 'entry-level' *price* though. Basic plane list price $400k! They only sell the 172 now with the G1000, which is odd for a basic trainer, where most flight instruction will be PPL, VFR. The G1000 inclusive in that price is adding $100k. Hence why so many flight schools are now opting for LSAs and older generation 172s and PA28s.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Soon

[@DanFrederiksen]

is it though.... Gogetair G750 915 murders it in every way iirc

[@carlosferduranr]

This airplane is been using in usa

[@islandsaltcuisinemachineme5239]

I like the 175 better. 15mph faster cruise speed. That was my dads first plane.

[@droge192]

The 172 and 175 are not at all comparable, like for like aircraft. Totally different production times, configurations, load and performance. The 175 is around 170% the weight of the 172.

[@UncleFester84]

Is it weird that i like the 172 better with analog instruments?

[@RealWoutLies]

Wish I could buy a new one. But, I gonna have one.

[@d.n.3652]

This thing is probably cheaper than light sports lol. So much for making flying cheaper

[@mikeeubank246]

If planes were women, the 172 would be the one you bring home to mom. Not a beauty, but will never break your heart. I've never met anyone who owned a 172 and regretted it.

[@dougmackenzie5976]

Excellent aircraft. But, for my money, the 182 is a far superior aircraft.

[@tantalumCRAFT]

My issue with the 172 is that it's almost "too easy" to fly and too forgiving, it does not adequately prepare people for flying a real airplane afterwards (Mooney, Bonanza, Cirrus, 182, 206, 210, Tiger, really virtually anything else). The PA-28 series, outside of one less door, has some better comfort accoutrements as well such as a more accessible, trim wheel, rudder trim, more responsive ground handling, and sharper handling in the air, and it just ever so slightly less forgiving that imho makes it a stronger strainer. PS, that narration doesn't sound natural, it made it very hard to listen to.

[@dsgodfater28]

as long as you got the brains and money to do it,fly it,keep it..just not me

[@matthew1464]

Hi again

[@muhammadsteinberg]

Land-O-Matic....lol....Whoever came up with that cute name obviously hadn't experienced many +20kt landing crosswinds in one. There's nothing land-o-matic about cross controlling and landing on one wheel and keeping it straight. LOTS of practice...

[@AN2Felllla]

Oh, try it in a tail dragger!

[@muhammadsteinberg]

@@AN2Felllla LOL...ground loop potential definitely goes up. Full rudder deflection in my 172 during a 28kt landing ain't fun. Can't imagine trying that in a taildragger.

[@mattpaulson1044]

Agree….will take a Piper Cherokee any day for a strong c-wind landing. But, these are the type of topics that start bar room fights with GA pilots.

[@tonyk5938]

Could it BE any more impressive?

[@jimydoolittle3129]

Underpowered 😝

[@Tadrjbs]

Because it's American made in English dimensions.

[@bangaloremusic]

settle down Dwayne ... its a bugsmasher most pilots can't wait to get out of

[@CmdrEsteban]

Ouch! That’s harsh.

[@andylewis210]

It’s pronounced fuselage with an A not fusel-i-dge with an i !!! The voice over generally is very poor. A better voice over person would surely get you more likes and subscribers.

[@sptomase]

The narration is so bad it’s almost unwatchable. 😢

[@areza15143]

Good video but MAN is this guy difficult to listen to!

[@jorgedelgado7499]

Boring

[@droge192]

Why is the narrator talking like that? So overly-dramatic and drawly. And no, I don't mean an *accent* , I mean the silly drama. Couldn't see this out - too distracting.

[@louisminnaar8418]

Why does the narration have to give us aids?💀but agree on the points raised.

[@lukematthews5260]

I prefer low wing. 172’s really aren’t that great. They fly like a cow with wings, and ground effect just doesn’t feel right.