13 ms·

A plane so good it's still in production after 60 years

509 points by nairteashop 10y ago

tim333 10y ago
>The 172 was based on an earlier Cessna design called the 150. This looked very similar apart from the fact it was a “taildragger” I think they've got their Cessnas in a muddle. The 140 was a taildragger. I learnt to fly in a 150 which definitely had a wheel at the front.
- mc32 10y ago
  Piper J3s were tail draggers too with fabric skin by then they were using aluminum tubing instead of spruce or whatever for the fuselage and wings.
- a3n 10y ago
  Wikipedia lists the 172 as a variant of the 170, a tail dragger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_170 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_170 My first skydive (static line), and many after that, was from a 170.
  - paulmd 10y ago
    But I bet it wasn't as exciting as this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ6g_TcevCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ6g_TcevCE unedited/better video: https://youtu.be/7p6hqMnsLFY?t=81 https://youtu.be/7p6hqMnsLFY?t=81 (As a pilot: that one was a super pisser, the upper Cessna flew into the lower one and punctured the wing, rolling it over his engine, nothing the lower guy could have done. Thankfully the lower guy was wearing his seat chute (required on these kind of ops) and the upper guy (who wasn't wearing his required seat chute) managed to survive)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
One answer comes from the fact that the Cessna 172 is a high-wing monoplane – meaning the wings sit high above the cockpit. This is very useful for student pilots because it gives them a better view of the ground and makes the aircraft much easier to land. I had to think for a moment what a monoplane is. It's not a biplane. Anyway, the high-wing design also causes the plane to fly level with regard to it's roll angle if you take your hands off the controls, due to the center of gravity being below the wings.
- danielvf 10y ago
  Low wing aircraft will do that too. It's a matter of dihedral - the upward slope of the wings on most civilian aircraft.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Yes that's true, good point.
    - phillc73 10y ago
      In practice, on most older types, you have to trim them to achieve hands free straight and level flight.
  - skookumchuck 10y ago
    The dihedral works because a wing angled upwards produces less lift than one parallel to the ground.
    - clon 10y ago
      This is a completely inaccurate statement. The lift produce by both wings remains unchanged regardless of the roll angle. It is defined in terms of relative airflow over the wings, being always perpendicular to the former. Lift is NOT (usefully) defined relative to terra firma, a common misconception. So in the relative frame of the aircraft itself, the lift vector is unchanged in terms of the machine itself. Rolling the aircraft rotates the lift vector, causing a larger "sideways" component and reducing the "vertical" component. For example, at 45 degrees bank the load factor is, in fact, 1.41, meaning that the wings ought to produce 1.41 times the lift to maintain altitude. So the real reason why a dihedral tends to "auto-correct" the bank angle is that if you rotate the airplane into a bank without adding power then you really are not going to maintain your altitude against gravitational acceleration and are going to descend through the airmass. Now, given that your airplane is now at a 45 degrees angle relative to the source of gravitational attraction, the aircraft is going to see (from it's vantage point) some"sideways" airflow over the wings. Imagine an airflow component originating from the tip of the wing, towards the fuselage. What now happens is that the "falling" wing is going to work much more efficiently because a number of reasons, causing the aircraft to experience an aerodynamically stabilizing force. The easiest way to see is that if you imagine a V-shape object moving sideways (let's imagine from right to left), the \ part of the V is going to deflect airflow and produce some "sideways lift" while the / part will not exhibit such a phenomena. But in terms of the 172, it's high-wing configuration actually does not require dihedral because the actual fuselage of the aircraft "shadows" the high wing, making in naturally less efficient at producing lift, thereby again correcting the bank angle. Airplane designers attempt to balance this out so that the final design not only is statically stable (correcting in the right direction) but also dynamically stable (the oscillations should be self-limiting).
sunflowerfly 10y ago
I have flown one, and while good, it is not "that good". What happened is the FAA rules are so stringent to create a new aircraft, that the subsequent cost was so high, that few new small plane designs make ROI sense. This has created a case where the strict rules in the name of safety have actually caused a reduction in safety. This plane was originally designed on slide rules. Today we could create more optimized designs in almost every metric, including safety, but no company can afford to do so. The FAA is supposed to change these rules soon.
- eblanshey 10y ago
  > The FAA is supposed to change these rules soon. I'd be interested in reading a source for this, because that would be pretty big news.
  - ksherlock 10y ago
    https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Part23_FinalRule_2120-AK65_WebCopy.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently... https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Revision_Airworthiness_Standards_Normal_Utility_Acrobatic_Commuter_Airplanes_NPRM.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently... https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/understanding-part-23-rewrite https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/understanding-... http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-part-23-rewrite-plan http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-part-23-rewrite-plan
- nether 10y ago
  > Today we could create more optimized designs in almost every metric, including safety, but no company can afford to do so. Really? The Cirrus SR20, SR22 don't count? Haven't they been outselling the 172 for several years now?
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    At, AFAIK, almost double the cost. They're different parts of the market.
geff82 10y ago
The 172 simply has some advantages even after all those years. First, it is known everywhere (also its quirks, which makes is safer). Second, the high wing makes it perfect for the young pilot to fly. And third, it has space! I, at 1.87 meter length, can sit comfortably in its back with some spare headroom remaining. I can't tell this of many other aircraft in a similar segment.
phillc73 10y ago
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the Cessna 182, which also started production in 1956 and is still rolling out of the factory new today. While the article extols the virtue of the 172's engine, the fact is that the vast majority of them are running very old designs with carburetors and on Avgas. Avgas still contains lead. These old engines are hugely inefficient and flown incorrectly prone to cracked cylinders. Newer models are fuel injected and there are also a few diesel conversions. All Cessna single engine aircraft now have to undergo supplementary inspections (SIDS), at least in Australia and I think it is the same in the US. I've seen first hand the horrendous amount of corrosion which can hide in a 50 year old aeroplane and not be found until the wings are removed. These SIDS inspections have the potential to ground much of the older 152/172/182 fleet and render what was a $25,000 asset practically worthless. It will be uneconomical to repair in many cases. The above has happened to me personally with a Cessna 182. In the end it was sold for scrap with only the engine and avionics retaining any value. I've also seen the costs of these inspections on a Cessna 210 exceed $20,000. It needed a whole new main wing spar amongst other things. The point I am making is that these very old single engine light aircraft need very meticulous inspections now to ensure they are still safe to fly. I do believe there are probably quite a few seriously at risk aeroplanes still flying today, especially if they have been left outside in coastal areas for any length of time. I used to own a light aeroplane maintenance business.
- da02 10y ago
  Why did you leave the aeroplane maintenance business? What business did you go into afterwards?
  - phillc73 10y ago
    We went broke, for many different reasons. I now work in pharmaceutical engineering R&D, breed thoroughbred horses and mess about with data science.
    - da02 10y ago
      Have you ever known anyone to use hyaluronic acid for old horses?
csours 10y ago
In the last 60 years, automobile engines have improved many times: for instance, the 4.4 liter 8 cylinder engine powering the 1954 Pontiac Chieftain[1] produced as much horsepower and torque as the 1.4 liter turbo in my 2013 Chevy Sonic[2] - and it's not even a particularly good or modern engine. (Disclaimer: I work for GM, I'm using these models because I'm familiar with them) Has the engine in the 172 been improved in that time period? The article says it has not, but I can't imagine using 60 year old tech like that. I understand that it is "proven" tech, but that would be like saying that punch-cards are "proven" tech nowadays. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Chieftain#First_Generation_.281949.E2.80.931954.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Chieftain#First_Genera... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine#Generation_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine#Generation_...
- phillc73 10y ago
  And that is the problem. These old Avgas burning carburetored dinosaurs are hugely inefficient. However, the effort required to certify new engine designs for light aviation is prohibitive, because they're never going to sell in numbers high enough to recoup the development/certification costs. Diamond Aircraft in Austria are producing single and twin engine light aeroplanes with diesel engines, oriignally based on an automotive design. However, they've been through a bankruptcy event and are frankly lucky to still be manufacturing. There are options to retro-fit diesel engines to the single Cessna range, but if I recall correctly, a deal for a new factory build with that option fell through a couple of years ago. Buy a new Cessna 182, still fill it with Avgas.
  - snom380 10y ago
    The diesel engines that Diamond sells now (from Austro Engine) are unrelated to the the old troubled Thielert diesel engines they initially used, IIRC.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      And the Thielert Centurion diesels were based on Mercedes Benz car diesels, by the way!
Animats 10y ago
There are a lot of 1950s and 1960s aircraft designs still flying. That was when smart people went into aircraft design, and it was the most productive period in aircraft design history, as everything went jet-powered. The B-52, the B-737, the B-747, the SR-71, and the Concorde are all from that period. (So are a lot of duds, of interest only to aviation historians.) Ben Rich, former head of the Lockheed Skunk Works, once remarked that he'd worked on 30-some aircraft in his career, but today's engineer will be lucky to work on one.
- nether 10y ago
  I worked on six aircraft by my mid-20s, if you count internships. I'm 31 now. Rich was more referring to sprawling military programs with legislative delays. You can change programs within a company, or change companies. Also, you're kidding yourself if you think any a/c from the '50s is flying with all original parts. Like any machine, it can run indefinitely as long as you replace components. At my first company out of college, we were updating aircraft put into service in the '60s. We did new engineering to redesign parts, for example replacing an assembly of three primary components with a single CNC machined piece of aluminum. It just was not possible to fabricate the geometry with tools of that era. The new assy was simpler and stronger. Advances and upkeep like these are what keep old machines flying.
  - drawnwren 10y ago
    Not only would it be highly improbable, it would be highly illegal. The FAA mandates inspections and part replacements/engine rebuilds at certain hour intervals. That said, here's a C130 that flew for 52 years: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/usafs-oldest-c-130-hercules-iron-horse-has-been-sent-1689811797 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/usafs-oldest-c-130-hercules...
    - debergalis 10y ago
      Engine manufacturers typically specify a TBO -- Time Before Overhaul, which is the number of hours in service an engine can run before it needs to be torn down, inspected, and overhauled according to the manufacturer's procedure. For the most part, commercial operators must adhere to these recommended times, but aircraft operated under FAR Part 91 (roughly, those that aren't used for commercial transportation) aren't required to follow the TBO recommendation. You can run it as long as you want. In practice, most operators do follow those guidelines. I've never heard of any engine doing much more than 2x the TBO before requiring major overhaul. And you'll often need various repairs to cylinders and engine accessories along the way. Interestingly, manufacturers also specify calendar time limits on TBO, but private operators commonly ignore these. Lots of airplanes only fly 25 hours or so a year.
FabHK 10y ago
The article mentions the longest non-stop flight briefly - that was quite a story: the two guys flew for 2 months non-stop. Here [1] are some pictures, incl. of the refuelling. Below some tidbits I found interesting or amusing: - after take-off, they did a low pass to let a chase car paint white stripes on the tires, so that they could not cheat undetected (by landing somewhere and taking a break). - they refuelled about twice a day > “I once asked John’s widow if they handed down the waste during refueling runs. She said, ‘No. That’s why it’s so green around Blythe.’ ” > Some time after the flight, Cook was asked by a reporter if he would ever try to replicate the stunt, to which he replied: “Next time I feel in the mood to fly endurance, I’m going to lock myself in a garbage can with the vacuum cleaner running, and have Bob serve me T-bone steaks chopped up in a thermos bottle. That is, until my psychiatrist opens for business in the morning.” [1] https://disciplesofflight.com/flight-endurance/ https://disciplesofflight.com/flight-endurance/
- fokinsean 10y ago
  That's absolutely insane. Never heard of that before. I would surely go mad being in an airplane for that long.
- quickpost 10y ago
  That article was fascinating - thanks for sharing it. Amazed these guys pulled that off - an incredible feat of endurance, no doubt about it!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tadruj 10y ago
They are still producing them because it's cheap due to "grandfathering" laws. "grandfathering" means if you'd design an airplane like 172 today they wouldn't meet the safety standards and you wouldn't be able to produce them, but since they were designed back in the days, if they don't change the design, they can still produce them. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-for-flight-part-3/10533813/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-f... I fly 172 regularly. It's a safe plane, but you have to know quite a bit about engine and how it works to be really safe up in the sky. I had engine failure on take-off with extremely well maintained plane. Starting the engine is a pain in the ass for most civilians who don't understand 4 stroke engines. Cessna 172 uses about 10 gallons of fuel per hour. That's quite a lot. I think in 2017 there's better options out there.
- FabHK 10y ago
  I had a partial engine failure in a fairly new fuel injected Cessna 172 during descent to landing... didn't overfly the airfield to check wind, but landed instead. The article states: > Luckily, the Cessna’s engine is about as reliable as aircraft engines gets. Unfortunately, that's not that reliable. Statistics I've read (can't locate them now unfortunately) indicate about 2 to 10 inflight engine problems per 100,000 hours, which doesn't sound a lot. But if you fly two hours a weekend, making 1000 hours over a decade, that's a 2 to 10% chance of encountering engine problems right there.
- NelsonMinar 10y ago
  Part of the grandfathering has to do with liability law: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/02/odd-case-liability-and-small-airplanes http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/02/odd-case-liabi... Small plane / general aviation design is a complete mess. Even the fancy new 172SPs are still using engines with 1950s manual spark plug timing.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Fixed spark timing is not that big an engineering deficit for an engine that runs at a fairly constant power setting. Road-going cars need variable spark timing because they are called upon to efficiently make wildly varying amounts of power. (Idle, cruise, accelerate are all part of the normal drive cycle.) Airplane engines, many racecars, and other similar applications that need to produce fixed, high power for prolonged periods of time often use fixed timing mechanisms.
jcutrell 10y ago
I really wish this could get locked in: http://imgur.com/RlwJN2f http://imgur.com/RlwJN2f
jcutrell 10y ago
My dad owns and maintains a 1962 Cessna 182. For those keeping count, that's a 55-year-old bird. Flies like a dream. In fact, we flew it last night. Recently put in a brand new engine. We'll be upgrading avionics soon enough, too. I got my pilot's license this year, and hope to continue the tradition of flying my family in the plane. Take care of stuff and it can last a long time.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
How long till someone starts turning these into (relatively) cheap drones bombers? This is a proven aircraft, add bomb bay doors and a rack and release mechanism for 120mm mortar rounds. Instant 3rd world long range bomber, perfect for the warlord with a dirt strip and a mechanic. Airpower for the cost of ~10 technicals.
- wbl 10y ago
  Already happened in Biafra. But AA guns like ZU-3 are around and will do the job.
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    I immediately thought "just fly higher" and then I was like "wait we've done this before...".
- HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
  If you're going to do that, why make it a drone. Small human pilots don't weigh that much.
cyberferret 10y ago
The Cessna 172/182 types are fine aircraft, but I really would have loved to have seen some more innovation over the years. When I was a student pilot, we did our first handful of familiarisation and evaluation flights in a 172. The instrument panel looked like someone had cut holes in an ironing board and stuck dials in it. The seats were no more than a 2 piece metal bench that someone had stuck thin cushions to, and the seatbelts would have looked at home in a 1940's car. Then we transitioned to the SOCATA TB-10 Tobago for the rest of our training. It was like switching from a Russian built car to a Lamborghini. The instrument panel was ergonomic, recessed for shade, and the engine instruments were actually canted to face the pilot. We had Recaro racing seats in the aircraft which made long navex's more bearable. Inertia reel seatbelts. Gull wing doors that helped cool the aircraft quicker after sitting on a hot tarmac all day. Throttle controls that looked like a jet fighter instead of pull knobs. The European design was simply leagues ahead, and made the flying experience so much better. I am thinking a major reason for the longevity of the Cessna training line is more to do with cost for budget conscious training schools, rather than being a better aircraft than any other trainer.
- debergalis 10y ago
  > I am thinking a major reason for the longevity of the Cessna training line is more to do with cost for budget conscious training schools, rather than being a better aircraft that any other trainer. Yeah, budget and familiarity. I doubt Cessna is selling many 172s to anything other than flight schools.
  - btgeekboy 10y ago
    Your average flight school doesn't buy new 172s. Suckers with a lot of money do. (A new 172 costs over $350k last I checked. One a few years old can go for half.) What flight schools do buy are the 172P, N and M, in that order. A low time 172P, being the last made before production stopped in the 1980s, commands a premium.
batoure 10y ago
I think this article is a little miss leading. I did most of my initial flight training in a 172 I bought with a friend. We had it parked in Tucson near a company that was building custom planes and blazing the trail in glass cockpit design. After a couple years I had built friendships with a number of people there and built the following picture of the industry: Innovation in private aviation is so small that it's dead, this isn't because someone owns the market but because FAA certification of new technologies is a 15 year not like 20 to 25 year process. Why? You ask? Starting in the 70s and into the early 80s there were a number of high profile crashes of private planes. Think Woz, a number of these crashes were due to pilot error, but a number of them became civil lawsuits where the operational complexity of the aircraft was blamed. The FAA was called upon to develope stricter standards which put many private aviation companies out of business. Cessna survived but based on the high price of getting new tech certified which lowers competition there is a way lower incentive for them to change the design. Many of the parts in the engine of my 172 were OE ford parts found on cars in the 60s but the FAA certified stamp meant we would have to buy the 300 dollar version. TL;DR: the enduring success of the Cessna 150-180 is actually a tradgedy of blocked innovation and not something to be proud of.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  > Many of the parts in the engine of my 172 were OE ford parts found on cars in the 60s but the FAA certified stamp meant we would have to buy the 300 dollar version. Here's an interesting tidbit. The voltage regulator for the 14V 172 and 182 was literally made on a parts line that also supplied Ford. For quality control reasons, Ford required statistical inspection of voltage regulators destined for Ford. Cessna required 100% inspection. Because they were made on the same line, a set number got the inspection, some of the inspected parts got Cessna part numbers and FAA PMA stamps, and as a result, Ford was also assured their voltage regulators were OK even though a smaller percentage of those eventually sold by Ford were inspected.
  - batoure 10y ago
    I have heard similar stories, I have also often heard the rumor that its really important to check out the ford parts in the engine of any Cessna you are looking at buying because some mechanics will sneak in the vehicle OE parts when working on their own restoration projects. Which can then get expensive the next time you do 100 hour inspection with an above board mechanic.
beloch 10y ago
While it's "only" 52 years old, another plane still in production (albeit under a new company) that's worthy of discussion is the de Havilland Canada (now Viking) DHC-6 Twin Otter[1]. The Twin Otter isn't just nice to fly, cheap, or ubiquitous. It isn't just a mainstay bush plane everywhere. It's still the best plane in existence for certain extreme requirements. Many different planes can go deep into Antarctica during the summer, but when somebody gets sick enough to warrant evacuation from Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in Antarctica in the middle of winter, as happened in 2016[2], the DHC-6 is still the best plane for the job. In fact, two DHC-6's went because the only plane capable of performing search and rescue for the first was another DHC-6. There simply aren't other planes out there that can land on a short, frozen runway in the dark of an Antarctic Winter when temperatures are so cold that fuel turns into jelly[3]. Viking has been modernizing many aspects of the Twin Otter, but they're still making Twin Otters. The Twin Otter is 52 years old and still does things no other plane can. [1]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-pole-june-22-1.3646966 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-p... [2]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-pole-june-22-1.3646966 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-p... [3]https://fearoflanding.com/misc/twin-otter-emergency-winter-flight-to-the-south-pole/ https://fearoflanding.com/misc/twin-otter-emergency-winter-f...
woodandsteel 10y ago
I think part of the reason we don't see new designs is they wouldn't be that much better. Often a technology advances rapidly, then hits a plateau where future improvements are just modest. Think of jet planes, where everything since the 707 has just been a modification. That is why 50's and 60's planes like the b-52 and the a-10 are still flying. Or space rockets, where we are still just duplicating performance from the 60's (but with SpaceX we finally have something new). Piston planes advanced very rapidly starting with the Wright brothers, but then hit the plateau in the 50's, and the next step up, jets, is just too expensive for most private pilots. Yes, it is possible to produce better small piston planes, but the sales are too small to justify the needed investment. Maybe electric planes will finally get us something new and better.
- scott_karana 10y ago
  I think we'll need revolutionary batteries before we can have "revolutionary" electric planes... ;-)
clueless123 10y ago
Wrong! The title should read : Regulations so strict, 60 years of advances in technology can't make it to the market place. To see what we are missing, Just take a look at experimental aviation which is not as heavily regulated.. *I did most of my basic training on a 172 and I love them like I love a favorite old pair of shoes.
partycoder 10y ago
flightgear (free/opensource flight simulator) has it. To get it started, press the engine primer 3 times, put mixture all the way in, throttle to 20% (+ throttle = 9, - throttle = 3), and turn the key twice (type "}}"), start it (s key), remove the parking brake (shift+B key). Then start increasing the throttle and when the airspeed indicator shows about 50 knots, go up by pressing the down key to take off. Do not try in an actual plane.
vanattab 10y ago
Another great plane that has stood the test of time and is worth mentioning is the B-52. Over 60 years old and still being used extensively. One particular B-52 was piloted by a grandfather, father and finally son. What's more the B-52's are scheduled to keep flying until at least 2045 making a total lifecycle of 90 years!!
gordon_freeman 10y ago
Another good piece on 172 here: http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-172-skyhawks-reborn http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-172-skyhawk...
tyingq 10y ago
Any idea what the longest serving aircraft is? I believe there are still a small number of B52's in place, and they were rolled out in 1952. That's 65 years.
- hollerith 10y ago
  there are prol a few C-47s built during WWII still carrying passengers in 3d-world countries. all the B-52s still in service are B-52Hs and deliveries of the H didn't start till 1961.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    Hmm, okay. The article doesn't seem to make any distinction on the various 172 submodels.
- UhUhUhUh 10y ago
  I'd go for the DC3.
- travisjungroth 10y ago
  Off the top of my head for commercial operation: There are a ton of biplanes from the 1920s you can buy rides in. A friend of mine has a 1918 Curtiss Jenny that's mostly original. It's still flown and displayed at shows. The airplane with the most time on it in the world is a DC-3 with over 100k hours. It's had the engines replaced with turboprops, like many of them.
- HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
  When I was a student pilot in the early 90's a B-17 offering tours flew into my airport. Unfortunately I had my first solo cross country that day and no way was I going to miss it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortresses#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Boeing_B-17_...
newsforum 10y ago
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/visulsign/e/7fde49c6f81eb40cc6a95f2f57da33cf http://blog.goo.ne.jp/visulsign/e/7fde49c6f81eb40cc6a95f2f57...
OliverJones 10y ago
Airplaneheads often gripe that mass-media stories always glorify airframes and ignore powerplants. This story deserves that gripe. The story is actually about Cessna and Lycoming. The Skyhawk airframe makes the machine easy to fly and land. The Lycoming engine makes unplanned landings very rare. Both are very important! It really is an amazing airplane. In really cold weather in a 40 knot headwind I've gotten negative groundspeed in stable flight. It takes real work to stall the airframe, and it recovers immediately if you let go of the controls.

509 points by nairteashop 10y ago

>The 172 was based on an earlier Cessna design called the 150. This looked very similar apart from the fact it was a “taildragger” I think they've got their Cessnas in a muddle. The 140 was a taildragger. I learnt to fly in a 150 which definitely had a wheel at the front.

mc32 10y ago
Piper J3s were tail draggers too with fabric skin by then they were using aluminum tubing instead of spruce or whatever for the fuselage and wings.
a3n 10y ago
Wikipedia lists the 172 as a variant of the 170, a tail dragger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_170 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_170 My first skydive (static line), and many after that, was from a 170.
- paulmd 10y ago
  But I bet it wasn't as exciting as this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ6g_TcevCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ6g_TcevCE unedited/better video: https://youtu.be/7p6hqMnsLFY?t=81 https://youtu.be/7p6hqMnsLFY?t=81 (As a pilot: that one was a super pisser, the upper Cessna flew into the lower one and punctured the wing, rolling it over his engine, nothing the lower guy could have done. Thankfully the lower guy was wearing his seat chute (required on these kind of ops) and the upper guy (who wasn't wearing his required seat chute) managed to survive)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

One answer comes from the fact that the Cessna 172 is a high-wing monoplane – meaning the wings sit high above the cockpit. This is very useful for student pilots because it gives them a better view of the ground and makes the aircraft much easier to land. I had to think for a moment what a monoplane is. It's not a biplane. Anyway, the high-wing design also causes the plane to fly level with regard to it's roll angle if you take your hands off the controls, due to the center of gravity being below the wings.

danielvf 10y ago
Low wing aircraft will do that too. It's a matter of dihedral - the upward slope of the wings on most civilian aircraft.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Yes that's true, good point.
  - phillc73 10y ago
    In practice, on most older types, you have to trim them to achieve hands free straight and level flight.
- skookumchuck 10y ago
  The dihedral works because a wing angled upwards produces less lift than one parallel to the ground.
  - clon 10y ago
    This is a completely inaccurate statement. The lift produce by both wings remains unchanged regardless of the roll angle. It is defined in terms of relative airflow over the wings, being always perpendicular to the former. Lift is NOT (usefully) defined relative to terra firma, a common misconception. So in the relative frame of the aircraft itself, the lift vector is unchanged in terms of the machine itself. Rolling the aircraft rotates the lift vector, causing a larger "sideways" component and reducing the "vertical" component. For example, at 45 degrees bank the load factor is, in fact, 1.41, meaning that the wings ought to produce 1.41 times the lift to maintain altitude. So the real reason why a dihedral tends to "auto-correct" the bank angle is that if you rotate the airplane into a bank without adding power then you really are not going to maintain your altitude against gravitational acceleration and are going to descend through the airmass. Now, given that your airplane is now at a 45 degrees angle relative to the source of gravitational attraction, the aircraft is going to see (from it's vantage point) some"sideways" airflow over the wings. Imagine an airflow component originating from the tip of the wing, towards the fuselage. What now happens is that the "falling" wing is going to work much more efficiently because a number of reasons, causing the aircraft to experience an aerodynamically stabilizing force. The easiest way to see is that if you imagine a V-shape object moving sideways (let's imagine from right to left), the \ part of the V is going to deflect airflow and produce some "sideways lift" while the / part will not exhibit such a phenomena. But in terms of the 172, it's high-wing configuration actually does not require dihedral because the actual fuselage of the aircraft "shadows" the high wing, making in naturally less efficient at producing lift, thereby again correcting the bank angle. Airplane designers attempt to balance this out so that the final design not only is statically stable (correcting in the right direction) but also dynamically stable (the oscillations should be self-limiting).

sunflowerfly 10y ago

I have flown one, and while good, it is not "that good". What happened is the FAA rules are so stringent to create a new aircraft, that the subsequent cost was so high, that few new small plane designs make ROI sense. This has created a case where the strict rules in the name of safety have actually caused a reduction in safety. This plane was originally designed on slide rules. Today we could create more optimized designs in almost every metric, including safety, but no company can afford to do so. The FAA is supposed to change these rules soon.

eblanshey 10y ago
> The FAA is supposed to change these rules soon. I'd be interested in reading a source for this, because that would be pretty big news.
- ksherlock 10y ago
  https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Part23_FinalRule_2120-AK65_WebCopy.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently... https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Revision_Airworthiness_Standards_Normal_Utility_Acrobatic_Commuter_Airplanes_NPRM.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently... https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/understanding-part-23-rewrite https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/understanding-... http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-part-23-rewrite-plan http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-part-23-rewrite-plan
nether 10y ago
> Today we could create more optimized designs in almost every metric, including safety, but no company can afford to do so. Really? The Cirrus SR20, SR22 don't count? Haven't they been outselling the 172 for several years now?
- gsnedders 10y ago
  At, AFAIK, almost double the cost. They're different parts of the market.

geff82 10y ago

The 172 simply has some advantages even after all those years. First, it is known everywhere (also its quirks, which makes is safer). Second, the high wing makes it perfect for the young pilot to fly. And third, it has space! I, at 1.87 meter length, can sit comfortably in its back with some spare headroom remaining. I can't tell this of many other aircraft in a similar segment.

phillc73 10y ago

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the Cessna 182, which also started production in 1956 and is still rolling out of the factory new today. While the article extols the virtue of the 172's engine, the fact is that the vast majority of them are running very old designs with carburetors and on Avgas. Avgas still contains lead. These old engines are hugely inefficient and flown incorrectly prone to cracked cylinders. Newer models are fuel injected and there are also a few diesel conversions. All Cessna single engine aircraft now have to undergo supplementary inspections (SIDS), at least in Australia and I think it is the same in the US. I've seen first hand the horrendous amount of corrosion which can hide in a 50 year old aeroplane and not be found until the wings are removed. These SIDS inspections have the potential to ground much of the older 152/172/182 fleet and render what was a $25,000 asset practically worthless. It will be uneconomical to repair in many cases. The above has happened to me personally with a Cessna 182. In the end it was sold for scrap with only the engine and avionics retaining any value. I've also seen the costs of these inspections on a Cessna 210 exceed $20,000. It needed a whole new main wing spar amongst other things. The point I am making is that these very old single engine light aircraft need very meticulous inspections now to ensure they are still safe to fly. I do believe there are probably quite a few seriously at risk aeroplanes still flying today, especially if they have been left outside in coastal areas for any length of time. I used to own a light aeroplane maintenance business.

da02 10y ago
Why did you leave the aeroplane maintenance business? What business did you go into afterwards?
- phillc73 10y ago
  We went broke, for many different reasons. I now work in pharmaceutical engineering R&D, breed thoroughbred horses and mess about with data science.
  - da02 10y ago
    Have you ever known anyone to use hyaluronic acid for old horses?

csours 10y ago

In the last 60 years, automobile engines have improved many times: for instance, the 4.4 liter 8 cylinder engine powering the 1954 Pontiac Chieftain[1] produced as much horsepower and torque as the 1.4 liter turbo in my 2013 Chevy Sonic[2] - and it's not even a particularly good or modern engine. (Disclaimer: I work for GM, I'm using these models because I'm familiar with them) Has the engine in the 172 been improved in that time period? The article says it has not, but I can't imagine using 60 year old tech like that. I understand that it is "proven" tech, but that would be like saying that punch-cards are "proven" tech nowadays. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Chieftain#First_Generation_.281949.E2.80.931954.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Chieftain#First_Genera... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine#Generation_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine#Generation_...

phillc73 10y ago
And that is the problem. These old Avgas burning carburetored dinosaurs are hugely inefficient. However, the effort required to certify new engine designs for light aviation is prohibitive, because they're never going to sell in numbers high enough to recoup the development/certification costs. Diamond Aircraft in Austria are producing single and twin engine light aeroplanes with diesel engines, oriignally based on an automotive design. However, they've been through a bankruptcy event and are frankly lucky to still be manufacturing. There are options to retro-fit diesel engines to the single Cessna range, but if I recall correctly, a deal for a new factory build with that option fell through a couple of years ago. Buy a new Cessna 182, still fill it with Avgas.
- snom380 10y ago
  The diesel engines that Diamond sells now (from Austro Engine) are unrelated to the the old troubled Thielert diesel engines they initially used, IIRC.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    And the Thielert Centurion diesels were based on Mercedes Benz car diesels, by the way!

Animats 10y ago

There are a lot of 1950s and 1960s aircraft designs still flying. That was when smart people went into aircraft design, and it was the most productive period in aircraft design history, as everything went jet-powered. The B-52, the B-737, the B-747, the SR-71, and the Concorde are all from that period. (So are a lot of duds, of interest only to aviation historians.) Ben Rich, former head of the Lockheed Skunk Works, once remarked that he'd worked on 30-some aircraft in his career, but today's engineer will be lucky to work on one.

nether 10y ago
I worked on six aircraft by my mid-20s, if you count internships. I'm 31 now. Rich was more referring to sprawling military programs with legislative delays. You can change programs within a company, or change companies. Also, you're kidding yourself if you think any a/c from the '50s is flying with all original parts. Like any machine, it can run indefinitely as long as you replace components. At my first company out of college, we were updating aircraft put into service in the '60s. We did new engineering to redesign parts, for example replacing an assembly of three primary components with a single CNC machined piece of aluminum. It just was not possible to fabricate the geometry with tools of that era. The new assy was simpler and stronger. Advances and upkeep like these are what keep old machines flying.
- drawnwren 10y ago
  Not only would it be highly improbable, it would be highly illegal. The FAA mandates inspections and part replacements/engine rebuilds at certain hour intervals. That said, here's a C130 that flew for 52 years: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/usafs-oldest-c-130-hercules-iron-horse-has-been-sent-1689811797 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/usafs-oldest-c-130-hercules...
  - debergalis 10y ago
    Engine manufacturers typically specify a TBO -- Time Before Overhaul, which is the number of hours in service an engine can run before it needs to be torn down, inspected, and overhauled according to the manufacturer's procedure. For the most part, commercial operators must adhere to these recommended times, but aircraft operated under FAR Part 91 (roughly, those that aren't used for commercial transportation) aren't required to follow the TBO recommendation. You can run it as long as you want. In practice, most operators do follow those guidelines. I've never heard of any engine doing much more than 2x the TBO before requiring major overhaul. And you'll often need various repairs to cylinders and engine accessories along the way. Interestingly, manufacturers also specify calendar time limits on TBO, but private operators commonly ignore these. Lots of airplanes only fly 25 hours or so a year.

FabHK 10y ago

The article mentions the longest non-stop flight briefly - that was quite a story: the two guys flew for 2 months non-stop. Here [1] are some pictures, incl. of the refuelling. Below some tidbits I found interesting or amusing: - after take-off, they did a low pass to let a chase car paint white stripes on the tires, so that they could not cheat undetected (by landing somewhere and taking a break). - they refuelled about twice a day > “I once asked John’s widow if they handed down the waste during refueling runs. She said, ‘No. That’s why it’s so green around Blythe.’ ” > Some time after the flight, Cook was asked by a reporter if he would ever try to replicate the stunt, to which he replied: “Next time I feel in the mood to fly endurance, I’m going to lock myself in a garbage can with the vacuum cleaner running, and have Bob serve me T-bone steaks chopped up in a thermos bottle. That is, until my psychiatrist opens for business in the morning.” [1] https://disciplesofflight.com/flight-endurance/ https://disciplesofflight.com/flight-endurance/

fokinsean 10y ago
That's absolutely insane. Never heard of that before. I would surely go mad being in an airplane for that long.
quickpost 10y ago
That article was fascinating - thanks for sharing it. Amazed these guys pulled that off - an incredible feat of endurance, no doubt about it!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tadruj 10y ago

They are still producing them because it's cheap due to "grandfathering" laws. "grandfathering" means if you'd design an airplane like 172 today they wouldn't meet the safety standards and you wouldn't be able to produce them, but since they were designed back in the days, if they don't change the design, they can still produce them. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-for-flight-part-3/10533813/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-f... I fly 172 regularly. It's a safe plane, but you have to know quite a bit about engine and how it works to be really safe up in the sky. I had engine failure on take-off with extremely well maintained plane. Starting the engine is a pain in the ass for most civilians who don't understand 4 stroke engines. Cessna 172 uses about 10 gallons of fuel per hour. That's quite a lot. I think in 2017 there's better options out there.

FabHK 10y ago
I had a partial engine failure in a fairly new fuel injected Cessna 172 during descent to landing... didn't overfly the airfield to check wind, but landed instead. The article states: > Luckily, the Cessna’s engine is about as reliable as aircraft engines gets. Unfortunately, that's not that reliable. Statistics I've read (can't locate them now unfortunately) indicate about 2 to 10 inflight engine problems per 100,000 hours, which doesn't sound a lot. But if you fly two hours a weekend, making 1000 hours over a decade, that's a 2 to 10% chance of encountering engine problems right there.
NelsonMinar 10y ago
Part of the grandfathering has to do with liability law: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/02/odd-case-liability-and-small-airplanes http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/02/odd-case-liabi... Small plane / general aviation design is a complete mess. Even the fancy new 172SPs are still using engines with 1950s manual spark plug timing.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Fixed spark timing is not that big an engineering deficit for an engine that runs at a fairly constant power setting. Road-going cars need variable spark timing because they are called upon to efficiently make wildly varying amounts of power. (Idle, cruise, accelerate are all part of the normal drive cycle.) Airplane engines, many racecars, and other similar applications that need to produce fixed, high power for prolonged periods of time often use fixed timing mechanisms.

jcutrell 10y ago

I really wish this could get locked in: http://imgur.com/RlwJN2f http://imgur.com/RlwJN2f

jcutrell 10y ago

My dad owns and maintains a 1962 Cessna 182. For those keeping count, that's a 55-year-old bird. Flies like a dream. In fact, we flew it last night. Recently put in a brand new engine. We'll be upgrading avionics soon enough, too. I got my pilot's license this year, and hope to continue the tradition of flying my family in the plane. Take care of stuff and it can last a long time.

ryanmarsh 10y ago

How long till someone starts turning these into (relatively) cheap drones bombers? This is a proven aircraft, add bomb bay doors and a rack and release mechanism for 120mm mortar rounds. Instant 3rd world long range bomber, perfect for the warlord with a dirt strip and a mechanic. Airpower for the cost of ~10 technicals.

wbl 10y ago
Already happened in Biafra. But AA guns like ZU-3 are around and will do the job.
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  I immediately thought "just fly higher" and then I was like "wait we've done this before...".
HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
If you're going to do that, why make it a drone. Small human pilots don't weigh that much.

cyberferret 10y ago

The Cessna 172/182 types are fine aircraft, but I really would have loved to have seen some more innovation over the years. When I was a student pilot, we did our first handful of familiarisation and evaluation flights in a 172. The instrument panel looked like someone had cut holes in an ironing board and stuck dials in it. The seats were no more than a 2 piece metal bench that someone had stuck thin cushions to, and the seatbelts would have looked at home in a 1940's car. Then we transitioned to the SOCATA TB-10 Tobago for the rest of our training. It was like switching from a Russian built car to a Lamborghini. The instrument panel was ergonomic, recessed for shade, and the engine instruments were actually canted to face the pilot. We had Recaro racing seats in the aircraft which made long navex's more bearable. Inertia reel seatbelts. Gull wing doors that helped cool the aircraft quicker after sitting on a hot tarmac all day. Throttle controls that looked like a jet fighter instead of pull knobs. The European design was simply leagues ahead, and made the flying experience so much better. I am thinking a major reason for the longevity of the Cessna training line is more to do with cost for budget conscious training schools, rather than being a better aircraft than any other trainer.

debergalis 10y ago
> I am thinking a major reason for the longevity of the Cessna training line is more to do with cost for budget conscious training schools, rather than being a better aircraft that any other trainer. Yeah, budget and familiarity. I doubt Cessna is selling many 172s to anything other than flight schools.
- btgeekboy 10y ago
  Your average flight school doesn't buy new 172s. Suckers with a lot of money do. (A new 172 costs over $350k last I checked. One a few years old can go for half.) What flight schools do buy are the 172P, N and M, in that order. A low time 172P, being the last made before production stopped in the 1980s, commands a premium.

batoure 10y ago

I think this article is a little miss leading. I did most of my initial flight training in a 172 I bought with a friend. We had it parked in Tucson near a company that was building custom planes and blazing the trail in glass cockpit design. After a couple years I had built friendships with a number of people there and built the following picture of the industry: Innovation in private aviation is so small that it's dead, this isn't because someone owns the market but because FAA certification of new technologies is a 15 year not like 20 to 25 year process. Why? You ask? Starting in the 70s and into the early 80s there were a number of high profile crashes of private planes. Think Woz, a number of these crashes were due to pilot error, but a number of them became civil lawsuits where the operational complexity of the aircraft was blamed. The FAA was called upon to develope stricter standards which put many private aviation companies out of business. Cessna survived but based on the high price of getting new tech certified which lowers competition there is a way lower incentive for them to change the design. Many of the parts in the engine of my 172 were OE ford parts found on cars in the 60s but the FAA certified stamp meant we would have to buy the 300 dollar version. TL;DR: the enduring success of the Cessna 150-180 is actually a tradgedy of blocked innovation and not something to be proud of.

sokoloff 10y ago
> Many of the parts in the engine of my 172 were OE ford parts found on cars in the 60s but the FAA certified stamp meant we would have to buy the 300 dollar version. Here's an interesting tidbit. The voltage regulator for the 14V 172 and 182 was literally made on a parts line that also supplied Ford. For quality control reasons, Ford required statistical inspection of voltage regulators destined for Ford. Cessna required 100% inspection. Because they were made on the same line, a set number got the inspection, some of the inspected parts got Cessna part numbers and FAA PMA stamps, and as a result, Ford was also assured their voltage regulators were OK even though a smaller percentage of those eventually sold by Ford were inspected.
- batoure 10y ago
  I have heard similar stories, I have also often heard the rumor that its really important to check out the ford parts in the engine of any Cessna you are looking at buying because some mechanics will sneak in the vehicle OE parts when working on their own restoration projects. Which can then get expensive the next time you do 100 hour inspection with an above board mechanic.

beloch 10y ago

While it's "only" 52 years old, another plane still in production (albeit under a new company) that's worthy of discussion is the de Havilland Canada (now Viking) DHC-6 Twin Otter[1]. The Twin Otter isn't just nice to fly, cheap, or ubiquitous. It isn't just a mainstay bush plane everywhere. It's still the best plane in existence for certain extreme requirements. Many different planes can go deep into Antarctica during the summer, but when somebody gets sick enough to warrant evacuation from Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in Antarctica in the middle of winter, as happened in 2016[2], the DHC-6 is still the best plane for the job. In fact, two DHC-6's went because the only plane capable of performing search and rescue for the first was another DHC-6. There simply aren't other planes out there that can land on a short, frozen runway in the dark of an Antarctic Winter when temperatures are so cold that fuel turns into jelly[3]. Viking has been modernizing many aspects of the Twin Otter, but they're still making Twin Otters. The Twin Otter is 52 years old and still does things no other plane can. [1]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-pole-june-22-1.3646966 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-p... [2]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-pole-june-22-1.3646966 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-p... [3]https://fearoflanding.com/misc/twin-otter-emergency-winter-flight-to-the-south-pole/ https://fearoflanding.com/misc/twin-otter-emergency-winter-f...

woodandsteel 10y ago

I think part of the reason we don't see new designs is they wouldn't be that much better. Often a technology advances rapidly, then hits a plateau where future improvements are just modest. Think of jet planes, where everything since the 707 has just been a modification. That is why 50's and 60's planes like the b-52 and the a-10 are still flying. Or space rockets, where we are still just duplicating performance from the 60's (but with SpaceX we finally have something new). Piston planes advanced very rapidly starting with the Wright brothers, but then hit the plateau in the 50's, and the next step up, jets, is just too expensive for most private pilots. Yes, it is possible to produce better small piston planes, but the sales are too small to justify the needed investment. Maybe electric planes will finally get us something new and better.

scott_karana 10y ago
I think we'll need revolutionary batteries before we can have "revolutionary" electric planes... ;-)

clueless123 10y ago

Wrong! The title should read : Regulations so strict, 60 years of advances in technology can't make it to the market place. To see what we are missing, Just take a look at experimental aviation which is not as heavily regulated.. *I did most of my basic training on a 172 and I love them like I love a favorite old pair of shoes.

partycoder 10y ago

flightgear (free/opensource flight simulator) has it. To get it started, press the engine primer 3 times, put mixture all the way in, throttle to 20% (+ throttle = 9, - throttle = 3), and turn the key twice (type "}}"), start it (s key), remove the parking brake (shift+B key). Then start increasing the throttle and when the airspeed indicator shows about 50 knots, go up by pressing the down key to take off. Do not try in an actual plane.

vanattab 10y ago

Another great plane that has stood the test of time and is worth mentioning is the B-52. Over 60 years old and still being used extensively. One particular B-52 was piloted by a grandfather, father and finally son. What's more the B-52's are scheduled to keep flying until at least 2045 making a total lifecycle of 90 years!!

gordon_freeman 10y ago

Another good piece on 172 here: http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-172-skyhawks-reborn http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-172-skyhawk...

tyingq 10y ago

Any idea what the longest serving aircraft is? I believe there are still a small number of B52's in place, and they were rolled out in 1952. That's 65 years.

hollerith 10y ago
there are prol a few C-47s built during WWII still carrying passengers in 3d-world countries. all the B-52s still in service are B-52Hs and deliveries of the H didn't start till 1961.
- tyingq 10y ago
  Hmm, okay. The article doesn't seem to make any distinction on the various 172 submodels.
UhUhUhUh 10y ago
I'd go for the DC3.
travisjungroth 10y ago
Off the top of my head for commercial operation: There are a ton of biplanes from the 1920s you can buy rides in. A friend of mine has a 1918 Curtiss Jenny that's mostly original. It's still flown and displayed at shows. The airplane with the most time on it in the world is a DC-3 with over 100k hours. It's had the engines replaced with turboprops, like many of them.
HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
When I was a student pilot in the early 90's a B-17 offering tours flew into my airport. Unfortunately I had my first solo cross country that day and no way was I going to miss it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortresses#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Boeing_B-17_...

newsforum 10y ago

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/visulsign/e/7fde49c6f81eb40cc6a95f2f57da33cf http://blog.goo.ne.jp/visulsign/e/7fde49c6f81eb40cc6a95f2f57...

OliverJones 10y ago

Airplaneheads often gripe that mass-media stories always glorify airframes and ignore powerplants. This story deserves that gripe. The story is actually about Cessna and Lycoming. The Skyhawk airframe makes the machine easy to fly and land. The Lycoming engine makes unplanned landings very rare. Both are very important! It really is an amazing airplane. In really cold weather in a 40 knot headwind I've gotten negative groundspeed in stable flight. It takes real work to stall the airframe, and it recovers immediately if you let go of the controls.