16 ms·
Why the Cessna is such a badass plane (2019)
- Bud 6y agoLooks fun, but, extremely paywalled.
- LeoPanthera 6y agohttps://archive.is/1uFwR https://archive.is/1uFwR
- catalogia 6y agoThe article loads [for me] with javascript disabled.
- leetrout 6y agoRelated the 408 just had its test flight! https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2020/05/first-cessna-skycourier-twin-utility-turboprop-takes-flight?sc_camp=sc-promo-first-flight https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2020/05/first-cessna-skycourie... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_408_SkyCourier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_408_SkyCourier
- sitkack 6y agoGreat price! Not as pretty as the Dornier or Twin Otter, but it will do.
- harrylepotter 6y ago$('p.body-text').css('filter','none');
- briandear 6y agoI have a Cessna T206 and it’s by far (in my opinion,) the most versatile piston single in existence. 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.)
- dver 6y agoThe 206 is great load hauling beast, not had the chance to fly one myself. Plenty of time in the 172 and 182, had a 172 for awhile. 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.
- godelski 6y agoWhile they make a lot of great points in the article I think there is one that is missed. The 172 is CHEAP! You can pick up a Skyhawk for under $30k. That's a big part of why they are the training vehicle of choice (in addition to the other points they make). This makes it the Model-T of aircraft. It really is the plane for the masses.
- btgeekboy 6y agoYou definitely don’t want a $30k Skyhawk. Flight schools snap up the good ones very quickly, and all you will find at that price are ones with run out engines and 10k hours. A $30k 150/152 though... that’s a good deal.
- ksherlock 6y agoA 40-50 year old 172 is cheap enough but a new one is $400,000 or so.
- AWildC182 6y ago172s are typically MORE expensive for what you get. The training commonality causes their price to go up on the resale market and the new ones cessna still makes are ludicrously expensive. 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 :)
- freerobby 6y agoThe problem is the same is true about 2-seaters, except they only really seat 1. :) 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.
- lisper 6y agoIronically, the main thing that makes Cessnas such badass planes (at least piston Cessnas -- the company makes jets too) is that they are not badass at all. They are docile and forgiving and practical and reliable and easy to fly. They are the Toyota Camrys of airplanes.
- tjr225 6y ago"Why the Camry is such a badass car" would be a great article, as well.
- et-al 6y agoJalopnik has at least two odes to the Camry https://jalopnik.com/apologize-for-nothing-when-you-own-the-best-toyota-camr-1809072545 https://jalopnik.com/apologize-for-nothing-when-you-own-the-... https://jalopnik.com/this-near-mint-20-year-old-toyota-camry-is-one-of-the-b-1840774840 https://jalopnik.com/this-near-mint-20-year-old-toyota-camry...
- tjr225 6y agoAwesome! Thanks for the links. My family has a 2006 highlander(essentially a v6 Camry suv) which has carted us coast to coast multiple times. We bought it used at 110k miles a few years ago and it is at almost 200k miles now. We enjoy having fun cars but try to always have a reliable Toyota as our daily- and long distance- driver.
- CPAhem 6y agoSame as HiLux pickups
- satori99 6y agoWhy Rebel Groups Love the Toyota Hilux (2010) > [...] 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-74195 https://www.newsweek.com/why-rebel-groups-love-toyota-hilux-...
- pseudolus 6y agoThe "Hacienda" referenced in the article is on display (suspended from the ceiling) at McCarran Airport in Las Vegas. [0]. It's amazing how many people walk by it everyday without any awareness as to its history. [0] https://news3lv.com/features/video-vault/video-vault-plane-in-record-breaking-flight-remains-at-mccarran-as-a-piece-of-history https://news3lv.com/features/video-vault/video-vault-plane-i...
- wahern 6y agoYou buried the lede! "[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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UWZhc4Bj10
- bronco21016 6y agoPeople are losing it over being quarantined to an apartment for 2 months. These guys lived in a freakin’ Cessna for 2 months and had to constantly tend to the aircraft to stay afloat. Just kinda cool to put it in perspective how challenging that must have been. 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!
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoI believe they also fell asleep a couple of times and the aircraft just kept on flying straight and level until they woke up.
- xbeta 6y agoEngineering is always an interesting space that simplistic, lean, great documentation, easily replaceable components and simple UX win. This sounds like the book The Toyota Way describe.
- 4cao 6y agoThe article is an interesting read as far as the history of the plane and various anecdotes about it are concerned but it doesn't really say why it's still so "badass" nowadays, after 60+ years: is it primarily (1) popular because it's so good (technologically superior, perfectly fit for purpose), or (2) good because it's so popular (i.e. attained a critical mass of people familiar with it)? 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/badass-planes-ranked/?slide=5 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?
- rootusrootus 6y agoSeems like the 172/182 planes would fall under the 'workhorse' category. Still being produced new 60 years later without being phased out for something newer is a pretty impressive testament to the design.
- bitwize 6y agoIt's almost as if they are the quintessential airplanes. Not in terms of performance, but like, if you want to show aliens how to make fixed-wing, heavier-than-air aircraft and you want to give them a "reference implementation" that illustrates the basic principles, you give them a Cessna 172/182. Easy to fly and to maintain, comprehensible by a technician without the specialized knowledge demanded by high-performance jets and stuff.
- TylerE 6y agoIt's a bit of both, but it's much more so that they built a lot of them, and then threats of lawsuits basically tanked general aviation production in about 1985 and it's never really recovered - so there is a heavy bias towards older design. 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.
- billme 6y agoFun fact: In the some countries (for example the US) you can fly solo passenger ultralight helicopters & airplanes with no training or legal requirements as long as it’s in unregulated airspace. Warning: Doing so likely end up resulting in serious bodily harm, if not death.
- brendoelfrendo 6y agoThis is true, but it's worth pointing out that the Cesna 172 is not an ultralight.
- redis_mlc 6y ago> Fun fact: In the some countries (for example the US) you can fly solo passenger ultralight helicopters & airplanes with no training or legal requirements as long as it’s in unregulated airspace. Warning: Doing so likely end up resulting in serious bodily harm, if not death. 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.
- 04rob 6y agoYou only need a driver's license to meet the medical requirements, but in the US you still need a sport pilot's license to fly light sport, which is most of a "full" private pilot's license.
- travisjungroth 6y agoYou wouldn’t believe the amount of times I had to explain stuff like this to guys who thought the Sport Pilot Certificate would be a breeze. 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.
- RickJWagner 6y agoI made my first (and one of just a few) parachute jumps out of a Cessna. Looking back, the plane seemed tiny. I think we had 2 or 3 jumpers, a jump-master and a pilot crammed in there. Exhilarating.
- JoeDaDude 6y agoWe would routinely pack 5 jumpers + pilot in the slightly larger Cessna 182. Except for the pilot, all seats had been removed.
- songshuu 6y agoNot even a nod to Piper in the whole article... scandalous! 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.
- tobmlt 6y agoI trained mostly in a (piper) warrior. Loved that pokey little bird. Much cooler getting around in a super cub. One day I’ll get a Bellanca.... one day!
- TylerE 6y agoI mean, it's Popular Mechanics... not exactly a publication known for quality journalism.
- 29083011397778 6y agoThey almost had a nod to Beechcraft, though
- base698 6y agoI think of planes as having a CAP Theorem like trade off between speed, safety, utility (can I take a family of 6), and price. A used 172 is pretty safe but greatly lacks in other categories. A Lancair 4P optimizes for speed, but greatly sacrifices safety. a Pilatus maximizes all but price, yet it costs $3 million. Bonanzas are pretty good on speed, and utility but a bit more expensive than most piston singles, decent used ones cost $350k+. 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/Beechcraft_Bonanza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12
- nopzor 6y agooverall i agree with you, i'd love a mooney, and would probably buy one (or a used cirrus) if i was in the market for an airplane. 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
- kitteh 6y agoRetract on any aircraft is going to drive up insurance.
- griffinkelly 6y agoThe number of gear up landings on Mooneys surprisingly high. As for cirruses, they are rather unforgiving, and I think people get some confidence with the parachute--every time I hear about an accident, I feel I'm reading about another Cirrus.
- 6y ago
- thrower123 6y agoIsn't it almost impossible to get any significant innovations in private general aviation these days due to FAA regulations?
- nopzor 6y agoregulation is certainly part of it, but i think it's more of a demand thing; ga is kind of dying. 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.
- sokoloff 6y agoHow’d they miss the mark with BasicMed? I think it could be expanded somewhat (gross weight over 6000), but overall it seems like a quite good program. (I hold a 2nd class and BasicMed.)
- ryandrake 6y agoI thought it was lawsuits that killed certified GA innovation back from about the mid-80s to the mid-90s. As lutorm wrote in the other reply, E-AB kind of took over in the area of modern innovation.
- lutorm 6y agoNot at all, there's plenty of innovation going on, but it's mostly within the Experimental Amateur-Built category.
- stormdennis 6y agoRecently heard the boss of Ryanair saying that he'd never travel by helicopter, it's not safe enough. How safe is travel in a light airplane compared to a commercial airliner, I wonder? Helicopters and light aircraft vs Boeing/Airbus seem like motorcycles vs car to my safety first mind.
- griffinkelly 6y agoBig issue with light airplanes is you can't fly through serious inclement weather as it'll cause dangerous icing conditions that the big Boeing/Airbus type aircraft can. Some light aircraft have deicing or anti-icing, but its pretty rare.
- TylerE 6y agoThis is totally incorrect. Icing isn't even in the top 10. 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.
- griffinkelly 6y agoThat's an issue of pilot error, not a difference in the physical airplane.
- travisjungroth 6y agoIn 2016, there was one icing related crash in general aviation and no fatalities.
- griffinkelly 6y agoHaving flown into icing conditions in both airplanes with and without deicing, I can say this is the largest differentiation in my personal comfort level in an airplane.
- madengr 6y agoWatch some of the Air Safety Institute videos on YouTube. I believe 90% of general aviation accidents are VFR rated pilots flying into IMC (i.e. flying into clouds).
- nimbius 6y agogood article, minus the 'soviet embarrassment' part. It might have gotten a few politicians sacked, but it was absolutely the right thing to do and nothing to be ashamed of. There was no loss of life. 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. Compared to Cuba, which routinely used to blow cessnas out of the air with callous precision, the Soviet Union is pretty disciplined. 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.
- trhway 6y ago>the Soviet Union is pretty disciplined 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 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 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] "
- chrischattin 6y agoWhile Cessnas have a great history and have trained the majority of pilots out there today, badass is hardly the word I'd use to describe them. 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.
- starpilot 6y agoThis is fan service to the millennials who have taken up flying lessons during their midlife crisis. The guys wearing aviators while pretending their aircraft doesn't sound like a lawnmower.
- icebraining 6y agoMillennials are way too young to be having midlife crises, even the Gen X'ers are only in the 40s-50s currently.
- fuckface123 6y agobut they're easy to fly, forgiving and as far as I can tell unbreakable (though my students try to prove me wrong)
- justanotherc 6y agoI agree. I have around 1500 hrs in 150s/172s/206s, and about the same in Piper Cherokees, Twin Comanches, and Navajos. I'd pick Piper any day of the week in any category. Except for maybe off-field operations Pipers are better airplanes in every way.
- elcomet 6y ago> GA, EAA 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
- fmakunbound 6y agoI guess it’s how you define “badass”. I flew 172 for a while. I may as well had driven a large, slow truck. There has been no innovation at Cessna in at least 50 years.
- flexie 6y agoMathias Rust was German, not a "Finnish teenager".
- progre 6y agoI'm not shopping for an airplane and probably never will, but this category of gear is exactly what I look for whenever I buy other stuff. Uremarkable stuff with looong production runs, preferably several decades. Keywords I look for: "workhorse", "rugged", "most sold". It's almost never the best gear that falls into this category, but the $/utility is often fantastic.
- mikorym 6y agoIMO the main feature of the Cessna 182 is its very slow stalling speed. If you think about it, the stalling speed is the one thing that you can use to make a really tiny plane safer than a large plane that may have two or more engines. 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.
- mikorym 6y ago> Cessna has no timeline for the JT-A and the diesel 172. [1] 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182_Skylane#Development
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- AdrianB1 6y ago(pilot here) Cessna was a badass plane 50 years ago, but it is no longer; for the past 20 years is is lagging a lot behind in terms of weight, engine power and fuel consumption. I have very little time on 152 and 172, definitely not an expert, but from the ~ 10 plane models I flied as pilot the Cessnas were at the bottom 3. For 2 seaters an 152 is twice as heavy as the other planes, the engine is obsolete giving low power with high fuel consumption, practically for a 2-seater Rotax 912 powered LSA's are better from any point of view: lighter, faster, cheaper to buy and operate, have shorter take of and landing (better power to weight ratio), fly longer (better mileage) and nicer to fly (fast and agile). 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.
- mikorym 6y ago> Overall, Cessna is the Harley Davidson of the aviation world 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.
- AdrianB1 6y agoSafety in aviation is a different story, I never said Cessna has planes that are not safe. In this class all the planes have very low stall speed, Cessna is not better than others. If you compare with much faster planes (cruise and top speed), they also have higher stall speeds, they tend to go together.
- _ph_ 6y agoIt is interesting to see how the 50ies and 60ies were a time, where a lot of aircraft were designed, which are still flying to day, including the 747. The technology had become just good enough to come up with long-lasting designs. 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.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoThe batteries are still too heavy for electric to make sense in my opinion.
- ngcc_hk 6y agoAnyway can’t do a real day trip like the f35 pilot but still spend quite a lot time to fly in x11. Quite good in surfing and looking around. Wait for Xbox and Microsoft simulator.
- myrandomcomment 6y agoI learned on a Piper. My friend learned on a Cessna. When he received his license went went for the traditional $100 hamburger (he rents a plane and flys us someplace for lunch). He rented a Piper. It was a very hot year. It was over 100F out on a concrete runway. On his 3rd landing pass I said "your wings are on the bottom" at which point he was able to land perfectly. Anyone here guess why?
- RobRivera 6y agoGround effect and hot air means he wasn't giving the downward force, also cessnas are top winged. Different landing ux