Talk:Cessna 172

172RG

The C172RG is a higher performance aircraft than the 172 fixed gear; while it is true that the retractable gear adds weight and complexity, because of the higher horsepower engine and constant speed prop, the C172RG is overall a better performer. The "Gutless Cutlass" comment, is not point of view neutral. Incidentally, "affectionaly " is mis-spelled.

Request to merge with T-41 Mescalero

• No... do not merge this and the T-41 article... if they link to each other, that's good... but it's important to distinguish that the T-41 is military use, and the C172 isn't... - ARJUN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.140.202.1 (talk • contribs) 18:54, January 9, 2006.
• I agree, they need to be two separate articles, like the P-3 Orion and the Lockheed L-188 Electra are and the C-47 Skytrain and Douglas DC-3 --rogerd 00:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - don't merge. The two articles are both quite good and don't overlap more than necessary. - DavidWBrooks 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Note - the merge request was removed.

Effective ceiling?

The service ceiling is listed as 13,500 (ft), but can anyone comment on what sort of ceilings they have actually experienced in practice? Under what conditions did you get that ceiling (i.e. temperature, pressure, load, etc.)? Cessna lists the 152 as having a service ceiling of 14,700, but anyone who has ever flown a 152 knows that 14k ft is a fantasy. Is 13,500 for the 172 also a fantasy? –Elklein 09:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten to 14,500 feet in my Cessna 172, and could have easily gone higher but I didn't have oxygen on-board. I was very lightly loaded (just me and a suitcase), and it was late spring in New England. On the other hand, I've also flown at maximum weight on a hot summer day, and reaching 12,500 was an incredible struggle. It took 15-20 minutes just to climb the last thousand feet. Was a serious wakeup call as far as what it would be like flying out of a high-altitude airport somewhere in the Rockies — possibly very scary. On a high density altitude day, I could take off at an effective altitude of 11,500 and have virtually no climb rate. (By the way, I have a 1965 Skyhawk, so it has the six-cylinder Continental 145hp engine. I imagine the newer Lycomings have a different performance envelope.) —Cleared as filed. 13:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this is well tread ground, but I'm fairly new to wikipedia. Is this sort of information (i.e. practical ceiling data) something that is appropriate to put in the main page, or should it stay in the talk page? If it should ultimately go into the main page, where do you think it would make sense to go (since it doesn't fit in with traditional aircraft performance info exactly)? Thanks! Elklein 04:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Into the article, certainly. I don't see why it can't fit in with the performance info. The difficulty will be making it more than anecdotal. - DavidWBrooks 11:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The service ceiling as stated in the pilot's operating handbook is probably the only thing that belongs — certainly my personal experiences are nothing more than original research and don't belong in the article. Of course, if there was verifiable research out there that said that, say, Cessna always understates the actual ceiling by 1,000 feet, or something, that might warrant a mention. But "practical ceiling" is usually calculatable by the pilot anyway, because the service ceiling in the POH is meant to be at maximum gross weight and standard atmospheric conditions. Perhaps we should have an article about service ceiling or density altitude (maybe we do?) that covers that kind of thing. This probably isn't the place for it. —Cleared as filed. 13:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Service ceiling is the maximum altitude that you can maintain something like 100 feet per minute climb rate. So you could go higher than that and obviously people have, but it's not really effective. And I'm not sure but I would guess they measured this on a standard day, so 59 degrees and pressure 29.92 in Hg. On a colder or higher pressure day the service ceiling would be higher.Jesserizzo 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Service ceiling is the density altitude at which a the maximum climb rate is 100 fpm. The absolute ceiling is the highest density altitude the aircraft can go with full throttle, properly leaned mixture, and maintaining the appropriate best rate of climb speed. Service ceiling is always published, but absolute ceiling I don't published see very often. ChadScott 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful Load

Useful load wrong. If I subtract the empty weight from the mtow I get far less than what is said to be the useful load. I will delete the useful load here. Braeutigam 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Just a suggestion, but in future if you find wrong information in the specs template please just remove the data and not the heading - it makes it easier to correct it! - Ahunt 11:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting information

I has spotted two articles that conflict with eachother.

This articles for the Cessna 172 and the Polikarpov Po-2 both say that they are the most produced aircraft in aviation history. Also, the Polikarpov Po-2 isn't mentioned at all on the List of most produced aircraft page. Cosmicpop 02:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can note this has been fixed. The PO-2 is now on the list and its article now says it is the second most produced aircraft. - Ahunt 11:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Production hiatus

This article does not mention the period of several years in the 80's and 90's when Cessna did not produce piston engined aircraft, allegedly because of product liability, which had become absurd in the USA and was especially hard on makers of light aircraft. It should be noted that Cessna, despite its use of liability concerns as a reason not to manufacture small S.E. propellor planes, continued to manufacture many other aircraft, such as its Citation jets. The production hiatus came to an end, when aircraft manufacturer liability exemptions became law, pursuant to the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (“GARA”), 49 USC §40101. GARA establishes a federal statute of repose, that bars claims against manufacturers of general aviation aircraft or parts when an allegedly defective part was first sold more than eighteen years before an accident.

86.141.175.242 12:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article currently says in the "development" section:

"Production had been halted in the mid-1980s, but was resumed in 1996 with the 160 hp (120 kW) Cessna 172R Skyhawk and was supplemented in 1998 by the 180 hp (135 kW) Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP."

and under the 172P:

"Production of the "P" ended in 1985 and no more 172s were built for eleven years as the economic and legal environment in the USA had pushed costs too high and sales were very low. There were only 195 172s built in 1984, a rate of fewer than 4 per week."

The Cessna article also says:

"Cessna was bought by General Dynamics Corporation in 1985. Production of piston-engine was discontinued in 1986, with the company citing product liability as the cause; then-CEO Russ Meyer said that production would resume if a more favorable product liability environment were to develop. In 1992, Textron Inc. bought Cessna, and production of the piston-engine 172, 182, and 206 designs was resumed after passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994."

Does that cover it sufficiently or does more need to be said?

- Ahunt 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

There are an awful lot of pictures. Redskunk 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with that? This aircraft has been manufactured many years and there are many variants. It is good to be able to show the differences in the aircraft over the years. If we get many more, perhaps we should have it in a gallery. --rogerd 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think a gallery is needed now, it would make the page look a lot better. Marcusmax 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Marcusmax Tvh2k 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since these comments were added, I have added more text, rather than put the photos into a gallery. Given the new length of the article does anyone still think the number of photos is out of proportion to the text and needs to be moved to a gallery? - Ahunt 11:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell the E,G,L, &P apart from the pictures. I think three pictures would be enough, the square tail, swept tail, and the RG, and that's it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.187.183 (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

With the expanded text, there is more than enough room to space out the pics within the text, and still not need a gallery. I won't be able to do it right now, but I'll try to come back in a few days and help out. What I usually try to do is place one or two pics in each major section. Try putting the variants in the sections where they are mentioned, and pics with other features (owner/operators, design elements, etc.) in relevant sections, and place a few on the left side for variety. Space the pics far enough above the section breaks so they don't cause blank spaces in the next section on monitors with different resolutions. I can help out with that as I have a low resolution, so if if works on my monitor, it's usually OK elsewhere. I'd also suggest putting the control panel in the specs section, as we don't currently have a 3-view image of the plane. - BillCJ 05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that if photos are put in different sections, as opposed to running from the top that it can cause problems, depending on the Wikipedia thumbnail preferences that the user has set. I have mine set to 250 px and I find when photos have been put in individual sections that they can squeeze each other, either into other sections, or sometime overlap text, particularly if the person laying them out has their thumbnail settings smaller. Putting photos on both the left and right creates the same sort of situation, with text squeezed as a result and readability suffers. Since Wikipedia allows users to set their own thumbnail sizes I think we have to be careful in arranging photos to make sure that it works as best possible regardless of the preferences chosen by the user. In experimenting with different preference sizes I have found that the current arrangement, with the pictures down the right side from the top, is the best compromise, particularly when there are a lot of them.

The other solution, is of course to put them in a gallery, which is not affected by the thumbnail preferences and thus preserves readability, although it probably reduces article interest by the casual reader who brings up the page and sees only one or two pictures and a sea of dense text - the galleries are usually at the bottom of the page, where they aren't immediately seen.

I can sympathize with the comment that all the latter 172s look alike. I did add a lot of description in the text to show the various changes from year to year, but many of them are not apparent in photos taken from a distance. The best solution there may be to add more information to the captions, but some could get rather long. - Ahunt 12:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Famous flights" section

I've retitled this as "Notable flights", and I also added a split-section tag. The first item is very long, and the last one is a bit lengthy too. The first item seems notable enough on its own to warrant a new article, provided more sources can be found, and each major sentence sourced. The last item should also be cut back, but I don't know if the incident is notable enough for an incident article or not. - BillCJ 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In one way, it would seem that the first item could warrant a separate article; on the other hand, though, this is just one of any number of such endurance flights. (At least two, for instance, were made in Aeronca Sedans in 1949.) I do agree that the last item is not notable enough for its own article; actually, I'm not sure it even belongs here. If every adverse-weather 172 downing makes its way into this article, it will be a very, very long article indeed. (A quick NTSB search yields 85 such crashes there alone.) On a separate note, but also about this section, the Mathias Rust flight was definitely not a 172B; it was a Reims 172P, but for whatever reason the 172B error is all over the place. SkipperPilot 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what sets the Allen Williams weather crash apart from the other ones is that it is very notable, in that the story was covered by media around the world. A google search for the discrete terms "Allen Williams" & "Cessna 172" finds 514 pages covering this event! - Ahunt 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is well-taken, and I should not have spoken so hastily, as notability (I do recall reading) really applies to the article, not the content. Separately, I'm still bothered by the situation regarding Rust's plane. Google results definitely tend toward the 172B error. I think this is one of the weak links in the always-trust-verifiable/published-information theory. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," says WP:Verifiability. I suppose this means that we keep repeating the 172B falsehood, since it's published and therefore verifiable (despite being the perfect opposite of truth). —SkipperPilot (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have found one of the weak points of the internet - many websites, particularly media outlets, rely on each other for source info, so that incorrect information takes on a life of its own. I think that Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to get things right where ever possible, regardless of incorrect sources. On the plus side many media outlets go to Wikipedia as their initial source of info, so if we get the Rust story right, others may correct to the Wikipedia version of it!

There are lots of photos of Rust's 172 sitting in Red Square and it is clearly not a 172B. The "B" had a swept tail and no rear window. As can be seen in the photos of D-ECJB Rust's aircraft was not a "B" model: [1] [2]. There are quite a number of websites that claim it was an F172P, which is much more likely. Who would be renting a 172B in 1987 anyway?? - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a good source and for making the edit. —SkipperPilot (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of encouragement! Just trying to make Wikipedia more accurate. Once you pointed out the error, I couldn't let it lie there! I changed the page on Mathias Rust, too. Now let's see if there are objections! - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Electric Flaps - 172E or F

We seem to have a conflict of references. Clarke clearly states that electric flaps were introduced with the 1964 172E model. Some other editors have changed that to say that they were introduced with the 1965 172F model, but haven't changed the references in the para to indicate where that info comes from, despite some hints of it in the edit summaries. That makes the changed para "unreferenced" or at least in conflict with the cited ref for that para. Obviously at least one of the references is wrong, but which one?

Rather than creating an edit war over such a minor point as this I would like to suggest that we collect the available information here on the talk page, see what we can come up with and then come to some consensus as to how to solve this issue. So far we have:

• Clarke, Bill: The Cessna 172 First Edition, pages 31-97. TAB Books, 1987. ISBN 0-8306-0912-1 - This reference says that the electric flaps were introduced with the 1964 172E.

This sort of thing is too minor to be mentioned in the Type Certificate data, which would be the ultimate reference. Does any one have access to the POHs for those years? The POH will describe the flap actuation and would be the next best ultimate reference on this matter. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, though I never would have thought of it if you hadn't mentioned it, this is in the TCDS, just not in the main part. Rather, it's in the "Data Pertinent to All Models" section, where placards are dealt with. Reference page 21, under what would be Note 2(D), "On flap handle, Models 172 through 172E," and then just below, under (E), "Near flap indicator Models 172F (electric flaps) through 17271034, excluding 17270050."

• Type certificate data sheet no. 3A12. Revision 74. (Oct. 2, 2007.) Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration.

I'll leave it to someone else to make the edit. Good day all. —SkipperPilot (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SkipperPilot you are brilliant!! Shows you what happens when I assume that the info won't be there on the type certificate! As you said it is there in the placards info! So Clarke is wrong, the data sheet is correct and I have made the change to the page and added the ref. Thank you all for your contributions and patience on this issue! - Ahunt (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All referenced I've seen also indicate that electric flaps were introduced with the F model.

BTW, I'v notice a reference goes to a dead link: coptercrazy (undated). Listing of Production Reims F172. Retrieved on 2007-12-23.

Not sure how to handle that one. Gladtohelp (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

Safety

I am missing a section about the safety of these aircrafts. Does anyone know of any statistics? --Hulagutten (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cessna 172 Safety Review - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cessna 172 of the Philippine Army

A Cessna 172 of the Philippine Army was mentioned by Tonet in his website http://tonetcarlo.wordpress.com/ . The Cessna 172 was flown by Army Major Alex D. during the 12th Philippine International Hot Air Balloon Fiesta at Clark Field, Philippines for the skydiving exhibition of Army skydivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.65.3 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

172 Reference Site

What think about adding www.172guide.com as an external link? It has all the performance specs for nearly every single year/model. Don't think that is available anywhere else on the net. Gladtohelp (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)GladtoHelp

A good question to ask! The policy on external links is at WP:EL. While the website seems pretty benign (doesn't seem to be a simple commercial marketing website) I am not sure that it provides "a unique resource" (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID), in other words that putting this link on the article would add nothing to the Wikipedia article that isn't already there. If you think it does add some useful information then perhaps it would be better to paraphrase that information, include it in the article's text and use the website as the footnoted reference. Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the specs I referred to are not available in the wiki article or anywhere else that I'm aware of. I'll let that be your call, but we may be inferring different definitions of the word "unique". To me, unique means it is a single source for the information. Having the specs for every model/year would certainly be important information for someone wanting to learn more about a 172. The assertion that it adds "nothing to the Wikipeidia article that isn't already there" is incorrect. The Wiki article does not have these specs and performance numbers. As for paraphrasing all that, that would be an extremely time-consumming job.Gladtohelp (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

You are quite right - I missed the links to all the yearly specs. That is too much info to put in an encyclopedia article, but it is useful to readers. I think the link should go in and will insert it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Child "Records"

An IP editor recently added information on a child "record" flight to the notable flights section of this article. I have copy-edited it as the refs did not support the statements made. Much about this entry seems to be merely sending readers to the cited ref, which is a book review and may therefore be commercial spam.

Even in its edited state I am not convinced that this para should be included in the notable flights section or even in this article. No record sanctioning body acknowledges these flights because seven year olds are not permitted to be pilot in command of an aircraft. In all these cases the instructor is pilot in command and the child is legally a passenger who is manipulating the controls. The death of Jessica Dubroff lead to the end of these "stunts".

In the aviation community there has been a general acknowledgment that the publicity given to this sorts of flights resulted in more of these flights and the eventual accident and three deaths in the Jessica Dubroff case. There has been a general agreement that these flights should not be accorded publicity, lest in the future attempts be made to break these (non) records.

Because the C-172 is the aircraft of choice for these flights, several more, including Jessica Dubroff's flight, could be added here.

Personally I think that this existing entry should be removed, but I would like to hear what other editors of this page think. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think these flight should be included as they are not notable in the history of the Cessna 172. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How would a record set in a Cessna 172 not be notable to the Cessna 172? Besides, FAA regulations changed AFTER Jessica Dubroff's death. Prior to her ill-fated flight, child pilots were allowed to take the controls and were recognized by the Guinness Book for years. Daniel's record was not recognized because of a policy put in place by the Guinness Book which prohibits acknowledging records of young children when such publishing could encourage someone younger to take on a feat which could endanger their welfare. Since Daniel was of such a young age, it was recommended NOT to recognize the record. And true to Guinness' prediction, Jessica Dubroff did indeed crash and die in her attempt to beat Daniel's record. 02:49, 17 May 2008 (CDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.101.216 (talk)

The use of the Cessna 172 was incidental and not deliberate for any particular quality of the aircraft, they are thousands of point-to-point and distance records (pick any combination of places and distances) nearly all of them are not notable. Most of the entries in this article on notable flights are not really notable either! MilborneOne (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that 24.219.101.216 makes the most compelling argument for not including this in the article, as he or she says: "Daniel's record was not recognized because of a policy put in place by the Guinness Book which prohibits acknowledging records of young children when such publishing could encourage someone younger to take on a feat which could endanger their welfare".

I think there are now many good reasons to delete the paragraph on this flight:

• It is not an acknowledged record of any kind
• None of the national or international record-keeping organizations (i.e. FAI) acknowledge the flight
• Guinness refuses to acknowledge the flight, because they feel doing so would endanger children (and in fact they were proven correct in that assertion by later events)
• The inclusion of this flight in Wikipedia may encourage other younger pilots to try this, perhaps in other countries where it is not illegal
• The use of a C-172 was incidental to the flight - it could have been done in any light aircraft
• These flights are now illegal under FAA rules, in the USA
• There are thousands of bona-fide point to point and speed over distance record set in C-172s that could be also entered in this article, which adds up to none of them being truly notable
• The ref cited still looks like a spam attempt to market a book through Wikipedia

Any other editors have any other input on this issue? - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-nazis strike again. I'm finished, you win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.101.216 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that trying to get consensus from a wide group of editors who have worked on this article quite constitutes "wiki-nazis". Rather than throwing charges around, please have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus - Ahunt (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that if we were just "wiki-nazis" we would have just removed the entry with some vague edit-summary, such as "not notable" rather than bringing it here to the talk page to get consensus. Personally I would like to hear any further reasons that you might have to include it and also what any other editors have to say on the subject, too. Wikipedia is a participatory process. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, we're talking about an encyclopedic entry on the Cessna 172. I think it's fair to ask whether the information in question either (1) adds to an understanding of the 172 or (2) contributes/contributed meaningfully to the history—real or perceived—of the 172. Occurrences such as the Mathias Rust flight, or the 1978 PSA midair—even if they don't directly add information about the 172—do contribute to an understanding of the way in which the aircraft has been encountered and perceived by the general public. With these cases, the public knew that a 172 was involved. I'm not sure this is true of the discussed Daniel Shanklin "record." At a bare minimum, I would expect that an editor believing the Shanklin flight to be notable and noteworthy would first create a page regarding the "pilot" or the flight, before attempting to sell it as relevant to the entry on the 172. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkipperPilot (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Didn't mean to leave that unsigned!—SkipperPilot (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)