Cessna 172 Skyhawk | Behind the Wings on PBS 

Stavi... Lie, cheat, and steal if you have to! I stacked 1,000 bales of hay to pay for my final CFI checkride. Do what you have to do and it'll be worth it.

It doesn’t have to be expensive or take a long time. I’m doing it at 51.

That's our mission! Currently making season 2.

I have over 250 hours in the last three years on my 1957 172. Three trips from NW Indiana to the Gulf Coast, once around Lake Michigan with an overnight inside 24 hours, lots of going out just to commit aviation. Does not cost a quarter million! Flying Doodles did a video on a similar plane

‘98 Cessna is a rich fella Cessna. I look forward to being rich enough to fly a Cessna that’s younger than me. I’m 38.

liability insurance for it and all the planes built previously

It's the same plane because it's being manufactured under the pre-existing Type Certificate. As to the cost, a little liability, a little raw materials cost increases above inflation, a little much more expensive avionics, fancier leather interiors, easy credit, they're selling primarily to companies using the aircraft as a revenue source, and a little of breakdown of economy of scale on basically EVERY component on or in the aircraft. And then a little more liability costs because in any crash Cessna ends up sued no matter who's fault it was, and that just costs money in basic legal costs even if they don't get found negligent in any way.

Liability insurance is big part of the cost.Cessna almost went bankrupt in the 80's over the lawsuits.

Zack Riden It’s a solid aircraft when new and the avionics really bump the price. With the newer engines, new frame, and what not it racks up. You see the cheap 172s from the 70s and get the ides it’s really cheap.

They don't make much money off of the piston Cessna's anymore. All income comes from the jets so they still sell them but just as sky high prices.

I soloed in a 172R back in 2004. Going to go fly one this weekend.

1999 in a 172P, old Brown and Red trim N51883 that I don't think EVER looked good. It's since had a repaint and new interior, but it will always be Gross faded 70's brown to me.

Yeah, she's bad-ass! =D

I like watching her beat Steveo1Kinevo in every contest lol

gmcjetpilot ...my instructor and I were too fat to be under gross for the 152, I had to learn in a 172.... LOL :) Good thing it was college and didn’t cost me extra.

I am 250, vast majority of my dual instruction was in an over gross 150, full fuel, usually in the summertime. We were taught all about weight and balance, but it never came up when it was time to fly! Seems times have changed, primary instruction is in elderly Warriors these days around my area. I have a buddy that flips a lot of parts, the demand is still there for the 150. He explains they are good for insurance purposes, you only risk killing 2 people rather than 3.

@@davidvicari5139 Yep when I was cfi full time, one of the 152s in the fleet was a 152 aerobat. It was a little heavier than a regular 152. At the time I was 160lbs, but you are right, headset, flight bag, etc. Most students were slim and trim, but they had some gear; we were at gross. Well the 152 aerobat had a very tired engine. I decided to give my student ready for check ride an emergency landing into grass strip. It had rained the day before. The strip had 100ft trees at end. Well he used questionable soft field technique. We were committed. He is climbing straight for the tree tops. I take the plane and bank with stall horn going off intermitantly to head for a cut in tree line off to side (where house was). We wallowed out looking at the taller trees to either side. The tired acrobat O235 115hp was making 80hp on a hot humid day at best. Add our weight, temp, runway condition it was not wise. The engine was removed for rebuild a week later. The 152 is a fine trainer but you are so right gross weight is easy to exceed. Even within gross it's not a soft short field plane at gross in summer. Never had an accident yet in 12000 hours. That was closest I ever want to come. I looked at poh and we should have made it, but the engine was a dog. The poh does have genetic soft field data... last 50ft obstacle in north west is 150 foot

Thanks! Mine is similar, I availed myself some dual in a club owned PA28-140, retired Purdue trainer. I had just jumped in it and sorta checked myself out, thought it would be a good idea even after the fact some hrs later. He was showing me a grass strip, We too were looking at approaching tree tops in a questioning fashion, when I noticed we had departed with carb heat on. Power got much better when that was corrected. On debrief, the instructor did allow we woulda had branches up the ass.

Only will add, I got PPL ride October 1985 in a 150 Aerobat. I had been on the ground for 20 years raising family etc when I retired, got the urge to fly again in 2015. That same Aerobat was still on the flight line 30 years later.

Jet airliners from the 1960's look the same, bolt action rifles from 1906 look the same. They are all refined, of course. Orion spacecraft is like the Apollo spacecraft.

Thank you, Sir! MB

skyhawk311 I also used that name for years bro, love it.

@Alan formula1 I would love to own any 182 however if painted the same, they look pretty much identical and they could literally be 45 years apart in age. That’s not innovation. Even the paint scheme is pretty weak when you compared to some of the experimental products that are out there not even mentioning Cirrus.

@Alan formula1 your not wrong in theory but there’s a reason why they get out sold now by Cirrus significantly . And because of the lack of innovation one could argue that’s why Cirrus has a better GA safety record. Personally I would still rather have the 182 for me but it would just be nice if they “ modernized” things just a tad.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

@@kdrapertrucker I hear you but that philosophy allowed Cirrus to come into the marketplace and pretty much match their sales or outright pass them by depending on year.

I would put the 152 into that category. That plane would get bug splatters on the rear windscreen.

My original comment was "VW Super Beetle", but I figure most viewers wouldn't get the context one way or the other

Hitler didn't endorse this one. 172 was born out of FREEDOM

There have been over 20,000,000 beetles produced. The numbers aren't even comparable.

longshot7601 Actually the 152 is impossible to get any bug spatters on. The bugs bounce off the surfaces, shake their head wondering what they ran into and then fly along...

There's "Demand" like there's a "Pilot Shortage" which is to say there's any demand, which was more than Cessna expected this far into new manufacture again. In order to automate they would need to rectify the manufacturing process which is expensive enough that it doesn't really pay itself back. And in a plane built under such old Type Certification you would probably have to start from a clean slate to design something optimized for automated manufacturing, like the Next Generation stuff Cessna was concepting back in the mid 2000's. Which then means a complete recertification of the design and the manufacturing. Cessna tried that with the 162 Skycatcher and that ended up just costing them a lot of money they didn't get back.

The guy is an idiot! Doesn't understand that people click on the subject to watch the planes, not his childish antics!

Stupid people impress other stupid people!

That's for the diesel engine. What a plane! MB

Former Michigan Wing member here!

it's CRAP (you must be a relative)

LOL! It's kinda true. ;) MB

Yeah, Captain Mindy. You Rock.

You can certainly do worse than a 172. What a great little airplane. :) Thanks for watching! MB

Thanks, Mike! MB

Reed Koch 41 ....ya, but they were clearly left of downtown since he pointed out the right window.

IamDunn I was just being a smartass

We would LOVE to come to your side of the pond! MB

Thanks, Isaac! MB

Ohhh, the 150 and 152 are awesome looking little birds! MB

Thanks Matt - They totally were!

Hey Kids at Kent State are still Soloing in 152s as long as you keep em fixed they don't die. No matter how hard college aviation students try.

Sadly, they are not building 172s at all right now. MB

You can only buy new ones with the G1000 NXi

@@Wings_Museum What happened? I can't find anything about them stopping production.

We wanted to. They didn't trust us to leave it with them! ;) MB

Thank you! I appreciate the kind words. MB

Robin Jacobs : I was wondering about the three-bladed prop too! I owned a 1966 Cessna 172 G Skyhawk. It had the Continental O-300 flat 6. The down side of those was that they had a hard time making TBO. An overhaul cost me $28,000 CDN in 2008. I sold it in 2010. It’s now being used by the local Community College for A&P instruction.

I am flying an O300B 1984 hours since the last overhaul in 1974. It was disassembled for a prop strike in 1977. It sat 13 years until I bought 3 years ago, over 250 hours. Oil and fuel consumption are well within norms, it makes book performance, it is signed off at annual.

It has needed 2 jugs and a generator. Seems the O300 cylinders often need overhaul, but the bottom end is forever. I will keep operating until my mechanic says otherwise, then yes that pricing for an overhaul does apply. But the 1800 hr TBO is just a number for private use.

It's the Turbo Diesel. More torque, more blades, less noise.

Thanks for watching! MB

It was probably an editing error that got overlooked. No telling how many times they flew over downtown, turning left, and right. They probably got the wrong audio in that shot.

Tom Clark ...They were very obviously left of downtown as the PIC clearly pointed out the right side of the aircraft. They then proceeded with a right turn towards downtown, with a later left turn that was filmed. Ya picky jerk.

No mostly nobody wants to buy them. They can't make them significantly cheaper than a 4 seat 172, and you can't do as much with em. If they had actually managed to sell the 162 at the price they thought they could sell it for when they announced it, it would have had more of a chance. But for a user the 172 allows more utility especially in the training industry.

@@mzaite Interesting. The Cessna 150 and 152 were successful sellers in their era. I suppose then, that it was the demand for 2 seat aircraft that fell away rather than industry deciding that a cheaper 2 seat aircraft might cannibalize the market for more profitable 4 seat aircraft. Or the idea that government doesn't want a bunch of cheap aircraft flying in the sky (and aircraft owners who aren't as capable of being financially liable for what their aircraft accidents)

Mark Wiygul I mean if they didn’t want cheap aircraft cluttering the sky they wouldn’t have made the LSA and sport pilot regs. Now why a manufacturer wouldn’t just build a utility category aircraft to LSA specs is still beyond me. But it’s clear the company buyer that makes up a majority of new sales just wants as much bang for their flight school investment buck. Look at the Diamond, it’s better to outlay for an IFR capable DA-40 than it is to buy a DA-20 which can only be used for Pvt and vfr time building.

Thank you, sir! MB