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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>I used to own a light aeroplane maintenance business.
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.
The article mentions the longest non-stop flight briefly - that was quite a story: the two guys flew for 2 months non-stop.<p>Here [1] are some pictures, incl. of the refuelling. Below some tidbits I found interesting or amusing:<p>- 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).<p>- they refuelled about twice a day<p>> “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.’ ”<p>> 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.”<p>[1] <a href="https://disciplesofflight.com/flight-endurance/" rel="nofollow">https://disciplesofflight.com/flight-endurance/</a>
They are still producing them because it's cheap due to "grandfathering" laws.<p>"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.<p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-for-flight-part-3/10533813/" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-f...</a><p>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.<p>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.
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)<p>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.<p>I understand that it is "proven" tech, but that would be like saying that punch-cards are "proven" tech nowadays.<p>1. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Chieftain#First_Generation_.281949.E2.80.931954.29" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Chieftain#First_Genera...</a><p>2. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine#Generation_III" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine#Generation_...</a>
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].<p>The Twin Otter isn't just nice to fly, cheap, or ubiquitous. It isn't just a mainstay bush plane everywhere. It's still <i>the best</i> plane in existence for certain extreme requirements.<p>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].<p>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.<p>[1]<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-pole-june-22-1.3646966" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-p...</a><p>[2]<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-pole-june-22-1.3646966" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-south-p...</a><p>[3]<a href="https://fearoflanding.com/misc/twin-otter-emergency-winter-flight-to-the-south-pole/" rel="nofollow">https://fearoflanding.com/misc/twin-otter-emergency-winter-f...</a>
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:<p>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.<p>Why? You ask?<p>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.<p>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.<p>TL;DR: the enduring success of the Cessna 150-180 is actually a tradgedy of blocked innovation and not something to be proud of.
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.)<p>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.
Wrong!
The title should read : Regulations so strict, 60 years of advances in technology can't make it to the market place.<p>To see what we are missing, Just take a look at experimental aviation which is not as heavily regulated..<p>*I did most of my basic training on a 172 and I love them like I love a favorite old pair of shoes.
The Cessna 172/182 types are fine aircraft, but I really would have loved to have seen some more innovation over the years.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
My dad owns and maintains a 1962 Cessna 182.<p>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.<p>I got my pilot's license this year, and hope to continue the tradition of flying my family in the plane.<p>Take care of stuff and it can last a long time.
>The 172 was based on an earlier Cessna design called the 150. This looked very similar apart from the fact it was a “taildragger”<p>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.
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.
<i>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><p>I had to think for a moment what a <i>monoplane</i> is. It's not a biplane.<p>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.
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!!
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.<p>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).<p>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.
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.<p>The Skyhawk airframe makes the machine easy to fly and land.<p>The Lycoming engine makes unplanned landings very rare.<p>Both are very important!<p>It really is an amazing airplane. In really cold weather in a 40 knot headwind I've gotten negative groundspeed in stable flight.<p>It takes real work to stall the airframe, and it recovers immediately if you let go of the controls.
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.
Another good piece on 172 here: <a href="http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-172-skyhawks-reborn" rel="nofollow">http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-172-skyhawk...</a>
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.
flightgear (free/opensource flight simulator) has it.<p>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.<p>Do not try in an actual plane.