Hangar Files: Cessna 172 Skyhawk

Certain products have shapes so distinctive that everyday consumers can recognize their silhouettes. 

The Coca-Cola bottle’s hourglass shape might be the most famous example, but others, from the Vespa scooter to the KitchenAid stand mixer, also claim the distinction.

Some say the Cessna 172 Skyhawk belongs to this group because its high, strut-braced wing, swept vertical stabilizer, and fixed tricycle landing gear have come to represent the standard small airplane in popular culture. Others suggest the most memorable products usually are among the most beautiful, which, they say, the Cessna 172 is not.

When judged on the celebrated principles of form following function,
however, the long-running light aircraft that many of us see every day makes a strong case for commercial immortality. In a way, the design’s stunning success is almost completely attributable to the way it looks.

Not Exactly New

First flown in 1955, the Cessna 172 marked a turning point in general aviation due largely to its design, but also as a result of marketing. While it signaled the coming shift from then-conventional tailwheel landing gear to tricycle gear, the design was not the first—other tricycle-gear models like the Piper Tri-Pacer preceded it—nor was it revolutionary.

What the Cessna 172 had going for it was its modern, all-metal construction, good performance, pleasing looks, and an advertising tagline claiming it was so easy to land that pilots could simply “drive” it onto the runway. Today the model remains in production and is the most-produced light aircraft ever with more than 44,000 delivered. What seems now like a well-coordinated maneuver to dominate the light aircraft market, though, was really a fluke that almost never happened.

• READ MORE: Pipistrel Velis Electro May Herald New Era of Flight Training
• READ MORE: From Pioneering Turboprop to Timeless Performer: The TBM 700’s Lasting Legacy

Engineering Intrigue

During 1954, Cessna was working on the next version of its popular 170B, the latest line of high-wing, four-place 170 singles. The 170, which had been on the market since 1948, was an attractive design with sweeping round tail surfaces and a taildragger configuration. All the elements that made it handsome also marked the old bird as obsolete.

By the mid-1950s, rival Piper was selling a lot of Tri-Pacers, which were essentially standard Pacer taildraggers modified with nosewheels. While pilots poked fun at the rather awkward-looking Pipers, they also bought lots of them—enough to get the attention of Cessna engineers, who began experimenting with nosewheel conversions for the 170B.

In Cessna: Wings for the World, longtime Cessna engineering test pilot
William Thompson describes how he and colleagues developed and tested nosewheel versions of the 170B as early as 1954 but were told by some of their bosses to cease and desist. Tricycle gear still drew skepticism at the time, though in hindsight, the proverbial writing on the wall was clear. Nosewheels would become the new standard, but it would still take a little while.

Cessna wanted to build a successor to the 170B, to be called the 170C. The airplane would have straight, squared-off tail surfaces and fit into the product line as a sort of little brother to its popular 180 taildragger. Thompson’s book, which is a great read to matter which Cessna models interest you, includes a photo of the 170C prototype. Its tailwheel design looks graceful and arguably prettier than the 172 but never could have matched the latter’s sales volume. 

After lengthy discussions and debate, Cessna canceled the 170C and moved ahead with the 172. The result, as we now know, was a hit like no other and remains a solid, capable personal airplane.   

Popular With Pilots

Pilots who train in Cessna 172s have a tendency to fall in love with them, whether they readily admit to it or not. We all remember our first smooth landing, well-coordinated steep turn, or the first crosswind takeoff we made, locked onto runway heading with just the right combination of compensating aileron and rudder. These moments of triumph will always stir fond memories, and while this could be true for any training aircraft, the 172 stands out for a few reasons.

Sheer market saturation gives the Cessna 172 an advantage in the overall quantity of affection it receives. The aviation community generally recognizes as having trained the most pilots worldwide, so it benefits from a lot of voices singing its praises. But it arguably is the quality of the 172 pilot’s experience that earns it more love than rival trainer models.

How pilots regard their trainers reflects one of many complex relationships in aviation. For starters, we know there are “Cessna people” and “Piper people.” Those who learned in Piper PA-28s tend to stick with models in the Piper line as they build hours and advance in their ratings and endorsements. They often feel that a low-wing airplane is the way to go because they are accustomed to the layout.

Student pilots who trained in Cessna 172s tend to prefer the full view of surrounding terrain that a high-wing design provides, obscured only slightly by wing struts. It is understandable why students, constantly searching for landmarks on the ground, would feel more comfortable flying the Cessna. Having flown 172s and PA-28s, I was put off by the way the Piper’s low wing blocked my view. Of course, my concern was partly psychological, as we typically spot landmarks before reaching them. Still, the thought that your destination runway is hiding beneath the wing is a common distraction. The Cessna, in contrast, almost seems to lift its arms, as if to say, “There’s your airport.”

At critical points in training for my private pilot certificate, such as cross-country solo flights, I was grateful for the Cessna’s generous downward view. At that stage of becoming a pilot, perhaps foolishly, I did not worry as much about seeing whatever might be above me. I just wanted to know if I had reached the road junction that was so easy to spot on the sectional chart.

Joy to Fly

The Cessna 172’s combination of easy handling, forgiving flight characteristics, including a reluctance to stall, and overall solid feel can help nervous learners build confidence to the point where they are eager to embark on solo flights. The aircraft’s visibility imparts an added sense of security, clearing the pilot’s mind to prepare for the next leg of the trip.

I recall my second solo cross-country flight from Sussex, New Jersey (KFWN), to Hazleton, Pennsylvania (KHZL) in my flying club’s 1975 172M. At 4,500 feet msl I crossed the Delaware River and made continuous mileage estimates while squinting to find my next waypoint—a building marked “school” on the sectional (my instructor was a pure-pilotage sort). Located in a remote area with no other structures nearby, the school had a distinctive shape and was easy to spot.

Next came Pocono Raceway, a 2.5-mile course where I have watched many NASCAR and American Motorcyclist Association races over the years. The track’s unique scalene triangular shape, often called the “tricky triangle,” stood out from its woodsy surroundings. So did the intersection of Interstate 80 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. From there I could see the plume of steam rising from a power plant a few miles beyond the airport. Heading toward it would lead me to a downwind entry to Runway 10.

Flying by the sectional, which felt daunting early on, turned out to be fairly intuitive, and the solo flights I completed as a student seem quaint to me now. But we all know how challenging those missions can be when you have logged a mere 20-odd hours in the cockpit with the security of an instructor watching your every move. At the time I thought the Cessna 172 was about as sweet as an aircraft could be. The mellow, reliable thrum of its engine combined with ease of operation gave me a sense of warmth—like it was made for me. Even before earning my certificate, I began screen-shopping 172s.

Wide Range of Prices

For decades, Cessna 172s were among the most economical aircraft to own. When I began flight training in the club’s 1975 Skyhawk, the instructor said my aircraft renter’s insurance needed to cover its hull value of $30,000. The amount seemed reasonable and would allow for rising prices.

Like many things, though, the cost of a used Skyhawk has risen significantly during the past decade. I had to bump up my hull coverage to $40,000, 50,000, and eventually $80,000 to stay current. After buying my own airplane a few years ago and dropping the renter’s insurance, I continued tracking the Cessna 172 as an indicator of the wider market for used aircraft, and it continued to surprise.

Prices across aviation have soared since the COVID-19 pandemic, but for certain models including Cessna’s all-arounder, the rise has been near meteoric. Aspiring owners have watched as asking prices for 172s from the 1970s reached milestones like $50,000, $75,000, and even $100,000. I recently saw one listed for $175,000.

It makes me feel old when I hear myself saying things like, “I remember when that kind of money would buy a squadron of Cessna 172s.”

The highest prices usually indicate that the airplane has special features like a new, modern glass panel, new paint and interior, or even a conversion to a 180 hp Lycoming O-360 from the standard 150 or 160 hp O-320. Airframe and engine time affect values as well, but the bottom line for many shoppers is that a Cessna 172 you can fly home confidently after paying the seller, and expect many hours of routine operation without major repairs or replacements, is likely to cost more than you initially budgeted. 

Further complicating the market is the fact that Cessna continues to build 172s, so the model years available range from 1956 to the present. There is a gap between 1986, when Cessna and other manufacturers ceased production of light aircraft, to ’96, when the company resumed building them. Newer 172R and 172S models from the “near side” of the production gap can jump in price to more than $200,000, though airframe and engine times can vary widely, as many have spent long careers with flight schools and, while relatively new in years, have lived hard lives. New models with 180 hp fuel-injected engines, retail for more than $500,000.

Cool-Headed Assessment

As with any airplane, due diligence is a must. Shoppers should devote as much effort as possible to homework before buying. The task might seem daunting, or even frightening, but buyers should remember that they have certain advantages when taking the plunge into the used aircraft market.

One of the best things about the Cessna 172, besides its practicality and friendly flight characteristics, is the abundance of information about the type available to prospective owners. There are many articles worth reading and videos worth watching that delve into the true cost of owning a 172, from big-ticket items like engine overhauls, annual inspections, insurance, and hanger rent to oil changes, fuel, and occasional tire and inner tube replacements (all surprisingly pricey to first-time owners). Shoppers can learn a lot from basic research.

Sometimes the most difficult part of aircraft shopping has to do with accepting that while in-depth research makes buyers more knowledgeable and better equipped to judge an airplane’s merits, it will not make you an expert. Even though the Cessna 172 might be simpler and more familiar than most aircraft, it remains a complex machine that requires a seasoned mechanic to properly assess its condition. In short, don’t skip the pre-buy inspection.

It can be hard to describe the excitement of acquiring a personal aircraft. People describe the experience as fitting in somewhere between buying a house or your first car. But unlike those purchases, an airplane is less of a necessity and, frankly, more of an indulgence—a fact that can further complicate the process with conflicting emotions.

Regardless of the possible bouts of trepidation and anxiety, most pilots will tell you that their airplane is among the best purchases they ever made. While no airplane is cheap, the Cessna 172 certainly is reasonable as airplanes go. It may not be very fast, but I think its short-field prowess largely makes up for any lack of speed. 

Besides, the airplane is still fast enough to transform the vacation trips you used to take in the family car.

Faster Than a Car

My wife, Alex, and I still reminisce about wonderful outings years ago in the club’s Skyhawk. Standouts include a weekend trip from New Jersey to Fishers Island, New York (0B8), and breakfast hops with our two sons to scenic spots like Goodspeed Airport (42B) in East Haddam, Connecticut. Years of traveling in the Cessna 172 were instrumental in proving to Alex, who did not grow up around small aircraft, that these “flying beer cans” are the keys to joyous, unforgettable experiences.

Whenever prospective buyers express doubts about the 172’s performance, I share an anecdote from a road trip to Maine many summers ago. As we drove on Interstate 95, we spotted an early straight-tail 172 ahead, towing a large banner. Rolling along at 70 mph, we gradually caught up to the airplane, which was following the highway.

Excitement grew as we began to overtake the Cessna but quickly dissipated when traffic began to slow, as it almost always does, upon approaching the toll plaza near the Maine-New Hampshire border. The airplane regained its advantage and, despite the immense drag of the banner, moved steadily ahead and soon disappeared into the hazy distance. Traffic flow on the highway never quite recovered that day, and for the remainder of the trip I could not stop thinking about flying to Maine in three hours aboard a Cessna 172 instead of driving for 10.

This column first appeared in the August Issue 973 of the FLYING print edition.