button push ignored
The original razor back/fast back, straight tail Cessna 172 from 1956 thru 1959 is a wonderful classic plane, that is great fun to fly.
The landing gear is very close together and it sits very tall in the saddle, so you have to be very careful taxing in strong winds as it's easy to tip over.
I absolutely LOVE the manual flaps, much more than any later electric flaps.
You get to fly by the 'seat of your pants' by looking outside as you fly by feel of the plane in the air.
The Continental O-300 six cylinder engine is a smooth running engine, but costs more to maintain and rebuild than a later Lycoming.
It also does not last as long as a Lycoming.
If you buy one, you'll love it, but do not upgrade it.
It is a classic plane, and should be treated as such.
These engines run much better on 87 octane car gas than 100LL aviation gas.
They then changed to the Omni-Vision style that you know.
The Cessna of the 1960s are rather nondescript.
The early ones have the Continental O-300 six cylinder before they switched to four cylinder Lycoming in 1964.
You can tell a Continental engine one from a Lycoming by the two exhaust pipes on the six cylinder machine.
In 1976 a Cessna 172 was $16,000. The average wage was about $8000.
So it was possible for a working man to buy a plane and pay for it over three years.
Today the average wages are about $53,000 but the cost of a Cessna has grown to over $350,000.
Putting it out of reach for the average working man.
Thankfully there are plenty of used Cessna's available, but beware that any old aircraft will require a lot of work to make it a safe machine.
You can not operate a plane for 40 years on a shoe string budget and expect to have a safe plane without doing a complete major overhaul.
I just spent nine months and over $60,000 giving my plane a major overhaul.
The Cessna from the early 1970s are in my opinion the 'best of breed'.
I much prefer a 150 horse powered machine for flight training.
I think 180 horses is too much for a new pilot student.
I own a 1973 Cessna 172M model.
I chose the Cessna over the competition because I believe it to be the best choice as a Primary/Intermediate trainer for my three children to learn to fly in.
The reason I chose the M model produced between 1973 and 1976 is for the 150 horse power Lycoming O-320 E2D engine.
You can run these engines on 87 octane ethanol free car gas if you have a Mo-Gas supplemental type certificate.
The Cessna 172 N model produced between 1977 and 1980 was a disaster for Cessna.
The O-320 H2AD had bad lifters from a Ford 302 engine that were not adequate.
The H2AD with 160 hp is a very problematic engine that should be avoided.
Many N models engines have been replaced by the larger O-360 180 hp engines.
The P model from 1981 to 1986 is a good plane. But needs either 100LL av-gas or 92 octane mo-gas.
The Cessna 172 was not produced between 1987 and 1997 due to liability insurance.
So to say. it's been in continuous production is inaccurate.
Production resumed in 1998 as an R model.
The early R models should also be avoided.
The engine size had now grown to an O-360 but was de-rated to 160 hp by limiting the engine RPMs.
A few years later came the S model that is still in production.
This fuel injected engine is probably the best engine ever built.
And there lies the problem with the modern 180 hp Cessna's.
The only benefit of a bigger engine is slightly shorter take off distance.
The downside is far greater. More noise, more fuel burn.
And yet the standard fuel tanks remained at 40 gallons usable.
An O-320 will burn about 8 gallons per hour, but and O-360 will burn closer to 10.
With standard fuel tanks and O-360 powered machine does not have much range.
I would not want an O-360 powered Cessna 172 without optional 50 gallon long range tanks.
Very interesting write-up thanks.