Going from Cessna 152 to 172

[Sierra_Sierra]

Hello folks,

Fairly new to the forum and pretty fresh into my PPL with only 80 odd hours to my name.

I'm looking to start on the Cessna 172, for a variety of reasons, one which you can probably guess are the MTOW of the flying sardine can, its either the fuel or the passenger, or the W&B calcs go off the chart, and cabin space, I'm what you'd describe as a fairly hefty bloke.

All I'm after is just some advice, how long it would take to get approved usually, what to expect from the aircraft, how it flies in comparison to the 152 etc.

Thanks very much for all replies! :)

P.S. Any general advice with regards to flying is always welcome from anyone! :ok:

[The Ancient Geek]

One hour in the classroom, one hour in the circuit, job done.
The 172 has a tendency to float so you need to pay attention to your landing speeds but in general its a pussycat.

[India Four Two]

"Wot The AG said!"

You shouldn't have any problem and you will like the extra elbow-room. ;)

Just remember that the 172 with full tanks is basically a 2-3 seater. If you are planning on 4-up, look carefully at the W&B. You might want to consider a test flight at gross weight, with an instructor and a couple of pilot friends in the back. The feel during the flare will be different.

If you want a "fill 'er up and go" four-seater, you need a 182.

As has been mentioned before on other threads, if any FTO wants you to do more than an hour or so, take your money elsewhere.

[TowerDog]

Skills transfer quite well.
The c-172 is a bit more comfy, especially if you are a big and fat guy.
A tad more sluggish perhaps as the C-152 is a more "crisp".
It has been too may years since I flew either but have hundreds of hours on both, learning and teaching, nothing has changed however, they are both good aero planes as the Brits would say.

[9 lives]

The engine will seem to be turning a little slower on takeoff, that's normal. Your first flight with someone in the back should be one person only, and then pay particular attention to the C of G. You can aft load a 172, which you won't be so used to with the 152. It'll be fine, but just check it.

As said, if you're being asked for more than an hour dual for a checkout, something is wrong...

Don't worry, it'll be just fine!

they are both good aero planes as the Brits would say.

Well.....all but one Brit! ;)

[Council Van]

or you could try one of the PA28 series aircraft, I personally always preferred them to the C172, but again 4 seats does not necessarily mean 4 passenger's.

[Sierra_Sierra]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies, it sounds like an easy conversion :)

I did consider the PA28, but I thought it would require a fair few hours work to convert to, and it is rather costly at the club with instructor (approaching £200 p/h), how does it fly in comparison to the 152?

[The Ancient Geek]

The 172 is easier especially for those with limited agility. You need to climb into the Piper, with the Cessna you just open the door and sit in.

As an aside, if you are "big" at the age of 23 you might like to consider fewer pies to avoid failing future medicals.

[londonblue]

The 172 is easier especially for those with limited agility. You need to climb into the Piper, with the Cessna you just open the door and sit in.

That may be true, but with a 172 you have to climb up to visually check the wing surface, and fuel. You also need a ladder if you need to refuel. (Especially if you're a short arse like me.)

Getting back to the original question: I don't consider myself an experienced pilot, or even a particularly good one, but even I managed that conversion in 1 hour. I really liked the 172 because of the extra space (I may be small, but a 152 was too small for me to feel comfortable), and because it felt more stable, probably due to its extra weight.

[Airgus]

I remember my first reaction was a WOW on the gliding or floating during the landing.
Well done on the move, what I did almost 20 years ago, was to go from the 152 to the 172. After that I started taking friends for a ride and some time after that they were asking me to take them and we were paying half and half.
Better choice for cross country flights.
After few hours I started flying the PA28 and then the C182 (noticing the extra power when flying solo) and then the PA28R. It worked fine for me (but there is no reason nor common rule I guess)

[mothminor]

Ditto all above,
In addition, during the 3 or 4 up check make sure you do a low level go-around from an approach with full flap (not as interesting as in a 182 ;))

[Sierra_Sierra]

Oh I can easily climb and crawl around as much as required.

The issue is I'm broad in the shoulders and I'm rather tall, I could probably carry a small thin adult with about 3/4 tanks (aprox 3 hours flight?) in the 152, and maybe an adult male on the smaller end of average size with half tanks.

I just want to move onto something comfortable for when I share flights and take family and friends up for a ride, without having to become a semi-professional contortionist to get in and out of the aircraft.

Though I admit, I am working on losing some kg's, mostly for future health.

Thanks for all the informative replies, it sounds like a good step forward to take, I will have a chat with an instructor when I next plant to fly, and once I have a few hours on the 172 then maybe I'll look at working towards an IMC and/or night rating.

If anyone has further advice I would love to hear it. :)

[Curlytips]

Like the man with the razor who bought the company, when I tried the 172 (after learning on 152s) I liked it so much, I bought one. That was 31 years ago, and she's still giving me everything I want from an aircraft. Roomy, stable, economic and statistically the safest aircraft built. There are more 172s built than any other aeroplane. They'd built 37,000 before they stopped production due USA liabilities, and then they started production again with the 172R, then S, then SP.

A good 172 will get in and out of just about anywhere (a 182 even more so, but at greater expense). As a previous poster pointed out, it's much easier to enter a 172, and if your passengers like space and comfort, the back seat is second to none.

As you progress with your learning, the 172 is a superbly stable instrument platform for when you do your IMC (sorry, IR(R), in EASA-speak).

High wing means you and passengers have the best view downwards (but you need to lift the wing to check for other traffic before you turn - but you know that from the 152). Opening windows mean it can be a great camera ship.

If you can find an example that's been upgraded to 180HP (as mine is) you can even drive it flat-out at 130 knots for less fuel than a 182. Demo flights available in Southeast England - PM me if of interest.

[Piltdown Man]

A 172 is a very easy to fly, extremely useful and honest aircraft. By comparison with other aircraft of it's class it has very few hang-ups, the exception being the overhead wing. Whilst it's good at keeping the sun out, it does block your view out. Also, the view over the bonnet is not that good - so bear this in mind. As for conversion, if you want to give it a name, it's a non event.

The only advice I would give is don't approach too fast. The POH will give a full flaps stall speed of something 33 knots for some models and 40 knots for others. So if you come whistling in at 65 knots do not be surprised if you float miles down the runway. A 1.3 Vs has always worked well for me.

PM

[abgd]

I remember my first reaction was a WOW on the gliding or floating during the landing.I flew a version with an ASI calibrated in both knots and mph. All my best landings were done whilst flying the book speeds (given in knots) whilst reading the mph scale on the ASI http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/embarass.gif

[Flyingmac]

The 172 is a 4up, full tanks aeroplane. Try to get your hands on one with proper flaps too. Like the majority of aircraft, it only floats if you're going too fast. Sit high in the seat and the view forward is as good as anything. Cushion if required. Have fun.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Like the majority of aircraft, it only floats if you're going too fast.
... which does seem to be a difference from the 152, as the 152 seems to some of us to be more tolerant of being landed too fast. So if you're used to landing too fast in a 152 and getting away with it then the 172 experience may well be different.

[foxmoth]

if any FTO wants you to do more than an hour or so, take your money elsewhere.
If it is expected when you start then fine, as an instructor though, to me a conversion takes as long as it takes, most will do 152-172 in under an hour, but I will not clear someone until I am happy, if that takes 20 mins or 10 hours the same rule applies!

Well.....all but one Brit!

Make that two - if you want an aircraft to go A-B with minimum interference from the pilot it is great, if you want an aircraft to enjoy the sensation of flying then look elsewhere!

[The Ancient Geek]

Indeed, the 172 is the biggest selling aircraft of all time for a good reason, it is just a big old pussycat with no vices, foregiving and easy to fly safely. Excitement was never part of the design brief.
It was specifically designed as the aviation equivalent of the small family car with mum and dad in the front and 2 kids in the back. It does this very well but it will never be a sports car.

I love it for what it is, others might be happier in a Pitts.

[India Four Two]

The 172 is a 4up, full tanks aeroplane.
Only if everyone is light weight.

From the 172N POH:

Max. useful load 907 lbs
minus full fuel (43 US gal) 344 lbs
Remaining useful load 563 lbs

Equals four 140 lb people - 10 st in old money.

Try to get your hands on one with proper flaps too
This means an older one with the 40 degree "barn door" setting, rather than the current 30 degree setting. I'm not sure which year Cessna made the change.

Sit high in the seat
The 172 seat height is adjustable (I'm not sure about the 152). I crank the seat to max height before I get in (it's easier) and then lower the seat until my head is just clear of the roof.

as an instructor though, to me a conversion takes as long as it takes,

foxmoth,
I absolutely agree with you. I was just warning SS to beware of comments like "our insurance company requires five hours dual before solo".

[Sierra_Sierra]

Fantastic replies, thanks every one, some great advice I will definitely keep in mind!

It definitely sounds like the right aircraft for taking family and friends up and tour the area.

I think to save on cost, and when I'm flying solo I will try and get onto the Tecnam P2002 the club has, touch more expensive than the c152 but I'd like to give stick controls a go, I remember when I was an Air Cadet and flew in the Grob 115 Tutor I did enjoy using the stick controls. :)

Question: When did they stop installing the 40 degree drag flaps? Just so I know which ones the aircraft has.

Thanks again for all your wise advice! :ok:

[India Four Two]

SS,

You'll love the Tecnam.

Wikipedia tells me that the 30 degree flaps came in 1981 with the 172P.

I also see there was a 100 lb increase in gross weight, so my previous comment requires modification - with full (normal) tanks, you could have four 165 lb people.

[flyinkiwi]

One thing I will say about the 172, they vary quite a lot between aircraft, even the same model. I've flown several M and N models which had the 180hp STC which restricts flaps to 30 degrees despite them shipping with 40 degrees (and 160hp) from the factory. My advice is to thoroughly read the Flight Manual and any supplements to get an idea of what might otherwise catch you out.

[barit1]

$0.02 worth:

Back in my instructor days, I found that pilots initially learning on the 150 or 152 found the 172 a piece of cake, a bit more stable and only slightly heavier controls.

The opposite transition 172 > 152 was more challenging; student is likely to overcontrol for a while. Noticeable, but no big deal, either way.

The bigger deal is entry/exit. 172 Front seat loads first with seats slid aft; then slide forward so the rear seats can be loaded.

[Flyingmac]

The bigger deal is entry/exit. 172 Front seat loads first with seats slid aft; then slide forward so the rear seats can be loaded.

I've always done it the other way round.That way, you can check if your passengers are correctly strapped in, headsets jacked, etc.

[VictorGolf]

It's always subjective but the 172 felt,to me, a bit "nose heavy" on landing by comparison with the 150. As the earlier 172s are prone to nose-wheel shimmy,it's not a bad idea to keep the weight off the nosewheel as much as possible and definitely don't arrive nosewheel first. Otherwise they do just what it says on the tin.

[Pilot DAR]

In all Cessnas larger than the 150/152 pay attention to positive seat locking. The aircraft should have a secondary seat restraint, but some do not. Understand what the plane you are flying has, and how to use it.

If no secondary restraint system, be very certain that you've locked the seat, and it is locked on the track.

If there is a little silver lever in a black housing inboard of the inboard pilot's seat track, that's good, but now know that you have to release that to get the seat back to exit [in a hurry].

It could also have an inertial reel seat belt up under the seat = normal operation.

Or, if a very new 172, new tracks which are much more safe.

Just understand what you have and how best to use it.

[thing]

As DAR says, know how to operate what you have. Read the POH. I'm always amazed how many pilot's have never read the POH of the aircraft they fly; just going on received wisdom. I like reading POH's being of a technical bent but there's no reason for anyone not to have an hour looking through it.

As for the difference there's not much TBH. Half an hour in the cct should be sufficient. You will notice that you need rudder on the take off roll to keep straight and also in the climb. Funnily enough I learned in a 172 and then converted to a 152 later. I was that used to putting a bit of pressure on my right foot on the take off roll that I started to drift off the runway in the 152. Soon corrected and not forgotten.

Edit: By the way the 40 degree 'barn door' flap setting on the older 172's is fantastic, that extra ten degrees is like running into a marshmallow when you select it. One of the one's I fly is 'K' version, a '68 and it is superb at steep approaches into short fields with obstacles.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The 172 seat height is adjustable (I'm not sure about the 152). I crank the seat to max height ...
I crank it down until I can actually see the top line of the G1000 display.

[A and C]

Lots of good advice above about flying the aircraft but little on the new problem of passenger care.

Once you are checked out on the 172 you will find that you will be asked to fly more passengers, leaving the loading & aircraft performance issues aside ( others above have offered advice on this ) you will be faced with people who have never flown in a light aircraft before.

You must give them a brief on how to exit the aircraft in case of emergency but this brief must not frighten them.

If you are flying during the winter you need to consider the ground you are flying over and how you and your passengers are going to survive if you end up on the ground in a remote location.

Survival preparations need to be appropriate, and these can range from a mobile phone for a flight over Sussex in the summer to very walm clothing, PLB, flares and a covered life raft for The Scotish highlands in the winter ( the life raft is a very good instant tent ).

Occasionally passengers may feel sick have a few sick bags available but don't dwel on the subject and don't let passenger illness interfere with your flying of the aircraft.

Fly the aircraft in a considerate way and avoid high angles of bank and excessive pitch movements.

Above all remember that you as commander of the aircraft are morally & leagaly responsible for the well being of your passengers from the time they step airside to the time they walk out of the operational part of the airfield.

[Pilot DAR]

Great advice from A&C!

It reminds me of my very early days flying, where I would invite my friends and neighbours to come along. My neighbour eagerly agreed, asking if his aunt could come along. Sure!

His aunt was a "little person". Though in her sixties, somewhat less than four feet tall. Charming lady! The new thing for me to think about was 45 minutes into the flight, when he said to me that she was having trouble seeing out the window in the back seat - would it be okay if she stood up for the rest of the flight. Hmm, I had not thought about that before! It was a very smooth day, and wanting to be pleasing, I agreed, with the proviso that he hold her [happily robust] trousers belt the whole time, and that she not lean against the door. She enjoyed the rest of the flight very well, and belted up for landing.

Yes, be attentive to your passengers first and above all but safety of flight itself. As level and gentle as possible. No goofing around with anyone in the back seat at all. If a pax really wants the "fun flight", and you think they are up for a few turns, take them separately later.

By the time a pax finally tells you they are not feeling well, they are well into it, and you have a problem to overcome.

[supportflightcom]

When I had 45 hours, just before taking PPL skill test, I moved from Diamond Katana DV20 to C172 and have successfully completed checkride for PPL after 5 hours on C172 (it could be even shorter, as instructor said, but I had to make 150 NM cross country flight).

So, it should not be a problem for you. :)

[Cazalet33]

Any aeroplane which has a component called "Land-O-Matic" (yes, really!) is going to be easy to fly and to land. The 172 is the ultimate tame pussycat.

If you can fly any aeroplane, or perhaps even if you can only drive a Ford Mondeo, you can convert to the 172 in well under an hour. The only thing you have to learn is the sight picture to expect in the correct landing attitude.

I concur with those who caution against overloading or getting abaft the CofG limit.

In my foolish yoof I committed that sin, unforgivably, on a semi-legal charter from Sunderland to BEAcopters apron at Dyce in the early 1970s. It was in the old version of the 172, the one with no rear window and no electric flaps. A doggy old engine coming up to the end of its legal life and a propellor whose leading edge was like a hillwalkers terrain profile map.

My three pax turned out to be massively huge riggers with absurdly heavy suitcases. Grossly illegal and massively stupid of me to agree to take them. I had the rear seat pax hold all three bags on their laps, but I knew, without plotting the W&B, that both W and B were hugely out of limits.

Takeoff was alarming, but the field, which is now a car factory, had a bit of a ski jump at its further end and I scraped over the hedge with the stall warner making its baleful squeak. I had to mollify my front passenger by saying that the noise indicated full power.

At Aberdeen I was cleared to land number one, with one in the circuit on the downwind leg. Once established on finals I saw that the 150 (from the local flying club whose name I shall not say lest I summon the Devil) had cut in front of me. ATC told me, not him, to go around. It took me fully 300' to arrest the descent and pretty much half the runway length to get a bit of climb out of the thing. My front passenger was mightily relieved when he heard the stall warner in that go-around! He did ask why I was pushing, instead of pulling, and frantically shoving the trim wheel,when trying to get away from the ground. I was too busy to think of an answer to that one.

Lesson: never overstep the upper or righthand edge of the W&B polygon in a 172. She'll probably forgive you if you do, but one day she won't. That's why we call these pieces of metal "she".

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The 172 is easier and nicer to fly than the 150/2.

[India Four Two]

... and you no longer have to rub shoulders with your instructor!

[DirtyProp]

... and you no longer have to rub shoulders with your instructor!

That's not necessarily a bad thing....:E

http://www.iflysd.com/wp-content/uploads/headshot1.jpg

[Blind Squirrel]

The reason one usually moves up to a C172 is to fly more than one other person around. Which means, especially at this time of year, that it's an excellent moment to become intimately familiar with the intricacies of density altitude.

C172s can carry a lot more weight than C152s can. Whether they can carry it out of ground effect, or above the trees at the far end of the runway, is another matter entirely.

Don't just get a check-out. Have your instructor round up a couple of pals; load the aircraft to MTOW or close to it; and practice taking off from a nice long runway with clear approaches on a warmer-than-average day. Believe me, you'll learn a lot that's well worth knowing.

[fujii]

This is sounding lik a conversion to a 747. It's not complicated, just listen to your instructor, strap the aircraft to your arse and go and fly it. Then enjoy yourself.

[The Ancient Geek]

Not really a problem. Almost all of my C172 hours were hot and high in South Africa where the density altitude can top 10000 feet on a summer afternoon. The farm strips are longer than those in the UK but in general the 172 behaves as per the POH provided you lean it properly before takeoff and pay attention to weight and balance.
Yes, you need more runway than at sea level but the information in the POH is accurate, you just have to pay attention to the limits.
The 172 was designed to carry 2 adults and 2 children, if you want more load and better short field performance rather use a 182.

[Blind Squirrel]

Not really a problem...the information in the POH is accurate, you just have to pay attention to the limits.Hmm...not so sure about that. The information in the POH is predicated on (i) a brand spanking-new aircraft, tuned as nicely as the expert mechanics at Independence, KS can get it; and (ii) perfect pilot technique. Most C172s flying today are about as old as I am, and with engines that are not nearly at their best.

Years ago I was taking off from a high-'n'-hot airfield in the mountains of New Mexico in a typical example of the breed, with the density altitude at 9,100'. I was well below gross weight, fortunately. She came off the ground easily enough, but just didn't want to climb at all. A couple of miles down the road, still at haystack height, I saw some buzzards circling in a thermal, muscled them out of the way, and went up at 1,000 fpm until I'd put some distance between myself and the sandy-coloured stuff. If I hadn't leaned properly, or if I'd had another warm body in the back seat, God alone knows how things would have worked out.

According to the POH for the P model, at 10,000' and a 20C temp, max rate of climb is 175 fpm at gross weight. Not a lot of margin for error there—and again, remember that that's with a brand-new aircraft, perfect technique. With the somewhat clapped-out aerial conveyances given to most of us to fly, that may translate in real terms to 0 fpm.

Density altitude is greatly to be respected, I believe.

[9 lives]

Not a lot of margin for error there—and again, remember that that's with a brand-new aircraft, perfect technique. With the somewhat clapped-out aerial conveyances given to most of us to fly, that may translate in real terms to 0 fpm.

If you're flying a clapped out aircraft, and suspect the performance is compromised, you should land it, and snag the defect, so that the required performance is accomplished.

The prevailing design requirement states in respect of the foregoing (with my bold):

Sec. 23.45

General.

(a) Unless otherwise prescribed, the performance requirements of this part must be met for--

(1) Still air and standard atmosphere; and (2) Ambient atmospheric conditions, for commuter category airplanes, for reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of more than 6,000 pounds maximum weight, and for turbine engine-powered airplanes.


(b) Performance data must be determined over not less than the following ranges of conditions--

(1) Airport altitudes from sea level to 10,000 feet; and (2) For reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of 6,000 pounds, or less, maximum weight, temperature from standard to 30° C above standard; or
(3) For reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of more than 6,000 pounds maximum weight and turbine engine-powered airplanes, temperature from standard to 30° C above standard, or the maximum ambient atmospheric temperature at which compliance with the cooling provisions of Sec. 23.1041 to Sec. 23.1047 is shown, if lower.


(c) Performance data must be determined with the cowl flaps or other means for controlling the engine cooling air supply in the position used in the cooling tests required by Sec. 23.1041 to Sec. 23.1047. (d) The available propulsive thrust must correspond to engine power, not exceeding the approved power, less--


(1) Installation losses; and (2) The power absorbed by the accessories and services appropriate to the particular ambient atmospheric conditions and the particular flight condition.


(e) The performance, as affected by engine power or thrust, must be based on a relative humidity:

(1) Of 80 percent at and below standard temperature; and (2) From 80 percent, at the standard temperature, varying linearly down to 34 percent at the standard temperature plus 50° F.


(f) Unless otherwise prescribed, in determining the takeoff and landing distances, changes in the airplane's configuration, speed, and power must be made in accordance with procedures established by the applicant for operation in service. These procedures must be able to be executed consistently by pilots of average skill in atmospheric conditions reasonably expected to be encountered in service. (g) The following, as applicable, must be determined on a smooth, dry, hard-surfaced runway--


(1) Takeoff distance of Sec. 23.53(b); (2) Accelerate-stop distance of Sec. 23.55;
(3) Takeoff distance and takeoff run of Sec. 23.59; and
(4) Landing distance of Sec. 23.75.
NOTE: The effect on these distances of operation on other types of surfaces (for example, grass, gravel) when dry, may be determined or derived and these surfaces listed in the Airplane Flight Manual in accordance with Sec. 23.1583(p).

........
Amdt. 23-62, Eff. 1/31/2012

[India Four Two]

These procedures must be able to be executed consistently by pilots of average skill

ST,
Thanks for the post. Too many people seem to think that the POH performance is only achievable by test pilots in new aircraft.

[Blind Squirrel]

Well, well, as you please. All flying-school or rental aircraft that have managed to pass an annual inspection, with compressions probably in the low-mid sixties, draggy and leaky doors and seals, and props that may or may not be identical to the one used for the model's original certification test (or may or may not be out of balance, and may or may not have been filed down to limits to eliminate nicks) may always be depended upon to turn in the performance figures contained in the POH.

Good to know. Back in the real world, some points to consider:-

1. For aircraft manufactured in the U.S., book performance figures are calculated by the manufacturer at the time of certification. They are notorious for erring on the side of optimism. Barry Schiff, formerly of TWA and Flying magazine, has a good piece on this in one of his "Proficient Pilot" columns.

2. Until March 1, 1979, POHs were not legally required to be provided at all. That date cut-off includes a lot of aircraft currently flying, including the one I own.

3. Most pilots do not include in their pre-flight check many things that can affect performance, e.g. tyre pressures, or whether the RPM figure shown on the tachometer actually represents how fast the propeller is turning (hint: it typically isn't).

4. The FAA points out that each individual aircraft will differ in its flying and performance characteristics.

5. U.S. AOPA's Air Safety Institute recommend that pilots flying light piston aircraft factor in a safety margin of 50% above book performance chart figures for takeoff, landing and rate of climb.

6. Mathematically, it is improbable that all pilots are "of average skill." If they are, it is improbable that their own performance on any given day will invariably be at or above average.

As you were, gentlemen. Keep chasing that sizzling 175 fpm promised by the book—I'm sure it'll always be there whenever you need it!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

As you were, gentlemen. Keep chasing that sizzling 175 fpm promised by the book—I'm sure it'll always be there whenever you need it!
That's an interesting point actually. We all apply the recommended fudge factors to runway length (33%/43%/whatever), don't we, but I don't think I've seen any guidance as to what fudge factor to apply to climb rate?

[9 lives]

If a pilot chooses to apply their own factor of conservatism that's up to them, it's probably exercising good judgement. And, it is true that aircraft performance can vary, as a result of tire pressure, inaccurate instruments (I'd be more worried about the ASI, rather than tach), more antennas, poorly fitted (or missing) fairings, or poor paint condition. A pilot is expected to fly an aircraft which has been maintained so as to be airworthy, and conforming to it's type design (about the way the manufacturer tested it). If the pilot willingly flies an aircraft with defects, they choose to take responsibility for any effect upon performance.

If a pilot cannot consistently apply skill to takeoff and climb which meets the mark of "average" when needed, some introspection is appropriate. It may not be the fault of the plane or its performance data, if the pilot cannot achieve "book" performance".

Otherwise, For my experience with Cessnas, and their performance data as published as far back as 1958, I have found it to be very accurate, and I have formally done the climb testing on many Cessna types. That said, I have done the testing on other types too, and for one, have found "optimistic" data in the POH (which was a separate document from the FAA approved Flight Manual, which did not contain climb data) - but this was not a Cessna.

Understand what you are reading. If you are reading a document which meets the requirements of "Flight Manual" and it is FAA (or other authority) approved, the performance data will be accurate, as it was gathered and presented in accordance with the certification requirements, and the authority was overseeing that. If you are reading AOPA material, sales information, a third party training manual or other such document, you may have erroneous data.

All that said, if you're used to a 152, and you start to fly an airworthy 172 with decent 152 skills, you will not be disappointed by 172 performance.

[vector4fun]

"Fun" to watch the unknowing trying to fly a C172/PA28 IFR in the New Mexico mountains in summer. MEAs of 10,000' with temps at the surface near 100 f. Since it wasn't our place to try to talk sense into them on the radio before departure, we'd wait until they'd staggered up to near 7000' MSL, where they would have to cancel IFR, or return to land. Apparently, they slept through the chapter on density altitude.

Have also seen aircraft crash after departing a 9000' runway, and never get as high as the control tower cab before impact. (probably had it full rich too.)