Cessna Question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna Question
can someone tell me the difference (or point me to the relevant website) between the different Cessna models. There is the basic C172 but up from that you have the 175, 177, 180,185, 195, 206?
I am looking to buy an a/c and though i have flown mainly Pipers they don;t seem to be that roomy and thought that Cessna might fit the bill better. Was looking for something with a good cruise speed and larger tanks for extended trips, retractable could be an option.
I like the arrow III but of course you don't get the room like you do in a Cessna
I am looking to buy an a/c and though i have flown mainly Pipers they don;t seem to be that roomy and thought that Cessna might fit the bill better. Was looking for something with a good cruise speed and larger tanks for extended trips, retractable could be an option.
I like the arrow III but of course you don't get the room like you do in a Cessna
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's even more complicated than you realise because several models (I'm thinking the 172 especially) come in lots of different flavours! 
I've flown 140bhp 172's, 160bhp 172's, a 172 RG with a 180 bhp engine & retractable gear and a Reims Rocket which has a 210bhp engine and a c/s prop. The 172 does exactly what it was designed to do. It's an easy to fly four place trainer although most (with the exception of the rocket) are limited on endurance with four adults on board.
You missed out the 182 from your list. The 182 is essentially a 172 on steroids with a 230bhp motor. It's a much more useful touring aeroplane which will carry four adults, a reasonable amount of fuel and unlike it's big brother the
206 has a fuel burn which won't scare your bank manager.
The 185 is a 300bhp tail dragger. It can be a handful on take off and landing (despite the tailwheel lock) but will get in and out of almost anywhere. They are very popular for bush flying.
The 206 is my favourite of the Cessna singles. It has a 300bhp Continental engine and will lift almost anything. The only problem is the fuel burn. It's about 60 litres an hour and with rising avgas prices - you'd need deep pockets if you flew it regularly. Before a I got a grown up flying job, I spent a lot of happy hours dropping skydivers out of Cessna 206's - but I didn't have to pick up the fuel bill!
I've not flown any of the others on your list, but I've no doubt that some other folk on here will have done and can provide further information.
If I was lucky enough to be in a position to be able to afford to buy a Cessna - I'd probably go for a 182.
I've flown 140bhp 172's, 160bhp 172's, a 172 RG with a 180 bhp engine & retractable gear and a Reims Rocket which has a 210bhp engine and a c/s prop. The 172 does exactly what it was designed to do. It's an easy to fly four place trainer although most (with the exception of the rocket) are limited on endurance with four adults on board.
You missed out the 182 from your list. The 182 is essentially a 172 on steroids with a 230bhp motor. It's a much more useful touring aeroplane which will carry four adults, a reasonable amount of fuel and unlike it's big brother the
206 has a fuel burn which won't scare your bank manager.
The 185 is a 300bhp tail dragger. It can be a handful on take off and landing (despite the tailwheel lock) but will get in and out of almost anywhere. They are very popular for bush flying.
The 206 is my favourite of the Cessna singles. It has a 300bhp Continental engine and will lift almost anything. The only problem is the fuel burn. It's about 60 litres an hour and with rising avgas prices - you'd need deep pockets if you flew it regularly. Before a I got a grown up flying job, I spent a lot of happy hours dropping skydivers out of Cessna 206's - but I didn't have to pick up the fuel bill!
I've not flown any of the others on your list, but I've no doubt that some other folk on here will have done and can provide further information.
If I was lucky enough to be in a position to be able to afford to buy a Cessna - I'd probably go for a 182.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 185 is a 300bhp tail dragger. It can be a handful on take off and landing (despite the tailwheel lock)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 180 is just an early 182, tail wheel rather than tricycle. Probably better for tight strips, but not as easy to fly! You've got to have a 404 for a real Cessna though 
The 175 is an early 172 with the GO-300 geared engine. It was a higher revving engine than the ordinary O-300 so wore out faster.
The 177 is the Cardinal which had a cantilever wing with no struts. It was available with a variety of engines from 180hp upward. Some were fixed gear some were retractable.
The 195 is a lovely 1940's radial engined beauty.
The 177 is the Cardinal which had a cantilever wing with no struts. It was available with a variety of engines from 180hp upward. Some were fixed gear some were retractable.
The 195 is a lovely 1940's radial engined beauty.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: bradford
Age: 57
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiki
Have a look at the Cessna Wiki entry. Loads of info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna#Aircraft_models
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna#Aircraft_models
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown a lot of the Cessna singles, and am pretty fond of my 177 to be honest. Flown the 182 and it was ok, but burnt a lot more fuel! Mine is a fixed gear version with the 180bhp engine, although it's now 205bhp thanks to the Powerflow exhaust. The RGs come with a 200bhp engine and are a bit faster. The gear can be problematic if it's not correctly maintained though.
177 plus points:
Looks fantastic
Wings set back for great viz even in turns (and no struts)
Loads of space inside
Big doors (can easily get in and out of the back seat whilst the front is occupied)
VP prop
Good short-field performance
Leaned out at FL85 she was burning a rather acceptable 27L/hr for 125kt on Sunday.
177 plus points:
Looks fantastic
Wings set back for great viz even in turns (and no struts)
Loads of space inside
Big doors (can easily get in and out of the back seat whilst the front is occupied)
VP prop
Good short-field performance
Leaned out at FL85 she was burning a rather acceptable 27L/hr for 125kt on Sunday.
