Perhaps one of the most recognizable and most produced general aviation aircraft, Cessna’s 172 Skyhawk may also be among the most economical four-placers to own. Sure, there are others worth considering, including the Piper Warrior, Beech Sundowner and even a Grumman Cheetah, but Skyhawks tend to be favored by flight schools. This makes more of them—including modern glass panel-equipped models—available on the used market. And there are plenty of Skyhawks of various vintages to chose from.
While the Skyhawk is a dated airframe that won’t turn heads on any ramp (brand new ones included), the airplane delivers enough for the money to earn its keep.
Even if you bottom feed and end up with a project airplane that begs for mechanical and cosmetic attention, chances are it will take only a modest sum to bring it to airworthy status. It might not be the fastest, the most aerodynamic or poshest ride around, but one thing is certain: The Cessna Skyhawk 172 delivers enormous practical value for its highly affordable purchase price.
For this reason, you won’t need to look far on any ramp or used airplane ad to find a Skyhawk. During its original 31-year production run, a total of 35,773 Skyhawks were built and well over 20,000 of those are still flying in the U.S. The fact that Cessna could reintroduce and continue to build and sell such a stale design (not to mention the existence of extensive aftermarket refurb programs) compared to flashy composite speedsters that dominate the market says that buyers resonate with the Skyhawk’s many strong points.
The performance and economics are compelling. The airplane chugs along at an honest 115 knots, burning under 10 gallons per hour while carrying a reasonable load. Just don’t be in too much of a hurry to get where you’re going in a Skyhawk —it’s no speed demon.
While a 172 is an easy airplane to fly by most standards and has a low fatal accident incidence, surprising is the number of student-involved runway prangs we uncovered in the NTSB reports. For that reason, while we think a 172 might be an excellent first airplane to own, we also think it makes a poor primary trainer.
Most owners are enthusiastic about their rides. Nearly all boast of an easy-to-afford set of wings that can easily haul family, friends and gear. Many fly hard IFR and brag of a stable instrument platform. As one owner put it, “It’s tempting to step up to something with more speed and creature comforts, but my Hawk is predictable in every aspect of ownership.”
Cessna Skyhawk 172 History
The Cessna Skyhawk 172 legacy started in 1956. Actually, it was the tail-dragging model 170A that planted the 172 seed back in 1949. The 170A was a fabric-wing machine that suffered from poor roll response since its ailerons were carried over from the smaller Cessna 140.
The 172, of course, is a true tricycle gear airplane. What was going to be the 170C ended up with a nosewheel on it. Obed Wells, Cessna’s project engineer on the 170, was concerned that the 170C had a rear fuselage that was too weak and shouldn’t be used as a tailwheel airplane. Piper’s Tri-Pacer, the first trike to sell in serious volume, was a hit because it was easier to land and taxi, which is what budding pilots wanted. Then as now, mastering a conventional gear airplane without an excursion into runway edge ditches was a difficult challenge.
The tricycle gear promised to simplify training and it was thought to be the design of the future. But not everyone saw it that way, least of all the established movers and shakers at Cessna. Nonetheless, some at Cessna saw that there was a place for a tri-gear airplane and they began to develop one, albeit without the official blessing of the company’s management. In fact, if the behind-closed-doors tri-design wasn’t stashed away for future use, the 172 as we know it today may never have come to market.
The R&D effort that became the Cessna Skyhawk 172 was conducted at an isolated farm strip well away from Cessna’s main operations in Wichita. The prototype’s first flight occurred in June of 1955 and although it was successful, a list of concerns surfaced.
There were worries about controllability versus stability, ground handling concerns plus fear of propeller strikes, yaw or directional stability and the need to ensure enough elevator power to overcome the high thrust line, which tended to press down the nosegear, aggravating the prop strike problem. Further, the firewall had to carry both the engine’s weight and the nosegear attach point, which Cessna engineers knew would take a terrific beating at the hands of ham-fisted pilots. Other questions arose related to centering the nosewheel in flight and figuring out how to keep the wheel from shimmying like crazy on landing and takeoff. This was uncharted territory for Cessna and had been non-issues for familiar tail-dragging designs.
Modern Gear for the Cessna Skyhawk 172
The 172 main and nosegear that emerged from these deliberations formed the foundation for what became Cessna’s standard fixed-gear design. The gear was made fairly short to lower the center of gravity and minimize porpoising and ground upset. A total of 2318 landings were made during the test program by a number of pilots with widely varied experience.
This resulted in what Cessna marketing mavens called the “Land-O-Matic” gear and Cessna’s promotion soon reflected its new devotion to tricycle gear design. The ads touted that you “drive it into the sky and drive it into the ground.” Unfortunately, the latter part of that phrase came to have a double meaning. In truth, getting the landing gear right was not quite so simple and it took some effort to improve the 172’s crosswind and ground handling habits.
The Cessna Skyhawk 172 as introduced in 1956 was powered by a Continental O-300-D six-cylinder engine rated at 145 HP turning a fixed-pitch propeller. Gross weight was 2200 pounds. The original 172s had an upright vertical stabilizer and a straight-backed fuselage which, to the modern eye, looks dated. But that wasn’t so in 1956 and Cessna moved 1100 172s that year.
Then began what would become a proliferation of model changes and improvements, including the long hibernation between the mid-1980s and 1997 that brought the technically advanced Skyhawk still in production today. More on that in a bit.
The 172A, with the vertical tail swept, was introduced in 1960. The new empennage was heavier; rudder power was reduced and directional stability was degraded somewhat all in favor of marketing. The fastback fuselage blended with the swept tail looked cool.
The 172B was developed for the 1961 model year. The landing gear was shortened by three inches to improve crosswind and taxi handling, while the motor mounts were raised by the same amount to retain propeller ground clearance.
A baggage door was incorporated for the first time and the “Skyhawk” name was introduced. Most pilots use 172 and Skyhawk interchangeably and in later models the two did become one. But early on, just like in the car market, there was a distinct difference in trim and equipment levels.
In 1963, the “Omni-Vision” rear-window 172D version was introduced. To help overcome the squirrelly handling, the span of the horizontal tail was increased by eight inches. The center strip in the windshield was eliminated and along came the one-piece windshield, which improved the view out the front. An optional child’s seat for the baggage bay was introduced and gross weight was increased another 50 pounds to 2300 pounds.
Skyhawk models 172 E through H (1964 -1967) featured improvements such as a nosegear stroke shortened by three inches and the F-model came with electrically operated flaps. Many lamented the passing of the manually operated versions because these were more precise, less distracting and easier to maintain. The competition from the other side —the Piper Cherokee—maintained the simplistic manual flaps.
Cessna Skyhawk 172 Engine
A significant change occurred with the 172I in 1968: The Continental six-cylinder engine was dropped in favor of the Lycoming 150-HP O-320-E2D, one of the most prolific engines ever made. In addition to a new cowling and motor mounts, the new engine package got an oil cooler.
In late 1967, production of the 172 stopped for roughly six months and the 177 replaced it. Market acceptance was not good and there were a bunch of landing accidents.
Still, in repeated head-to-head fly-offs, the heavier 177 outclimbed and outran the 150-HP 172. Cessna’s reaction was to move fast to create a new 172 using the 150-HP Lycomings bought in quantity.
The 172K of 1971 dropped the famed—and successful—Wittman spring steel main gear in favor of tapered steel tubes that provided more fore and aft flexing to supposedly improve ground handling on rough surfaces.
The landing light was moved from the leading edge of the left wing to the nosebowl of the cowl, which improved airflow over the wing at the expense of more complicated cowl removal and sharply reduced bulb life, probably due to engine vibration.
In 1972, the 172L emerged with an extended dorsal fin to improve longitudinal stability, making it more difficult to enter a spin. But closer to the ground, 172 pilots typically approached and landed too fast and the accident record bears out that observation to this day; runway prangs due to off-speed landings are a common accident scenario.
In 1974, cruise performance was improved through an effort to reduce drag and improve airflow through the cowling. This turned out to be a greater improvement than many of the other changes. At 8000 feet, 75 percent cruise increased from 113 to 120 knots, although owners say the lower number is more realistic and most plan for even less, around 100 to 105 knots. This suggests that if Cessna had paid more attention to aerodynamics than to perceived market movements, the 172 would have performed better than it does, at least with regard to cruise. Environmental awareness soon caught up with GA as the Skyhawk continued to evolve.
With the mandated change to low-lead fuel, engines designed to operate with 80-octane fuel showed various signs of distress. Lead fouling of plugs and valves rose to epidemic proportions. Deposits caused hot spots that led to premature failure of engine components. Fuel system elements deteriorated because of new and incompatible aromatics and other additives.
Lycoming Engine Disaster
The Cessna and Lycoming solution turned out to be ill-starred at best, a disaster at worst. In 1977, the 172N was fitted with the now-infamous O-320-H2AD. It had 10 additional horsepower that yielded a higher service ceiling and a knot or two of added cruise speed, but these improvements came at horrendous cost. The engine was a maintenance nightmare. Because of poor lubrication in the valve train, cold starts in cold weather caused tremendous damage to cams and tappets. The spalled metal tended to quickly trash bearings, oil pumps and other components.
Cessna and Lycoming supported owners to a generous degree, as aviation goes, but it took a long time to understand the nature and cause of the problem and to devise ways to alleviate it. More than 5000 of these engine/airframe combinations were built.
There are three major ADs on the H2AD engine and resale value of the airplane is dependent on compliance. AD 77-20-7 calls for replacement of the tappets, AD 78-12-8 calls for replacement of the oil pump impeller and AD 78-12-9 (the big one) mandates replacement of the crankshaft.
It’s critical that these ADs be checked. We think it’s unlikely that any 172s are still out there sporting unmodified H2ADs, but the logs ought to be reviewed, nonetheless.In 1981, the troubled H engine was replaced in the 172P with another model, the O-320-D2J engine that yielded relatively good service. This is the last of the original Skyhawks and the line was history in 1986.
Cessna 172 Accidents: Landings
The Cessna 172 has long had a reputation as one of the safer airplanes ever built. Our scan of the 100 most recent Skyhawk accidents gave results consistent—there were few fatal accidents. In fact, one pilot who tried to commit suicide by flying into the side of a mountain was unsuccessful.
However, we were amazed at the number of landing-related accidents: 65. We’ve been doing accident scans in conjunction with Used Aircraft Guides for decades and we can’t conveniently recall an airplane that’s had a worse landing accident record. The only airplane that tied the 172 was the Cessna 195.
We recognize that the Cessna Skyhawk 172 is a popular trainer. Some three-quarters of the landing accident airplanes were being flown by student pilots. We then looked at accident scans we’d done on other airplanes regularly used as trainers. The landing-related accident rate for Cessna 150/152 was 36 percent; for the Piper Warrior 28 percent; Piper Archer, 28 percent; and for the Citabria/Decathlon, 38 percent.
The last time we did an accident scan for the Cessna 172 was 2010. In it we observed a landing-related accident rate of 49 percent.
We do not have an explanation for a landing accident rate that is on the order of twice that of other trainers and higher than an airplane that is regularly used for tailwheel training.
We noted that a number of the landing accidents described pilots who had landed either “flat” or hit the nosewheel first, and then proceeded to porpoise (pilot-induced oscillation) and damage the airplane.
The 172 is near the forward limit of its center of gravity when only the front seat or seats are occupied. That places it at the point in its envelope where it is most difficult to flare for landing.
While that’s true for most four-place airplanes, we can’t help but wonder why students seem to have more trouble flaring appropriately in the 172 than they do in a PA28-series trainer. Also, why are they more likely to porpoise after touchdown than in a Cessna Cardinal, which has a reputation for that particular problem? (The Cardinal’s landing-related accident rate in our most recent scan was 39 percent.)
Looking beyond landing-related accidents, we were impressed by the fact that there were only three fuel-related accidents—two pilots didn’t discover or drain water that was in the tanks and one pilot ran out of fuel. The fuel system allows the pilot a choice of selecting one or both tanks. The absence of fuel-related accidents with that system speaks highly of it, especially when we see two to four times that many in our scans of accidents of aircraft that do not have a “both” position on the fuel selector.
We were also impressed by the low number of engine stoppages. Of the six, two involved improper cylinder replacement; the other four were unexplained. We expected to see a half-dozen CFIT, VFR into IMC and/or spatial disorientation accidents. There was only one—a CFIT at night with a student and instructor who apparently had no charts.
Until now, we’ve thought of the 172 as the definitive plain vanilla airplane. After our two most recent accident scans, we now question whether it should be used as a primary trainer.
The Modern Skyhawk
Cessna Chairman Russ Meyer stood by his promise to restart piston single-engine production if Congress passed liability reform. Turns out he’s a man of his word. The Skyhawk was reintroduced in 1997 as the 172R and sold for about $135,000 with average equipment including the new Silver-Crown Plus line of avionics—a launch product for BendixKing that proved to be doggy. While modern for its time, this gear was plagued with problems and it’s not uncommon to find an airplane that has had a radio stack replaced multiple times.
Although produced under the same type certificate, the airplane has a long list of improvements, including a metal panel, refined seats, better seatbelts, better ventilation and improved anti-corrosion treatment. The mid-2000s model line brought the 172S with Garmin’s G1000 integrated avionics suite and eventually the hugely capable GFC700 autopilot. While it had its growing pains, the G1000 was a vast improvement over the BendixKing gear and brought the 172 into the world of glass.
The biggest change was the fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A in place of the carbureted variant used in the last production Hawks. This change reduces the likelihood of carb ice, but some owners complain that these engines can be tricky to start.
Cessna shot itself in the foot on quality control. Owners of these newer aircraft were peppered with ADs and service bulletins totaling no fewer than nine for the 172, including exhaust system problems, firewall problems due to shoddy assembly work, engine oil pressure switches, missing rivets and bad bolts in control yokes. Cessna stood behind these fixes, but all things considered, owners we talked with clearly preferred better quality in a new airplane. In our estimation, that quality has been ramped up. An owner of a 2014 172SP recently told us his ownership experience has been quite good and there has been very little in the way of unscheduled maintenance events in several hundred hours of operation. The owner of a busy flight school who operates more than one newer Skyhawk had similar comments.
Cessna 172 Performance
Folks who buy Cessna 172s tend to be honest about the airplane’s attributes and limitations. Most consider the 172 a two- to three-place airplane with room for baggage and with acceptable (although not exceptional) performance and range. Most owners say 8 GPH is about right for fuel burn, with a little more for the newer 172s, especially the SP. One hundred knots is about right for IFR planning speeds.
Loading a 172 requires some attention, but it’s relatively generous in CG range and regardless of loading, there are few complaints about the handling qualities. Pitch forces are the highest of the three axes, but good speed control minimizes this. Properly flown, the 172 can handle stiff crosswinds. Improperly handled, it suffers a high level of landing accidents.
Despite NTSB reports littered with loss of directional control, prop strikes and nosegear failures, the 172 has few vices. It has proven itself as a forgiving airplane that has enabled many people to be pilots who otherwise wouldn’t have made the cut.
One of the great strengths of the 172 is its comfort. While its dimensions aren’t generous, for all but the longest or widest of pilots and passengers, it’s comfortable. For sightseers, the backseat of a Skyhawk is one of the best places to be. Seats in earlier (and unmodified) models are somewhat skimpy and uncomfortable after a couple of hours. In later models, both the comfort and adjustability of the seats are quite good.
Most owners, particularly those who’ve had their Skyhawks for a few years, report low annual costs. Compared to other brands, Cessna parts are reasonably inexpensive and used parts are normally available in abundance, if needed.
For a design so old and with so many airplanes operating, the number of SDRs and airworthiness directives is surprisingly small, even considering Cessna’s problems with late-90s production quality. Skyhawks are notorious leakers of rain, especially around the windshield. Rigging and condition of control cables, pulleys, fairleads and fittings should also be carefully checked.
Many 172s have been poorly or improperly rigged over the years. Corrosion has been found between cable strands and this isn’t always visible. Things like this tend to be disguised by a new paint job rather than fixed. The design is notorious for poor nosegear shimmy damping.
Cessna 172 Mods, Owner Support
Fifty years ago, the general aviation industry was busy putting the tailwheel in front. Now, there are modifiers to put the nosewheel in the tail. Things have come full circle so you can now undo Cessna’s work and turn the 172 into a 170. There are countless other mods, too.
Some owners feel flap and aileron gap seals pay off both in low-speed handling and improved cruise. Others say there isn’t any difference. Others swear by 180-HP engine upgrades to up the ante in climb performance.
Some of the more popular mods included STOL kits (www.springaviation.com), (www.hortonstackdoor.com), (www.sijet.com) and engine upgrades from Penn Yan Aero (www.pennyanaero.com), Air Plains Servicesand Isham Aircraft. Auxiliary fuel tanks are available from Flint Aero. PowerFlow exhaust modifications are also available.
Cessna Pilots Association, which has an insurance program, monthly magazine and fly-ins, is an excellent tool for all kinds of support. The association runs a variety of type-specific maintenance and operational clinics, including sessions on owner-performed maintenance.
Which 172 Model?
Mods or not, if you’re not considering a newer 172, which of the many model variants is best? For basic day VFR flying, we think an earlier 172 is a good buy. The original Skyhawk with the straight tail and “fastback” fuselage is the best handling, say those who know the breed. The O-300D is unquestionably one of the most successful and comparatively trouble-free engines ever to come from Continental.
Self-proclaimed Cessna experts might say it’s easy to pick the worst 172: the notorious O-320-H2AD-engined 172N. However, thanks to mods, overhauls and information about the engine, this model’s horrors have receded into the past.
0)]
If price isn’t the major concern, a used S-model G1000 ride is desirable. For less, the 172P could be the ultimate model to pick, in our view. It has a proven and reliable powerplant and represents good value for the money. But check the logs for an airplane that’s been beat up in flight school operations. Understand, too, that you’ll likely need to upgrade the avionics and likely the cosmetics—a big expense that will make the airplane better.
Speaking of making an older Skyhawk better, that’s what Wichita, Kansas-based Yingling Aviation is setting out to do with its Ascend 172 refurbishment program. Focusing on N-model Skyhawks, Yingling extensively remanufactures the aircraft to like-new standards. This includes a firewall-forward dyno-tested engine and propeller overhaul (it includes new engine accessories and engine mounts), all new wiring, plus a variety of major avionics upgrades. We looked at its latest completed project and were impressed with the workmanship—including the $20,000 custom paint work and an impressive interior.
Yingling’s Jerry Picket told us the company is in the process of redefining the “standard” Ascend, based on buyer feedback. It originally partnered with AOPA on the project with a goal of keeping the price as low as possible (by using analog instruments, as one cost-cutting plan), but quickly learned that buyers wanted an ultra-modern glass panel. Expect to pay $200,000-plus for some Ascend models.
Yingling offers the choice of a 160-HP or 180-HP engine, but hasn’t decided which will be the standard. We’ll look closely at the Ascend program in a future article.
Cessna Skyhawk 172 Owner Feedback
I have owned a 1978 172N for 22 years. I fly it roughly 50 hours per year in VFR and light IFR conditions. My airplane came equipped with 52-gallon fuel tanks, which is good for six hours of flight with no reserves, burning 8 GPH. I highly recommend that option. I installed a PowerFlow Exhaust, which improved climb performance. Cruise speed is around 120 knots true.
I find that the plane is very easy to fly and is extremely difficult to accidentally put it into a spin. You can slow from cruise speed to landing speed very quickly. Plus, with 40 degrees of flaps hanging out it can easily land on short runways, aircraft carriers or parking lots.
My Skyhawk has been very dependable and economical. The notorious H2AD engine has not been a problem. It lasted 1850 hours before needing overhaul. My annual inspections run around $1300 per year and repairs are infrequent and inexpensive. Insurance runs $658 per year for $1 million liability and $65,000 hull coverage. I do have some filiform corrosion in a few places (the plane used to live in Florida), but this does not seem to be an issue.
All things considered, a Skyhawk is not fast and it’s not sexy, but it is safe and dependable. It’s also perfect for flights under 500 miles.
Richard Levy
Bell Canyon, CA
Owning a Cessna 172 is a little like marrying the girl next door. Sure, there’s always a prom queen out there, but you probably stand a better chance of knowing what’s ahead with the girl next door. I think I knew what I was getting when I became the owner of my 1973 Cessna 172 in 1978. And the longer I own the airplane, the more I am impressed by its many qualities.
My flying horizons have expanded over the years. Whether for local business trips or long flights out west for pleasure, I’ve flown numerous trips at high altitude, frequently in instrument conditions and sometimes landing at unapproved airports. The 172 always performed as expected. I appreciate its stability as an instrument airplane and its capability in windy conditions. This airplane came with very simple systems and a reliable Lycoming engine. I believe a key component in the success of the 172 lies in the wing and airfoil that Cessna chose way back in 1949. I have flown more than 2000 hours in 172s since 1963, and have never felt near the edge of the wings’ ability to do what they are designed to do. Having owned and flown some short-wing airplanes, I always feel comfortable at high density altitude airports as I look down the leading edge of my 36-foot wingspan.
I’ve been an airport bum since the late 1950s and have made my living working on general aviation airplanes since 1973. I’ve never met a certified airplane I didn’t like. Putting all of that into perspective, the old keep-it-simple philosophy has served the 172 and its owners well.
With a fixed-pitch metal prop, easily removable aluminum fuel tanks and two pieces of tapered pipe for a main landing gear, maintenance costs are both reasonable and predictable. Without question, the biggest expenses I’ve incurred have been expendable items such as oil changes, spark plugs, 500-hour mag checks, tires, brake pads and occasional nosegear seals. In the past 40 years, the only airframe repair I had to deal with was a fuel leak caused by a crack at the base of the left tank filler neck. Being an A&P and IA, I normally do two annuals myself and have every third inspection performed by a local shop; a second set of eyes can occasionally see some interesting things. The shop-performed inspections generally run between $1100 and $1300, depending on what they find that year.
Yearly operating costs for my 172 with its 180-HP Lycoming engine (based on 70 hours of use) have consistently been about $153 per hour. My calculations include hangar rent, insurance, annual inspections, fuel, engine reserve, plus reserves for paint, avionics and interior upgrades. One number I’ve left out is opportunity cost, at 5 percent per year on the $150,000 I’ve invested in this airplane over the past 40 years (passion can allow one to look past too much reality).
One concern with a 40-year-old airframe is corrosion. This can be effectively dealt with by good inspections, airframe fogging with ACF50 or CorrosionX and thorough cabin cleanup and zinc chromating during an interior renovation.
A great benefit to ownership of any airplane is belonging to a type club, something that can provide valuable resources and information on many topics.
In summary, here’s what I get for $153 per hour: a 180-HP airplane with 120-knot cruise speed with between six and eight hours of range, 60 gallons of usable fuel, 1048-pound useful load and a 13,000-foot service ceiling. It’s a safe airplane that’s easy to fly and maintain. Thanks to a long list of upgrades and approved modifications, I have enhanced my 172 as requirements changed and finances allowed, making it ideal for my current and long-term needs. This airplane truly does meet my expectations.
