Fun fact: none of these are a substantial enough improvement to justify the half a million dollar price tag.
@davidjacobs85583 ай бұрын
perhaps they should move the factory to China.
@robertgiggie63663 ай бұрын
@@davidjacobs8558 or we could increase competition by getting rid of the vast majority of red tape that prevents anyone from making a better GA aircraft.
@ChristianStout2 ай бұрын
@@robertgiggie6366 The single-engine GA industry is nearly dead anyway. Kit planes and homebuilts are the future of GA now.
@robertgiggie63662 ай бұрын
@@ChristianStout sadly that’s the current work around. As the FAA has shown itself to be a corporate profit goalkeeper
@davidrasmussen29752 ай бұрын
Lawyers and the govt sucked the money out of factory built aircraft biz.
@coalblest30186 ай бұрын
I prefer the manual flaps. Pipers were the same way back in the day
@rogernadal39996 ай бұрын
Same here
@danielshcherbakov37286 ай бұрын
I’m an instructor and we still have manual flaps on all of our pipers. I love it too.
@jakemiest30535 ай бұрын
Archer II & III (also maybe other variants but for sure these two) are still produced with manual flaps
@VoluntaryPlanet4 ай бұрын
Definitely helps with minimizing ground roll and maximizing braking action on a soft field.
@LordBagdanoffАй бұрын
Yea I prefer manual too
@beverlychmelik55042 ай бұрын
172D, best of the breed. Modern look, manual flaps, back window and the smoother running 6 cylinder engine.
@rfichokeofdestiny2 ай бұрын
I can’t consider anything beyond a light sport running a 4 cylinder. I know they’ve made advances in engine technology, but still.
@MrRev2326 ай бұрын
Fun fact : everything about the older model is more appealing
@JWALL_5 ай бұрын
I’d say having a back window and vacuum pumps is definitely more appealing, for real pilots at least
@yatokami79075 ай бұрын
@@JWALL_ The electric flap switch too, to be honest.
@JWALL_5 ай бұрын
@@yatokami7907 yeah I instruct out of both the Cessna and the Cherokee, i do like the manual flaps more, but i know a lot of people like the electric flaps. For me they just feel cooler to use, plus in the cessna if the flap motor breaks, you have no flaps.
@matthewstrauss64025 ай бұрын
not that goddamn continental six. sauce: i work as a mechanic at a flight school, we have several older 172s
@robertrhoden24035 ай бұрын
Agreed anything continental sucks. Arguably worse in every way compared to lycoming
@wackaircaftmechanic23126 ай бұрын
Fun fact: most of the major changes happened between the 50s up to the 70s.
@TheGodlyGamers2 ай бұрын
Yeah, it’s weird I’m constantly switching from 1969 thru 1975 Cessna 172’s at the flight school I’m getting my private at
@brettgerber7956 ай бұрын
Oh, besides price, no intercoms, seat belts & ashtrays too! I don’t think the original ones had shoulder harness and as a kid I remember packing the ashtray for the back seats full of candy wrappers. Besides avionics and interior fabrics I wonder what else we are forgetting. Great video!
@chuckwhitson6543 ай бұрын
I like the older analog stuff
@Stoneymusic222 ай бұрын
When I was eight, I used to think this was a fight simulator and then fast-forward six years I’m actually watching yalls stuff and flying
@gman830904 ай бұрын
The best thing with being the older model they have an electrical issue you don't lose part of your flight controls betnell if you have everything electrical you need to have redundancy but if you have it manually and if anything electrically goes wrong you can still use the flaps
@indridcold84335 ай бұрын
I have a pterodactyl Cessna Aerobat. It is so old that it smells like mothballs and attic. I can lean back and it will go up because the engine is so weak. Lean forward and it goes down. Along its service life, someone installed a Kraco 23 channel CB radio. It still works!
@sneedsneed4605 ай бұрын
Favorite Cessna I’ve flown was a 1969 XP. Constant speed prop, 220hp, absolute blast to fly
@rescue2703 ай бұрын
That was an R172J, also known as a military T41B.
@coldsamon7 ай бұрын
Love the look of a straight tail.
@wtfsalommy32506 ай бұрын
Yeah, it does remind you of the Bonanza😂😂
@coldsamon5 ай бұрын
@@wtfsalommy3250Nope.
@robertriggs754 ай бұрын
Square tail looks better and more effective
@aplacecalledfear6 ай бұрын
back then, flew faster, flew farther, carried more
@MishMashMoto5 ай бұрын
Personally, I would take a good straight tail fastback over a new one.
@Workerbee-zy5nx5 ай бұрын
Computers weren't on cessnas before the 2000s, lectric flap trim cane out in the 70s. The fastback 172 was replaced by the lighter, fancer bubble back in the late 60ish. All Cessna are well built, fin birds. 🤠🇺🇸🏴
@AV8RMike7 ай бұрын
Fun fact: I’d take any one of them!
@alexhuey64895 ай бұрын
You can slap a fancy set of avionics in a 58 172. But you can’t make a new one fly good🤷♂️ I’ll take the straight tail, tall gear and fast back any day over the modern trash
@adamr92152 ай бұрын
Sounds like they have degraded it quite a bit over the years. Those flat 6 engines run so much smoother than the 4 cylinder engines, that alone is a huge downgrade.
@chrissullivan19836 ай бұрын
Back then it was spring steel landing gear
@davidh77993 ай бұрын
What a fantastic airplane. But one significant change you didn't mention: the change in price!
@thomasaltruda6 ай бұрын
Manual flaps are better, taller gear is better, the straight tail was better, (sloped back was for looks, doesn’t go any faster, and arguably is less effective than the straight tail) and the no rear window was better aerodynamically (think fast back) The Lycoming engine is a good improvement, that old Continental was smooth but underpowered..
@Justsomegamergamingandstuff6 ай бұрын
I'm team Lycoming for life. Me and a friend, who's also a pilot, and I flew a 172S (IO-360-L2A) 3 ½ hours from Denver to Amarillo, Texas on 3 out of 4 cylinders without even realizing. We got there and noticed an insane amount of oil on the engine and the ground, and found out one of the cylinders was cracked. The only thing we noticed was a little bit of a feeling that the climb performance was a bit weak, but other than that, it flew pretty much normal. Needless to say, we did not fly that plane back home. The fact that the engine ran almost perfectly with cylinder two spraying oil out and not making compression is seriously impressive, and they have my business for life.
@thomasaltruda6 ай бұрын
@@Justsomegamergamingandstuff that’s a great story, I too love Lycomings, but you weren’t running on 3 cylinders.. if you lose one cylinder on a 4 cylinder, you’ll know it. You don’t just lose 25%.. it is probably close to 50%, but the real problem is the vibration is so bad, you have to throttle back. Ask someone who gets a stuck valve in flight.
@danmart90872 ай бұрын
Sometimes the old ways are better because anything that is man made is apt to fail
@rickoshay65543 ай бұрын
Missing Fun Fact: The price "back then" and now.
@cdsnider94962 ай бұрын
I love how all the "now" changes are 50 years old
@thecanadianavee8r6603 ай бұрын
The bigger difference with the landing gear is that they used to be flat leaf springs but in the early 70s were switched to a tube spring with a fairing around it.
@justcallmeBIG_L28 күн бұрын
I flew a 172 built back in 1977 last year. Registration was N9002E. That was the first time I ever flew a plane.
@Cruiser7772 ай бұрын
I like the old ones better.The only thing I don't like is the 0300 continental, and the electrical system.😅
@floppygdog7 ай бұрын
Always wondered the upgrades. Thank you.
@peteh64456 ай бұрын
The flaps aren’t an upgrade, also he didn’t mention the landing light being moved from the wing to the nose, also a huge downgrade
@thomasaltruda6 ай бұрын
Manual flaps are better, taller gear is better, the straight tail was better, (sloped back was for looks, doesn’t go any faster, and arguably is less effective than the straight tail) and the no rear window was better aerodynamically (think fast back) The Lycoming engine is a good improvement, that old Continental was smooth but underpowered..
@chrissullivan19836 ай бұрын
Also landing gear was spring steel back then!
@peteh64456 ай бұрын
@@thomasaltruda a true man of culture who knows his stuff!
@AwestrikeFearofGods6 ай бұрын
Now do the Chevrolet Corvette.
@timwilson81183 ай бұрын
I don’t a thing about them but I do know I would love to fly. I missed the boat there.
@dbuck1964Ай бұрын
It’s never too late. Just go get your PPL.
@The_Swedish_Government5 ай бұрын
..Never thought I'd see my flight program on KZfaq.. 😅
@mgweld3 ай бұрын
The original one had more character
@046rishabhshukla22 ай бұрын
Back then !!
@hud865 ай бұрын
Straight tails are WAY better
@AirplaneModeIsOnАй бұрын
My air cadet squadron uses the old 172’s to practise solo flights
@larrysouthern50986 ай бұрын
I like the new electric flaps..the older flaps were a pain in the buttocks... And the new swept tail just looks fast.. Yep the new 172 is my main squeeze..❤️
@blumac98016 ай бұрын
Amen. Always got jammed, and it was also easy to skip forward 2 flap position due to lack of good detents
@thomasaltruda6 ай бұрын
The look of the swept tail looks nice, but the straight tail has better authority. The change to sweep it was only for marketing, and didn’t make it go any faster.. also I’m actually a bigger fan of the manual flaps. If you are a little fast, then you feel how heavy the flap pull is. The electric flaps are too easy to overspeed if you aren’t checking limitations. Also if you are skipping notches, theres a technique that you can apply.. basically you press the button and as soon as the lever moves, you release the button and allow it to find the next notch.
@blumac98016 ай бұрын
@@thomasaltruda It’s possible that the aircraft I flew just had worn detents. I routinely used that method and it would still be a challenge to let it settle in the next detent confidently
@rogerwilco47362 ай бұрын
I much preferred the manual flaps but the continental six cylinder engine was inferior to the four cylinder Lycoming
@themightymitsubishilancere8027Ай бұрын
i flew the cessna 172skyhawk as a copilot and im 12, it was very cool
@robinj.93296 ай бұрын
You would be surprised by the number of "Older" pilots who still prefer things like the taller gear legs and manual flaps!
@doriangray20206 ай бұрын
Yeah…and I bet you will hold onto your flip phone forever. 😂
@erosnemesis2 ай бұрын
Yup. Manual flaps are superior
@InitialRelic593Ай бұрын
Hmm some of those are not improvements but nightmares waiting to happen. I think they should have left this as simple and safely as possible. Most people don’t have access to top rate engineers, make it so the common person can fix it!!
@spudwickthrockmorton21126 ай бұрын
How about price difference lolol
@mianatwood6 ай бұрын
$80k va $500 probably
@warster3212 ай бұрын
You forgot to mention that back then you could buy a new Cessna for about twice the price of an average car... Now they cost more than the average house
@gryphon1six801Ай бұрын
A LOT of changes??? That was 6 changes in nearly 70 years which isn’t even 1 per decade. Bicycles have evolved considerably more lol
@user-dn6ht6bo7rАй бұрын
Apart from the shorter landing gear, the rest seem to be good. The increase in price not so much
@casualartguru44622 ай бұрын
A lot of those same changes are also in the Cessna 150-152 series
@DavidJohnson-yy4de8 ай бұрын
Awesome!
@badwolf97652 ай бұрын
The real question is have these changes really made the plane any better? Is it any faster? Can I carry more weight? Can a fly farther?
@Lando62Ай бұрын
Yeah, and went from about $600 to half a million.
@sophiasocal6822 күн бұрын
Back then: an average household could afford one. TODAY: You have to be an elitist to afford one.
@fazole25 күн бұрын
Cessna 170s are such fun to fly, 172 is boring Chevy sedan
@MisterRorschach904 ай бұрын
I wonder if anyone still makes modern biplanes. Not reproductions or historical stuff. But actual modern biplanes with modern features.
@TheLoganatorz19 күн бұрын
Are the VOR antennas on the older 172 on backwards?
@planespeaking2 ай бұрын
Still folds like a tin can if you crash it. GA is stuck in a time warp.
@NoahAviation20103 ай бұрын
I prefer the 172S
@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn393511 күн бұрын
And no more 40 degrees of flap because Cessna thinks pilots are stupider now.
@fellow70002 ай бұрын
Flaps 40 have left the video :)
@clarkpolinski5775Ай бұрын
Old is better. Less continuous maintenance.
@BeechSportBill2 ай бұрын
30 times more expensive
@ChampionJockey_James5 ай бұрын
Fun facts old cost same as new
@ryukiddinАй бұрын
The price 1970 12000 2024 500,000
@trumpwon22403 ай бұрын
Why does it seem all cessna's, if not all planes, have a call number that starts with the letter N
@engineerofefficiency2 ай бұрын
All US planes are given a registration starting with N. Germany uses D. Most countries have been assigned a two letter identifier.
@cyb57612 ай бұрын
Too bad the elbow room is still horrible.
@thebluegreengooseАй бұрын
Old is better.
@roddyrobertson53934 ай бұрын
Dated 70 year old design. Something like a Diamond Da40 would be the modern choice for today!
@adamr92152 ай бұрын
Neither of them appeal to me. I’ll keep my 1948 Stinson 108. It’s better for off airport landings and short take offs, and has a better capacity than the Cessna.
@mianatwood6 ай бұрын
So everything got worse essentially 😂
@Cj-xl3jv6 ай бұрын
Nah working on the originals before the K models was awful. Parts are nonexistent and they’re incredibly dated. Most of the major changes happened around 69 to 84.
@Picospicard6 ай бұрын
Bacl then - 1970 but now 1978
@manin105 ай бұрын
It's still 60's design philosophy but not near as bad as Beechcraft!