As the owner of a Cessna 172, I've taken a keen interest in the return of the Skyhawk. The 500 hours that I've spent in mine over the last four years have been happy hours. I'm a believer in the airplane, and an enthusiastic fan. If you've flown one for any length of time, you too know that the 172 doesn't do anything extraordinary but it does a lot of things well. It's like the race car driver who never wins a race but consistently places second or third and ends up capturing the season championship. By finishing in the points in many categories — utility, payload, ease and safety of flying, economy of operation — the 172 comes out ahead.
So I took it personally when Cessna announced that it intended to start building the Skyhawk again. Selfishly, I stood to benefit financially because the value of used 172s would rise once the new-production models came on the market at much higher prices. Second, it erased any doubts I might have had about Cessna's commitment to support the vast 172 fleet with parts and technical information. And third, I saw it as an affirmation of the 172 design concept — a simple airplane that can be flown safely by student pilots, low-timers, and infrequent fliers, yet at the same time provides lots of utility and relatively inexpensive fun to active, experienced pilots.
I had trouble understanding critics who assailed Cessna's decision to stick with the basic 172 design rather than introduce an all-new airplane. I'd agree that if the design goals were different, a different design would be needed. But as long as the goals are to build a safe, simple, economical four-place single that can fulfill training, rental, private ownership, and even commercial roles, then I'd have to say that the Skyhawk design isn't broken and Cessna was correct in not fixing it.
In my view the more interesting debate is over the price of a new 172. At a base price of $128,500 for a 1998 model and $146,700 for a fully equipped IFR version, a new 172 hardly is within the financial reach of the average pilot, at least not this average pilot. To be fair, the airplane has great features not found on earlier models — including a redesigned interior, dual vacuum pumps, and a fuel-injected 360-cubic-inch engine. Even so, it's expensive. Should Cessna have swallowed hard and priced the new Skyhawk below its cost to attract more customers from the existing pilot community? Piper tried it with the Cadet in the late 1980s, and it landed the company in bankruptcy.
I and other pilots like me are not the target market for the new Skyhawk. I love mine, but if I buy another airplane, it'll be one that can push the airspeed needle well past 100 knots in cruise. That's my need now. Flight training institutions, affluent new pilots, and pilots who have always dreamed of owning a new airplane and can now afford one — they comprise the bulk of today's new 172 customers. There are plenty of them out there, too, according to Cessna.
Even though I'm not "in the market" for a new 172, Rich Manor offered to bring one down to Ft. Myers for me to fly. Rich is an Orlando, Florida-based regional sales manager for Cessna, one of a cadre throughout the nation who sell Cessna's line of piston singles and support retail dealers. He hadn't been on the FBO ramp 10 minutes when people started gathering around the airplane. That surprised me. Granted, it was a brand-spanking-new one, but I would have guessed that a new 172 on the ramp would generate the same level of interest as a new desktop computer at Microsoft headquarters — in other words, no big deal. I was wrong.
Ed, the owner of the FBO and at age 67 still an active flight instructor, brought his new student by to have a look-see. Lineman Mike, a pilot and wannabe airplane owner who knows a lot about a lot of airplanes, joined in to feel the new upholstery and scan the panel. Bill took a break from fussing with his Canadair Challenger to come over, nod his approval, and tell us that he owns a 1982 Skyhawk. Others who recognized the 172 as new stopped by to gawk and grope.
Several of the tire-kickers made a wisecrack or two about the 172, mostly having to do with the price. One had a thoughtful comment about the potential for vapor lock in the fuel injection system after shutting down the engine under a hot Florida summer sun. (Manor, who has been operating in Florida for a full season, said he hasn't had any such starting problems.)
Despite the barbs, there was genuine interest in and appreciation for the new 172. We understood that we were looking at more than a new airplane — we were looking at one of the major contractors tasked with the rebuilding of general aviation. The significance of Cessna's return to single-engine production can't be underestimated.
Ed said that he'd like to fly it, so we went once around the patch with Ed at the controls in the right seat, where he is most comfortable. He was impressed with how much less effort it took to steer it on the ground. On the landing he set it down in the brisk crosswind one wheel at a time, looking as if he'd been flying it for years. "Flew the same as the old ones as far as I could tell," he said later. His one complaint was that the stall warning buzzer sounded at about 60 knots; the stall doesn't actually occur until 47 knots.
It was my turn. I headed north to a grass strip to make sure that the new 172 is as comfortable operating in the rough as its predecessors. After a routine soft-field landing and takeoff, we climbed back to altitude for some maneuvering. Slow flight, stalls, and steep turns tell the tale. The 172's handling characteristics at the edges of the envelope define docility and predictability, a trait that translates directly to safety.
The new interior is a lot more attractive and comfortable and a little bit quieter than earlier 172 models, but I wouldn't pack my headset away. What really distinguishes the new 172 from earlier models is that big new metal panel and the tall stack of Bendix/King avionics, including an optional IFR GPS.
Bottom line: The new 172 flies as great as always. The difference is that now it meets contemporary standards for appearance, comfort, safety, and avionics. If it weren't for the airspeed indicator you could believe that you were flying in a much higher-performance airplane.
Yes, it's the same old 172 except that it's not old — and there's plenty about it, and about what it represents, that's not the same.
