c172m cruise speed

Simple Flying

The most produced aircraft: what is the cessna 172's cruise speed.

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

The Cessna 172 Skyhawk is famous for being the most-produced aircraft of all time, with over 45,000 airframes built since the first rolled off the production line in 1956. This legendary general aviation light aircraft will go down in history as one of the most reliable, efficient, and versatile planes ever built, capable of performing all kinds of roles.

Interestingly, despite major advancements in technology and design since the 172 was released, the plane's cruise speed hasn't changed too much over the decades. Instead, upgrades to the aircraft have tended to boost its reliability, avionics, and safety. Nonetheless, modern Cessna 172 models are still almost 20% faster than the original, so some improvements have been made in this department.

Cessna 172 cruise speed

The current in-production model of the 172 series is the Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP, offering modern upgrades like a glass cockpit, Garmin G1000 NXi avionics suite and a 180-horsepower Lycoming IO-360-L2A engine. Compared to the previous model, the 172R, the 172S features an additional 20HP, and the Garmin G1000 suite comes as standard, among other tweaks.

As per Textron Aviation, the aircraft's maximum cruise speed is 124 knots (142 mph or 230 km/h), with a maximum range of 640 NM (1,185 km) and a climb rate of up to 730 fpm. However, this range can change depending on engine power, altitude, and weight of aircraft.

Discover more aviation news with Simple Flying.

Modest speed increases

As mentioned earlier, the Skyhawk's cruise speed has risen modestly over the decades, but improvements haven't been dramatic given the limitations of a single-engine piston aircraft. The first Cessna 172 model was fitted with a 145HP Continental O-300 engine before an upgrade to the Lycoming O-320 around a decade later.

According to 172guide , the first Cessna 172 had a cruise speed of 108 knots (132 mph or 212 km/h), which was gradually increased in future iterations:

• 172C (1962): Continental O-300-C - 114 knots at 7,000 ft altitude
• 172I (1968): Lycoming O-320-E2D - 114 knots at 9,000 ft altitude
• 172N (1979): Lycoming O-320-H2AD - 122 knots at 8,000 ft altitude

Let's compare some of the specs of the first Cessna 172 with the in-production 172S:

A Look At Why The Cessna 172 Is The Best Selling Aircraft In The World

This plane has played a significant role in shaping the modern general aviation sector.

Against the competition

The 172 is well ahead of other trainers in terms of aircraft built and sold. However, when looking at its specs compared to those of its rivals, it doesn't outshine them in all departments. In fact, if we look at cruise speed alone (at 75% engine power), it is sometimes slightly slower than most of its counterparts.

Piper PA-28 Cherokee

Take the Piper PA-28 Cherokee, for example, which is generally considered the main rival to the Cessna 172 series. Entering service in the early 1960s, the PA-28 initially offered a higher cruise speed of over 120 knots, although the current in-production Piper's have a similar cruise speed to the Cessna 172S.

Diamond DA40

The Diamond DA40 is, without a doubt, a faster aircraft than the 172, with an initial cruise speed of 145 knots when it came out in 1997. The most up-to-date variant - the DA40 NG - is powered by a 168 hp Austro Engine AE300, which offers a cruise speed of 154 knots, as well as a higher service ceiling of 16,000ft.

Beechcraft Musketeer

The Beechcraft Musketeer is another popular trainer aircraft and one of the few that is slower than the 172. Take the Beechcraft Musketeer Sport II, for example, which has a cruise speed of 108 knots, well below the 172S' 124 knots, or the Musketeer Custom II, which offers a cruise speed of 102 knots.

Comparing the 172 and 182

Simple Flying recently took a deep dive into the differences between the 172 Skyhawk and the larger Cessna 182 Skylane , another popular trainer and general aviation aircraft. The Skylane is Cessna's second most popular aircraft still in production behind the 172 and a feasible alternative for flight schools and private owners.

The 182 features a more powerful Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 engine, giving it a cruise speed of 145 knots - on top of this, its extra fuel capacity gives it almost 50% more range than the 172 at 930 NM.

A training favorite

The Cessna 172's ease of operation makes it a clear favorite for student pilots, and you can find a Cessna 172 at just about every flight school in the world. Cessna estimates an average of 75 flight hours to earn a private license.

5 Reasons The Cessna 172 Is A Favorite With Flight Training Schools

The type holds a world record for refueled flight endurance.

The plane also boasts exceptional reliability and an immaculate safety record, with a fatality rate of 0.56 fatal crashes per 100,000 flying hours, which is less than half the industry standard of 1.2-1.4 per 100,000.

Have you ever flown a Cessna 172? Let us know your stories in the comments.

• Private Aviation

Do Not Use This Information For Flight Planning

Cessna 172M Skyhawk II Single-engine High-wing Cabin Passenger/Utility Monoplane, U.S.A.

Archive Photos 1

1976 Cessna 172M Skyhawk II (N1352U, s/n 17267023) at the 2009 Cable Air Show, Cable Airport, Upland, CA (Photos by John Shupek)

1975 Cessna 172M Skyhawk II (N9505H, c/n 17266185) at the Camarillo Air Show, Camarillo, CA (Photos by John Shupek)

Cessna 172 Skyhawk Series 2

• Cessna 172 Skyhawk
• Role: Civil utility aircraft
• National origin: United States
• Manufacturer: Cessna Aircraft; Textron Aviation
• First flight: 12 June 1955
• Introduction: 1956
• Status: In production
• Produced: 1956-86, 1998-present
• Number built: 44,000+
• Unit cost: 172: US$8,700 (1956); 172R: US$274,900 (2012); 172S: US$307,500 (2012)
• Developed from: Cessna 170
• Variants: Cessna T-41 Mescalero

The Cessna 172 Skyhawk is an American four-seat, single-engine, high wing, fixed-wing aircraft made by the Cessna Aircraft Company. First flown in 1955, more 172s have been built than any other aircraft.

Measured by its longevity and popularity, the Cessna 172 is the most successful aircraft in history. Cessna delivered the first production model in 1956 and as of 2015, the company and its partners had built more than 44,000. The aircraft remains in production today.

The Skyhawk’s main competitors have been the Beechcraft Musketeer and Grumman AA-5 series (neither currently in production), the Piper Cherokee, and, more recently, the Diamond DA40 and Cirrus SR20.

Design and Development 2

The Cessna 172 started life as a tricycle landing gear variant of the taildragger Cessna 170, with a basic level of standard equipment. In January 1955, Cessna flew an improved variant of the Cessna 170, a Continental O-300-A-powered Cessna 170C with larger elevators and a more angular tailfin. Although the variant was tested and certified, Cessna decided to modify it with a tricycle landing gear, and the modified Cessna 170C flew again on 12 June 1955. To reduce the time and cost of certification, the type was added to the Cessna 170 type certificate as the Model 172. Later, the 172 was given its own type certificate, 3A12. The 172 became an overnight sales success, and over 1,400 were built in 1956, its first full year of production.

Early 172s were similar in appearance to the 170s, with the same straight aft fuselage and tall landing gear legs, although the 172 had a straight tailfin while the 170 had a rounded fin and rudder. In 1960, the 172A incorporated revised landing gear and the swept-back tailfin, which is still in use today.

The final aesthetic development, found in the 1963 172D and all later 172 models, was a lowered rear deck allowing an aft window. Cessna advertised this added rear visibility as "Omni-Vision."

Production halted in the mid-1980s, but resumed in 1996 with the 160 hp (120 kW) Cessna 172R Skyhawk. Cessna supplemented this in 1998 with the 180 hp (135 kW) Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP.

Modifications

The Cessna 172 may be modified via a wide array of supplemental type certificates (STCs), including increased engine power and higher gross weights. Available STC engine modifications increase power from 180 to 210 hp (134 to 157 kW), add constant-speed propellers, or allow the use of automobile gasoline. Other modifications include additional fuel tank capacity in the wing tips, added baggage compartment tanks, added wheel pants to reduce drag, or enhanced landing and takeoff performance and safety with a STOL kit. The 172 has also been equipped with the 180 hp (134 kW) fuel injected Superior Air Parts Vantage engine.

Operational History 2

A Cessna 172 was used in 1958 to set the world record for flight endurance; the record still stands.

On December 4, 1958, Robert Timm and John Cook took off from McCarran Airfield in Las Vegas, Nevada, in a used Cessna 172, registration number N9172B. They landed back at McCarran Airfield on February 4, 1959, after 64 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes and 5 seconds in flight. The flight was part of a fund-raising effort for the Damon Runyon Cancer Fund. Food and water were transferred by matching speeds with a chase car on a straight stretch of road in the desert and hoisting the supplies aboard with a rope and bucket. Fuel was taken on by hoisting a hose from a fuel truck up to the aircraft, filling an auxiliary belly tank installed for the flight, pumping that fuel into the aircraft’s regular tanks and then filling the belly tank again. The drivers steered while a second person matched speeds with the aircraft with his foot on the vehicle’s accelerator pedal.

Engine oil was added by means of a tube from the cabin that was fitted to pass through the firewall. Only the pilot’s seat was installed. The remaining space was used for a pad on which the relief pilot slept. The right cabin door was replaced with an easy-opening, accordion-type door to allow supplies and fuel to be hoisted aboard. Early in the flight, the engine-driven electric generator failed. A Champion wind-driven generator (turned by a small propeller) was hoisted aboard, taped to the wing support strut, and plugged into the cigarette lighter socket; it served as the aircraft’s source of electricity for the rest of the flight. The pilots decided to end the marathon flight because with 1,558 hours of continuously running the engine during the record-setting flight, plus several hundred hours already on the engine beforehand (considerably in excess of its normal overhaul interval), the engine’s power output had deteriorated to the point at which they were barely able to climb away after refueling. The aircraft is on display in the passenger terminal at McCarran International Airport. Photos and details of the record flight can be seen in a small museum on the upper level of the baggage claim area. After the flight, Cook said:

Next time I feel in the mood to fly endurance, I’m going to lock myself in our garbage can with the vacuum cleaner running. That is until my psychiatrist opens up for business in the morning.

The basic 172 appeared in November 1955 as the 1956 model and remained in production until replaced by the 172A in early 1960. It was equipped with a Continental O-300 145 hp (108 kW) six-cylinder, air-cooled engine and had a maximum gross weight of 2,200 lb (998 kg). Introductory base price was US$8,995 and a total of 4,195 were constructed over the five years.

Cessna 172A

The 1960 model 172A introduced a swept-back tailfin and rudder, as well as float fittings. The price was US$9,450 and 1,015 were built.

Cessna 172B

The 172B was introduced in late 1960 as the 1961 model and featured a shorter landing gear, engine mounts lengthened three inches (76 mm), a reshaped cowling, and a pointed propeller spinner. For the first time, the "Skyhawk" name was applied to an available deluxe option package. This added optional equipment included full exterior paint to replace the standard partial paint stripes and standard avionics. The gross weight was increased to 2,250 lb (1,021 kg).

Cessna 172C

The 1962 model was the 172C. It brought to the line an optional autopilot and a key starter to replace the previous pull-starter. The seats were redesigned to be six-way adjustable. A child seat was made optional to allow two children to be carried in the baggage area. The 1962 price was US$9,895. A total of 889 172C models were produced.

Cessna 172D

The 1963 172D model introduced the lower rear fuselage with a wraparound Omni-Vision rear window and a one-piece windshield. Gross weight was increased to 2,300 lb (1,043 kg), where it would stay until the 172P. New rudder and brake pedals were also added. 1,146 172Ds were built.

1963 also saw the introduction of the 172D Powermatic. This was equipped with a Continental GO-300E producing 175 horsepower (130 kW) and a cruise speed 11 mph (18 km/h) faster than the standard 172D. In reality this was not a new model, but a Cessna 175 Skylark that had been renamed for its last year of production. The Skylark had gained a reputation for poor engine reliability, and the renaming of it as a 172 was a marketing attempt to regain sales through rebranding. The move was not a success, and neither the 1963 Powermatic nor the Skylark were produced again after the 1963 model year.

Cessna 172E

The 172E was the 1964 model. The electrical fuses were replaced with circuit breakers. The 172E also featured a redesigned instrument panel. 1,401 172Es were built that year as production continued to increase.

Cessna 172F

The 1965 model 172F introduced electrically operated flaps to replace the previous lever-operated system. It was built in France by Reims Cessna as the F172 until 1971. These models formed the basis for the U.S. Air Force’s T-41A Mescalero primary trainer, which was used during the 1960s and early 1970s as initial flight screening aircraft in USAF Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT). Following their removal from the UPT program, some extant USAF T-41s were assigned to the U.S. Air Force Academy for the cadet pilot indoctrination program, while others were distributed to Air Force aero clubs. A total of 1,436 172Fs were completed.

Cessna 172G

The 1966 model year 172G introduced a more pointed spinner and sold for US$12,450 in its basic 172 version and US$13,300 in the upgraded Skyhawk version. 1,597 were built.

Cessna 172H

The 1967 model 172H was the last Continental O-300 powered model. It also introduced a shorter-stroke nose gear oleo to reduce drag and improve the appearance of the aircraft in flight. A new cowling was used, introducing shock-mounts that transmitted lower noise levels to the cockpit and reduced cowl cracking. The electric stall warning horn was replaced by a pneumatic one.

The 1967 model 172H sold for US$10,950 while the Skyhawk version was US$12,750. A total of 1586 172Hs were built.

Cessna 172I

The 1968 model marked the beginning of the Lycoming-powered 172s.

The 1968 model marked the beginning of the Lycoming-powered 172s. The "I" model was introduced with a Lycoming O-320-E2D engine of 150 hp (112 kW), an increase of 5 hp (3.7 kW) over the Continental powerplant. The increased power resulted in an increase in optimal cruise from 130 mph (209 km/h) TAS to 131 mph (211 km/h) TAS (true Airspeed). There was no change in the sea level rate of climb at 645 ft (197 m) per minute.

The 172I also introduced the first standard "T" instrument arrangement. The 172I saw an increase in production to record levels with 1,206 built.

Cessna 172J

The Cessna Company planned to drop the previous 172 configuration for the 1968 model year and replace it with a cantilever-wing/stabilator configuration that would be the 172J. However, as time for model introduction neared, those dealers who were aware of the change began applying pressure on the factory to continue the previous configuration. They felt the new model would be less usable as a trainer. Consequently, and at the last minute, the decision was made to continue the 172 in its original configuration. The planned 172J configuration would be introduced as a new model, the 177. The deluxe option would become the 177 Cardinal. The "J" designation was never publicly used.

Cessna 172K

The next model year was the 1969 "K" model. The 1969 172K had a redesigned tailfin cap and reshaped rear windows. Optional long-range 52 US gal (197 l) wing fuel tanks were offered. The rear windows were slightly enlarged by 16 square inches (103 cm&dup2;). The 1969 model sold for US$12,500 for the 172 and US$13,995 for the Skyhawk, with 1,170 made.

The 1970 model was still called the 172K, but sported fiberglass, downward-shaped, conical wing tips. Fully articulated seats were offered as well. Production in 1970 was 759 units.

Cessna 172L

The 172L, sold during 1971 and 1972, replaced the main landing gear legs (which were originally flat spring steel) with tapered, tubular steel gear legs. The new gear had a width that was increased by 12 in (30 cm). The new tubular gear was lighter, but required aerodynamic fairings to maintain the same speed and climb performance as experienced with the flat steel design. The "L" also had a plastic fairing between the dorsal fin and vertical fin to introduce a greater family resemblance to the 182’s vertical fin.

The 1971 model sold for US$13,425 in the 172 version and US$14,995 in the Skyhawk version. 827 172Ls were sold in 1971 and 984 in 1972.

Cessna 172M

The 172M of 1973-76 gained a drooped wing leading edge for improved low-speed handling. This was marketed as the "camber-lift" wing.

The 1974 172M was also the first to introduce the optional "II" package which offered higher standard equipment, including a second nav/comm radio, an ADF and transponder. The baggage compartment was increased in size, and nose-mounted dual landing lights were available as an option.

The 1975 model 172M sold for US$16,055 for the 172, US$17,890 for the Skyhawk and US$20,335 for the Skyhawk II.

In 1976, Cessna stopped marketing the aircraft as the 172 and began exclusively using the "Skyhawk" designation. This model year also saw a redesigned instrument panel to hold more avionics. Among other changes, the fuel and other small gauges are relocated to the left side for improved pilot readability compared with the earlier 172 panel designs. Total production of "M" models was 7306 over the four years it was manufactured.

Cessna 172N

The Skyhawk N, or Skyhawk/100 as Cessna termed it, was introduced for the 1977 model year. The "100" designation indicated that it was powered by a Lycoming O-320-H2AD, 160 horsepower (119 kW) engine designed to run on 100-octane fuel, whereas all previous engines used 80/87 fuel. But this engine proved troublesome, and it was replaced by the similarly rated O-320-D2J to create the 1981 172P.

The 1977 "N" model 172 also introduced rudder trim as an option and standard "pre-selectable" flaps. The price was US$22,300, with the Skyhawk/100 II selling for US$29,950.

The 1978 model brought a 28-volt electrical system to replace the previous 14-volt system. Air conditioning was an option. The 1979 model "N" increased the flap-extension speed for the first 10 degrees to 115 knots (213 km/h). Larger wing tanks increased the optional fuel to 66 US gallons (250 L).

The "N" remained in production until 1980 when the 172P or Skyhawk P was introduced.

Cessna 172O

There was no "O" ("Oscar") model 172, to avoid confusion with the number zero.

Cessna 172P

The 172P, or Skyhawk P, was introduced in 1981 to solve the reliability problems of the "N" engine. The Lycoming O-320-D2J was a great improvement.

The "P" model also saw the maximum flap deflection decreased from 40 degrees to 30 to allow a gross weight increase from 2,300 lb (1,043 kg) to 2,400 lb (1,089 kg). A wet wing was optional, with a capacity of 62 US gallons of fuel.

The price of a new Skyhawk P was US$33,950, with the Skyhawk P II costing US$37,810 and the Nav/Pac equipped Skyhawk P II selling for US$42,460.

In 1982, the "P" saw the landing lights moved from the nose to the wing to increase bulb life. The 1983 model added some minor soundproofing improvements and thicker windows.

A second door latch pin was introduced in 1984.

Production of the "P" ended in 1986, and no more 172s were built for eleven years as legal liability rulings in the U.S. had pushed Cessna’s insurance costs too high, resulting in dramatically increasing prices for new aircraft.

There were only 195 172s built in 1984, a rate of fewer than four per week.

Cessna 172Q Cutlass

The 172Q was introduced in 1983 and given the name Cutlass to create an affiliation with the 172RG, although it was actually a 172P with a Lycoming O-360-A4N engine of 180 horsepower (134 kW). The aircraft had a gross weight of 2,550 lb (1,157 kg) and an optimal cruise speed of 122 knots (226 km/h) compared to the 172P’s cruise speed of 120 knots (222 km/h) on 20 hp (15 kW) less. It had a useful load that was about 100 lb (45 kg) more than the Skyhawk P and a rate of climb that was actually 20 feet (6 m) per minute lower, due to the higher gross weight. Production ended after only three years when all 172 production stopped.

Cessna 172R

The Skyhawk R was introduced in 1996 and is powered by a derated Lycoming IO-360-L2A producing a maximum of 160 horsepower (120 kW) at just 2,400 rpm. This is the first Cessna 172 to have a factory-fitted fuel-injected engine.

The 172R’s maximum takeoff weight is 2,450 lb (1,111 kg). This model year introduced many improvements, including a new interior with soundproofing, an all new multi-level ventilation system, a standard four point intercom, contoured, energy absorbing, 26g front seats with vertical and reclining adjustments and inertia reel harnesses.

Cessna 172S

The Cessna 172S was introduced in 1998 and is powered by a Lycoming IO-360-L2A producing 180 horsepower (134 kW). The maximum engine rpm was increased from 2,400 rpm to 2,700 rpm resulting in a 20 hp (15 kW) increase over the "R" model. As a result, the maximum takeoff weight was increased to 2,550 lb (1,157 kg). This model is marketed under the name Skyhawk SP, although the Type Certification data sheet specifies it is a 172S.

The 172S is built primarily for the private owner-operator and is, in its later years, offered with the Garmin G1000 avionics package and leather seats as standard equipment.

As of 2009, only the S model is in production.

Cessna 172RG Cutlass

Cessna introduced a retractable landing gear version of the 172 in 1980 and named it the Cutlass 172RG.

The Cutlass featured a variable-pitch, constant-speed propeller and a more powerful Lycoming O-360-F1A6 engine of 180 horsepower (130 kW). The 172RG sold for about US$19,000 more than the standard 172 of the same year and produced an optimal cruise speed of 140 knots (260 km/h), compared to 122 knots (226 km/h) for the contemporary 160 horsepower (120 kW) version.

The 172RG did not find wide acceptance in the personal aircraft market because of higher initial and operating costs accompanied by mediocre cruising speed, but was adopted by many flight schools since it met the specific requirements for "complex aircraft" experience necessary to obtain a Commercial Pilot certificate (the role for which it was intended), at relatively low cost. Between 1980 and 1984 1,177 RGs were built, with a small number following before production ceased in 1985.

While numbered and marketed as a 172, the 172RG was actually certified on the Cessna 175 type certificate.

Special Versions — Reims FR172J and Cessna R172K Hawk XP

The FR172J Reims Rocket was produced by Reims Aviation in France from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. It was powered by a Rolls-Royce built, fuel-injected, Continental IO-360-H(B) 210 hp (160 kW) engine with a constant-speed propeller.

The Reims Rocket led to Cessna producing the R172K Hawk XP, a model available from 1977 to 1981 from both Wichita and Reims. This configuration featured a fuel-injected, Continental IO-360K (later IO-360KB) derated to 195 hp (145 kW) with a two-bladed, constant-speed propeller. The Hawk XP was capable of a 131-knot (243 km/h) cruise speed.

Owners claimed that the increased performance of the "XP" didn’t compensate for its increased purchase price and the higher operating costs associated with the larger engine. The aircraft was well accepted for use on floats, however, as the standard 172 is not a strong floatplane, even with only two people on board, while the XP’s extra power improves water takeoff performance dramatically.

While numbered and marketed as 172s, the R172J and R172K models are actually certified on the Cessna 175 type certificate.

Turbo Skyhawk JT-A

Model introduced in July 2014 for 2015 customer deliveries, powered by a 155 hp (116 kW) Continental CD-155 diesel engine installed by the factory under a supplemental type certificate. Initial retail price in 2014 was $435,000. The model has a top speed of 131 kn (243 km/h) and burns 3 U.S. gallons (11 L; 2.5 imp gal) per hour less fuel than the standard 172. As a result, the model has a 885 nmi (1,639 km) range, an increase of more than 38% over the standard 172. This model is a development of the proposed and then canceled Skyhawk TD. Cessna has indicated that the JT-A will be made available in 2016.

In reviewing this new model Paul Bertorelli of AVweb said: I’m sure Cessna will find some sales for the Skyhawk JT-A, but at $420,000, it’s hard to see how it will ignite much market expansion just because it’s a Cessna. It gives away $170,000 to the near-new Redbird Redhawk conversion which is a lot of change to pay merely for the smell of a new airplane. Diesel engines cost more than twice as much to manufacture as gasoline engines do and although their fuel efficiency gains back some of that investment, if the complete aircraft package is too pricey, the debt service will eat up any savings, making a new aircraft not just unattractive, but unaffordable. I haven’t run the numbers on the JT-A yet, but I can tell from previous analysis that there are definite limits.

The model was certified by both EASA and the FAA in June 2017. It was discontinued in May 2018, due to poor sales as a result of the aircraft’s high price, which was twice the price of the same aircraft as a diesel conversion. The aircraft remains available as an STC conversion from Continental Motors, Inc..

Electric-powered 172

In July 2010, Cessna announced it was developing an electrically powered 172 as a proof-of-concept in partnership with Bye Energy. In July 2011, Bye Energy, whose name had been changed to Beyond Aviation, announced the prototype had commenced taxi tests on 22 July 2011 and a first flight would follow soon. In 2012, the prototype, using Panacis batteries, engaged in multiple successful test flights.

Cessna 172TD (Canceled Model)

On October 4, 2007 Cessna announced its plan to build a diesel-powered model, to be designated the 172 Skyhawk TD ("Turbo Diesel") starting in mid-2008. The planned engine was to be a Thielert Centurion 2.0, liquid-cooled, two-liter displacement, dual overhead cam, four-cylinder, in-line, turbo-diesel with full authority digital engine control with an output of 155 hp (116 kW) and burning Jet-A fuel. In July 2013 the 172TD model was canceled due to Thielert’s bankruptcy. The aircraft was later refined into the Turbo Skyhawk JT-A, which was certified in June 2014 and discontinued in May 2018.

Simulator company Redbird Flight uses the same engine and reconditioned 172 airframes to produce a similar model, the Redbird Redhawk.

Premier Aircraft Sales also announced in February 2014 that it would offer refurbished 172 airframes equipped with the Continental/Thielert Centurion 2.0 diesel engine.

Cessna 172 Series/Cessna T-41 Series Operators 2

A variant of the 172, the T-41 Mescalero was used as a trainer with the United States Air Force and Army. In addition, the United States Border Patrol uses a fleet of 172s for aerial surveillance along the Mexico-US border.

The Irish Air Corps uses the Reims version for aerial surveillance and monitoring of cash, prisoner and explosive escorts, in addition to army cooperation and pilot training roles.

Civil 172 Series Operators

• Austria: Austrian Air Force 1 × 172
• Bolivia: Bolivian Air Force 3 × 172K
• Chile: Chilean Army 18 × R172K
• Ecuador: Ecuadorian Air Force 8 × 172F; Ecuadorian Army 1 × 172G
• Guatemala: Guatemalan Air Force 6 × 172K
• Honduras: Honduran Air Force 3
• Iraq: Iraqi Air Force
• Ireland: Irish Air Corps 8 × FR172H, 1 × FR172K Five FR172H remain in service as of 2014.
• Liberia: Air Reconnaissance Unit 2
• Madagascar: Malagasy Air Force 4 × 172M
• Pakistan: Pakistan Air Force 4 × 172N
• Philippines: Philippine Navy 1 ×172F, 1 ×172N
• Saudi Arabia: Royal Saudi Air Force 8 × F172G, 4 × F172H, 4 × F172M
• Singapore: Republic of Singapore Air Force 8 × 172K, delivered 1969 and retired 1972.
• Suriname: Suriname Air Force (One in service for sale)

Military T-41 Series Operators

• Angola: Angolan Air Force (5 × Cessna 172 in service)
• Argentina: Argentine Army Aviation (10 × T-41D in service)
• Bolivia: Bolivian Air Force
• Chile: Chilean Air Force (10 × T-41D, already retired)
• Colombia: Colombian Air Force (30 × T-41D)[3][4] - retired
• Dominican Republic: Dominican Air Force (10 × T-41D / R172)
• Ecuador: Ecuadorian Air Force (8 × T-41A, 12 × T-41D)
• El Salvador: Salvadoran Air Force
• Greece: Hellenic Air Force (T-41A, 21 × T-41D)
• Honduras: Honduran Air Force (3 × T-41B and 6 × T-41D, retired)
• Indonesia: Indonesian Air Force (55 × T-41D)
• Iran: Imperial Iranian Air Force (T-41D)
• Khmer Republic: Khmer Air Force (22 × T-41D)
• Laos Kingdom of Laos: Royal Lao Air Force (T-41B, T-41D)
• Liberia: Armed Forces of Liberia (T-41D)
• Pakistan: Pakistani Air Force (T-41D)
• Paraguay: Paraguayan Air Force (5 × T-41B)
• Peru: Peruvian Air Force (25 × T-41A
• Philippines: Philippine Air Force (20 × T-41D)
• South Korea: Republic of Korea Air Force (15 × T-41D)
• South Vietnam: Republic of Vietnam Air Force (22 × T-41D, no longer in service)
• Thailand: Royal Thai Air Force (6 × T-41D); Royal Thai Army (6 × T-41B)
• Turkey: Turkish Air Force (30 × T-41D); Turkish Land Forces (25 × T-41D)
• United States Army (255 × T-41B)
• United States Air Force (211 × T-41A and 52 × T-41C)
• Jacksonville Navy Flying Club/NAS Jacksonville, Florida - 2 × T-41A, 1 × T-41B (two currently airworthy)
• Kirtland AFB Aeroclub/Kirtland AFB, New Mexico - 5 × T-41C (all 5 currently airworthy)
• Patuxent River Navy Flying Club/NAS Patuxent River
• Maryland - 3 × T-41C (1 currently airworthy)
• Eglin AFB Aeroclub/Eglin AFB, FL - 2 × T-41A, 1 × T-41B (1 T-41A and 1 T-41B currently airworthy)
• Travis AFB Aero Club/Travis AFB, CA - 1 × T-41C (currently airworthy)
• Uruguay: Uruguayan Air Force (7 × T-41D)

Cessna 172R Skyhawk II Specifications and Performance Data

• Photos, John Shupek, Copyright © 2009 Skytamer Images (Skytamer.com). All Rights Reserved
• Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Cessna 172

• CFI Tools
• All Articles
• Aerodynamics
• Performance
• All Quizzes
• Fun Quizzes
• VFR Quizzes
• IFR Quizzes
• Aleks Udris
• Colin Cutler
• Swayne Martin
• Swag & Wallpaper
• Tips, Stories & Pitches
• Demographics & Reader Statistics
• Media Options
• Weather Reports & Forecasts
• Turns Around A Point
• Forces In A Turn
• Forces In Climbs And Descents
• CG Effects On Performance
• Terms & Policies
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Refund Policy
• Security Policy

What Is Cruise Climb Speed, And When Should You Use It?

• By Boldmethod

Vcc is commonly called "enroute climb speed", and it's always faster than Vy. Unless a steep climb is required to avoid terrain or to fly a departure procedure, cruise climb speeds allow you to fly faster, with a relatively small loss of climb performance.

Once you've reached pattern altitude or 1,000', transitioning to cruise climb speed might be a good idea.

So what aircraft have a cruise climb speed, and what types of aircraft benefit most from it? We'll get to that in a bit, but first...

Benefits of flying Vcc

Cruise climb helps you in three ways. First, increased airflow keeps your engine cooler in the climb. That's especially important for high-performance piston aircraft.

Second, cruise climb gets you to your destination faster. You do lose some climb performance, but in most aircraft, it's an acceptable (and sometimes almost imperceivable) loss of climb performance, in exchange for faster forward airspeed in the climb.

And finally, you get better forward visibility in a cruise climb. After all, you're supposed to be looking out the window for traffic. Plus, a reduced pitch attitude can make your passengers feel more relaxed. If you're flying an unpressurized aircraft, the reduced rate of climb can also help mitigate pressure changes that your passengers experience. Remember this tip if you have a sick passenger, young child, or baby on board.

When Is A Cruise Climb speed Published?

It depends on the plane, but in general, the higher the performance, the more likely you are to have a published cruise climb speed.

But even the Cessna 172S has a recommendation for cruise climbs. The 172's sea-level Vy is published at 74 knots. Enroute climb (Vcc) is published at 75-85 knots. Here's a quote from the POH...

"Normal enroute climbs are performed with flaps up and full throttle and at speeds 5 to 10 knots higher than best rate-of-climb speeds for the best combination of performance, visibility, and engine cooling."

An Easy Rule-of-Thumb If You Don't Have A Published Vcc

If you want to figure out the cruise climb speed for your airplane, and you don't have a published speed, a good rule-of-thumb is to find the difference between Vx and Vy, and add that number to Vy.

For example, a POH for the Piper Warrior III has a Vy of 79 knots and a Vx of 63 knots. Add the difference of 16 knots to Vy, and you can estimate cruise climb speed to be around 95 knots. Depending on weight and performance, 95 knots might be a little on the high side, but it's a good ballpark to start with. It also gives you a speed you can start experimenting with in the climb.

How Exactly Does Performance Change?

To analyze the change of performance, let's look at a POH that has both rates published: the Cessna 208EX Caravan. While the Caravan might be different than what you fly, the performance change is actually very similar in most single-engine aircraft.

Let's look at climb rates first. Here are the conditions: 8,000 foot pressure altitude, 20 degrees Celsius, maximum takeoff weight of 8,807 pounds.

• Vy (102 knots): 740 feet per minute
• Vcc (115 knots): 675 feet per minute

With this scenario, you only lose 65 feet-per-minute climb rate, in exchange for 13 knots more airspeed. That equates to 12% more speed, for an 8% loss of FPM.

What about time, fuel, and distance for climb? Here are the conditions: climb from sea level to 8,000 feet, standard temperature, and maximum weight.

• Vy: 7 minutes, 61 pounds of fuel, and 13 nautical miles
• Vcc: 7 minutes, 62 pounds of fuel, and 14 nautical miles

In this example, the time to climb is essentially the same, you'll only burn about 2% more fuel, and you'll have over 7% faster forward airspeed.

While this example was limited to the Cessna Caravan, in most airplanes you'll find that the percentage change in FPM is relatively small in comparison to the substantially better airspeed flown at cruise climb.

A Cooler, Faster Climb Speed

If you have the capability to fly a cruise climb departure, you can shave time off your trip, keep your engine in better shape, and make your passengers in the back more comfortable.

Does your plane have a cruise climb speed? How much difference does it make compared to Vy? Tell us in the comments below.

Become a better pilot. Subscribe to get the latest videos, articles, and quizzes that make you a smarter, safer pilot.

Recommended Stories

• Nicolas Shelton

Latest Stories

• [email protected]
• 720-663-7754
• [email protected]
• facebook.com/boldmethod
• About Boldmethod
• © 2024 Boldmethod, LLC
• Terms and Policies

• Search forums

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

• Controlled Airspace
• Flight Following

Handling and speed of SR20 vs. C172

• Thread starter spiderweb
• Start date Apr 16, 2012

Final Approach

• Apr 16, 2012

Annoyingly, the place I rent no longer has C182s, and the Skyhawks are just a little slow for 300 nm trips with three people. However, this place does have SR20s. Now, can anyone who has flown both give me some experience and data points regarding speeds (practical block times), fuel burn, comfort, and transition time for a 600-hr instrument-rated pilot w/ 50 hours of G1000 time? I fogot to add price points: C172 G1000 is $145 per hour, wet SR20 Perspective is $215 per hour, wet Will it work out to the same price, dollar per mile? I'd appreciate it!  

The Sr20 is alot wider and will be much more comfortable with 3 people.  

Taxi to Parking

I always related an SR 20 to an Arrow in mission, never flew the 20.  

denverpilot

Henning said: I always related an SR 20 to an Arrow in mission, never flew the 20. Click to expand...

It's a Forrest Gump gouge. 200hp does X amount of work. The SR 20 may be more efficient in the wing, but it is dirty, so it will do about the same speed, 140 depending how you run it. It's the same basic plane, capable of 4 light people, me and all my friends growing up were light, I'm back; on a 450nm trip with no problem. What is it, 2.22 miles per minute?  

pericynthion

Pre-takeoff checklist.

At those prices the SR20 is 10% more expensive per mile than the 172. (assuming 155 kts and 115 kts cruise). So it depends how much you value your time and comfort.  

Pattern Altitude

spiderweb said: Will it work out to the same price, dollar per mile? Click to expand...

pericynthion said: At those prices the SR20 is 10% more expensive per mile than the 172. (assuming 155 kts and 115 kts cruise). So it depends how much you value your time and comfort. Click to expand...

HPNPilot1200

With wheel pants, plan on a TAS around 138 - 142 knots with a fuel burn around 10.8 - 11.2 gph. Without wheel pants plan 127 - 131 knots true. I found my students transitioned very nicely to the Perspective system, I found it fairly intuitive. It is a very comfortable airplane and I fully realize that I am spoiled instructing in a fleet of brand new SR20s. That said, they are still awesome comfort wise. It is much more comfortable than a C172 in my opinion.  

Haven't flown an sr20 but I think 155kts is a pipe dream for that airplane.  

HPNPilot1200 said: With wheel pants, plan on a TAS around 138 - 142 knots with a fuel burn around 10.8 - 11.2 gph. Without wheel pants plan 127 - 131 knots true. I found my students transitioned very nicely to the Perspective system, I found it fairly intuitive. It is a very comfortable airplane and realize that I am spoiled that I sit right seat and instruct in a fleet of SR20s. It is much more comfortable than a C172 in my opinion. Click to expand...

Line Up and Wait

dell30rb said: Haven't flown an sr20 but I think 155kts is a pipe dream for that airplane. Click to expand...

spiderweb said: Can I really expect 155 kts? Click to expand...

Henning said: No sir, for most people that is actually "how much do you value the technology and BRS ?" The BRS is a premium marketing device there is no doubt about it. Like SVT and 406, BRS revolutionized the option package available to you when every goes to sh-t. People are willing to pay for these revolutionary advances in safety and they are willing to pay dearly. A 10% premium for that chute on SE plane that is flying in weather and terrain is not a bad premium to some people. Click to expand...

KSCessnaDriver

HPNPilot1200 said: With wheel pants, plan on a TAS around 138 - 142 knots with a fuel burn around 10.8 - 11.2 gph. Without wheel pants plan 127 - 131 knots true. I found my students transitioned very nicely to the Perspective system, I found it fairly intuitive. It is a very comfortable airplane and I fully realize that I am spoiled instructing in a fleet of brand new SR20s. That said, they are still awesome comfort wise. It is much more comfortable than a C172 in my opinion. Click to expand...

spiderweb said: True. But the reason I am valuing speed and comfort here is that I am taking my wife and her student (also a lady). If I can make it to Boston in 2.5 hours instead of 3.5, I might not have to make a potty stop! Click to expand...

Henning said: 155mph/140kts Click to expand...

Henning said: Time for you to buy a 310... Click to expand...

KSCessnaDriver said: Wow. I have lots of time in a DA-40. Without wheel pants, I could run 138-142 KTAS at right around 9 gph. Yet another reason to stay away from the wet wing, I suppose. Click to expand...

Henning said: Really? That much fuel? At what altitude? Click to expand...

Henning said: I've never seen a DA-40 do that speed, 133-135 is what I always saw. Click to expand...

KSCessnaDriver said: How old? Which prop? The XL and new models are a bit quicker, and honest to god, the 3-blade prop is a solid 8 knots slower. I flew the last flight on a DA-40 that had a 3-blade prop and the 1st on a 2-blade. It's a solid 8 knot difference. Click to expand...

I would take the sr20 for that mission if the extra cost doesnt bother you. 2.5hrs is much more comfortable. I know a lot of fbos's/ insurance require 10 hours dual in the sr20 regardless of flying time and experience. I flew a 7 hour trip in an sr20 and felt better than If i had driven 7 hours. Very comfortable interior compared to a 172, especially for back seat passenger.  

POHs for the 200 HP SR20 and 160 HP C172N . I couldn't find performance for a newer C172, but I'll bet that just by reducing power you can get the same numbers, so here they are: Performance in cruise, from Section 5, at 6000 feet, standard temperature: SR20: 65% power, 144 KTAS, 9.2 GPH C172N: 67% power, 115 KTAS, 7.6 GPH You said that you're renting wet, at C172 $145, SR20 $215 per hour. That works out to: SR20 cruise: $1.49/NM C172 cruise: $1.26/NM For comparison, driving costs $0.55/SM = $0.63/NM (IRS mileage rate for business). Of course, you won't just be paying for cruise. Taxiing etc. will add to the cost, and it will exacerbate the higher hourly cost of the more expensive plane. Aside: it doesn't affect you if you're renting wet, but interestingly the fuel costs per NM are pretty much the same at 15 gallons per nautical mile for both planes.  

Henning said: I always related an SR 20 to an Arrow in mission Click to expand...

HPNPilot1200 said: About 6,000 - 8,000 feet or so. My employer requires us to cruise at 75 deg rich of peak EGT (not my decision). Lean of peak I'm sure the fuel flow would be closer to the 9gph mark. We follow the Cirrus POH recommendation for best power. Click to expand...

poadeleted20

• Apr 17, 2012

spiderweb said: Now, can anyone who has flown both give me some experience and data points regarding speeds Click to expand...

(practical block times) Click to expand...

fuel burn, Click to expand...

comfort, Click to expand...

and transition time for a 600-hr instrument-rated pilot w/ 50 hours of G1000 time? Click to expand...

Touchdown! Greaser!

SR20 hands down. It is close enough economically, and the intangibles of comfort, modern design, ramp appeal and wow factor for your pax are worth it.  

Cleared for Takeoff

NoHeat said: POHs for the 200 HP SR20 and 160 HP C172N . I couldn't find performance for a newer C172, but I'll bet that just by reducing power you can get the same numbers, so here they are: Performance in cruise, from Section 5, at 6000 feet, standard temperature: SR20: 65% power, 144 KTAS, 9.2 GPH C172N: 67% power, 115 KTAS, 7.6 GPH You said that you're renting wet, at C172 $145, SR20 $215 per hour. That works out to: SR20 cruise: $1.49/NM C172 cruise: $1.26/NM For comparison, driving costs $0.55/SM = $0.63/NM (IRS mileage rate for business). Of course, you won't just be paying for cruise. Taxiing etc. will add to the cost, and it will exacerbate the higher hourly cost of the more expensive plane. Aside: it doesn't affect you if you're renting wet, but interestingly the fuel costs per NM are pretty much the same at 15 gallons per nautical mile for both planes. Click to expand...

My old (shouldn't have sold) 2006 SR 20 would do 300 nm in about 2 hours and 15 min, depending on ATC routing and runway headings, etc. If clean (washed), I would cruise at 150+kts TAS on 9.4 GPH 40 LOP. If dirty (bugs, dirt, etc), I would cruise at 144-148kts TAS on 9.4 GPH 40 LOP. I would flight plan 12 GPH for the first hour and 10 for the rest of the trip. The 56 Gallon (useable), would give me 5 hours of flight time, which was way beyond our XC legs. For that long of a flight (300 nm), I would cruise between 6000-11000 ft. The only issue with the 20 is at 11,000 ft your only climbing at 250' per min to keep a solid forward speed. I would only do a best rate of climb if there was a tail wind worth riding! Besides that the 20 is a blast to fly, great handling and performance. Remember, 71-73 kts on final or else it will float forever.  

jmp470 said: If clean (washed), I would cruise at 150+kts TAS on 9.4 GPH 40 LOP. If dirty (bugs, dirt, etc), I would cruise at 144-148kts TAS on 9.4 GPH 40 LOP. Click to expand...

Ron Levy said: The SR20 is a solid 145 knot TAS performer at 75% power. A 172R is a 115 knot plane, and a 172S is a 125 knot plane. Do the math, but a lot depends on stage lengths. Extra speed doesn't do much on flights less than an hour or so, but makes a big difference on 3-4 hour flights. Figure 8.5 gph for a 172R, 10 gph for a 172S, and 11.5 gps for an SR20 at 75% cruise properly leaned. Easier (and drier when it's raining) getting in and out of a 172. Seating is far more comfortable in the SR. 5 hours flight training, depending on G1000 and generaly pilot proficiency, although insurance may require more. Ground time depends on how good a self-studier you are, but the on-line Cirrus course will probably take you a day or two on the computer. Click to expand...

Ron Levy said: 5 hours flight training, depending on G1000 and generaly pilot proficiency, although insurance may require more. Ground time depends on how good a self-studier you are, but the on-line Cirrus course will probably take you a day or two on the computer. Click to expand...

Ron Levy said: The SR20 is a solid 145 knot TAS performer at 75% power. A 172R is a 115 knot plane, and a 172S is a 125 knot plane. Click to expand...

• Manufacturers
• CESSNA 172M on Floats

What feature of our site is most important to you?

• Aircraft for sale
• Operating Costs
• Performance Specs
• Used Aircraft Values
• Aircraft Sales and Accident History

1973 CESSNA 172M on Floats

Log in to compare." data-placement="left" data-activity="click on '+ add to compare cessna 172m on floats'" > view comparison.

Single engine piston aircraft with fixed landing gear. The 172M on Floats seats up to 3 passengers plus 1 pilot.

View 221 CESSNA 172 For Sale

PAPI™ Price Estimate

Market stats.

Performance specifications

Horsepower:

Best Cruise Speed:

Best Range (i):

Fuel Burn @ 75%:

Stall Speed:

Rate of climb:

Takeoff distance:

Landing distance:

Takeoff distance over 50ft obstacle:

Landing distance over 50ft obstacle:

Gross Weight:

Empty Weight:

Fuel capacity:

Ownership Costs 1973

Total cost of ownership:.

Total Fixed Cost:

Total Variable Cost:

Total Fixed Cost

Annual inspection cost:

Weather service:

Refurbishing and modernization:

Depreciation:

Total Variable Cost ( 173.9 Hrs ) Cost Per Hour = $77.09 Cost Per Mile = $0.84

Fuel cost per hour: (8.0 gallons/hr @ $5.40/gal)

Oil cost per hour:

Overhaul reserves:

Hourly maintenance:

Misc: landing, parking, supplies, catering, etc

Engine (x1)

Manufacturer:

Overhaul (HT):

Years before overhaul:

Also Consider

Cessna 172k on floats (1969 - 1970).

Typical Price: $99,672.00 Total Cost of Ownership: $20,094.67 Best Cruise: 92 KIAS ( 0 ) Best Range: 418 NM ( 17 ) Fuelburn: 8.0 GPH ( 0.0 )

Adjust ownership costs parameters

• Cost Per Mile
• Cost Per Hour

Leave Us Feedback PlanePhD is only as good as its community. Everyone wins if you share.

Please tell us: - Features that would be useful to you. - Aircraft data that you believe is inaccurate or have specific experiences. - Aircraft specific reviews and articles. Please send us your experiences on your aircraft. - Send us pictures of your plane. - Use this form or email to reach out to us: [email protected]

Thank you for contacting us!

One of our Planephd Experts will be in touch with you shortly.

What Is the Average Cruise Speed of a Cessna 172?

By Robert Palmer

Are you curious about the average cruise speed of a Cessna 172? If so, you have come to the right place.

The Cessna 172 is a popular single-engine aircraft that has been in production since the 1950s. It is widely used for training pilots and personal flights due to its reliability and ease of use.

What is a Cruise Speed?

Before we delve into the average cruise speed of a Cessna 172, let’s first define what we mean by “cruise speed.” In aviation, cruise speed refers to the aircraft’s speed during level flight at a constant altitude. It is typically slower than the maximum speed or “top speed” of an aircraft but allows for more efficient fuel consumption and longer flight times.

The Average Cruise Speed of a Cessna 172

The average cruise speed of a Cessna 172 depends on several factors, including altitude, weight, and weather conditions. However, according to the manufacturer’s specifications, the maximum cruising speed for a Cessna 172 is around 122 knots (140 mph or 226 km/h). This means that at optimal conditions, the plane can cover approximately 500 nautical miles (575 miles or 926 kilometers) on one tank of fuel.

Factors Affecting Cruise Speed

As mentioned earlier, several factors can affect an aircraft’s cruise speed. One significant factor is altitude.

The higher an aircraft flies, the thinner the air becomes. A decrease in air density results in less resistance against the airplane’s wings and allows it to fly faster with less fuel consumption.

Another factor that can affect cruise speed is weight. The heavier an aircraft is, the more power it requires to maintain altitude and level flight. Therefore, lighter loads generally result in faster speeds.

Lastly, weather conditions such as headwinds or tailwinds can affect an aircraft’s speed. Headwinds are winds blowing against the direction of flight, which can slow an airplane down. Tailwinds, on the other hand, can provide a boost in speed and reduce fuel consumption.

10 Related Question Answers Found

What is normal cruise speed cessna 172, what is cruise speed of cessna 172, what is the average cruise speed of a cessna 182, what is the cruise speed of a cessna 182, how fast does a cessna 182 cruise, how fast does a cessna cruise, what is the cruise speed of a cherokee 180, what is the cruise speed of a cessna 210, how much does 180 day cruise cost, how much does a 180 day cruise cost, backpacking - budget travel - business travel - cruise ship - vacation - tourism - resort - cruise - road trip - destination wedding - tourist destination - best places, london - madrid - paris - prague - dubai - barcelona - rome.

© 2024 LuxuryTraveldiva

Product Categories

• Business Jets

Special Missions

Compare Products | View Site

Cessna Skyhawk

The ultimate training aircraft.

Nothing is more liberating than learning to fly. The Cessna® Skyhawk® piston is the most popular single-engine aircraft ever built and has achieved a reputation for being the ultimate training aircraft.

With simplistic flight characteristics, great visibility and a sophisticated glass cockpit outfitted with Garmin® G1000® avionics, the Cessna® Skyhawk® piston boasts a slow landing speed and a lenient stall. These characteristics make it a flight training favorite ideally suited for student pilots and it’s perfectly designed to help you soar.

Now with new interiors, these adventurous pistons provide you style and comfort, while emphasizing durability.

• Contact a sales rep Call 1.844.44.TXTAV or 1.316.517.8270
• View Range Map
• Skyhawk Multimedia Gallery
• Learn To Fly
• Purchase A Fleet
• Piston Aircraft Service
• Cessna Piston Brochure
• Skyhawk Product Card

Always #WithMyCessna

Designed to fly. Built for adventure. Share your Cessna® piston story using #WithMyCessna.

WINGS DESIGNED FOR THE STUDENT

High wing design offers better visibility and stability as well as greater ground clearance, making it optimal for student pilots.

ENHANCED VISIBILITY

LED landing and recognition lights offer enhanced visibility and strong illumination for night flying.

EASY ACCESS

Two large cabin doors allow for convenient entry and loading for student and instructor.

BUILT FOR TRAINING

Ideal for entry-level landings, the Skyhawk® piston features a sturdy tricycle landing system and a resilient airframe.

ECONOMICAL POWER

A horizontally opposed, air-cooled, four-cylinder fuel-injected Lycoming® engine provides 180-horsepower. This steadfast engine pairs economy with convenience, making it one of the most reliable piston engines ever built.

Airborne Solutions

Textron Aviation aircraft are engineered to be flexible and accommodating to meet a number of mission specific challenges. Visit Special Missions

Ramp Vision

AVIATION’S ULTIMATE CLASSROOM

The Cessna® Skyhawk® piston is ideally designed for instructors, students and observers alike. With seats wrapped in durable Luxor 2, large wraparound windows, soft LED lighting throughout the cabin and cockpit dual USB ports, every lesson is enjoyed in comfort.

Interior Refresh

Durability, versatility and functionality makes Skyhawk® the ideal trainer aircraft.

Improved Convenience

New features include optional integrated air conditioning, USB power outlets and 6-pin powered headset plugs at each seat location.

COMMAND THE NEXT GENERATION

Advanced display technology.

The Skyhawk® piston is powered by the latest technology in integrated cockpit avionics, the Garmin® G1000® NXi. The new Garmin® GI 275 electronic standby lets you keep the classic look of your standby instruments while upgrading to a modern, sleek glass touchscreen display.

• Standard Features
• Optional Features
• ADS-B out and in
• Integrated VFR sectional charts
• IFR high and low charts with Night Mode
• COM frequency decoding
• Vertical Situation Display
• Selectable visual approaches
• Wireless database and flight plan loading
• Angle of Attack indicator
• Simplified maintenance
• Garmin® GFC - 700 Autopilot featuring Electronic Stability and Protection (ESP)
• Garmin® Under Speed Protection (USP)
• Garmin® Connext Satellite Iridium
• Surface Watch for runway safety

Textron Financial

Need financing.

Strong partnerships create convenient solutions. Our partners at Textron Financial can deliver simple financing solutions tailored to your needs.

Today is your day

Take the next step.

From manufacturing the world's most popular training airplane to a global network prepared to support you throughout the complete ownership experience, our lineup of solutions designed to move you — and your business — forward.

Whatever stage you are in we are here to help. When you are ready download the brochure or reach out directly to one of our trained experts.

Specifications

27 ft 2 in (8.3 m)

8 ft 11 in (2.7 m)

36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)

Cabin interior, baggage capacity, performance.

Cessna 172M Test

It is a requirement to pass this test with a minimum of 70% prior to solo rental of a Cessna 172

CESSNA 172 QUESTIONAIRE:

1.      What engine type is installed? 

2.      What is engine horsepower? 

3.      What is the MAX Gross Weight for the Normal Category and Utility Category?      __________ Normal Category     _________ Utility Category

4.      What is the Empty Weight of the Aircraft? 

5.      Solve the follwoing Weight and Balance loading problem: 

6.      What is the useful load of this aircraft? 

7.      What is the maximum baggage capacity? 

8.      What is the maximum allowable RPM (Red Line)? 

9.      What is the oil type and grade used in this engine? 

10. What is the normal operating oil pressure? 

11. What is the Maximum and Minimum oil capacity?  MAX _________    MIN ________ 

12. What is the total fuel capacity of this particular airplane? 

13. What is the unusable fuel in each tank? 

14. What is the total usable fuel? 

15. What is the Minimum Static RPM for takeoff? 

16. Give Carburator heat and Magneto check RPMs.  Carburator heat _________     Magneto _________ 

17. What is the maximum allowable RPM drop on each magneto? 

18. What is the maximum differential between both magnetos? 

19. Where is the Datum located in this aircraft? 

20. Where should be positioned the fuel selector valve handle for takeoff? 

21. Where should be positioned the fuel selector valve handle for climb? 

22. Where should be positioned the fuel selector valve handle for landing? 

23. Where are the fuel drains located? 

24. When are they drained? 

25. What is the maximum direct crosswind for takeoff and landing? 

26. Give the range of the flaps in degrees. 

27. What flap settings are not recommended at any time for takeoff? 

28. What is the electrical system voltage of this aircraft? 

29. Give the following airspeeds: 

30. Give cruising RPM at 65% HP at an altitude of 2,500ft. ______________  Fuel burnup: ________ gals/hr  Endurance : ________ Hours 

31. Give tire pressures 

32. Above what altitude can the mixture be leaned? 

33. What is the take-off distance from a hard surface with the  following conditions?  Field Elevation : 2,000ft  Temperature : 95ºF  Headwind : 0 Knots  Gross Weight : 2300 lbs  Find ground run: __________________  Findtotal to clear 50 ft obstacle: _______________ 

34. What is the rate of climb with the following conditions?  Temperature : 85ºF  Field Elevation : 3,000 ft  Gross Weight : 2300 lbs  Rate of climb is: ____________________ 

35. When the carburator heat should be in the hot position?