Talk:Cessna 172/Archive 1

172RG

The C172RG is a higher performance aircraft than the 172 fixed gear; while it is true that the retractable gear adds weight and complexity, because of the higher horsepower engine and constant speed prop, the C172RG is overall a better performer. The "Gutless Cutlass" comment, is not point of view neutral. Incidentally, "affectionaly " is mis-spelled.

Request to merge with T-41 Mescalero

• No... do not merge this and the T-41 article... if they link to each other, that's good... but it's important to distinguish that the T-41 is military use, and the C172 isn't... - ARJUN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.140.202.1 (talk • contribs) 18:54, January 9, 2006.
• I agree, they need to be two separate articles, like the P-3 Orion and the Lockheed L-188 Electra are and the C-47 Skytrain and Douglas DC-3 --rogerd 00:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - don't merge. The two articles are both quite good and don't overlap more than necessary. - DavidWBrooks 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Note - the merge request was removed.

Effective ceiling?

The service ceiling is listed as 13,500 (ft), but can anyone comment on what sort of ceilings they have actually experienced in practice? Under what conditions did you get that ceiling (i.e. temperature, pressure, load, etc.)? Cessna lists the 152 as having a service ceiling of 14,700, but anyone who has ever flown a 152 knows that 14k ft is a fantasy. Is 13,500 for the 172 also a fantasy? –Elklein 09:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten to 14,500 feet in my Cessna 172, and could have easily gone higher but I didn't have oxygen on-board. I was very lightly loaded (just me and a suitcase), and it was late spring in New England. On the other hand, I've also flown at maximum weight on a hot summer day, and reaching 12,500 was an incredible struggle. It took 15-20 minutes just to climb the last thousand feet. Was a serious wakeup call as far as what it would be like flying out of a high-altitude airport somewhere in the Rockies — possibly very scary. On a high density altitude day, I could take off at an effective altitude of 11,500 and have virtually no climb rate. (By the way, I have a 1965 Skyhawk, so it has the six-cylinder Continental 145hp engine. I imagine the newer Lycomings have a different performance envelope.) —Cleared as filed. 13:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this is well tread ground, but I'm fairly new to wikipedia. Is this sort of information (i.e. practical ceiling data) something that is appropriate to put in the main page, or should it stay in the talk page? If it should ultimately go into the main page, where do you think it would make sense to go (since it doesn't fit in with traditional aircraft performance info exactly)? Thanks! Elklein 04:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Into the article, certainly. I don't see why it can't fit in with the performance info. The difficulty will be making it more than anecdotal. - DavidWBrooks 11:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The service ceiling as stated in the pilot's operating handbook is probably the only thing that belongs — certainly my personal experiences are nothing more than original research and don't belong in the article. Of course, if there was verifiable research out there that said that, say, Cessna always understates the actual ceiling by 1,000 feet, or something, that might warrant a mention. But "practical ceiling" is usually calculatable by the pilot anyway, because the service ceiling in the POH is meant to be at maximum gross weight and standard atmospheric conditions. Perhaps we should have an article about service ceiling or density altitude (maybe we do?) that covers that kind of thing. This probably isn't the place for it. —Cleared as filed. 13:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Service ceiling is the maximum altitude that you can maintain something like 100 feet per minute climb rate. So you could go higher than that and obviously people have, but it's not really effective. And I'm not sure but I would guess they measured this on a standard day, so 59 degrees and pressure 29.92 in Hg. On a colder or higher pressure day the service ceiling would be higher.Jesserizzo 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Service ceiling is the density altitude at which a the maximum climb rate is 100 fpm. The absolute ceiling is the highest density altitude the aircraft can go with full throttle, properly leaned mixture, and maintaining the appropriate best rate of climb speed. Service ceiling is always published, but absolute ceiling I don't published see very often. ChadScott 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful Load

Useful load wrong. If I subtract the empty weight from the mtow I get far less than what is said to be the useful load. I will delete the useful load here. Braeutigam 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Just a suggestion, but in future if you find wrong information in the specs template please just remove the data and not the heading - it makes it easier to correct it! - Ahunt 11:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting information

I has spotted two articles that conflict with eachother.

This articles for the Cessna 172 and the Polikarpov Po-2 both say that they are the most produced aircraft in aviation history. Also, the Polikarpov Po-2 isn't mentioned at all on the List of most produced aircraft page. Cosmicpop 02:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can note this has been fixed. The PO-2 is now on the list and its article now says it is the second most produced aircraft. - Ahunt 11:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Production hiatus

This article does not mention the period of several years in the 80's and 90's when Cessna did not produce piston engined aircraft, allegedly because of product liability, which had become absurd in the USA and was especially hard on makers of light aircraft. It should be noted that Cessna, despite its use of liability concerns as a reason not to manufacture small S.E. propellor planes, continued to manufacture many other aircraft, such as its Citation jets. The production hiatus came to an end, when aircraft manufacturer liability exemptions became law, pursuant to the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (“GARA”), 49 USC §40101. GARA establishes a federal statute of repose, that bars claims against manufacturers of general aviation aircraft or parts when an allegedly defective part was first sold more than eighteen years before an accident.

86.141.175.242 12:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article currently says in the "development" section:

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

and under the 172P:

"Production of the "P" ended in 1985 and no more 172s were built for eleven years as the economic and legal environment in the USA had pushed costs too high and sales were very low. There were only 195 172s built in 1984, a rate of fewer than 4 per week."

The Cessna article also says:

"Cessna was bought by General Dynamics Corporation in 1985. Production of piston-engine was discontinued in 1986, with the company citing product liability as the cause; then-CEO Russ Meyer said that production would resume if a more favorable product liability environment were to develop. In 1992, Textron Inc. bought Cessna, and production of the piston-engine 172, 182, and 206 designs was resumed after passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994."

Does that cover it sufficiently or does more need to be said?

- Ahunt 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

There are an awful lot of pictures. Redskunk 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with that? This aircraft has been manufactured many years and there are many variants. It is good to be able to show the differences in the aircraft over the years. If we get many more, perhaps we should have it in a gallery. --rogerd 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think a gallery is needed now, it would make the page look a lot better. Marcusmax 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Marcusmax Tvh2k 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since these comments were added, I have added more text, rather than put the photos into a gallery. Given the new length of the article does anyone still think the number of photos is out of proportion to the text and needs to be moved to a gallery? - Ahunt 11:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell the E,G,L, &P apart from the pictures. I think three pictures would be enough, the square tail, swept tail, and the RG, and that's it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.187.183 (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

With the expanded text, there is more than enough room to space out the pics within the text, and still not need a gallery. I won't be able to do it right now, but I'll try to come back in a few days and help out. What I usually try to do is place one or two pics in each major section. Try putting the variants in the sections where they are mentioned, and pics with other features (owner/operators, design elements, etc.) in relevant sections, and place a few on the left side for variety. Space the pics far enough above the section breaks so they don't cause blank spaces in the next section on monitors with different resolutions. I can help out with that as I have a low resolution, so if if works on my monitor, it's usually OK elsewhere. I'd also suggest putting the control panel in the specs section, as we don't currently have a 3-view image of the plane. - BillCJ 05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that if photos are put in different sections, as opposed to running from the top that it can cause problems, depending on the Wikipedia thumbnail preferences that the user has set. I have mine set to 250 px and I find when photos have been put in individual sections that they can squeeze each other, either into other sections, or sometime overlap text, particularly if the person laying them out has their thumbnail settings smaller. Putting photos on both the left and right creates the same sort of situation, with text squeezed as a result and readability suffers. Since Wikipedia allows users to set their own thumbnail sizes I think we have to be careful in arranging photos to make sure that it works as best possible regardless of the preferences chosen by the user. In experimenting with different preference sizes I have found that the current arrangement, with the pictures down the right side from the top, is the best compromise, particularly when there are a lot of them.

The other solution, is of course to put them in a gallery, which is not affected by the thumbnail preferences and thus preserves readability, although it probably reduces article interest by the casual reader who brings up the page and sees only one or two pictures and a sea of dense text - the galleries are usually at the bottom of the page, where they aren't immediately seen.

I can sympathize with the comment that all the latter 172s look alike. I did add a lot of description in the text to show the various changes from year to year, but many of them are not apparent in photos taken from a distance. The best solution there may be to add more information to the captions, but some could get rather long. - Ahunt 12:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Famous flights" section

I've retitled this as "Notable flights", and I also added a split-section tag. The first item is very long, and the last one is a bit lengthy too. The first item seems notable enough on its own to warrant a new article, provided more sources can be found, and each major sentence sourced. The last item should also be cut back, but I don't know if the incident is notable enough for an incident article or not. - BillCJ 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In one way, it would seem that the first item could warrant a separate article; on the other hand, though, this is just one of any number of such endurance flights. (At least two, for instance, were made in Aeronca Sedans in 1949.) I do agree that the last item is not notable enough for its own article; actually, I'm not sure it even belongs here. If every adverse-weather 172 downing makes its way into this article, it will be a very, very long article indeed. (A quick NTSB search yields 85 such crashes there alone.) On a separate note, but also about this section, the Mathias Rust flight was definitely not a 172B; it was a Reims 172P, but for whatever reason the 172B error is all over the place. SkipperPilot 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what sets the Allen Williams weather crash apart from the other ones is that it is very notable, in that the story was covered by media around the world. A google search for the discrete terms "Allen Williams" & "Cessna 172" finds 514 pages covering this event! - Ahunt 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is well-taken, and I should not have spoken so hastily, as notability (I do recall reading) really applies to the article, not the content. Separately, I'm still bothered by the situation regarding Rust's plane. Google results definitely tend toward the 172B error. I think this is one of the weak links in the always-trust-verifiable/published-information theory. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," says WP:Verifiability. I suppose this means that we keep repeating the 172B falsehood, since it's published and therefore verifiable (despite being the perfect opposite of truth). —SkipperPilot (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have found one of the weak points of the internet - many websites, particularly media outlets, rely on each other for source info, so that incorrect information takes on a life of its own. I think that Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to get things right where ever possible, regardless of incorrect sources. On the plus side many media outlets go to Wikipedia as their initial source of info, so if we get the Rust story right, others may correct to the Wikipedia version of it!

There are lots of photos of Rust's 172 sitting in Red Square and it is clearly not a 172B. The "B" had a swept tail and no rear window. As can be seen in the photos of D-ECJB Rust's aircraft was not a "B" model: [1] [2]. There are quite a number of websites that claim it was an F172P, which is much more likely. Who would be renting a 172B in 1987 anyway?? - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a good source and for making the edit. —SkipperPilot (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of encouragement! Just trying to make Wikipedia more accurate. Once you pointed out the error, I couldn't let it lie there! I changed the page on Mathias Rust, too. Now let's see if there are objections! - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To revisit this -- 514 Ghits isn't that many, nor does it indicate encyclopedic notability. From Wikipedia:Search engine test:

A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive.

Neither of the removed instances are extraordinary when it comes to crashes; there've been a few interesting details pointed out in them, sure, but that could be done in many, many cases. Compare these last two to the record-length flight and Rust's trip -- notability is obvious for both. The need to prove encyclopedic importance still exists here. 70.116.9.52 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way -- I did read this before deleting it; be careful to not assume that an IP address edit means that WP guidelines weren't followed. And the above issue hasn't been addressed or resolved, it was simply dropped. Skipper, while well-intentioned, was wrong -- notability applies to content, not just article topics in general. If it didn't, we could fill articles with things such as Dubya's favorite movies and a list of all-night restaurants in Phoenix. 70.116.9.52 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you check Wikipedia:Notability this sets out the criteria for notability, which is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." In the case of these accidents they meet the criteria as they both received extensive press coverage and that is why they have been included. The accidents themselves were not unusual for 172 crashes, but the people killed in them and the circumstances were enough to attract lots of press coverage. These are similar to the inclusion of the JFK jr crash in the Piper Saratoga article.

If you would like to make a case that these accidents should not be included in this article, despite the "notability" then please do! Perhaps there should be a new article for "Cessna 172 accidents"?

Incidentally IP address editors who remove large amounts of text from articles are generally viewed with suspicion, but not with disdain. About 99% of the vandalism on Wikipedia is done by IP address editors, so they naturally attract scrutiny. If you are interested in working on aircraft articles I would suggest that you sign up for a user account and list yourself for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft - we can always use more knowledgeable editors working on these articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The two articles linked to here do not establish that notability, though. The first isn't much more than a run-of-the-mill news article; there isn't anything in this to indicate why the crash is of the kind of importance and notability that one would expect to find it in an encyclopedia fifty years from now. The second, which is only available as a video, also fails to indicate why this is something which is of encyclopedia importance.

Finding a news article on a topic doesn't make it the open-and-close case that you're asserting it to be; WP:N also reads "coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability." Moreover, many of the Ghits - which, as noted before, are a poor method to establish notability - are copies of either this article or each other; actual coverage isn't very high. In other words, the coverage isn't all that substantial. Several newspapers reprinting an AP article still only make up one article, after all. I don't agree that the presumption even exists. Add on that WP:NOT#NEWS and related guidelines discourage adding in news events of passing importance, and there's not much to support these last two cases.

As mentioned earlier, the burden is to show that these should be included in the article, not the other way around. There needs to be more reason given than that it appears in the news a few times and that an aviator may find them interesting. It's not to say that they're not, but I have many personal interests which don't meet the criteria for WP inclusion. 70.116.9.52 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing them, I just want to make sure that there are good reasons for doing so and that the other editors watching this page have a chance to object. - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a response to what's directly above, but a few paragraphs earlier (eight, by my count); I would have inserted it there, but feared it would get lost; if I'm formatting things inappropriately, I have no doubt it will be pointed out.

Anyway, when I wrote that "notability . . . really applies to the article, not the content," I was paraphrasing from memory part of the paragraph which appears at the end of Wikipedia:Notability. To quote directly: "Notability guidelines . . . do not specifically regulate the content of articles. . . . The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines. . . ." I'll take credit for my good intentions, but for now I'm standing by my paraphrase.

That said, I'm very much open to the possibility that we should be discussing this section of the article's content under a relevant, content-related policy such as the one on relevance of content or even trivia or undue weight. I don't know that I would argue strongly for any of the included items apart from Rust, PSA 182, and perhaps Bishop. Were I to argue against any of the other items, it would be on the basis of the risk of this section expanding beyond its appropriate size in relation to the overall size of the article and/or failing to add anything meaningful to understanding the Cessna 172.

I'm hopeful that we can reach a meaningful consensus on this; I believe at the same time, though, that the quality of any consensus is directly proportional to the quality of the procedure employed in reaching it. —SkipperPilot (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good points there. There is no doubt that these items meet the notability policies, the question is really whether they are appropriate to the subject of this article. They could be left here, removed or else moved to a new article on "Cessna 172 Accidents", if there is any value in something like that. Let's work to agree on the best solution. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It has now been five days with no further comments on this subject. In reviewing the arguments made I think that the consensus seems to be to delete the two accidents mentioned, but not the other notable flights. I do agree that they are not unique and, despite publicity, add little to a reader's understanding on the aircraft type. Any other thoughts on this subject? - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to go AWOL during this discussion. I agree with you, but defer to writers who are more experienced with aviation articles if they feel that the last two are of the same significance as the other entries (which I feel were well-chosen and should stay). Should a separate accident article come to pass, though, they may fit in there. 70.116.9.52 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Electric Flaps - 172E or F

We seem to have a conflict of references. Clarke clearly states that electric flaps were introduced with the 1964 172E model. Some other editors have changed that to say that they were introduced with the 1965 172F model, but haven't changed the references in the para to indicate where that info comes from, despite some hints of it in the edit summaries. That makes the changed para "unreferenced" or at least in conflict with the cited ref for that para. Obviously at least one of the references is wrong, but which one?

Rather than creating an edit war over such a minor point as this I would like to suggest that we collect the available information here on the talk page, see what we can come up with and then come to some consensus as to how to solve this issue. So far we have:

• Clarke, Bill: The Cessna 172 First Edition, pages 31-97. TAB Books, 1987. ISBN 0-8306-0912-1 - This reference says that the electric flaps were introduced with the 1964 172E.

This sort of thing is too minor to be mentioned in the Type Certificate data, which would be the ultimate reference. Does any one have access to the POHs for those years? The POH will describe the flap actuation and would be the next best ultimate reference on this matter. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, though I never would have thought of it if you hadn't mentioned it, this is in the TCDS, just not in the main part. Rather, it's in the "Data Pertinent to All Models" section, where placards are dealt with. Reference page 21, under what would be Note 2(D), "On flap handle, Models 172 through 172E," and then just below, under (E), "Near flap indicator Models 172F (electric flaps) through 17271034, excluding 17270050."

• Type certificate data sheet no. 3A12. Revision 74. (Oct. 2, 2007.) Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration.

I'll leave it to someone else to make the edit. Good day all. —SkipperPilot (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SkipperPilot you are brilliant!! Shows you what happens when I assume that the info won't be there on the type certificate! As you said it is there in the placards info! So Clarke is wrong, the data sheet is correct and I have made the change to the page and added the ref. Thank you all for your contributions and patience on this issue! - Ahunt (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All referenced I've seen also indicate that electric flaps were introduced with the F model.

BTW, I'v notice a reference goes to a dead link: coptercrazy (undated). Listing of Production Reims F172. Retrieved on 2007-12-23.

Not sure how to handle that one. Gladtohelp (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

Safety

I am missing a section about the safety of these aircrafts. Does anyone know of any statistics? --Hulagutten (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cessna 172 Safety Review - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cessna 172 of the Philippine Army

A Cessna 172 of the Philippine Army was mentioned by Tonet in his website http://tonetcarlo.wordpress.com/ . The Cessna 172 was flown by Army Major Alex D. during the 12th Philippine International Hot Air Balloon Fiesta at Clark Field, Philippines for the skydiving exhibition of Army skydivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.65.3 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

172 Reference Site

What think about adding www.172guide.com as an external link? It has all the performance specs for nearly every single year/model. Don't think that is available anywhere else on the net. Gladtohelp (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)GladtoHelp

A good question to ask! The policy on external links is at WP:EL. While the website seems pretty benign (doesn't seem to be a simple commercial marketing website) I am not sure that it provides "a unique resource" (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID), in other words that putting this link on the article would add nothing to the Wikipedia article that isn't already there. If you think it does add some useful information then perhaps it would be better to paraphrase that information, include it in the article's text and use the website as the footnoted reference. Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the specs I referred to are not available in the wiki article or anywhere else that I'm aware of. I'll let that be your call, but we may be inferring different definitions of the word "unique". To me, unique means it is a single source for the information. Having the specs for every model/year would certainly be important information for someone wanting to learn more about a 172. The assertion that it adds "nothing to the Wikipeidia article that isn't already there" is incorrect. The Wiki article does not have these specs and performance numbers. As for paraphrasing all that, that would be an extremely time-consumming job.Gladtohelp (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

You are quite right - I missed the links to all the yearly specs. That is too much info to put in an encyclopedia article, but it is useful to readers. I think the link should go in and will insert it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning - Link to Attack Site? When I clicked on the specs link discussed here in Firefox 3.5.7 (Mac) just now it displayed this text:

Reported Attack Site! This web site at www.172guide.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system. Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.

I greatly appreciate all the info in the article, and have been using it extensively for several weeks in the process of selecting and buying a 172. Having detailed information like that described in this Discussion item would be very helpful to me. I hope that some way can be found for wikipedia to safely provide full specs by model and year. Perhaps another article with specs only? With enough effort from enough people, and some fair use copying of info, over time it could surpass and probably outlive commercial sites like the one now in External Links. Jw4nvc (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Google is indicating that website as unsafe as well, hopefully they will get it cleaned and back up soon. Providing specs for every model year is well beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article like this. While there may be information here useful to potential buyers, it isn't a buyer's guide and really can't fill that role without ceasing to be a general encyclopedia article. For that kind of info, you really need something like Clark's book, cited as a ref for the article. That book has specs for every year and is an actual buyer's guide. - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Child "Records"

An IP editor recently added information on a child "record" flight to the notable flights section of this article. I have copy-edited it as the refs did not support the statements made. Much about this entry seems to be merely sending readers to the cited ref, which is a book review and may therefore be commercial spam.

Even in its edited state I am not convinced that this para should be included in the notable flights section or even in this article. No record sanctioning body acknowledges these flights because seven year olds are not permitted to be pilot in command of an aircraft. In all these cases the instructor is pilot in command and the child is legally a passenger who is manipulating the controls. The death of Jessica Dubroff lead to the end of these "stunts".

In the aviation community there has been a general acknowledgment that the publicity given to this sorts of flights resulted in more of these flights and the eventual accident and three deaths in the Jessica Dubroff case. There has been a general agreement that these flights should not be accorded publicity, lest in the future attempts be made to break these (non) records.

Because the C-172 is the aircraft of choice for these flights, several more, including Jessica Dubroff's flight, could be added here.

Personally I think that this existing entry should be removed, but I would like to hear what other editors of this page think. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think these flight should be included as they are not notable in the history of the Cessna 172. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How would a record set in a Cessna 172 not be notable to the Cessna 172? Besides, FAA regulations changed AFTER Jessica Dubroff's death. Prior to her ill-fated flight, child pilots were allowed to take the controls and were recognized by the Guinness Book for years. Daniel's record was not recognized because of a policy put in place by the Guinness Book which prohibits acknowledging records of young children when such publishing could encourage someone younger to take on a feat which could endanger their welfare. Since Daniel was of such a young age, it was recommended NOT to recognize the record. And true to Guinness' prediction, Jessica Dubroff did indeed crash and die in her attempt to beat Daniel's record. 02:49, 17 May 2008 (CDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.101.216 (talk)

The use of the Cessna 172 was incidental and not deliberate for any particular quality of the aircraft, they are thousands of point-to-point and distance records (pick any combination of places and distances) nearly all of them are not notable. Most of the entries in this article on notable flights are not really notable either! MilborneOne (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that 24.219.101.216 makes the most compelling argument for not including this in the article, as he or she says: "Daniel's record was not recognized because of a policy put in place by the Guinness Book which prohibits acknowledging records of young children when such publishing could encourage someone younger to take on a feat which could endanger their welfare".

I think there are now many good reasons to delete the paragraph on this flight:

• It is not an acknowledged record of any kind
• None of the national or international record-keeping organizations (i.e. FAI) acknowledge the flight
• Guinness refuses to acknowledge the flight, because they feel doing so would endanger children (and in fact they were proven correct in that assertion by later events)
• The inclusion of this flight in Wikipedia may encourage other younger pilots to try this, perhaps in other countries where it is not illegal
• The use of a C-172 was incidental to the flight - it could have been done in any light aircraft
• These flights are now illegal under FAA rules, in the USA
• There are thousands of bona-fide point to point and speed over distance record set in C-172s that could be also entered in this article, which adds up to none of them being truly notable
• The ref cited still looks like a spam attempt to market a book through Wikipedia

Any other editors have any other input on this issue? - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-nazis strike again. I'm finished, you win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.101.216 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that trying to get consensus from a wide group of editors who have worked on this article quite constitutes "wiki-nazis". Rather than throwing charges around, please have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus - Ahunt (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that if we were just "wiki-nazis" we would have just removed the entry with some vague edit-summary, such as "not notable" rather than bringing it here to the talk page to get consensus. Personally I would like to hear any further reasons that you might have to include it and also what any other editors have to say on the subject, too. Wikipedia is a participatory process. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, we're talking about an encyclopedic entry on the Cessna 172. I think it's fair to ask whether the information in question either (1) adds to an understanding of the 172 or (2) contributes/contributed meaningfully to the history—real or perceived—of the 172. Occurrences such as the Mathias Rust flight, or the 1978 PSA midair—even if they don't directly add information about the 172—do contribute to an understanding of the way in which the aircraft has been encountered and perceived by the general public. With these cases, the public knew that a 172 was involved. I'm not sure this is true of the discussed Daniel Shanklin "record." At a bare minimum, I would expect that an editor believing the Shanklin flight to be notable and noteworthy would first create a page regarding the "pilot" or the flight, before attempting to sell it as relevant to the entry on the 172. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkipperPilot (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Didn't mean to leave that unsigned!—SkipperPilot (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Having thought more about this issue I am thinking that this "record" should either be in its own article, in the same way that the Jessica Dubroff article is separate from the 172 article, or else there should be an article for "Child Record Flights" to provide an overview of these sorts of flights, cover this mentioned flight and lead into the Jessica Dubroff article. As it stands right now the 172 article does not mention Jessica Dubroff and the Jessica Dubroff article does not mention that it happened in a 172. I do think that all these types of flights should be treated in the same manner.

What do other editors think? - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been six days since any comments were added to this issue. It looks like the general consensus is to delete the para on this flight. Does anyone else have any other thoughts on this at this point? - Ahunt (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE! MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In the military we always worked on "your silence indicates agreement". Just trying to be polite and not rush things! - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

If you have soloed a 172, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!

Code	Result
|{{User:Ahunt/172}}	This user has soloed a Cessna 172.	Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sub-sub-sections

I disagree. (1) If you (Ahunt) don't want a long TOC then modify the TOC params. (2) The section which I sub-sectioned was too long to edit easily. Some of the subsequent improvements I made would have been a lot more difficult without the shorter sub-sections. I think others will find this the case also. (3) What I did took some work, and has been undone: This is frustrating and I wish you had come to the talk page first. It cannot be that your take on things in this matter is so obviously true you can just undo my improvement (because that is what I genuinely think it was) without discussion. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This article was a mess long before Ahunt started working on it, and he did alot of work to improve it, including removing the subheadings in the first place some months ago. I'm sorry that your work was reverted, but that happens to all of us, as it is a part of editing on an open encyclopedia. Ahunt and I have even reverted each other on several occasions. We still disagree as much as we agree, but I believe we have a good working relationship. However, I do find it odd you chose not to discuss your major changes at all before making them, nad then fault Ahunt for not discussing his! But I don't find it odd you find Chris Cunningham patronizing - He is! I've had some run-ins with him over his over-agressive interpretations in the date autoformmating delinking process, and I'm not surprised to find he had a had in the silly move of Football (soccer) to its current page. But I digress.

Anyway, I do agree that the laundry list of variants is too large to make each one a subheading, but I find that TOC params tend to be more trouble then they are worth. What about adding 3-5 subheadings for major groups of variants? I'm not familiar enough with the variants to suggest the divisions myself, but perhaps by decade or era of some sort. - BillCJ (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment below as to whether you need to give notice of a change. There is no note here about the sub-section-or-not debate. As to categorise my change as a "major" one, that is surely a mistake. *I* too have contributed to this article, in a relatively minor way. I acknowledge Ahunt's and others' wide-ranging work in this article and in aviation at WP generally but surely you are not raising an article ownership issue? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm raising an ownership issue! I've only been on WP 2 years now, and I still haven't learned that core policy yet. Sheesh! It's not about "giving notice of a change", but rather thinking it's OK for you to make undiscussed changes, but someone else can't revert them without discussion. Well, it's being discussed now, so whatever. - BillCJ (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the 145hp, 150hp and 160hp pre 1990 variants could have separate sub-sections, with another for the still in production models and another for proposed models. But that still leaves a difficulty with the constant-speed versions and with the not-172-but-branded-172 versions. On reflection introducing another level in the hierarchy makes it more, not less confusing. I would prefer a sub-sub-section for each model, and a TOC parameter to restrict display of an overly lengthy TOC. I do *not* see why that is onerous. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of sub-sub headings for long lists of variants is an old issued dating from January 2008 [3] when many of the aircraft articles were converted, including Cessna 150 [4], Mooney M20 and others. In greatly expanding these articles with variant information I originally used the "=" style subheadings that resulted in long TOCs, but there was a concerted effort by other editors to change to the ";" style instead to keep the TOCs shorter. I saw the logic in this and accepted it back then.

In this article I didn't revert your changes, but merely changed the section headers. I have to agree with Bill that since they were originally "=" style and then were changed to ";" style, perhaps you should have discussed here before changing it back to pre-16 Jan style again. Perhaps you weren't aware of the history of this? Nevertheless, since this affects dozens of articles, perhaps this style issue debate should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content where a general discussion can take place. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no general requirement to ask permission to improve an article (I'm sure you'll accept that was my intention) so, no, I don't think it reasonable that I ask for comment for doing the change that I did, or any change. There is no note *here* about the sub-sectioning debate so how could I reasonably be expected to know? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of its wider applicability I have moved this debate over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Variant_heading_levels. I would invite everyone interested to wade in there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake on you knowing about that 16 January 2008 change to the heading levels. I thought because you had done some extensive editing in Dec 2007 that you had been watching the page through that period. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

172RG is variant of 175?

Thanks to ahunt for providing the in the C-172RG section. I have been looking through the TCDS for the 172/175 to back up the comment and have not been able to find the information behind "the 172RG is actually a variant of the Cessna 175 type." I would like to request that you point me to the page/location in the TCDS where I can find this. --Fairchildbrad 03:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairchildbrad (talk • contribs)

If you download the 3A17 TCDS the 172RG is listed there at the top and in its own section as well. 3A17 is the sheet for the 175. The main problem in saying that the 172RG is a varient of the 175 is that the 175 is identical to the 172 of the same year except for the engine and cowling. Cessna could have just as easily put the original 175 on the 172 TCDS, but they didn't. Instead essentially the same aircraft are split into two families for administrative convenience. In saying that the 172RG is a variant of the 175 actually misses the point the the 175 is also a variant of the 172 (althought not administratively by the TCDS), therefore logically the 172RG is also a variant of the 172. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if saying the 172XP was a variant of the 175 would be more accurate, Which explains why the statement about the 1996 172R with the IO-360L2A being the first fuel injected 172 is accurate while the 172XP produced with the IO-360 continental in the 1970's was fuel injected wore the 172 name but was actually built on the 175 TCD along with the T41. Saying that the 175 was identical to the same year 172 with the exception of the engine and cowling is close. other differences between 1959 172 & 175, were larger fuel tanks, Vacuum pump, upgraded door handles and locks, taller landing gear, and higher gross weight, some other things were closer to a 182 than a 172 of the same year. The 1963 P172 lost the 175 name but was the same plane and had a CS propeller something not seen in 172 dirivitives again until the T41, 172 XP or CutlassRG. Sources 1959, Cessna 175 POH, IPC, Cessna 100 series service manual. SiberiaTom (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You bring up some good points there. My experience in working on and flying Cessnas is that the company rarely designed wholly new models. In many cases they tended to create new models essentially from the "parts bin", especially in the case of the strut-braced singles designed rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s. Outside the formalities of the TCDS, which as I outline above, are often organized more for administrative convenience or because the FAA wanted it done that way than because it represents some sort of "linage" or "relationship" between designs, it is often hard to say that one design "came from" another when it has parts from this and that model in it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

about wing constrution

is the wing design of cessna 172 is cantilever or semi centilever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.182.81 (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither - it is strut-braced, without the struts the wing tips would sit on the ground. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

15 year old black girl inclusion

• July 13, 2009 15 year old Kimberly Anyadik completed a round trip flight in a 172S N6048Z (172S10217) from Tomorrow's Aeronautical Museum in Compton, CA to the east coast and back. She is believed to be the youngest black female to pilot an airplane transcontinentally, with Ronell Norman as safty pilot and Tuskegee Airman Levi Thornhill (after whom the aircraft is named, and why its tail is painted red), stopping at Little Rock’s Central Flying Service, where other members of the Tuskegee Airmen signed her airplane .
  

The fact that this person is 15, black, and a girl make it a very notable event, plus it was covered by a number of local and national news agencies. There is also a Tuskegee airman who joined the event, and the cessna's tail is painted red. A good number of factors for inclusion. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This matter was already discussed in great detail above at Talk:Cessna_172#Child_.22Records.22 and as you can see there these non-records were considered not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia for a large number of reasons clearly innumerated there. - Ahunt (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also note the statement believed to be is normally a big flag to unencyclopedic non-verified information. The tribute part might be worth a mention in Tuskegee Airman. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In an era of racial and sexual equality, how is calling out a black female for such a trip make it encyclopaedic? What if it had been a 15 year old white male, would that have made a difference? It's unverified, unencyclopaedic and unnotable. Canterbury Tail talk 13:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading the arguments (did not see other talk till mentioned) and generally agree that it is not quite a worthy point (but it may be worthy for the Tuskegee Airmen (see Talk:Tuskegee_Airmen)); However, it may be important to mention that 172's where used to set a number of records, usually becuase of its ubiquity. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing I am not clear in this case is how this flight was not illegal. US law prohibits anyone "to manipulate the controls of an aircraft if the pilot knows or should have known that the individual is attempting to set a record or engage in an aeronautical competition or aeronautical feat" unless the person manipulating the controls holds Private Pilot Cetificate. How could a 15 year old hold a PPC to make this flight legal? - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo

A flight student in the cockpit of a Cessna 172SP Skyhawk learning how to fly with an instructor

This photo has now been added by two IP addresses. As can be seen it shows the back of a person's head and two headrests. As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES I am bringing it here for consensus. I contend it adds nothing to this article on the aircraft type and fails the basic inclusion criteria stated in the standard as it shows neither the aircraft nor any useful details. If not for the AI in the photo it could have been shot in a car. I would like to hear from the IPs who added it as to why they think this photo is worth including, as well as any other editors on keeping or deleting the image. If you really want a flight training 172 image then this image would be far better as it shows an instructor, student and an aircraft actually identifiable as a 172, but my opinion is that none are required in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree - it adds nothing to the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

of no encyclopedic purpose. Also no evidence it's actually of a student and instructor. Canterbury Tail talk 18:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree adds no value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet another ip has turned up and is readding without explanation or consensus. Looks like we'll need to keep an eye on this one. Canterbury Tail talk 23:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All those three IP addresses that have added the photo correspond to the same NE part of the USA, one looks like a home ISP service (Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.), one a blackberry and one a work location (Sentara Healthcare, Norfolk Virginia), so despite the three different IPs, I suspect it is the same person and thus does not constitute any kind of consensus to include it. I have no idea what the point of including this photo would be, perhaps the head in the photo is someone's relative? Lacking any other information I suggest we all just keep an eye on the article and remove the photo when it appears again, which I suspect it will. At some number of attempts to include this really bad photo against consensus it really ceases to be a content dispute and slides more into spam/vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I have been involved in reverting the edits so I can't really semi-protect it should it come to that, we'd need to ask a different admin to do so if they agree. We'll see what happens. Canterbury Tail talk 04:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

He reverted your removal again. I reverted that and once again invited him to discuss it here. This is getting very close to vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

He reverted again - this is now just plain vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, as I have been involved in the discussion I cant really do it myself. MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Request submitted. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be actioned soon as the vandalism is continuing. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been protected. Agree it adds no value to the article. It's either pure vandalism or some student pilot trying to stoke their ego. N419BH 04:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I see our IP editor is back from a 60 hour block for vandalizing this page, plus the page semi-protection has expired, so he is trying to insert this photo again and label attempts to remove it as vandalism. Personally I can keep reverting his vandalism ad infinitim, but perhaps it is time to block this IP permanently for persistent vandalism? - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Add link to general AFM (not current)

I stumbled upon this site searching for info on Cessna 172s (Skyhawks), seeking detailed information about their operating procedures and limitations. While a couple good resources were referenced in the reference section of the current page, I think that a link should be placed in the "see also" area, so as to be more easily followed, as opposed to hunting through the references. My suggested reference link is simply a much more detailed version of reference # 56 in the current wiki page. This links to a pilot's information manual, which at the time of issue was a certifiable AFM, though without being updated it is now simply a very detailed general informational document, the kind of which pilots and aspiring pilots really like to see, as it really lets one get to know an aircraft before operating it.

http://textron.vo.llnwd.net/o25/CES/cessna_aircraft_docs/single_engine/skyhawk/skyhawk_pim.pdf

24.160.177.241 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC) INH

What is this website that the manual is posted on? It doesn't seem to be an official Cessna or Textron website, despite the presence of the world "Textron" in the URL. I am just concerned that the manual's presence there is a copyright violation and thus cannot be linked to, as per WP:COPYLINK. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)