Talk:Cessna 172/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Rating

I rated this article based on the B-Class criteria and guidelines found on the WikiProject Aviation page. I also added "Citation needed" tags where appropriate.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Adam Dylan Leon

Fun fact: Note how actually stealing an aircraft was NOT among the charges he was convicted of! XD 213.163.40.100 (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well "interstate transportation of a stolen aircraft, importation of a stolen aircraft, and illegal entry" is pretty close to that! It's not like he was convicted of tax evasion! - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible addition to Accidents and incidents?

The 172 has a reputation for being easy to fly, so this incident in UK where the pilot was incapacitated and non-pilot passenger made a successful, if hard, landing, and this alternate account support it. Found additional source here and here. It is notable in that a person with no flying experiance was able to safely land, in particular in night time conditions, although not strictly in WP:AIRCRASH guideline. I have heard of similar incidents where the passenger was a pilot of a much smaller aircraft (ie, 172 pilot forced to take control of a Kingair C100). 172 reg G-CBYR, C/N 17201288, more images, Humberside Airport (IATA: HUY, ICAO: EGNJ) Oct 9, 2013. -Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There have been quite a number of these sorts of incidents on 172s and other light aircraft types in the past, which is why WP:AIRCRASH excludes them as not really notable. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing notable about that, doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH as you've already suggested and really it has nothing to do with the aircraft. If there was an article on non-pilots landing planes, then perhaps, but not for the article on the 172. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Somebody has created an article at Talk down aircraft landing which mentioned that incident, as one of only two mentioned. If it attempts to list every event of that type then it has a few hundred more to add. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think so, MilborneOne. The number of incidents where a passenger with no flying experiance is able to successfully land, let alone survive, a landing while being talked down by others is very, very rare. This first entry in that page described an 80-year-old wife with flying experiance. The above had at best only observed the late pilot. -Flightsoffancy (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No not that rare, certainly another one in the UK in the last few years in Yorkshire, but not relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that this is something not at all worthy of inclusion in this article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Diesel fuel consumption

" 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.[21] The model has a top speed of 131 kn (243 km/h) and burns 3 U.S. gallons (11 L; 2.5 imp gal) less fuel than the standard 172.[22] This model is a development of the proposed and then cancelled Skyhawk TD.[23]"

"3 gallons less" per what? Mile? Hour? Average length flight? Ought to specify these things..45Colt 03:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Operational history section

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words the last part just above the next section. The whole sentence was incorrect in both versions. Sentences should not start with numbers and you can't have a mixture of words and figures. So I rewrote the sentence. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks better, thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a cool album on imgur of photos from this event, one of them might be a good illustration for this section. I am not sure how to properly upload/source/generally handle that kind of editing, but wanted to leave it here for anyone who agrees and knows how to do that. The album is http://imgur.com/a/qHer8 found via https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6vbbfn/til_that_in_1958_two_pilots_flew_an_aircraft_for/dlzmt42/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.238.12 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The imgur images are most likely copyright violations - no attribution, origins or licencing. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cessna 172. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/specs.chtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.buddyhollyonline.com/related/dbox.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228123916/http://www.psa-history.org/museum/NTSBAAR7905.pdf to http://www.psa-history.org/museum/NTSBAAR7905.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

JT-A cancellation

Not a regular editor. Just got word that JT-A is cancelled, and the new way to get CD-155 is to fetch a 172S from Cessna (hopefully can also do this for some older versions), an STC from the FAA/EASA/etc., and an engine from Continental. That eliminates the "lot of change to pay merely for the smell of a new airplane" problem (AVweb) in exchange for the "leaves you with a Lycoming for your airboat" problem (AOPALive). Vid youtube video code 9Nztqea1EM0 142.165.187.77 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. Do you think FAA would let me duct-tape a pair of Rotax 912iS to the wings? Naw...

I think we have that pretty well covered at Cessna 172#Canceled model. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Record levels?

Cessna 172#Variants says "The 172I saw an increase in production to record levels with 1,206 built" with an offline reference. But in the previous 172H section, it says "A total of 1586 172Hs were built." Similarly, it says that more than 1,206 172Es, 172Fs, and 172Gs were produced in a year. So how can 1,206 built in one year be a record production level? Art LaPella (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I have Clarke's book here and it does not support the "record numbers" claim, which is good, because it makes no sense. The "H" number was wrong, too, and so I have fixed that and referenced it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wheelie

Mention of the recent wheelie record checks all the boxes for notability per Wikipedia. So what is the issue? 2600:8806:4200:CC:8C25:DBA1:3D3B:224 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There are tons and tons of "records" that have been set in 172s, but they are not mentioned in this article because they are WP:TRIVIA, like this one is, no real accomplishment at all. I have done the same thing on a 14,000 ft runway, it is very easy to do. Lots of other pilots did the same thing on the same runway, it was weekly occurrence. - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

On the surface, I see your point. However, if an organization of pilots like AOPA thought this merited coverage, I think your claim of trivialness is rendered moot and it can be included. And if the Cessna 172 really does have "tons and tons of "records"," perhaps that is something for a new article? I would be curious as to the thoughts of others. 2600:8806:4200:CC:8C25:DBA1:3D3B:224 (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:4200:CC:117A:F2:7E91:B695 (talk)

What is a "Wheelie" record ? and why is it noteworthy to the 172 ? MilborneOne (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne:: It is rolling down a runway with the nosewheel in the air. It requires that the pilot have the enormous skill of holding a bit of back pressure on the control wheel. I would liken it to holding the record for the most open and closings of the pilot's door or the record for the most turning on and off of the nav lights. It is trivial and totally non-notable.

In responding to the question of why AOPA reported it and we don't include it, I would say WP:NOTNEWS explains this best. Not everything reported in the press, even in the aviation press, is the sort of content that should be included in an encyclopedia. Every media outlet has "slow news days", but we don't. This story is not even at the level of "cat stuck in tree" reports, which we don't include. The worst case if we did include these would be that it might encourage people to try to set totally trivial "records" just to see their names in Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, so trivia with no relevance at all to the 172, not something we need to mention. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, pilots do this every day in any nosewheel-equipped airplane, it is not specific to the 172. It is most often done to just avoid nosewheel shimmy on long taxis. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

New Rating2

I evaluatued this article and found it to be informative and factually correct. It could however be expanded to include more information.Skyhawk g650 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Like what, specifically? - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Added 172B picture

I added a missing variant (172b) picture with minimal caption. If the omission was intentional, due to minimal changes between alpha and charlie variants, I apologize. 74.69.246.86 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No that is a fine addition, we just have too many images right now and it is cramping the text. I'll see if I can fix that while retaining your image. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Passenger who landed a plane

I suggest that this entry in the Accidents and incidents be removed as not really about the plane. Yes, the plane was a Cessna 172, however the plane model here is irrelevant. There was no incident involving the plane, the pilot had a heart attack and the plane was successfully landed. It didn't crash, it wasn't destroyed, the plane didn't cause any incident and it could have been any aircraft. Yes the pilot died, but I don't believe it meets the criteria of WP:AIRCRASH and the plane model itself is irrelevant to the incident. Canterbury Tail talk 12:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree for the reasons that you have given, plus I would add that this sort of thing is not even all that rare. Not quite WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, but getting there. Definitely WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say this kind of incident is uncommon rather than rare. It happens every couple of years but it's completely unconnected to the aircraft itself. It's different if the pilot of a single pilot passenger aircraft has a heart attack and it crashes killing everyone onboard. But this is just an in flight medical incident that happened to involved the pilot. Canterbury Tail talk 13:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on all your points there. Most critically it is "not about the aircraft type". - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Amply covered at Humberside Airport where it belongs per WP:AIRCRASH. Agreed with all points made above. These sorts of landings have happened previously, but it's the sort of thing that typically only rates two paragraphs on page 3 of the local newspaper, most of which date from the pre-Internet era and their archives can't be scoured by Google. I suspect that prominence in Internet searches is the only reason this incident has wound up here. Carguychris (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I've removed it from the article. Canterbury Tail talk 18:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)