A recent post on technology news site SlashGear ranks the “10 Most Iconic Airplanes In Aviation History.”
“Some aircraft rise above (quite literally) and leave an indelible mark on our collective psyche,” writes Justin Owen. “A few inspire awe while others invoke nostalgia, and some stand as a symbol for something, such as national pride or the spirit of innovation. Although there are many to choose from, here’s an exploration of 10 of the most iconic planes in aviation history.”
The list includes a couple of airliners, and warbirds, including the P-51 Mustang and B-52 Stratofortress. And, of course, any list of iconic aircraft must include the Wright Flyer.
But topping the list is the Cessna 172.
Here’s what Justin Owen says about why it is the most iconic airplane:
“The Cessna 172 is a staple of general aviation airports across the country and can be found in rural and remote airstrips around the world,” he says. “What makes the 172 such a great plane is that it is easy to fly and a simple plane for beginner pilots. This is how it earned its iconic status. A sizable majority of pilots licensed in the United States learn how to fly in a Cessna 172.”
You can read the full post here. Then post in the comments below your choices for the most iconic airplanes in history.
I have owned a ’75 172M for 38 years. When its original 150hp engine needed overhaul, i researched the alternatives and settled on upgrading to a new 160hp high compression version vs the 180hp option. GOOD decision! The added 10hp (requiring a new prop with 4″ additional pitch from 75-53 to 75-57) uses essentially the same fuel flow but the increased performance is noticeable. With just two aboard and full fuel, it still performs great … far better than the original 150hp engine.
I looked at the 180hp conversion but installing one of those O-360’s would require sheet metal modification of the baffles and carb air box. The biggest reason was that it would have a higher fuel flow rate. With standard tanks, I decided it was better to go the 160hp route. I even rented a 180hp airplane in the Mojave desert; the performance wasn’t worth the trade-off to me. IF my airplane had the long range tanks, I might have gone that route but without it … I went the 160hp route.
I’ve flown T-41’s and older 172’s … the 6-cylinder engines are smoother but unless the hp is there, the 160hp model airplane is MY choice … hence why I’ve kept mine so many years. There are better airplanes but not for the cost. For 16 years, I also owned a PA28-140 at the same time. I found it a much less capable airplane AND harder to ingress/egress for me … so I finally sold it and kept my 172.
“What makes the 172 such a great plane is that it is easy to fly and a simple plane for beginner pilots.” Don’t think that has anything to do with it. Models from other manufacturers are just as easy to fly and have about the same payload and performance. The main difference is the high-wing two-door design which gives the Skyhawk an indisputable advantage in ease of boarding.
Leadville airport used 172s with the Continental 6 for their flight training. Worked better than the O-320 for high density altitude. To quote an old FAA film, “This baby has plenty of power. It can go anywhere”
Those C172s were probably the C172XP or a T-41C, which has the Continental IO-360, 210 HP. The Cont. O-300 with 145 HP would not be able to get off the runway at 9,900 ft.
I flew a C172E with the O-300 off Casa Grande in July some years ago. The density altitude was 7,000 ft, and after lift off, our initial roc was maybe 50 fpm, ‘ 2 needle widths’ above ‘0’. Fortunately the terrain to the west is flat, and at 3,000 ft it started climbing in the cooler air.
If not the Cessna 172, then the Piper J3 Cub.
The Piper Cub came earlier in aviation history, and many pilots learned to fly in a Cub.
The first entry in my log book, made in February, 1954, was an instructional flight in a Cub, and my all time favorite general aviation airplane is the 172.
I was a freshman at Rose Polytechnic with a Phil Shaad in 62/63. His father was a CFI at Bowman Field in Louisville and I heard he later worked for the FAA.
Any relation?
Charles Kuester, Evansville, IN
Source article is loaded with factual errors. For example, the vast, vast majority of Cessna 172’s were manufactured with 4 cylinder engines, not 6 as the article claims. The only exception I know of is the 172XP.
The C172 used the Continental O-300, 6 cylinder engine from 1955 to 1967,[ the C172H].
In 1968 it started using the Lycoming, O-320, 4 cylinder, and now uses the Lyc. IO-360.
It did not use any Lycoming 6 cylinder engines.
The C172XP is on the same type certificate as the C175B that I fly, but different 6 cylinder engines.