From the Cessna Service Newsletter I receive in my regular subscriptions:
55 Years Ago - 172 and 182 Take Flight
STILL GOING STRONG TODAY
According to the book, “The Legend of Cessna†by Jeffrey Rodengen, the year 1956 has been described by aviation author James Ellis as “momentous†for Cessna. It was the year the company modified two of its bestselling taildraggers into what would become two of the most heavily produced tricycle gear airplanes in the world.
The 172, shrewdly marketed toward the growing class of business pilots, was a 170B modified with a new tail design and a patented Land-O-Matic tricycle landing gear. The improved model was introduced with no price increase, selling for $8,295.
The snazzier 182 Skylane was a 180 with the same Land-O-Matic landing gear and a redesigned cowling, offered at $13,750. Both planes featured Paralift flaps, which made it easier to reduce landing speed and take off from short runways. The new landing gear and lower center of gravity allowed pilots to handle the airplane with much greater ease.
Both models are still in production. The fleet of Skyhawks is nearing 44,000; more than 25,000 Skylanes have been delivered.
Pretty good comment upon the design of our airplanes, No?
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
Too bad Cessna didn't continue to offer the 170 & the 172. Also unfortunate they ceased production of the 180/185! Guess that was a bean counter decision. Look at the Bonanza---continuous production since 1947.
The defining factor was likely the "Land-O-Matic" tri-cycle gear. Post WW2 was a period where customers were encouraged to believe "If you can drive...you can FLY!" (which helps explain why we have so many bad "pilots" and statistics to match)
Beech made more changes to the Bonanza series than Cessna ever did to the 172 (and I'll bet the fatal accident rate due to structural failures on a per-unit basis is far higher on the Beech as well, even taking the trainer-status of the Cessna into consideration.)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
It's interesting to compare the general aviation world of 1955 to today, and the way our perception of these wonderful airplanes have evolved.
When the prototype 170C became the basis for the 172 in an effort to gain back some market share from Piper's popular Tri-Pacer, there was still resistance from some in Cessna management opposed to tricycle gear on the single engine models (the 310 was already in production), because of concerns over rough field operations and the weight and drag penalties of the nose gear. The marketplace responded - the 172 absolutely devastated the 170 in sales the first year to the extent 1956 was the last year for it. The 182 had a less dramatic effect on the 180 since it had already established a solid place in the bush flying world.
For years after, 170 prices were well below early 172 prices by as much as 20 to 25%. I have an extensive collection of 1950s-60s aviation magazines which bear this out. The perception - the 170 was an obsolete and hard to handle design on the ground (compared to a 172 anyway).
The 195 really suffered during this period - it seemed like every airport in Florida had one abandoned on the back tie downs.
By the early 1970s, this started to change. I instructed and soloed a 16 year old on his birthday (and in three other types that same day!) in his Dad's beautiful 1955 170B. This was in 1974 - by then 170s began to command a premium over the 172s as it moved into classic status. Today the price delta can be as much as 60 to 70%...as we all know!
I miss N8143A, the 170B I owned for ten years. It's just one of the most beautiful airplanes ever created. About a year ago, Forrest Walton (another ex-170 owner) and I bought a pristine original 1957 172 for an unbelievable price (less than half of what I sold my 170 for).
It's the same airplane, just a little slower but still beautiful in all it's polished glory. One thing about it - I never worry about how much crosswind there is at the destination!
In a mistaken belief that the new 172 would require a boost to sell.... Cessna slightly cheapened the 170B model for the 172 intrductory year of 1956...by deleting certain equipment* and making them "extra cost options" ...which is why the 170 had a base price lower than the 172. (The lower price was not a reflection of the 170's failure to sell.... or a planned incentive to increase it's sales.... The purposefully less-equipped 170 was designed to boost sales of the yet unaccepted 172 trike. Cessna was so concerned that the new design mightn't be as popular as their previous best-seller 170...that despite the expense, they actually included in the plan to install both gearboxes in all production models until they could analyze sales figures.)
The rapid popularity of the 172 is what doomed the 170 as an introductory airplane. IMO.
* The now optional-only items were mainly: Openable right window and right-side flight controls. The metal interior trim items (such as doorpost panels) were also now produced in Royalite/plastic.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
George, I think this question has been posed previously, but has anyone ever owned or seen a '56 170 without the co-pilot flt controls? I seem to remember most were outfitted with the yoke and rudder pedals and shown as optional items added at the factory as extra cost items. Never heard of an openable RH window being a optional item. I think Cessna was feeling a lot of competition from the Piper Tripacer in the mid 1950's and needed a means of getting the 170's cost more competitive. However, I don't know what a Tripacer sold for compared to a '56 170 or 172. As mentioned earlier, mfg's were trying to sell the public on how easy it was to "drive" the newer trikes. Big mistake IMHO
I have supplied rudder pedal assy's for two '56 models whose owners were installing right seat flight controls for the first time. One of them had no right side controls at all....while the other had no right side brakes, but had other controls.
The 170 Book discusses the optional items for 1956.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
George: I'm on a trip right now so I can't check my 1956 172 brochure, but the opening right window and right side controls were also extra cost options on the 172 if memory serves. I even have the original production order on the '57 and I seem to remember right side controls on the list. It doesn't have the opening right door window, which I really miss!
The retired CLT ATC chief Phil Loftin has a beautiful original '56 170. I haven't seen it in quite a while but the interior is exactly the same as the '56 172, including the plastic lower instrument panel cover. I think it just made more sense for Cessna
to combine the new features of the 172 including the panel and Royalite plastic side panels on both airplanes from a costing point of view. I've heard for years the first batch of 172s had both gear boxes in place, but I haven't seen it yet. The owner of the very first production 172 (N5000A) is on the 172 forums so I should ask him to check it out.
Home now,and checked my voluminous 1950s period Cessna material. The 172, as ordered without any options, had no right hand side controls or rudder pedals. The right door window didn't open. Just like the 170. The interiors and instrument panels of both airplanes were the same, in the interest of production costs. The lower cost of the 170 may have been the tooling used for the differrent tail section was long ago paid for and the 172s tail tooling was brand new. Also, no nosegear on the 170. Cessna always hedges their bets, and the 172 came out on top. I don't look at the trike gear as the end of aviation...it certainly lowered the skill level required for take-off and landings and that's what the market wanted. In any event, the serious/fatal accidents are caused by mutton-headed decisions that have nothing to do with landing gear type. The 170 had it's day, but lived on in the 1956 172 all the way to the present garmin 1000 factory fresh birds. The 170/ early 172 is the greatest GA airplane ever developed -just fast enough, just powerful enough, just carries enough, and most important CHEAP, to buy and operate...to get the job done. The DC-3 fits the same description. It's the only airplane I can afford to fly (with a great partner) and send my two kids to college.
The owner of the very first production 172 e-mailed me - his airplane does not have the 170 landing gear box. Of course, that doesn't mean some 170 fuselages didn't find their way into production...there are some oddball S/Ns there, according to him.
