The Arizona Cloudbusters won the state lottery payout of $10 million on a group ticket and voted unanimously while most of the members were out on vacation to place an order for a fully outfitted Cessna Mustang with custom seating.

Several of the BOD members rattled off statistics and all agreed it was just another Cessna that should make it very easy for the club members to transition into…the only problem is finding a CFII that is qualified.

James Sukach the club President was quoted to say “…what the heck Jet A fuel is much cheaper than 100 LL we will make it back on volume…”

Austin Erwin a long time club member said…”It’s an entirely new kind of business jet. One that’s designed – and priced – to bring the dream of jet ownership comfortably within reach of a whole new class of  eager operators with true jet speed and a good half-continent of range come together with a price tag that’s almost a million dollars lower than that of any comparable aircraft and with that kind of price differnce …it is really an investment”

Mar 31, 2010

It was indeed a very close call, and both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are investigating. Ultimately, it took the air traffic controller and the pilots of both those planes to spring into action to avoid a deadly mid-air collision.

The frightening moments in the skies over the San Francisco Airport begins shortly after the takeoff of the United Airlines jumbo jet. Flight 889 is bound for China with 268 passengers and crew. The pilot acknowledges a routine clearance for takeoff:

United Pilot: “Cleared for take off. United, um, triple 889.”

But as the United jet is climbing through 1,100 feet, the airport controller, who is also in contact with the pilot of the small Cessna, realizes the planes are too close and closing. He tells the Cessna pilot to go behind the United plane.

Controller: “7-echo maintain zero separation… pass behind that aircraft.”

Cessna Pilot: “7-0 will pass behind him.”

And he has orders for the United crew as well.

Controller: “889 – start heading to your right, maintain visible separation.”

Michael Barr of the USC Aviation Safety & Security Program said, “The light airplane turned away from the United Airline. That’s how the captain saw the underside of that airplane, so it was pretty darn close.”

So close, in fact, the planes are just 300 feet apart vertically and 1,500 feet apart horizontally. In the cockpit of the United jet, a collision avoidance alarm sounds, warning the pilots to descend to avoid a mid-air crash. It is called a TCAS alert. The United crew, as it noses the plane down, is clearly not happy.

United Pilot: “Okay, that set off that TCAS… that was… we need to talk.”

Controller: “Roger.”

And, in fact, it was United Airlines that asked the NTSB to investigate this incident. The close call occurred on Saturday morning, but we are just learning about it at this time. And at this very early stage, it appears it may have been an error by the air traffic controller that put those planes too close.

Entry point for crash and burn? Stall/spin myths exploded Pilots who believe that aerobatic training will enable a recovery from an inadvertent spin in the traffic pattern are fooling themselves. That myth – and other misconceptions about stalls and spins in GA aircraft – is exploded in this new ASF study. This study is not intended to discount the value of properly conducted aerobatic and spin training. Training in a controlled environment with a trained instructor is beneficial. The most important aspect of the training should be recognition and prevention. Stall/spin accidents tend to be more deadly than other types of GA accidents, accounting for about 10 percent of all accidents, but 13.7 percent of fatal accidents. Overall, around 20 percent of all GA accidents result in fatalities, but stall/spin accidents have a fatality rate of about 28 percent. Overview This study looked at 450 fatal stall/spin accidents from 1993 to 2001 involving fixed wing aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Stall/spin crashes accounted for 10% of all accidents and 13.7% of all fatal accidents. To look at any of the accidents used in this study visit ASF’s online accident database. Why the constant reference to “stalls/spins” instead of separating the two maneuvers? A spin is an aggravated stall but the aircraft behavior, recovery procedure, and the altitude loss is quite different between stalls and spins. However, many accident reports conclude that the cause of an accident was a result of an ‘inadvertent stall/spin’ with no additional clarification. Because most light GA aircraft do not have flight data recorders, and there may be no reliable witnesses, it is often impossible for the investigator to precisely determine the aircraft’s flight condition prior to impact. These accidents are more likely to be fatal (on average, 28 percent of stall/spin accidents are fatal compared to other types of GA accidents (20 percent with fatalities). The higher likelihood of fatalities in stall/spin accidents is due largely to crash dynamics. If an aircraft strikes the ground in a normal landing attitude and can dissipate the crash energy over even as little as 100 feet the chances of fatality, assuming no fire, decrease significantly. However, if the impact occurs nose down, at a high rate of descent which is typical of stall/spin scenarios, the G forces tend to be much higher, the aircraft does not slide much and there are resulting fatalities. Aircraft type major factor in stall/spin statistics Single engine fixed gear (SEFG) aircraft are the types most often involved in stall/spin accidents, by a wide margin. Pilots of such aircraft don’t necessarily need to be alarmed, however; the high number of stall/spin accidents in SEFG has less to do with the aircraft type than the fact that SEFG aircraft are frequently used in training and are likely to spend more time in maneuvering flight and the traffic pattern. Cross-country aircraft, such as single engine retractable gear aircraft (SERG) and twins (Multi) are less likely to be involved in this type of accident. Student pilots, ATPs least likely to stall/spin Student pilots are, by far, the least likely to suffer stall/spin accidents, as a proportion of in the pilot population. Pilots holding FAA Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificates are also less likely to stall/spin. That leaves pilots with FAA private and commercial pilot certificates in the “most likely to suffer fatal stall/spin accidents” category. In fact, commercial pilot certificate holders are by far most likely to show up in the stall/spin accident statistics, again based on the proportion of their representation in the pilot population. (See chart). So why do the least experienced and most experienced pilots enjoy the best safety record, at least when it comes to fatal stall/spin accidents, while the rest of us – the bulk of GA pilots – do so poorly? Based on the number of certificates issued, it appears that ATPs are generally the most experienced and knowledgeable pilots, while students are under very close supervision to ensure their safety. Some commercial and private pilots, on the other hand, may have grown complacent in their skills, or lack proficiency or understanding in aircraft operations at the corner of the flight envelope. It may also be that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Student pilots aren’t usually very far into the private pilot curriculum before stall training is started. (Spins were deleted from the requirements for a private pilot certificate in June 1949, and the accident rate from spins has been decreasing ever since. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t receive spin training but understand that if an inadvertent spin occurs at low altitude, recovery is unlikely, even with training. Trouble in the pattern Until 1949, private pilot applicants were required to demonstrate spins, so spin training was a routine part of the private pilot curriculum. In June of that year, the CAA (predecessor of today’s FAA) removed the requirement for spin training for private pilots, substituting increased training in stall recognition and recovery, since spins cannot occur without a stall. (A requirement for instructional proficiency in spins remains today only for flight instructor candidates). Officials at the time also reasoned that if there was no spin requirement for private pilots, then aircraft manufacturers would also be encouraged to produce aircraft with greater spin-resistant characteristics. Removal of a spin requirement for private pilots created much dissent on the part of instructors and other aviation professionals, who forecast an immediate and dramatic rise in the number of spin accidents. It didn’t happen. In fact, since elimination of the spin requirement for private pilots, the incidence of stall/spin accidents has actually decreased substantially. Following the U.S. lead, Canada and the United Kingdom dropped spin demonstrations for non-CFI check rides for the same reasons. Although the total number of stall/spin accidents has dropped dramatically since 1949, those that do still occur tend to occur at fairly low altitudes. In fact, a 2001 ASF study on 465 fatal stall/spin accidents that occurred from 1991 through 2000 showed that at least 80 percent (and probably more) of the accidents started from an altitude of less 1000 feet agl, the usual traffic pattern altitude. The study found that only 7.1 percent of the aircraft involved in the stall/spin accidents definitely started the stall/spin from an altitude of greater than 1,000 feet agl. Just over 13 percent of the aircraft were reported at an “unknown” altitude at the beginning of the accident, and so were given the benefit of the doubt by ASF. Another study done earlier by the FAA Small Aircraft Directorate, which included some 1,700 stall/spin accidents dating from 1973, concluded that 93 percent of such accidents started at or below pattern altitude (pattern altitude at many airports in the 1970′s was often 800 feet agl, adding emphasis to the study findings). The altitude required for recovery from stalls is minimal compared to that required for recovery from spins, even when experienced aerobatic test pilots are on board and ready to recover from the spin. Pilot Operating Handbooks for various typical GA aircraft estimate average altitude loss during stalls, assuming proper recovery technique, as between 100 and 350 feet. Altitude loss in spins is another animal But recovery from a spin is a far different matter, and takes much more altitude, even with skilled pilots. A NASA study done in the late 1970s proved that the average altitude loss in spins done with a Grumman American AA-1 (Yankee) and a Piper PA-28R (Arrow), two popular single-engine aircraft, was nearly 1,200 feet. (It should be noted that neither aircraft is approved for spins, but NASA was testing them for possible improvements in spin handling characteristics.) In the Yankee, it took an average of 210 feet for entry, 340 feet for stopping the turn, and another 550 feet for recovery, for a total of 1100 feet. In the Arrow, the figures were 140 feet for entry, 400 feet for stopping the rotation, and 620 for recovery, for a total of 1160 feet. In short, the average vertical recovery distance was just short of 1200 feet. Pilots allowing a spin to develop at or below traffic pattern altitude are nearly certain to crash, no matter how quick their reflexes or skillful their recovery. Stall/Spins mostly likely during maneuvering flight Fatal stall/spin accidents generally occur during maneuvering flight (40.2%) or takeoff (28.8%). Maneuvering flight is loosely defined, but usually includes any type of flight where a pilot is using the aircraft’s flight controls to perform maneuvers not necessary for straight-and-level flight. Many pilots commonly associate maneuvering flight with unauthorized low-level flight such as “buzzing,” but other types of maneuvering flight might include low-level pipeline patrol, banner-towing, aerobatics, or even normal air work in the practice area. The NTSB defines maneuvering flight to include all of the following: aerobatics, low passes, buzzing, pull ups, aerial application maneuvers, turns to reverse direction (box canyon type maneuver), or engine failures after takeoff with the pilot trying to return to the runway. An instructor on board is no guarantee In reviewing 44 fatal stall/spin accidents from 1991 – 2000 and classified as instructional, ASF found that a shocking 91%(40) of them occurred during dual instruction, with only 9% (4) solo training flights. Of the fatal instructional accidents, 64.4% of them occurred during maneuvering, and 17.8% of them occurred during takeoff. Obviously instructors must be proficient in stall recovery, and if not current in spins, prevent the aircraft from entering the spin regime. Many instructors have not practiced a spin recovery since receiving their spin endorsement, which may have been many years ago. On the other side of the cockpit, instructors should monitor students closely when they are practicing stalls. If the student inadvertently spins the aircraft, can they safely recover? According to the 2002 ASF Nall Report, takeoff accidents (including those that result in a stall/spin) are much more likely to be fatal than landing accidents. The full Nall Report is available online. Aircraft are not created equal Aircraft design is the primary factor in how an aircraft will behave in a stall or spin. All aircraft must meet FAA certification standards for stalls and in some cases, spin recovery. Not all aircraft are approved for spins and may become unrecoverable if a spin is allowed to develop. ASF Executive Director, Bruce Landsberg, wrote about aircraft design and certification in the February 2003 issue of AOPA Pilot magazine. The Piper PA-38 Tomahawk, designed specifically for flight instruction, including easier demonstration of spins, was involved in 50 stall/spin accidents from 1982 through 1990, for a rate of 3.28 per 100 aircraft in the fleet. During the same period, the Cessna 150/152 had 259 stall/spin accidents, for a rate of 1.31 per 100 aircraft, and the Beech 77 suffered only four such accidents, for a rate of 1.64 per 100 aircraft. Tomahawks, therefore, were involved in roughly double the number of stall/spin accidents per 100 aircraft as the Cessna 150/152 or the Beech 77. These are raw numbers where the NTSB identified stall/spin as the primary causal factor. An estimated 43 of the Tomahawk accidents occurred at a low altitude, where recovery, regardless of aircraft type, was unlikely. In many cases, the stall was the final event where an accident was already all-but-certain, such as buzzing, fuel exhaustion, or strong surface winds. In some cases, it was not clear from the narrative how high the aircraft was when the stall or spin began. ASF was able to identify nine PA-38 accidents in which the NTSB cited spin as a cause or a factor. The NTSB also coded one Beech 77 and 59 Cessna 150/1 52 accidents as spin-related. The accident narrative indicated that the aircraft was spinning. Bottom line – the Tomahawk is involved in proportionately more stall/spin accidents than comparable aircraft. Does that make it unsafe? No, it only means that the PA38 must be flown precisely in accordance with the Pilot Operating Handbook and with instructors who are proficient in stalls and spin recovery in that aircraft … Regardless of aircraft type, in many cases a stall is only incidental to the accident. Considering fleet size and hours flown, spin performance of the Cessna 150/152 and the Piper PA-38 are worth comparing. Manufacturers of both recommend no fewer than 3,000 to 4,000 feet agl as a minimum altitude for recovery. Spin entry altitude recommendations range from 6,000 in the Cessnas to 6,500 to 7,000 feet in the Piper. When proper recovery techniques are used, the one-turn spin altitude loss for both the Cessna 150 and 152 is about 1,000 feet, taking between ¼ and ½ turn. For the PA-38, recovery may require up to 1-½ turns and between 1,000 to 1,500 feet. No matter what aircraft is flown, pilots must respect aerodynamics and operational differences. Especially in high-performance aircraft, techniques vary, but when flown properly, they pose no problems. Watch your airspeed! (Or not) Most of today’s pilots have been taught that stalls occur when the angle of attack of the wing reaches a critical point. In the majority of GA single-engine aircraft, that critical AOA is around 16-18 degrees above the flight path. If the flight path is 18 degrees nose down, a steep dive, the aircraft will stall as the attitude approaches level flight. Less well understood is the importance of the relative wind acting on the wing. Relative wind is always opposite the direction of travel of the aircraft, so if an aircraft is descending in a level attitude, the AOA is greater than if the aircraft was in level flight. The diagram illustrates the position of the wing in various flight attitudes. Attitude is only indirectly related to angle of attack. The wing can be stalled when it is a near level position, above the horizon or below. Many pilots believe that an airplane won’t stall until it reaches the stall speed (Vs) published in the POH. Stalls and spins both result from a disruption of airflow over the wing. It is important for all pilots to know that a stall or spin can occur at ANY airspeed and at any attitude. If the wing reaches its critical angle of attack, it will stall. A spin will result when one wing has a lower coefficient of lift than the other. A full explanation of relative wind, stalls and spins was carried in the February 1997 issue of AOPA Flight Training magazine. One safety device long available in airline and turbine corporate aircraft is an angle of attack indicator, which provides a real-time readout on the relationship between the chord line of the wing and the flight path of the aircraft. One type of an angle of attack indicator is shown here. Very few typical GA aircraft have such a device, so after passing the private pilot check ride, most pilots revert to an overly simplistic concept of stalls and spins. This view is best summarized in the words of flight instructors the world over: “Watch your airspeed, or you’re going to stall this airplane!” Even after a gentle demonstration of an accelerated stall (reaching critical angle of attack in a steep turn at a higher airspeed than during level flight), the “watch your airspeed” myth persists. Spin Recovery Although the POH is the primary reference for recovery from a spin, the following can be used as a general procedure: P – Retard the throttle to idle. In most aircraft, power hampers the recovery. A – Ailerons neutral. Many pilots will attempt to recover from the spin using the ailerons. This may actually make the problem worse. R – Apply full opposite rudder. Apply rudder opposite the rotation of the spin. If you have trouble determining which way the airplane is spinning, look at your turn coordinator or turn needle. It will indicate the direction of rotation. E – Apply forward elevator. Immediately after applying opposite rudder, apply a quick forward motion on the control yoke and hold anti-spin controls until the aircraft starts to recover. D – Recover from the dive. Once you have completed the four previous steps, and the rotation stops, recover from the dive. The descent rate may be over 5000 feet per minute and the airspeed will rapidly exceed redline. Remember to neutralize the rudder after the rotation stops. Some suggestions DO Do remember that since the majority of fatal stall/spin accidents occur at low altitudes, from which recovery is unlikely, prevention essential. Do practice stalls or approaches to stalls at an appropriate and safe altitude and only when you are competent. If it’s been awhile, take an experienced CFI with you. Do practice spins only with an instructor who is current and only in a properly maintained and approved aircraft. In some cases a parachute may be required. Do fly at a safe altitude above the ground so that you won’t be surprised by terrain, wires, or towers that would require a quick pull up and a probable stall. Do remember that turns, vertical (pull ups) or horizontal, load the wings and will increase the stall speed, sometimes dramatically. DON’T Don’t explore the corners of the flight envelope close to the ground. Don’t exceed 30 degrees of bank in the traffic pattern. Don’t follow another aircraft in the pattern too closely. If you cannot maintain a safe airspeed (safe AOA) – go around. Don’t buzz or otherwise show off with any aircraft. You don’t need to – as a pilot you belong to a special group – less than one third of one percent of the U.S. adult population is certificated to fly. This investigation of General Aviation (GA) stalls and spins is the first in a series of Air Safety Foundation Topic Specific Studies. The series is based on research using the ASF Safety Database, the largest non-governmental compilation of GA accident records in the world. It is made possible by a generous grant from Mike Lazar, ASF Board of Visitor member and pilot donors like you, who believe that GA safety is to everyone’s benefit Find out how you can support ASF efforts and research and pilot education, by visiting the Development division of the ASF Web site.

How a spin occurs Aerodynamic spin diagramCertificated, light, single-engine airplanes must meet specific criteria regarding stall and spin behavior.

Stalls and spins

Many types of airplane will only spin if the pilot simultaneously yaws and stalls the airplane (intentionally or unintentionally). Under these circumstances, one wing tends to stall more deeply than the other. The wing that stalls first will drop, increasing its angle of attack and deepening the stall. Both wings must be stalled for a spin to occur. The other wing will rise, decreasing its angle of attack, and the aircraft will yaw towards the more deeply-stalled wing. The difference in lift between the two wings causes the aircraft to roll, and the difference in drag causes the aircraft to yaw. One common scenario that can lead to an unintentional spin is an uncoordinated turn towards the runway during the landing sequence. A pilot who is overshooting the turn to final approach may be tempted to apply rudder to increase the rate of turn. The result is twofold: the nose of the airplane drops below the horizon and the bank angle increases. Reacting to these unintended changes, the pilot may then begin to pull the elevator control aft (thus increasing the angle of attack) while applying opposite aileron to decrease bank angle. Taken to its extreme, this can result in an uncoordinated turn with sufficient angle of attack to cause the aircraft to stall. This is called a cross-control stall, and is very dangerous if it happens at low altitude where the pilot has little time to recover. In order to avoid this scenario, pilots are taught the importance of always making coordinated turns. Spins can also be entered intentionally for training, flight testing, or aerobatics. [edit] Phases In aircraft that are capable of recovering from a spin, the spin has four phases.[1] For all or some types of spin some airplanes are not recoverable. At low height recovery may also be impossible. In both cases, only the first three phases occur. Entry – The pilot stalls the plane while in uncoordinated[2] flight. Incipient – With one wing more stalled than the other, the rotation starts. Developed – The aircraft’s rotation rate, airspeed, and vertical speed are stabilized. At least one wing of the aircraft is stalled.[3] Recovery – After appropriate control inputs, the angle of attack of both wings decreases below the critical angle of attack, rotation slows. The nose attitude of the aircraft steepens, airspeed increases, autorotation stops, the aircraft is no longer stalled. The controls respond conventionally and the airplane can be returned to normal flight. [edit] Modes The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has defined four different modes of spinning. These four modes are defined by the angle of attack of the airflow on the wing.[4] NASA Spin Mode Classification Spin mode Angle-of-attack range, degrees Flat 65 to 90 Moderately flat 45 to 65 Moderately steep 30 to 45 Steep 20 to 30 During the 1970s NASA used its spin tunnel at the Langley Research Center to investigate the spinning characteristics of single-engine general aviation airplane designs. A 1/11-scale model was used with nine different tail designs.[5] Some tail designs that caused inappropriate spin characteristics had two stable spin modes – one steep or moderately steep; and another that was either moderately flat or flat. Recovery from the flatter of the two modes was usually less reliable or impossible. The further aft that the center of gravity was located the flatter the spin and the less reliable the recovery.[6] For all tests the center of gravity of the model was at either 14.5% of Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) or 25.5% of MAC.[7] Single-engine airplane types certified in the normal category must be demonstrated to recover from a spin of at least one turn, while single-engine aircraft certified in the utility category must demonstrate a six turn spin that cannot be unrecoverable at any time during the spin due to pilot action or aerodynamic characteristic.[8] NASA recommends various tail configurations and other strategies to eliminate the flatter of the two spin modes and make recovery from the steeper mode more reliable.[9] [edit] History In aviation’s early days, spins were poorly understood and often fatal. Proper recovery procedures were unknown, and a pilot’s instinct to pull back on the stick served only to make a spin worse. Because of this, the spin earned a reputation as an unpredictable danger that might snatch an aviator’s life at any time, and against which there was no defense. The spin was initially explored by individual pilots performing ad-hoc experiments (often accidentally) and by aerodynamicists. In August 1912, Lieutenant Wilfred Parke RN became the first aviator to recover from an accidental spin when his Avro biplane entered a spin at 700 feet AGL in the traffic pattern at Larkhill. Parke attempted to recover from the spin by increasing engine speed, pulling back on the stick, and turning into the spin, with no effect. The aircraft descended 450 feet, and horrified observers braced themselves for a fatal crash. Parke was disabled by centrifugal forces but was still considering a means of escape. In an effort to neutralize the forces pinning him against the right side of the cockpit, he applied full right rudder, and the aircraft leveled out fifty feet[10] above the ground. With the aircraft now under control, Parke climbed, made another approach, and landed safely. In spite of the discovery of “Parke’s technique,” pilots were not taught spin-recovery procedures until the beginning of World War I. The first documented case of an intentional spin and recovery is that of Harry Hawker.[citation needed] In the summer of 1914, Hawker recovered from an intentional spin over Brooklands, England, by centralizing the controls. In 1917, Frederick Lindemann conducted a series of experiments that led to the first understanding of the aerodynamics of the spin. [edit] Entry and recovery Some aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin using only their own flight control surfaces and must not be allowed to enter a spin under any circumstances. If an aircraft has not been certified for spin recovery, it should be assumed that spins are not recoverable and are unsafe in that aircraft. Important safety equipment, such as stall/spin recovery parachutes, which generally are not installed on production aircraft, are used during testing and certification of aircraft for spins and spin recovery. Spin-entry procedures vary with the type and model of aircraft being flown but there are general procedures applicable to most aircraft. These include reducing power to idle and simultaneously raising the nose in order to induce an upright stall. Then, as the aircraft approaches stall, apply full rudder in the desired spin direction while holding full back-elevator pressure for an upright spin. Sometimes a roll input is applied in the direction opposite of the rudder (i.e., a cross-control). If the aircraft manufacturer provides a specific procedure for spin recovery, that procedure must be used. Otherwise, to recover from an upright spin, the following generic procedure may be used: Power is first reduced to idle and the ailerons are neutralized. Then, full opposite rudder (that is, against the yaw) is added and held to counteract the spin rotation, and the elevator control is moved briskly forward to reduce the angle of attack below the critical angle. Depending on the airplane and the type of spin, the elevator action could be a minimal input before rotation ceases, or in other cases the elevator control may have to be moved to its full forward position to effect recovery from the upright spin. Once the rotation has stopped, the rudder must be neutralized and the airplane returned to level flight. This procedure is sometimes called PARE, for Power idle, Ailerons neutral, Rudder opposite the spin and held, and Elevator through neutral. The mnemonic “PARE” simply reinforces the tried-and-true NASA standard spin recovery actions—the very same actions first prescribed by NACA in 1936, verified by NASA during an intensive, decade-long spin test program overlapping the 1970s and ’80′s, and repeatedly recommended by the FAA and implemented by the majority of test pilots during certification spin-testing of light airplanes. Inverted spinning and erect or upright spinning are dynamically very similar and require essentially the same recovery process but use opposite elevator control. It must be noted that in an upright spin both roll and yaw are in the same direction but that an inverted spin is composed of opposing roll and yaw. It is crucial that the yaw be countered to effect recovery. The visual field in a typical spin (as opposed to a flat spin) is heavily dominated by the perception of roll over yaw, which can lead to an incorrect and dangerous conclusion that a given inverted spin is actually an erect spin in the reverse yaw direction (leading to a recovery attempt in which pro-spin rudder is mistakenly applied and then further exaccerbated by holding the incorrect elevator input). In some aircraft that spin readily upright and inverted—such as Pitts- and Christen Eagle-type high-performance aerobatic aircraft—an alternative spin-recovery technique may effect recovery as well, namely: Power off, Hands off the stick/yoke, Rudder full opposite to the spin (or more simply “push the rudder pedal that is hardest to push”) and held (aka the Mueller/Beggs technique). An advantage of the Mueller/Beggs technique is that no knowledge of whether the spin is erect or inverted is required during what can be a very stressful and disorienting time. Even though this method does work in a specific subset of spin-approved airplanes, the NASA Standard/PARE procedure can also be effective provided that care must be taken to ensure the spin does not simply cross from positive to negative (or vice versa) and that a too-rapid application of elevator control is avoided as it may cause aerodynamic blanketing of the rudder rendering the control ineffective and simply accelerate the spin. The converse, however, may not be true at all—many cases exist where Beggs/Mueller fails to recover the airplane from the spin, but NASA Standard/PARE will terminate the spin. Before spinning any aircraft the flight manual should be consulted to establish if the particular type has any specific spin recovery techniques that differ from standard practice. Although entry techniques are similar, modern military fighter aircraft often tend to require yet another variation on spin recovery techniques. While power is still typically reduced to idle thrust and pitch control neutralized, opposite rudder is almost never used. Adverse yaw created by the rolling surfaces (ailerons, differential horizontal tails, etc.) of such aircraft is often more effective in arresting the spin rotation than the rudder(s), which usually become blanked by the wing and fuselage due to the geometric arrangement of fighters. Hence, the preferred recover technique has a pilot applying full roll control in the direction of the rotation (i.e., a right-hand spin requires a right stick input), generally remembered as “stick into the spin.” Likewise, this control application is reversed for inverted spins. [edit] Center of gravity The characteristics of an airplane with respect to spinning are significantly influenced by the position of the center of gravity. In general terms, the further forward the center of gravity the less readily the airplane will spin, and the more readily it will recover from a spin. Conversely, the further aft the center of gravity the more readily the airplane will spin, and the less readily it will recover from a spin. In any airplane the forward and aft limits on center of gravity are carefully defined. In some airplanes that are approved for intentional spinning the aft limit at which spins may be attempted is not as far aft as the aft limit for general flying. Intentional spinning should not be attempted casually, and the most important pre-flight precaution is to determine that the airplane’s center of gravity will be within the range approved for intentional spinning.

By BUZ MARTEN/AOPA

I’ve been flying 172s for half my lifetime, more frequently than most of the nearly 40 other types that lurk in my logs. It’s never been a love affair — Skyhawks are neither cuddly nor sexy. No, it’s more like the relationship that my dad had with his 1952 Plymouth Suburban: “I put 127,000 miles on her, and she never missed a beat,” he’d say. (That’s remarkable, considering how his teenaged son flogged it in weekend rat races.)

My first flight in a 172 came in 1964 as I worked on my commercial certificate. It was a pea-soup-colored 1956 model. I was quite impressed by the smooth and stable feel, like a mini-airliner compared to the Aeronca Champs I’d been flying. So too it must have seemed to its first customers eight years earlier, many of them being graduates of kite-like two-seaters. That first impression, I believe, goes far to explain why, over a 30-year period, more than 30,000 buyers tumbled for Skyhawks. The rest of its charm, its unique blend of capabilities, is discovered slowly as one lives with the airplane.

Reading a pilot report or specification sheet on a Skyhawk can be a soporific, but it’s a real pleasure to discover that your 172 can cover an important amount of ground in a day, day in and day out, in stretch-out comfort, and at a cost that will keep the vein on the side of your accountant’s neck from bulging.

My next ‘Hawk encounter came a year later, in 1965, when I flew two New England businessmen in another 1956 straight-tail on a trip that compressed two workdays into one. They were so impressed that one partner went right to work on his private, bought an airplane, and integrated it into their growing business. It was a page from Cessna’s game plan.

After the expected postwar private flying boom fizzled in the 1940s, the remaining light aircraft manufacturers aimed at the business community. Capable yet undemanding to fly, the 172 (and step-up 182) were central to Cessna’s market penetration.

1966 found me ‘Hawking again, this time during a five-day accelerated instrument course at Burnside-Ott School in Opa Locka, Florida. The school flew late-model Skyhawks which, by then, had “Omni- Vision” to the rear and truncated vision forward due to the huge panel adopted to accommodate more and more avionics and cockpit toys. Burnside’s panels had much open space, having only the basics plus one nav/com, an automatic direction finder, and a marker beacon receiver. Burnside’s philosophy was that, if you could fly your check ride with that sparse package, you’d feel more confident as you began your IFR flying with proper equipment. Worked for me.

The 172 is a great instrument platform. Even without an autopilot, it can accommodate a lot of cockpit fumbling while remaining upright and on course. My well-rigged Skyhawk will, if carefully trimmed, hold heading and altitude for several minutes at a time, hands off even with a few little bumps.

Recently, AOPA Pilot began a quest for four 172s, one from each decade during which they were produced. Our search culminated in an informal, invitational gathering of ‘Hawks at the beautiful Petaluma Municipal Airport, located about 150 miles north of San Francisco. There, over two days, Senior Editor Marc Cook and I, in the company of photographer Lonna Tucker, flew and evaluated the nice examples that you see on these pages.

For a benchmark, we used a known quantity — known to me, anyway — my own N5158Q, freshly groomed for the occasion. It’s a 19-year-old M model, which would also serve as our 1970s example. I purchased 58Q in 1983 with just five hours on a fresh engine and 1,200 hours on the airframe. It had spent a lot of time sitting in the Central Valley sun, and the original finish looked like desert camouflage. New polyurethane paint was the first improvement. Then, because accessories had not been included in my field overhaul, over the next couple of years I replaced mags, harness, alternator, vacuum pump, carburetor, and starter. Gap seals on the flaps and ailerons were added in 1986. No speed increase was noticed, but the roll rate improved substantially. Nice mod.

Other logbook highlights include a new windshield in 1988 and new Cleveland wheels and brakes at the latest annual.

For instrument work, I’m equipped only for the “California Lite” variety. That is, pop-ups and letdowns in otherwise nice weather. I have no glideslope, distance measuring equipment, or autopilot, items I consider to be essential these days for serious IFR if one flies only enough to stay current and wishes to stay out of the clutches of ungentle federal computers.

My familiarity with the type made it easy to devise a simple flight profile to use in making direct comparisons across the decades. It consisted of a maximum-performance takeoff (measured by counting runway lights) followed by a best-angle (V_X) climb from the 90-foot field elevation to 1,000 feet msl, then a best-rate (V_Y) climb to 2,000 feet, at which point I leveled off (due to a head cold), accelerated to 102 knots (120 mph), and reduced power by 100 rpm (to approximate 75 percent power). After stabilizing at that power setting and altitude for a couple of minutes, I recorded the true airspeed, tried some steep turns and stalls, then headed back for a short-field approach and landing. Fuel and payload were near identical for each flight: two FAA-plus bodies totaling 360 pounds and 25 gallons of gas at 150 pounds. Flight conditions for the day were near standard.

First up was Lloyd Hayes’ (AOPA 076262) near-pristine 1956 172 N7203A, perhaps the most interesting, as it is an unrestored, original, one-owner airplane. Hayes, a very pleasant gentleman of 75 years, learned to fly in the early 1950s, training in a two-control Ercoupe and later a Luscombe. After obtaining his private certificate, he bought and flew another Ercoupe for a couple of years. That was to be his only other airplane. When the 172 was introduced in 1955, Lloyd was impressed by its airspeed, capacity, and especially the tricycle landing gear. Within months, he’d made a deal on one and headed back to Wichita to take delivery.

After a short time, Hayes earned his instrument rating in the 172 and began to incorporate the airplane into his business. Some of his passengers were unusually cool. Hayes ran a funeral parlor, and he used the airplane — always polished and immaculate — for “removals” and ash burials at sea. Having seen a well-intentioned but highly embarrassing amateur attempt at an aerial burial where a substantial amount of the “mortal remains” wound up in alineman’s shop vacuum, I asked Hayes for his secret.

“I saw that happen to others, so I made up a venturi that cleanly emptied the urn at the desired moment.”

As we taxied out, Hayes explained that the airframe now had 7,000 hours on it. The first engine, a 145-horsepower Continental O-300, had run to TBO twice. Then it was replaced with a new O-300 (“Just wanted a new one.”), which is now approaching the end of its third run. He has never experienced a power interruption.

I commented on the nice interior.

“It’s original except that I installed new seat covers and carpets some years back.”

Our takeoff weight was about 1,900 pounds, 300 short of gross. (Over the years, the Skyhawk’s gross weight has increased by steps from 2,200 to 2,400 pounds, but average useful load [IFR equipped] has stayed about the same — about 870 pounds.) Runup was normal; there’s been no change over the years in that drill. Lining up on the runway and applying full throttle, the engine seemed smooth, but a little bit low on rpm, beginning to show, perhaps, its 1,700 hours. Nevertheless, we were off in 700 feet and climbing at 500 feet per minute, which held steady at both VX and VY until we leveled off at 2,000 feet. The visibility was superb over the smaller panel. We cruised at 115 miles per hour indicated (100 knots), for a true of 103 knots. Interpolating from the book, that was about the expected speed.

A Horton STOL kit had been installed some 10 years back, and I was anxious to try some stalls. Clean, the stall broke straight ahead at about 45 mph IAS. With full 40-degree flaps, the aircraft would fly with the airspeed barely wiggling — the stall, again straight, came in the unknown zone. It was apparent that I could have shortened the takeoff roll some by rotating more aggressively.

The landing into about a 10-knot wind using my usual short-field technique (over the fence with the stall-warning horn humming and dumping the flaps over the numbers) produced a rollout of 200 feet, without squealing the tires.

Next flown was a 1963 D model, N2125Y. The D was the first with “Omni-Vision,” and this one was appointed in a manner suiting its era, with a fake wood panel just like my 1963 Chevy pickup. When I opened up its O-300, it headed down the runway with decidedly more push. I suspected a much newer engine.

“Seventeen-hundred hours,” replied Peter Scott, sitting next to me. Scott flies and maintains 25Y when he’s not toiling as an A&P/IA at Marin Air Services in Novato, California.

We were off in 600 feet, with a climb rate from 600 to 700 fpm to 2,000 feet, where we indicated 107 knots (123 mph). True airspeed was 110 knots. Another short landing was easy with the good old quick-dump manual flaps, controlled by a big “Johnson Bar” located between the seats, which was standard through 1966.

It was now time to fly benchmark 58Q. As on previous flights, I used 10 degrees of flap for takeoff. The book calls for zero flap, and that’s best at max gross (at which all performance figures are quoted. Most 172 drivers have discovered, however, that a little flap is quite useful at lighter weights. The roll is shortened noticeably with no apparent degradation of climb).

We were off this time in a little over 500 feet, indicating 700 fpm at VX (60 knots), which went to 800 fpm after accelerating to VY (74 knots).

The M model was introduced in 1973 and is characterized by a new wing with a leading-edge redesign marketed as the “Camber-Lift Cuff.” It resembles somewhat the re-formed leading edge that is a part of various aftermarket STOL kits. It delays the stall and is said to improve climb performance a bit. Many Skyhawk buffs consider the M to be the most desirable model, as it combines the later aerodynamics with the ultra- reliable, 80-octane Lycoming O-320-E2D.

Leveling at 2,000 feet, I set power at 2,500 rpm (approximately 72-percent power). Fifty-eight Q has always been a tad faster than the book — even with the wheelpants residing in my hangar for safekeeping. This day, we read 109 knots, for a true of 112 (129 mph). We usually true between 132 and 134 mph at 7,000 to 10,000 feet.

Fifty-eight Q, like all Skyhawks since 1967, has the smooth but slow-acting electric flaps. While they add to the mini-airliner image, they require bolder technique to make the shortest landing. As I come over the fence at 52 knots with full 40-degree flaps, I flip the selector to the Up position, bringing the nose up with the flaps to arrest any extra sink. With proper execution, ground contact is made with the nose high, the flaps up, and the stall horn at full song. Today, that yielded a ground roll of about 300 feet.

This wouldn’t be journalism without bad news, so here goes: While many will argue that the 172 represents a perfect design, no realist will admit to its being a perfect airplane. The fault lies with its maker. Critical hindsight can be most unfair, but a little is due here.

First, too many corners were cut on quality in the manufacturing process. Unlike its competitors, Cessna used no corrosion-proofing on inner surfaces (excepting seaplanes). To compound that, its paint work was often substandard. Cessna owners in wet climates battle oxidation perpetually. Worst off are the 8,000 examples built from 1977 through 1982, which have polyurethane paint applied over an improperly prepared surface. These are subject to filiform corrosion — a most insidious type that spreads unseen through structures and that has grounded many aircraft permanently.

Second, Cessna fixed things that weren’t broken, like the flaps (first with electrification, then with a reduction in travel). Then in 1977, it replaced the Lycoming O-320-E2D, arguably the most dependable light aircraft engine ever, with the infamous O-320-H2AD motor and then didn’t admit the mistake until three years had passed, and 5,300 models had been sold. The list becomes longer if one pries, but I don’t wish to obscure the fact that, all things considered, the Skyhawk is a great machine.

The 172 is by most measures a STOL performer, but by now, you’ve noticed that it can be landed on any strip from which a takeoff can be made, but not vice versa. That leads us to examine our final contender that, by virtue of a simple STC’d modification, achieves a balance.

Ron Sieg owns a beautiful 1982 172P — the last Skyhawk model. In 10 years, it has accumulated 2,600 hours. On walkaround and upon entry, I noticed improvements over my airplane, like better latches on all doors, improved soundproofing, and a preselector flap switch.

Sieg operates a successful photo lab in San Francisco. He and his wife, Theo, both private pilots, live with their kids in the quaint seacoast town of Mendocino, 150 miles to the north. They use the Skyhawk as I do mine, to commute and for family trips.

Taxiing for departure, the airplane had a posh sound and feel compared to all the others. After runup and a call to traffic, I lined up and applied power for my last high-performance takeoff. With brake release, we shot forward with authority, breaking ground in 400 feet and heading up at a very high deck angle to maintain 60 knots. The vertical speed indicator showed 950 fpm in this regime, which improved to just over 1,000 fpm after reaching VY.

At TBO, Sieg’s airplane had been converted to a Penn Yan Superhawk by removal of its 160-hp O-320-D2J engine and substituting a new 180-hp Lycoming O-360 with matching Sensenich propeller. A gross-weight increase to 2,550 pounds was part of the deal, providing a new useful load approaching 1,100 pounds.

The extra ponies work very hard indeed. At 2,000 feet and cruise power, we saw 125 knots indicated, for a true of 129 (149 mph), exactly 15 percent faster than my airplane.

With only 30 degrees of flap available, the landing consumed 500 feet, but that’s a perfect balance for a STOLplane. You can’t (without damaging it) land it into a situation requiring a flatbed truck for departure.

For a true comparison, I flew one more late-model Skyhawk (not pictured), 1977 vintage, which had a stock 160-hp engine. It weighed, empty, a bit more than 58Q. Takeoff and climb were identical, and it cruised at 115 knots, 3 knots faster than my airplane.

We expected no big surprises to show up in this review of four fine examples of working airplanes; none were found.

While no Skyhawks have been made since 1986, it is perhaps too good a design to be relegated to history. Steady demand and two recent events threaten to resurrect the 172. Cessna has been sold to Textron (Lycoming’s parent), and it is evaluating a return to production. If that fails to happen, Hal Shevers (of Sporty’s Pilot Shop fame) has plans to build a clone to be called the Liberty.

By Nathan A. Ferguson/AOPA

I thought this was going to be a case of déjà vu. Hadn’t I flown Skyhawks before? Well, yes and no. The Cessna Aircraft Company has continued to make a lot of improvements to the 172S Skyhawk SP. From the standard leather interior to the latest avionics, Cessna has breathed new life into an airplane model that was introduced in 1956.

Following the difficulties of restarting production of single-engine pistons — “starting all over again” might be a better way of putting it — dealing with a flurry of airworthiness directives (ADs) and accusations of “building the same old airplanes,” Cessna has created something that performs better, is quieter inside and out, and has modern safety features. The biggest changes to the airplane since we first visited it when it was introduced in 1998 (see “Cessna Skyhawk SP: Ponying Up the Skyhawk,” September 1998 Pilot) are in the instrument panel, which looks like it belongs in a business jet when decked out with all the optional equipment, and the two-axis autopilot is a quantum leap from the old single-axis version that only kept the wings level.

One of Cessna’s biggest competitors is its own aircraft. Just look around the ramp at your home airport and count how many old Skyhawks you see. These are owned by people who pronounce it “Cezzna” and have diamond shapes stamped into their foreheads from walking into the trailing edge of the flaps. AOPA Pilot’s own unscientific research found several Skyhawks with more than 20,000 airframe hours. This is one venerable airplane.

With this in mind, Cessna knew it had its work cut out for it when it launched the 180-horsepower 172S Skyhawk SP (the SP stands for special performance) as a follow-up to the less sprightly 160-hp R model. (Cessna goes in alphabetical order when it assigns letters to models.) Both airplanes feature the same fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360 engine, but the SP has a higher-pitch prop and the engine redlines at 2,700 rpm instead of 2,400, meaning it can generate more horsepower. The SP also has a higher maximum gross weight, translating into a 99-pound useful load increase that brought it to 831 pounds in our test airplane. Both models also have dual engine-driven vacuum pumps and electric fuel boost pumps as standard equipment, as well as beefier seat rails borrowed from the Caravan line that lock the 26-G front seats firmly in place.

The new Skyhawk models have improved air vents built into the interior treatment rather than the cylindrical “tin can” kind in the much earlier Cessna models that come flying out of the wing roots when you pull too hard. Air conditioning is now an option for $20,300 and has apparently piqued the interest of flight schools in the South. Since Cessna wanted to reduce cabin noise it did something that you’ll probably never see unless you rip up the interior. Starting with the R model the company glued thin sheets of aluminum and foam along the floor, sidewalls, and into the tail cone, a higher-tech and more environmentally friendly solution compared to the old tar-based system of the past. Besides reducing vibration this gives the airframe a more solid feel by minimizing “oil canning” where the skin flexes in the breeze. Just go up to your friend’s new Skyhawk and start knocking on the fuselage. As you work your way back to the tail past the baggage door it will suddenly sound hollow. That’s where the pieces stop and your friend gets angry. The windows are tinted and made of thicker acrylic and, combined with the soundproofing material and low-revving engines, make for a much quieter cabin. I took off the headset during our test flight and was able to carry on a conversation with Joe Stewart, a Cessna sales representative, without shouting.

To understand how all this came about, we visited the factory on the prairie in Independence, Kansas. When Cessna restarted production in 1996 after a decade-long hiatus, it decided to bring back the “sure hits,” the Skyhawk, 182 Skylane, and 206 Stationair. But what about the 152? Cessna officials said that it would cost just as much to build the 152 as it would the 172, plus flight schools wouldn’t have the option of putting an observer in the backseat.

Following the economic downturn and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks Cessna realized that it had to get lean, explained Terry Clark, Cessna’s general manager in Independence. That’s when the company continued its efforts to employ lean manufacturing techniques that were originally developed in Japan to improve efficiency and eliminate waste. Cessna, for instance, drew spaghetti diagrams where workers’ movements were observed and charted. By the end of the day, with curved lines going everywhere, you end up with a lot of pasta. Wasted motion is a bad thing for a company on a diet. Cessna then took steps to redesign workspaces. With these new lean tools, Cessna workers began to think outside the cookie jar and came up with other ways to improve efficiency, such as installing the prop on the airplane farther down the assembly line. This, as you probably know from bumping your own head, reduced the number of bruises and walkaround time for workers. Cessna believes that by making this simple change it freed up $150,000 annually in inventory costs from not having to stock the propellers for so long.

By aligning things according to function instead of aircraft model, Cessna also was able to consolidate the production of all three of its single-engine aircraft by running them down the same final assembly line. All this lean thinking freed up 50,000 square feet of space or about half a soccer field. This is enough room to build a new airplane, something Cessna officials hinted at but weren’t ready to announce. The factory is now called “Cessna Independence” instead of “Cessna Single Engine.” Hmm.

What does all this mean to you? Cessna says it means higher-quality airplanes, judging by its own customer-satisfaction surveys, and less rework at the end of the line. Cessna test pilots also have reported fewer squawks. The company’s goal now is to reduce building time by 25 percent, Clark said.

But Cessna is not only selling an airplane, it’s also selling a whole training package that allows people who have never flown before to start from scratch and move all the way up to an instrument rating in the same airplane. In partnership with King Schools, Cessna provides a computer-based instruction (CBI) system in three levels: “Cleared for Takeoff” for private pilots; “Cleared for Approach” for instrument pilots; and “Cleared for Hire” for commercial pilots (as long as you have a complex airplane to train in). The secret of the program, Cessna officials say, is multisensory stimulation that allows the mind to retain more information. Interactive quizzes keep students engaged while they can preview lessons before the next flight. John and Martha King fly a Skyhawk with the same avionics in the video sections, so it should all seem familiar. Brumley Smith, Cessna Pilot Centers manager, said that based on the company’s internal research, the program substantially reduces the time it takes to earn a private pilot certificate. Since flight instructors keep records of their students’ progress, Smith believes it helps solve a problem in general aviation when the airlines are hiring — the revolving flight school door. If your instructor suddenly disappears, the next one can pick up right where the last one left off.

The integrated training approach is something you’ll see at your local Cessna Pilot Center (CPC). This is a program that has been growing since it was started in 1970. There are now 265 CPCs in the United States and 15 abroad. Each CPC is required to meet certain standards such as having at least one Skyhawk on the field that is less than two years old. Cessna also provides leads for potential students to member schools and coaches the schools on how to better market themselves.

While training is core to Cessna, so are the students who become buyers. For personal transportation Cessna offers avionics that greatly reduce pilot workload. Once you have earned a stiff piece of cardboard signed by FAA Administrator Marion Blakey you can do all the things instructors didn’t want you to do in training, such as turning on the autopilot and going GPS direct. Stewart and I used the Honeywell Bendix/King KAP 140 autopilot to fly a coupled ILS approach. All of this was shown on a colorful KMD 550 multifunction display (MFD) that lays it all out for you on a moving map, making it hard to get turned around no matter how many loops the controllers throw you. With altitude preselect on the autopilot you don’t need to worry about blowing through your assigned altitude. When you are within 1,000 feet it beeps, then levels out right on the dot.

Once the autopilot is disengaged, the airplane flies just like a Skyhawk should; it’s stable and predictable with no mean streaks or manic psychotic episodes. Performance figures were as advertised or slightly better considering the fact that we were under gross weight. This is not surprising for a clean airplane and new engine. Cessna derives its performance figures by loading the airplanes to gross weight and full-forward CG. But don’t look for dramatic increases in performance with the 20 extra horses in the SP. The 124-knot cruise speed with a 75-percent power setting at 8,500 feet is only 2 kt faster than the R model and there is only a slight improvement on the rest of the performance spectrum. The sea-level rate of climb goes from 720 fpm to 730 fpm. For western pilots at high altitude, though, it could mean the difference between clearing the trees and trimming them.

Standard Bendix/King avionics include a single nav/com, KMA 28 audio panel, transponder, and an avionics cooling fan. The Nav I package adds an IFR-certified KLN 94 GPS with color moving map and a second nav/com with glideslope, bringing the total to $169,600. The Nav II package adds a two-axis autopilot for a grand total of $181,900. The MFD ($6,800), ADF ($5,700), and a KCS 55A horizontal situation indicator ($13,500) are options.

The test airplane we used for this pilot report was only cable-ready — wired up for the weather option. To get a taste for what it would be like if you had nearly every option that’s available on your Skyhawk, Cessna sales representative Steve Kent and I flew a new turbocharged T182T from Independence to AOPA headquarters in Frederick, Maryland. The airplane had an HSI and a Stormscope. By pushing large buttons on the MFD you can go from “map” to “weather” to “traffic” to “terrain.”

One of the most amazing things about it is that there’s no hesitation as you go from screen to screen. Using the weather function you can zoom out and get a picture of what’s going on in the United States. Then you can use the joystick to go to a specific area and zoom in. The weather system uses a KDR 510 datalink receiver to uplink information such as pireps, terminal forecasts, surface observations, and Nexrad color radar from Bendix/King’s Wingman Flight Information Service for a monthly subscription fee. We were in solid IFR for more than an hour, but we could look at the weather map and estimate when we would leave the big green blobs of precipitation.

The TCAS-style traffic function did not display many threatening targets until we neared the East Coast. We were at Flight Level 190 sucking oxygen for most of the flight, a place where few other piston folks venture. Once we descended, the fish finder came alive. It can display up to 30 targets and track 60 by interrogating transponders on other aircraft. Combining traffic data with the KGP 560 enhanced ground proximity warning system makes it pretty hard to hit anything. This is particularly important when you are preparing for a difficult approach after a long flight.

The Skyhawk has come a long way since 1956. For many, the airplane represents their first contact with general aviation. But the new avionics usher in a whole new era of flying where the pilot acts as a system administrator surrounded by a bubble of safety and security. It almost gives you a God complex to have so much information at your fingertips. Just don’t bump your head.

E-mail the author at nate.ferguson@aopa.org.

SPEC SHEET

By Barry Schiff/AOPA

Prior to World War II, almost all general aviation airplanes had conventional landing gear—two main-gear legs, and a tailwheel. The end of the war, though, witnessed the introduction of the Beech Bonanza, the North American Navion, the Piper Tri-Pacer, and many others that reflected the increasing popularity of the nosewheel.

Cessna was late in jumping on the tricycle-gear bandwagon, but when it finally stepped up to the plate in 1955, it hit a grand slam. The Cessna 310 was introduced first, the 172 and 182 in 1956, and the Cessna 150 in 1959, the latter three becoming the most popular GA airplanes in the world.

The prototype Cessna 182 took to wing for the first time in a shroud of secrecy at Kingman, Kansas, on September 10, 1955. It was essentially a Cessna 180 with tricycle landing gear. The cowl was modified to accommodate the nosewheel. This left no room for cowl flaps and explains why early model 182s did not have them, and why those who fly them must be careful about managing oil and cylinder-head temperatures. (Cowl flaps were added to the 182B and subsequent models.)

The drag of the nosewheel was greater than the tailwheel it replaced and reduced top speed by five mph.

Cessna’s original brochure for the 182 reveals the quaint marketing attitude of the day: “It’s the ‘Land-O-Matic’ One Eighty-Two, the airplane you can drive,” proclaims the brochure. Another headline boasts, “You drive this airplane into the air and back down on to the ground.” Cessna also touted “Hush-flight cabin quietness and features” and “Para-Lift flaps.”

In fairness to Cessna, a large, spanwise exhaust muffler did make the 182 much quieter than its progenitor, the 180, and the 40-degree flaps are both large and highly effective.

The original airplane was called a Cessna 182 Businessliner, but this appellation was quietly dropped.

A deluxe version of the 1958 model 182A was called a Skylane, a name that obviously did stick. It included full paint, wheel pants, and radios as standard equipment.

The first one

The very first production Cessna 182 bore serial number 33000 and was sold on November 2, 1956, to Ignacio M. Martinez of Torreon, Mexico, for the retail price of $13,750. It was registered in Mexico as XB-ZEQ.

Don Steffl purchased the airplane from Martinez in 1961. He flew it to his home in Minnesota. The registration was changed to N4966E, and Steffl flew the airplane for 40 years. The airplane was then purchased from Steffl’s estate by Ed Croymans, who flew it to his home in the beautiful Flathead Valley near Glacier National Park in Montana.

In the meantime, John Casalegno, a general contractor in Kalispell, Montana, had been introduced to GA by his friend Michael Jackola, who took Casalegno hither and yon within Montana as business required. One day in August 2001, Casalegno needed a ride to Helena but Jackola was unavailable. He instead chartered Croyman’s 182. The pilot was Bill Werner, Croyman’s and Jackola’s instructor. On the return flight from Helena, Werner gave Casalegno some dual instruction, which was all the incentive that Casalegno needed. He had been bitten by the flying bug and soon began taking lessons in a Cessna 172.

After earning his private pilot certificate, Casalegno discovered that renting aircraft for business trips left much to be desired. This is when he decided to purchase the Cessna 182 in which he had received his first instruction. Casalegno bought the airplane, which had a newly majored engine, in March 2003 for $69,000. This, he was to discover, was only the down payment.

The restoration

Casalegno knew that N4996E was the first 182 to roll off the Cessna production line, and he purchased the airplane with the intent of restoring it to its original condition. He had no concept, however, how much time, money, effort, determination and grit would be required to accomplish that goal.

The restoration project began in October 2004. Dave Cano of Cano’s Custom Specialties in Kalispell led the project, and Reed Lamb of Semitool was responsible for the mechanical work.

“Hunting for original parts,” Casalegno says, “was especially time-consuming for Cano and Lamb. Were it not for the Internet, it probably would have been impossible to locate needed parts, and we would have had to fabricate new parts.”

The project was extensive and included having to completely rebuild all of the flight controls. When all was said and done three years later, Casalegno reckons that mechanical work required 444 hours of labor; skin replacement (on the control surfaces) took another 276 hours; metal work 705 hours; painting and stripping 340 hours; research 165 hours; upholstery work 165 hours; reassembly 932 hours; and hand polishing and sanding 1,635 hours. A total of 4,662 hours of labor had been devoted to the three-year restoration.

Casalegno made the “second” maiden flight of Number 33000 on August 2, 2007, with his instructor riding shotgun. This was exactly five years to the day after he had been issued his private pilot certificate. He does not plan to obtain any additional certificates or ratings, not even an instrument rating. “I do not relish the thought of flying over the mountains of Montana in IFR conditions,” he says.

Casalegno prefers not to think about how much money he has invested in the restoration. He also has no idea what the airplane might be worth, nor does he care. “I have absolutely no intention of selling it,” he says. (Vref’s current retail value of a run-of-the-mill 1956 Cessna 182 with a mid-time engine is $34,000.)

There are a few differences between the restored airplane and its configuration when new. Casalegno says, for example, that he was unable to locate an original teal-colored, cabin headliner that would not crack because of age, and he was forced to use a substitute.

The airplane also has upgraded Cleveland brakes, an exhaust-gas temperature gauge, and modern avionics to replace the original Narco Superhomer (which had a “coffee-grinder” tuner and vacuum tubes).

“Everything else is the way it was in 1956,” Casalegno claims.

“The way it was” means that the airplane has numerous features not found in modern Cessnas. These include: float-operated fuel gauges in the wing roots; a key-operated ignition switch with an independent, remotely located, push-button starter; a pull-out ash tray in the center of the instrument panel supplemented by ash trays on the sidewalls adjacent to the rear seats; and flaps that are manually operated using a long handle situated on the floor between the pilots’ seats.

Flying it

Casalegno graciously offered me the airplane for a familiarization flight. Climbing in brought back memories from when I ferried new 182s in the late 1950s from the factory to Air Oasis, the then-Cessna distributor in Long Beach, California. The airplane even smelled new.

The rapid climb rate caught me off guard. The 1956 model is so much lighter than subsequent models, has the same horsepower (230), and easily outperforms them. The owner’s manual—there were no pilot’s operating handbooks in 1956—claims a climb rate of 220 fpm at 20,000 feet at the maximum-allowable gross weight of 2,550 pounds, outstanding numbers for an airplane without a turbocharger.

I headed toward the Hungry Horse Reservoir, a beautiful, man-made lake nestled in a narrow valley between two parallel mountain ranges capped in snow. The bottoms of the wings are so highly polished and reflective that they created an illusion making it difficult at times to distinguish up from down. I don’t recall any factory fresh airplane looking and feeling this good.

The airplane flies as well as it looks, better, perhaps, than when it was new. The controls are tight yet require only the fingertips for maneuvering. Like all 182s, the airplane is rock solid in turbulence. Someone once said that you could simulate the stability of a Cessna 182 by lying on the ground with your arms and legs outstretched. Little wonder that the airplane is such a popular instrument platform.

At 7,500 feet msl and using full throttle (21 inches of manifold pressure) and 2,300 rpm (66-percent power), the airplane cruises at 156 mph. A nice feature found on early model 182s is the trimmable horizontal stabilizer that reduces trim drag. Later models incorporated a conventional trim tab. After parking in front of Casalegno’s hangar at the Glacier Park International Airport, I almost twisted my ankle getting out. I had forgotten how high the original 182 sits because it has the same long and spindly main landing-gear legs as the Cessna 180. Subsequent models of the 182 had much shorter legs (including a shorter nosewheel strut). This made it much easier to climb in and out. It also lowered the center of gravity and made the airplane less susceptible to upset during strong crosswinds.

Cessna built only 843 copies of the original 182 before introducing the 182A in 1957. Every subsequent model saw the airplane evolving and improving. Some 182s were eventually produced with turbochargers and retractable landing gear.Almost 22,000 Cessna 182s had left the Wichita factory when production came to an end after 30 years with the Cessna 182R in 1986. It had become the third most popular GA airplane in the world following only its siblings, the Cessna 172 Skyhawk and the Cessna 150/152.

The General Aviation Revitalization Act passed by Congress in 1994 enabled Cessna to resume Skylane production in 1997, and it continues to evolve and improve in ways that were never anticipated when Number 33000 led the way in 1956.

September 8, 2008, was such a day at the Pueblo (Colorado) Memorial Airport with seven-knot winds from the southeast, visibility of 10 miles, and a layer of broken clouds 2,500 feet above the airport when an instructor and student in a Diamond DA20-C1 entered the pattern to land. The tower controller told them to follow a large, four-engine C–130 Hercules and to be cautious of wake turbulence. About a half-mile from the threshold on final approach, the airplane encountered the wake turbulence from the preceding C–130, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report said.

“The airplane began an uncommanded pitch up, rolled left, and then began descending. Full throttle and opposite flight controls were applied. Despite attempts to regain level flight by both the student pilot and the flight instructor, the airplane descended until it collided with terrain.” The crash seriously injured both the instructor and student. The wake turbulence they flew into was one of the invisible tornado-like vortices trailing from the wing tips of the C–130, like those shown in the illustration (at right).

Looking at the illustration helps you to imagine what happens when another airplane, especially one that’s much smaller than the airplane creating the vortices, flies into them. Even an experienced aerobatic pilot could have difficulty recovering if his airplane unexpectedly rolls sharply, as the Diamond in Pueblo did.

Any aircraft that’s producing lift is creating such wing tip vortices. Even the wings of flying birds generate vortices, and large birds such as geese and pelicans take advantage of them when flying in V formations. The trailing birds, which gain lift from the upward-moving side of the vortex from the bird ahead, don’t have to work as hard as the leading bird. When that bird tires it drops back and a trailing bird moves up to take its place.

As all pilots know, to produce lift a wing creates lower air pressure on its top than on the bottom. Nature, however, always tries to equalize air pressures—that’s how winds are created. With a wing, the higher air pressure below the wing pushes air around the end of the wing toward the lower pressure on top. But, by the time any particular air molecule reaches where the top of the wing was, the wing has moved on, and the air is left swirling behind the wing tips.

The resulting vortices sink and weaken, usually lasting only five or so minutes at any particular location. If a light wind is blowing it carries the vortices with it. The turbulence of faster winds breaks up the vortices more quickly than a light wind. If the air is calm the vortices will move out to both sides of a runway when they touch the ground.

For any airplane, the strongest vortices form when both the gear and flaps are up because lowered flaps create localized turbulence that weakens the vortices. This means that wake turbulence is greatest when an airplane is taking off, since the flaps are normally down for landing. Even so, the wake turbulence of a landing airplane can be deadly for an airplane that flies into it.

The rotors of helicopters, of course, also produce wake vortices that sweep around the helicopter, creating a dangerous circle at least three times the diameter of the rotor when the helicopter is hovering and that trail behind the helicopter when it’s moving.

Obviously, the way to avoid wake turbulence is to avoid flying under the flight path of any larger airplane when you are taking off or landing on the same runway as the larger airplane. You also need to be wary of wake turbulence on intersecting runways, or runways with intersecting approach or departure paths. On parallel runways, a crosswind component from the runway being used by a larger airplane can carry a vortex toward your runway. You need to act as you would if the larger airplane were on your runway. If you are landing on the same runway or a downwind parallel runway that a larger airplane has taken off from, you should be firmly on the runway before the larger airplane’s rotation point.

When cleared to take off after a larger departing airplane you should request an upwind turnout as soon as possible after takeoff, since a smaller airplane is not likely to be able to climb as fast as the larger one and you could fly into a vortex if you follow the runway heading. If the controller clears you for immediate takeoff behind a large or heavy aircraft and doesn’t clear you for an immediate upwind turn, tell the controller you’ll take the required three-minute wait before rolling, and wait three minutes. You also need to take off before you reach the larger airplane’s takeoff point.

An airplane doesn’t have to be all that much larger than yours to cause wake turbulence, as a pilot of a Cessna 172 reported to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System. The pilot wrote that he was doing touch and goes on a clear day with five-knot winds when the tower cleared a Cessna Caravan to take off ahead of him. “As I began to climb, at about 400 feet [above the runway] my aircraft entered an uncommanded, approximately 40-degree bank to the right,” he wrote. “I recovered using all flight controls, particularly full left rudder, full left aileron, and lowered nose to reduce angle of attack.”

The pilot wrote that his training had made him aware of the dangers of wake turbulence but the training materials focused on air carrier jets. “I think it would be beneficial to have the training examples depict airplanes with a smaller disparity in size to show that it does not take that much difference in size to cause a wake-turbulence encounter.”

Although wake turbulence creates the greatest danger during takeoffs and landings, it can occur at altitude. Many pilots flying at altitudes above 20,000 feet have reported scary encounters with wake turbulence caused by larger aircraft above them. The key to avoiding the wake turbulence is to visualize what the vortices are doing and avoid them by staying above the flight path of the larger airplane or staying far enough behind the larger airplane to give the vortices time to dissipate.

Under instrument conditions controllers are supposed to keep a “small” airplane (weighing less than 41,000 pounds) at least six miles behind a “heavy” airplane (weighing more than 255,000 pounds), four miles behind a “large” airplane (41,000 to 255,000 pounds), and three miles behind another small airplane.

Flying on a calm day is more fun than on a day when turbulence is bouncing you around. But the next time you fly on a bumpy day enjoy this thought: The bumps that are making you uncomfortable are also tending to weaken wake vortices of larger aircraft. However, even on a bumpy day, you shouldn’t count on turbulence to fully break up wake vortices.

AOPA/Jack Williams, a freelance writer specializing in weather and climate, is an instrument-rated private pilot. The latest of his six books is The AMS Weather Book: The Ultimate Guide to America’s Weather. He answers questions about weather on his Web site.