The Evolution of the Cessna 172

FLYING Staff

Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 07:30 PM ET

Verified

The Cessna 172 has had a rich and innovative history. [Courtesy: Textron Aviation]

Key Takeaways:

The Cessna 172 debuted in 1956, evolving from the 170 taildragger with its defining Land-O-Matic tricycle gear and an initial straight vertical stabilizer, later incorporating a swept tail and improved instrument panel ergonomics by the early 1960s.
Significant airframe and engine upgrades included the introduction of the Omni-Vision rear window in 1963 and a switch from the original Continental O-300 engine to various Lycoming O-320 and O-360 powerplants starting in 1968.
After a 10-year production halt, the 172 resumed manufacturing in 1996 with fuel injection and later saw a major avionics overhaul, adopting the all-glass Garmin G1000 suite in 2005, which continues to integrate advanced features like ADS-B and modern autopilots.

See a mistake? Contact us.

The Cessna 172 was based on the Cessna 170 taildragger, and in 1956 the most notable difference between the airplanes was the gear. The tricycle gear that helped make the Cessna 172 an excellent training airplane was named Land-O-Matic by the marketing department. Cessna’s idea to change the gear configuration most likely came from the popular tricycle gear STC for the 172 developed by Met-Co-Air in Fullerton, California. Another distinguishing feature that sets the early 172 apart from the 170 is the straight, finlike vertical stabilizer. The 1956 version of the 172 came out of the factory with a price tag of $8,295.

This 1969 IFR panel is remarkably capable, with ILS, ADF, and an autopilot, the roll-only Cessna brand Navomatic 300. Note the electric flaps. Early models had manual flaps, actuated by a big Johnson bar located between the seats. [*FLYING* Archives]

The instrument panel’s shape on early 172s was very similar to the Cessna 170’s, but in 1959 the panel shape began to morph into what we’ve become accustomed to in the 172. However, the control wheel placement remained in a higher position in those days, which disturbed the visual access to the instruments. Therefore, the control wheel later moved to a lower position on the panel, which not only improved the visibility to the instruments but also made its position more ergonomic.