
Why the Cessna is such a badass plane (2019) - vinnyglennon
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a29417998/cessna-badass-plane/
======
base698
I think of planes as having a CAP Theorem like trade off between speed,
safety, utility (can I take a family of 6), and price. A used 172 is pretty
safe but greatly lacks in other categories. A Lancair 4P optimizes for speed,
but greatly sacrifices safety. a Pilatus maximizes all but price, yet it costs
$3 million. Bonanzas are pretty good on speed, and utility but a bit more
expensive than most piston singles, decent used ones cost $350k+.

I own a Mooney, which burns 10 GPH and does 160kts. Fits two people just fine
and three if you sacrifice fuel. A good trade off over all. Definitely think
the 172 is the least badass plane with almost no upsides other than being a
good trainer.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12)

~~~
jokoon
What drives unit costs of those aircrafts? Low quantities built?

I would guess safety standards are much higher too, but I generally don't
understand why they're so expensive.

I guess the piston engines are very different from the ones you find in cars.

~~~
restalis
Regulations, it seems. Here's an article that provides some clues:
[https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-
certi...](https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-
certification/)

As I understand it, the most lenient certification to allow someone to sell
planes to masses in USA is the (special) Primary Category¹, for the General
Aviation, which Cessna's two-seat 152 model seems to be in. Cessna's four-seat
model 172, however, is on another category, the so-called "Utility Aircraft",
which required the more costly Standard Certification². With a broader
(legally permitted) use, it's kind of natural to expect an appropriate price
difference.

¹
[https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...](https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/primary/)

²
[https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...](https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/std_awcert/)

------
AdrianB1
(pilot here) Cessna was a badass plane 50 years ago, but it is no longer; for
the past 20 years is is lagging a lot behind in terms of weight, engine power
and fuel consumption. I have very little time on 152 and 172, definitely not
an expert, but from the ~ 10 plane models I flied as pilot the Cessnas were at
the bottom 3. For 2 seaters an 152 is twice as heavy as the other planes, the
engine is obsolete giving low power with high fuel consumption, practically
for a 2-seater Rotax 912 powered LSA's are better from any point of view:
lighter, faster, cheaper to buy and operate, have shorter take of and landing
(better power to weight ratio), fly longer (better mileage) and nicer to fly
(fast and agile).

For the 172 there is no much competition and that is a very bad thing; this is
the only reason the 172 is so popular. When a two-seater can be bought for
less than $100k new, a 4-seater is crazy expensive for no particular reason.

A legend among the pilots and plane owners is that for every plane sold Cessna
was covering the manufacturing cost with half of the money and litigation with
the other half. I read that in a couple of magazines too, it is hard to
confirm if it is entirely true but there is something there. Also the biggest
recent fail of Cessna, the 162, was built in China and still extremely
expensive - almost double the price of a similar plane built in Europe (Comco
Ikarus and Flight Design in Germany, Pipistrel in Slovenia or Evektor in Czech
Republic).

Overall, Cessna is the Harley Davidson of the aviation world: the company that
is going on inertia building obsolete products based on a brand image built
decades ago.

~~~
mikorym
> Overall, Cessna is the Harley Davidson of the aviation world

Not in terms of safety. I mentioned below somewhere that the main feature of a
Cessna 182 is probably the very slow stalling speed. Cost of operation and
cost ratio of the engine is maybe where your argument is true.

~~~
AdrianB1
Safety in aviation is a different story, I never said Cessna has planes that
are not safe. In this class all the planes have very low stall speed, Cessna
is not better than others. If you compare with much faster planes (cruise and
top speed), they also have higher stall speeds, they tend to go together.

------
lisper
Ironically, the main thing that makes Cessnas such badass planes (at least
piston Cessnas -- the company makes jets too) is that they are not badass at
all. They are docile and forgiving and practical and reliable and easy to fly.
They are the Toyota Camrys of airplanes.

~~~
duxup
That forgiving / lack of speed thing seems critical.

I read crash reports from time to time. Pilot without a lot of experience in
faster planes trades up for a faster plane and can't keep up with the
situation happens time and again.

It seems like there is a sort of multi level system of pilots out there and
the slower and forgiving planes keep a lot of folks safe who otherwise might
be in trouble in something faster.

~~~
bronco21016
Faster planes just require far more experience. Typically owner/operators
simply do not fly enough to gain that critical mass of experience.

Additionally, the fastest of aircraft, jets, typically operate with 2 crew
members so the odds of a critical mistake from both pilots falling behind at
the same time is drastically reduced.

~~~
pageandrew
There's an emerging market for fast (300kt), turbofan powered, "relatively
inexpensive"(still $2m+) light/very light jets. For example, Cirrus SF50
(Vision Jet) and HondaJet. There are also some larger business jets in the
Cessna Citation and Embraer Phenom line that can be used for single pilot ops.

So, there's definitely an opportunity for wealthy, owner-operator pilots to
fly fast aircraft that might be too much airplane for them. Turbofan aircraft
do require an additional type rating (i.e. more training/qualification). Type
ratings however do not expire, so one could find themselves in a situation
where they're legally allowed to fly but not proficient enough to do so
safely.

~~~
sokoloff
Turbojet aircraft require an annual proficiency training event that’s quite
similar in scope to a check ride.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.58](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.58)

So, while it’s technically true that the type rating does not expire, you
still need annual training and certification.

~~~
Dahoon
Not all pilots are flying from the US.

~~~
sokoloff
True, however the vast majority of the world is at least as strict as the US.

------
pseudolus
The "Hacienda" referenced in the article is on display (suspended from the
ceiling) at McCarran Airport in Las Vegas. [0]. It's amazing how many people
walk by it everyday without any awareness as to its history.

[0] [https://news3lv.com/features/video-vault/video-vault-
plane-i...](https://news3lv.com/features/video-vault/video-vault-plane-in-
record-breaking-flight-remains-at-mccarran-as-a-piece-of-history)

~~~
wahern
You buried the lede!

"[I]t set a record for a non-stop endurance flight which has not been broken
since. ... They'd drop down a rope, pull up a hose from this truck and just
put it in the gas tank. ... The flight lasted 64 days, 22 hours, and 19
minutes."

That's amazing. Thanks for sharing!

EDIT: Some photographs and film of the refueling are shown in this video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UWZhc4Bj10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UWZhc4Bj10)

~~~
bronco21016
People are losing it over being quarantined to an apartment for 2 months.
These guys lived in a freakin’ Cessna for 2 months and had to constantly tend
to the aircraft to stay afloat. Just kinda cool to put it in perspective how
challenging that must have been.

Fun note. 64 days is roughly 1,500 hours which is more than 3/4 of the TBO on
the Continental O-300 used on this 172. TBO is Time Before Overhaul. They flew
over 3/4s of the life out of that engine in one flight. Incredible!

~~~
jeffreyrogers
I believe they also fell asleep a couple of times and the aircraft just kept
on flying straight and level until they woke up.

------
4cao
The article is an interesting read as far as the history of the plane and
various anecdotes about it are concerned but it doesn't really say why it's
still so "badass" nowadays, after 60+ years: is it primarily (1) popular
because it's so good (technologically superior, perfectly fit for purpose), or
(2) good because it's so popular (i.e. attained a critical mass of people
familiar with it)?

Then, as it turns out, this is actually a series of articles on different
planes, and Cessna 172 is only #21 out of 25 in their "badass" ranking:
[https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/g28612977...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/g28612977/badass-
planes-ranked/?slide=5)

The ranking includes all kinds of planes lumped together, some of which are
obviously listed because of their technological ingenuity (SR-71 or the
Concorde), while others were "workhorses" that outlived the original
expectations towards them (like the C-130 and DC-3). Which of the two
categories does the Cessna 172 belong to?

~~~
rootusrootus
Seems like the 172/182 planes would fall under the 'workhorse' category. Still
being produced new 60 years later without being phased out for something newer
is a pretty impressive testament to the design.

~~~
bitwize
It's almost as if they are the quintessential airplanes. Not in terms of
performance, but like, if you want to show aliens how to make fixed-wing,
heavier-than-air aircraft and you want to give them a "reference
implementation" that illustrates the basic principles, you give them a Cessna
172/182\. Easy to fly and to maintain, comprehensible by a technician without
the specialized knowledge demanded by high-performance jets and stuff.

------
briandear
I have a Cessna T206 and it’s by far (in my opinion,) the most versatile
piston single in existence.

It’s pretty hard to stall.. I can get as slow as 40 knots indicated before it
fully stalls. I can fly super slow approaches if needed or come in fast. I can
take off in 715 feet, land in 675. Fly legally 27,000 feet; It has onboard
oxygen. Cruise at 18.5 gallons per hour at 150kts+ true airspeed and it can
hold 117 gallons of gas and has a 3800 pound gross, 6 removable seats, and
about a 1300 pound useful load. With WAAS, Active Traffic, XM weather,
Synthetic Vision, Terrain Awareness — it’s like flying a mini-airliner. And
hundreds of thousands cheaper than a Cirrus SR22T.

The only thing I wish I had was a FIKI system, but that’s about an $80k
retrofit and kills some of the useful load.

Cessna is one of the greatest aircraft manufacturers around. Cool thing about
the 206 is that transitioning from the 172 is pretty simple. Similar flight
characteristics, just a lot more inertia to manage. I’ve flown the Cirrus and
it’s a great airplane, but a lot less forgiving a slow speeds and it can’t
carry a 55 gallon drum like the 206. I also wouldn’t want to land a Cirrus on
anything remotely backcountry.

As far as trainers, the 172 is hard to beat, with a Diamond DA-40 coming in a
close second. I know a lot of Piper folks might disagree, but the 172 is
probably the best training aircraft out there, and with the Garmin G1000,
training in a 172 is great experience for flying more advanced stuff later.
(Honorable mention to the 150/152, but on a hot day with full fuel, it can be
a struggle.)

~~~
dver
The 206 is great load hauling beast, not had the chance to fly one myself.
Plenty of time in the 172 and 182, had a 172 for awhile.

Mostly agree about the DA-40, but I'd actually put it ahead of the current
172. It's a bit faster, great vis, and super sweet to fly.

~~~
briandear
I can agree — the Diamonds, especially the ones using Jet A are amazingly
efficient and safe. They also work well (enough) in the mountains.

~~~
dver
Glider roots of the airframe.

Your correct on the Mts, always nice to have a turbo for the big rocks here in
CA.

------
chrischattin
While Cessnas have a great history and have trained the majority of pilots out
there today, badass is hardly the word I'd use to describe them.

I was lucky enough to have over a thousand hours before I flew a Cessna for
the first time and I remember being shocked at how terrible it flew. They are
overpriced for what they are, handle like crap, have terrible visibility, and
are slow and inefficient.

It's sad that overregulation and the cost prohibitive certification process
has essentially locked innovation in GA back at 60's technology.

The EAA world is where the good stuff is happening today.

~~~
elcomet
> GA, EAA

Could you try using words instead of those? It makes comment hard to read for
people unfamiliar with the subject, which is a shame because it looks
interesting

~~~
Denvercoder9
General Aviation, Experimental Aircraft Association

~~~
elcomet
Thanks.

------
stormdennis
Recently heard the boss of Ryanair saying that he'd never travel by
helicopter, it's not safe enough. How safe is travel in a light airplane
compared to a commercial airliner, I wonder? Helicopters and light aircraft vs
Boeing/Airbus seem like motorcycles vs car to my safety first mind.

~~~
TylerE
Fatal accidents per 100,000 hours:

GA: ~1.0

All helicopters: ~0.7

Commercial fixed wing: 0.05

(And the accidents that do occur on commercial flights are mostly small cargo
planes... for major airlines that number would be more like 0.01 although it's
hard to really get good numbers at that point because the numerator is so
small... there are years when the US doesn't have a single fatal commercial
passenger crash)

~~~
DrScump

      All helicopters: ~0.7
    

And how many of _those_ were from equipment failure, rather than pilot error?
The famous helicopter crashes that come to mind (e.g. Kobe, Bill Graham) were
not from mechanical failure.

~~~
travisjungroth
Why does it matter? Doesn't really make a difference why it happened if you're
in the back.

~~~
DrScump
It matters with respect to the parent comment quote about helicopter travel
_itself_ being unsafe, while statistics show it's safer than fixed wing GA.

~~~
TylerE
That's a low bar. The vast majority of helicopter operations are commercial
(They're EXPENSIVE, so pleasure helicopters...don't really exist), and the
accident rate is far far worse than commerical fixed wing... 20x or more.

------
flexie
Mathias Rust was German, not a "Finnish teenager".

------
songshuu
Not even a nod to Piper in the whole article... scandalous!

I've trained in both a Cessna and a Piper Supercub, both were great.

The Supercub felt dodgy with just a single stick, but it was also felt agile
and like I was actually participating in flying. The Cessna felt like driving
a station wagon in the sky. Rock solid and reliable.

Both are great, honestly just surprised at how the author dodged talking about
one of the Big 3.

~~~
tobmlt
I trained mostly in a (piper) warrior. Loved that pokey little bird.

Much cooler getting around in a super cub.

One day I’ll get a Bellanca.... one day!

------
godelski
While they make a lot of great points in the article I think there is one that
is missed. The 172 is CHEAP! You can pick up a Skyhawk for under $30k. That's
a big part of why they are the training vehicle of choice (in addition to the
other points they make). This makes it the Model-T of aircraft. It really is
the plane for the masses.

~~~
redis_mlc
> The 172 is CHEAP! You can pick up a Skyhawk for under $30k.

Maybe 20 years ago.

A new one is $300k now, and pretty good used ones with steam gauges are $60k.
A 2000-hour engine overhaul is $20k to $25k and outside tie-downs in the Bay
Area are $500+/month.

San Jose Reid-Hillview is being closed, so keep that in mind.

~~~
DrScump

      San Jose Reid-Hillview is being closed,
    

Not for another decade at the earliest. I suspect that the next departure of
one of the 3 pro-closure Supervisors will flip the 2031 strategy, too.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid-
Hillview_Airport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid-Hillview_Airport)

~~~
redis_mlc
We'll see, but NIMBYs have made a concerted effort for decades, and it looks
like they finally figured out an argument that will work.

The only way the closure will be stopped is if the State says it's needed for
San Jose-area earthquake relief, which it is, and a politician realizes
another one cannot be built later in a dense urban area.

(SFO, SJC and OAK operate as one airspace in the Bay Area.

SFO has limited capacity during fog because the runways were built too close
together for simultaneous IFR operations. So RHV is pretty handy to keep in
operation, unless, of course, you want to develop a new subdivision in the
Evergreen area of San Jose.)

~~~
DrScump
Santa Clara county already took federal funding for commitments to 2031 (and
spent all that long ago). No way can they afford to reimburse that.

------
billme
Fun fact: In the some countries (for example the US) you can fly solo
passenger ultralight helicopters & airplanes with no training or legal
requirements as long as it’s in unregulated airspace. Warning: Doing so likely
end up resulting in serious bodily harm, if not death.

~~~
redis_mlc
> Fun fact: In the some countries (for example the US) you can fly solo
> passenger ultralight helicopters & airplanes with no training or legal
> requirements as long as it’s in unregulated airspace. Warning: Doing so
> likely end up resulting in serious bodily harm, if not death.

To use an IT analogy, those are MVPs - minimally-viable aircraft.

Most ultralights don't have closed wings, so there's no structure as the
public would understand it. So spend $20,000 and get the best ultralight
available if you go this route. I wouldn't take friends or family up in an
ultralight since they can't evaluate the risks.

Beyond that, LSA aircraft only require a drivers licence, and look like real
airplanes. But no night or IFR operations are allowed. These were supposed to
be cheap, but are priced like real airplanes since buyers demand glass panels,
etc.

~~~
04rob
You only need a driver's license to meet the medical requirements, but in the
US you still need a sport pilot's license to fly light sport, which is most of
a "full" private pilot's license.

~~~
travisjungroth
You wouldn’t believe the amount of times I had to explain stuff like this to
guys who thought the Sport Pilot Certificate would be a breeze.

It’s like 90% of the flight training content of the Private. For some reason,
the FAA thought it would also be good to drop the minimum time from 40 hours
to 20 hours when they made Sport Pilot. This especially makes no sense because
almost no one finishes the Private in 40.

So AOPA, EAA and the LSA manufacturers get old guys hyped on getting a pilot’s
license with only 20 hours in the cockpit plus 0 time in the doctor’s office,
and they walk into my flight school. Then we have to a conversation about
realistic training expectations and how if there’s “no way in hell” you’d get
a medical, maybe we should consider if being pilot-in-command of an airplane
is really for you.

~~~
redis_mlc
> if there’s “no way in hell” you’d get a medical, maybe we should consider if
> being pilot-in-command of an airplane

The FAA medical exam was expanded to evaluate people for neck size/apnea. So
for most overweight Americans, seeking a PPL or Sport, they're better off
going LSA to avoid paying for a sleep study and risking a medical rejection,
which will cause life-long FAA problems.

I would suggest that instructors should figure out if a student confuses
flying an airplane with operating a boat. One is pure work, and the other is
perceived as pure relaxation.

(Boating used to be equated with drinking beer, but I think it's illegal to
operate a boat now while drinking, after some horrific accidents.)

~~~
travisjungroth
I didn’t know about the neck and weight thing. This was almost 10 years ago
though. The guys I talked to usually already had heart problems or were at
high risk.

~~~
redis_mlc
Looks like the FAA got concerned around 2013 and started getting official in
2015. The AME is supposed to do a mandatory BMI calculation, look at a table,
record the result, and decide if you need "special processing."

So you (or your students) could check their BMI and get in shape before the
exam, or just go the LSA route.

faa.gov: Decision Considerations Disease Protocols Obstructive Sleep Apnea
(OSA)

[https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/av...](https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/dec_cons/disease_prot/osa/)

Somebody's personal story:

[https://insidethecockpit.com/airline-pilots-with-sleep-
apnea](https://insidethecockpit.com/airline-pilots-with-sleep-apnea)

------
leetrout
Related the 408 just had its test flight!

[https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2020/05/first-cessna-
skycourie...](https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2020/05/first-cessna-skycourier-
twin-utility-turboprop-takes-flight?sc_camp=sc-promo-first-flight)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_408_SkyCourier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_408_SkyCourier)

~~~
sitkack
Great price! Not as pretty as the Dornier or Twin Otter, but it will do.

------
progre
I'm not shopping for an airplane and probably never will, but this category of
gear is exactly what I look for whenever I buy other stuff. Uremarkable stuff
with looong production runs, preferably several decades. Keywords I look for:
"workhorse", "rugged", "most sold". It's almost never the _best_ gear that
falls into this category, but the $/utility is often fantastic.

~~~
yuribro
So a Corolla or an F-150?

~~~
progre
I own a Corolla, yes. Edit: I also listed my other car but realised that I
probably doxed myself by giving out that combination.

------
_ph_
It is interesting to see how the 50ies and 60ies were a time, where a lot of
aircraft were designed, which are still flying to day, including the 747. The
technology had become just good enough to come up with long-lasting designs.

One major role though has the fact, that airplane development is quite costy,
especially certification of new aircrafts and their components. That is why
most engines lag quite far behind automotive designs.

There might be an interesting time coming up though, as aviation is looking
into eletrification. There are already some electric airplanes available, and
this is going to stir up the industry a lot. This usually means completely new
designed aircraft, so companies can start with a clean sheat. Also, the
expensive maintenance of the engines is radically reduced.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
The batteries are still too heavy for electric to make sense in my opinion.

------
myrandomcomment
I learned on a Piper. My friend learned on a Cessna. When he received his
license went went for the traditional $100 hamburger (he rents a plane and
flys us someplace for lunch). He rented a Piper. It was a very hot year. It
was over 100F out on a concrete runway. On his 3rd landing pass I said "your
wings are on the bottom" at which point he was able to land perfectly. Anyone
here guess why?

~~~
RobRivera
Ground effect and hot air means he wasn't giving the downward force, also
cessnas are top winged. Different landing ux

------
mikorym
IMO the main feature of the Cessna 182 is its very slow stalling speed. If you
think about it, the stalling speed is the one thing that you can use to make a
really tiny plane safer than a large plane that may have two or more engines.

There isn't really a risk of flying into a traffic light post, where the
opposite is true: Heavy cars are safer, as your momentum will carry you in a
crash and extend contact time.

~~~
mikorym
> Cessna has no timeline for the JT-A and the diesel 172. [1]

This is quite interesting, as I have flown in a diesel trial Cessna 182. They
paid people some nominal amount to test their diesel engine, and there were
several failures (though not fatal as far as I know). That plane was sold
eventually, but it seems like overall the trial was a failure. I am not aware
of technical reasons that should in theory stop a jet or diesel engine. I can
only share the anecdote of small recurrent problems.

And yes, it's loud! That's true; as is the fact that the attendant at the
airport will refuse to put jet fuel in your 182 until you start it or
otherwise convince them that you are not mistaken.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182_Skylane#Development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182_Skylane#Development)

------
thrower123
Isn't it almost impossible to get any significant innovations in private
general aviation these days due to FAA regulations?

~~~
nopzor
regulation is certainly part of it, but i think it's more of a demand thing;
ga is kind of dying.

i was hopeful for the lsa program, but other than some bright spots it hasn't
spurred the ga innovation revolution that its proponents thought it would.

the faa missing the mark with basicmed also didn't help.

~~~
ryandrake
I thought it was lawsuits that killed certified GA innovation back from about
the mid-80s to the mid-90s. As lutorm wrote in the other reply, E-AB kind of
took over in the area of modern innovation.

------
nimbius
good article, minus the 'soviet embarrassment' part. It might have gotten a
few politicians sacked, but it was absolutely the right thing to do and
nothing to be ashamed of. There was no loss of life. After determining this
was a slow moving commuter aircraft, Mathias Rust had a combat number assigned
to him, and SAM tracking for the majority of his 3 hour flight into red
square. Compared to Cuba, which _routinely_ used to blow cessnas out of the
air with callous precision, the Soviet Union is pretty disciplined.

Had this been the United States anytime after 9/11, this Cessna would have
been strewn over a cornfield somewhere and the pilot condemned as a terrorist.
Our police officers routinely execute entire cars full of people for no other
reason besides jewelery theft or speeding.

~~~
trhway
>the Soviet Union is pretty disciplined

no. That case did very impressively demonstrate complete rottenness and
impotence of the System. There is nothing to eat, no goods to buy, etc... yet
at least the mighty military protects the country. And here that big Opppsss!
The King wasn't just naked, his guns had completely rusted (didn't intend, yet
the pun just naturally came about). The mighty military happened to be at
about the same state as the rest of the country. The Berlin Wall fell 5 month
late together with the others
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989).

> After determining this was a slow moving commuter aircraft, Mathias Rust had
> a combat number assigned to him, and SAM tracking for the majority of his 3
> hour flight into red square.

that tracking number was mistakenly assigned to different objects in the sky
when transferred between air defense zones. Had they decided to blow it off
the sky, it could have been something else entirely, not Rust.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust#Flight_profile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust#Flight_profile)

"Air defence re-established contact with Rust's plane several times but
confusion followed all of these events. The PVO system had shortly before been
divided into several districts, which simplified management but created
additional overhead for tracking officers at the districts' borders. The local
air regiment near Pskov was on maneuvers and, due to inexperienced pilots'
tendency to forget correct IFF designator settings, local control officers
assigned all traffic in the area friendly status, including Rust.[1]

Near Torzhok there was a similar situation, as increased air traffic was
created by a rescue effort for an air crash the previous day. Rust, flying a
slow propeller-driven aircraft, was confused with one of the helicopters
taking part in the rescue. He was spotted several more times and given false
friendly recognition twice. Rust was considered as a domestic training plane
defying regulations, and was issued least priority.[1] "

------
RickJWagner
I made my first (and one of just a few) parachute jumps out of a Cessna.
Looking back, the plane seemed tiny. I think we had 2 or 3 jumpers, a jump-
master and a pilot crammed in there.

Exhilarating.

~~~
JoeDaDude
We would routinely pack 5 jumpers + pilot in the slightly larger Cessna 182.
Except for the pilot, all seats had been removed.

------
fmakunbound
I guess it’s how you define “badass”. I flew 172 for a while. I may as well
had driven a large, slow truck. There has been no innovation at Cessna in at
least 50 years.

------
xbeta
Engineering is always an interesting space that simplistic, lean, great
documentation, easily replaceable components and simple UX win.

This sounds like the book The Toyota Way describe.

------
ngcc_hk
Anyway can’t do a real day trip like the f35 pilot but still spend quite a lot
time to fly in x11. Quite good in surfing and looking around. Wait for Xbox
and Microsoft simulator.

------
Bud
Looks fun, but, extremely paywalled.

~~~
LeoPanthera
[https://archive.is/1uFwR](https://archive.is/1uFwR)

------
harrylepotter
$('p.body-text').css('filter','none');

~~~
CPLX
Or just Command-Shift-R

