It really is though. Despite our disagreements on certain planes named after high altitude clouds N1120A and I are in strong agreement here. Just because Cessna stamped out thousands of these things doesn't make them "good" - had they not been produced we likely wouldn't have such a steep learning curve from a 172 into a real plane, which results in lots of banged up metal. Sure, good instruction can teach discipline, but at the end of the day if you learn to drive manual on a Jeep you're in no position to hop into a Celica/any BMW/really anything else that has any modicum of performance. At some point Cessna built good piston planes, and their twins are solid. But that whole high wing line post 180/185/190/195 is a throw away. They gave up and said "let's make cheap trash to train people on and build slightly less cheap trash to upsell them into after. Hopefully they never fly in any low wing or have a need to fly somewhere that isn't a dirt strip"
But here are some reasons why it's awful. I genuinely abhor the 172 in every possible way, but the more "objective" reasons are here
(1) ridiculous fuel sump options.. some have up to 13 drain points, others you can't actually adequately drain the gascolator without having ridiculous arm length, or just assuming there's no sediment/water and letting the plane pee all over the ground, which in most places is frowned on, and in some actually illegal and will get you yelled at
(2) driving it on the ground is a combination of brakes and bungee steering, it's very annoying to steer. The PA28 goes where your feet point it, and pure differential brake planes ultimately teach good engine power and foot discipline
(3) the trim wheel is in a remarkably stupid and uncomfortable spot, you have to lean forward to roll the wheel, this is (a) uncomfortable and (b) causes a momentary change in CG.. this means you can't ever really get the plane trimmed well. I can fly a PA28 for hours without touching the yoke, just gently adjusting the wheel or using my feet.. same is true in really any other aircraft
(4) no good rudder trim. Some have some knob you have move in detents left and right, but the folks at Cessna actually expect you to bend a piece of aluminum to set the trim.. I'm sorry, what?! The PA28 gives you a great rudder trim, even if it's not aerodynamic it lets you gently "trim away" and consistent foot pressure
(5) the visibility sucks. People always talk about "great visibility!" .. yeah, you can see straight down out the windows to the left and right and that's about it. The view over the nose is awful and you can't actually see straight left, or anywhere more than -15* up to the left or right
(6) it just doesn't feel "happy" in the air, always feels like you're asking it to do something it doesn't really want to
(7) it feels loose when you fly it. Some will call this "forgiving, and a great trainer!" - I call it reclassifying a bug as a "feature" .. it's like giving people a PADI cert without ever putting them in the ocean
(8) no slips with flaps.. really?! This is like when you need to have the ability to slip the most!
(9) the biggest problem.. IT IS JUST TOO DAMN EASY TO FLY.. requiring extensive transition training in really anything else one would transition to.. even a 182 people have trouble with "gee Billy, the nose is much heavier.. be careful!" <- seriously?! Just trim the thing and actually fly it. No wonder people who transition to something else without training end up porpoising and bending metal. In my opinion, the Tiger is the best trainer and should be used for primary.. but people say "it's too squirrely" or "I wouldn't do my instrument on one" <- holy hell
(10) air vents.. this has to be the laziest design.. hard to actually point them where you want, and they fall out
(11) scream the "look at me, I'm a trainer" look
(12) if it snows they sit on their tail
(13) BOTH fuel..
(a) this teaches very poor fuel management and discipline, resulting in threads where people ask "why it is so hard to manage fuel?" - it's not, set up a timer and move a knob from one position to the other..
(b) the tanks never actually drain evenly because of a moronic vent design
(c) if you have an engine failure due to contaminated fuel good luck figuring out which tank has the issue
(d) because that switch never gets used it makes me question the actual mechanical integrity of it
(e) fueling the plane means you never really get a top off, by the time you walk to the other wing some of the fuel has already cross bled. I've never actually seen a Cessna with "full" tanks.. there's always about an inch missing.. UNLESS, you remember to switch the tanks to L or R (f)
(f) you have to fly around with a ladder or do "mount the plane" gymnastics and perform a lascivious show for anyone already inside the aircraft in order to check the fuel tanks, in the meantime you are getting wing grime all over your clothes
(g) if you do manage to run the plane dry and have an engine failure you are screwed. At least with a plane where you switch tanks you (hopefully) have 15-30 minutes of fuel left by switching to another tank.. might give you just enough time to land at the closest airport
--and I have at least two dozen different 172 in my logbook and a few hundred hours in them, it wasn't just one or two "out of rig clapped out trainers" - they are massive piles of steaming hot poo. But, it flies.. so I if there's nothing else available I'll take one up. And, until I was flying the Cirrus, lady friends always preferred them because of the two door thing (which doesn't make sense because the pax has their own door anyway)
Every 172 needs to go the way of a Skycatcher, crushed up and thrown unceremoniously in a dumpster
..sorry, my rant was not directed at you, it's aimed at the awful 172
#triggered
Other benefits include only appreciating what ground effect really is when you finally switch to a low wing; always knowing where the ladder is so you can re-fuel, and (of course) not getting so wet during pre-flight in the rain.
(actually, I'm about 6, maybe on the lankier side?)
