Not being an aviator of any sorts, I just watched a Cessna C172S airplane fly from Trenton-Mercer Airport in NJ to Washington Warren Airport in Washington NC, via the flightradar24 website. Not knowing anything about that model I looked it up and it turns out to be one of the most successful and long-lived airplane models of all time. A four seater, beautiful classic lines, it reminds me of the Cessna style model kits I built with balsa wood wing struts and stringers, covered with tissue paper and "dope", and flew with rubber band driven propellers when I was a kid.

After he crossed the Pamlico River, he turned right heading W-NW, straightened it out again, then turned NE and landed at Washington Warren Airport. I don't know why but he disappeared from view right before he landed, I guess smaller aircraft aren't tracked all the way to the ground the way passenger aircraft are shown on these free no-pay option flight tracker websites.

I'm guessing the pilot is very skilled to fly all that way in the dark. His altitude was 6100 ft w/ a ground speed of 108 mph for virtually the whole route. What I found interesting was most of his flight was straight as an arrow. When he came out of NJ he flew straight to the coast, and followed it down until he straightened it out and flew a straight line into NC, made a slight change of direction once or twice, but everything in between those slight turns were perfectly straight lines of travel.

I just watched him, wondering what he was thinking, if he had any passengers, and the purpose of his flight. If I had to guess, my impression was he was just loving life flying his plane for the heck of it. Maybe he just got sick of NJ, or maybe he loves NJ and wanted to see how the natives get along in NC.

2007 CESSNA 172 Skyhawk MUSTANG SALLY AVIATION LLC

I couldn't find out about Mustang Sally Aviation LLC, but I'm guessing they're not flying passengers around in this small aircraft, so my guess is he is the owner or maybe he rented it. I hope he enjoyed the hell out of that flight. If he's not a military aviator or a commercial airline pilot by trade, I imagine that flight will be another great memory. Or if he is, maybe it will still be a great memory, since it seems all flying is great flying, and when conditions get bad, it's another great memory of pilot working with mother nature to conquer the skies. I flew as a passenger once in a very small old-as-dirt 3-seater plane with the wings underneath the fuselage, and I'll never forget it. The pilot was a Navy Aviator, and we rented the plane, and he was enjoying himself flying that beautiful old plane, even after a full career flying the venerable US Navy Grumman A6 Intruder.

Aviation is amazing. God bless all good pilots everywhere. And especially all the pilots and aviators of all types on the great Sigforum.

My hat is off to you guys.

The reason his tracking stopped on approach is that the nearest ADS-B receiver (which transmits altitude, location, and airspeed from the aircraft) can be miles away from a GA airport. Unlike ones at the bigger commercial airports that are on site (usually).

Hard to get a signal if there’s a mountain or what have you, between the aircraft’s ADS-B antenna and the ground receiver.
We have a “black hole” here at KHTS airport that planes (big and small) stop tracking in on approach to Rwy 30.
I love that this interests you. Keep feeding your interest.

I own a plane, my 3rd one. My 1st was a 1966 Cherokee 140, cost me $10.5k, early 90’s. I was living in MS at the time. Don’t be fooled by the price, ongoing ownership costs are always there.

My longest trip in that plane was to Alaska, from MS. We flew to Fairbanks, down to Talkeetna, Kenai, then visited relatives in MI on the way back, epic trip.

When my kids were young I bought a Piper Warrior, old reliable. We’d fly to visit relatives, longest flight with all was WI to Disney World. I still remember, at the time the 4 of us weighed 555 lbs. weight, performance is very critical with operation of a light aircraft.

I now own a Rockwell Commander aircraft. It looks nice, but really doesn’t do all that much more than my Warrior did.

My main flying partner was my older son, flew with him around a good bit. I think about selling my plane, but always come up with ‘not yet’.

I started in the military, do the 121 thing now. One of my safety tenets is operate with some daylight around the edge of the envelope. With a light aircraft one really NEVER has to be anywhere. It also helps to be a weather junkie.

I do pride myself with a straight line on ADS tracking. I don’t have much of any autopilot, but can go GPS direct anywhere when airspace & weather allow. Just a few days ago I flew to Sawyer airport, near Marquette, MI to pick up my sister. It turns a 6 hour drive into 2 hours of fun.

Back when I flew I logged about 80 hours in a 172.

It was a great airframe to fly.

My favorite flight in the 172 was from Manassas, VA to Tangier Island, MD on a sunny, 40 degree, CAVU winter day. Took her to about 5,000', trimmed her and sans autopilot she basically flew itself to Tangier.

The majority of my hours were in a C150M
Got a couple lessons in an older 172 & really didn't like it.
Old enough, that it felt like flying a 182 with a 150 engine. Quite underpowered.

Never did finish up my PP, got too expensive for a broke college student, and I lost access to my free plane [the above C150], which had 2 rules: Fill it up when you're done, and don't crash it

I trained in a Cherokee 140, got my ticket in a Warrior, and then transitioned to a 172. Liked all of them. I only logged a couple hundred hours before I had to quit, but it was a fun time. I think I still have the manuals for both the 140 and the Warrior.

I've had a few flights in a 172...a family friend who was a flight instructor took me up as a kid in Ohio, and I got to fly over my house on a cheap ride from a local airshow a few years ago.

The best one was a ride I got with a few friends in over the Krkonose mountains in the Czech Republic as a kid. The pilot was really proud of the plane and made a big deal about it being American, probably because I was there (this would have been mid-90s, so I doubt there were many Cessnas over there at that time). I got the front seat and he let me "fly" for a bit, and then after taking back control asked if I wanted to go fast. Of course I said yes, but I wasn't prepared for him to suddenly point the nose at the ground! After pulling out of the dive, he told me "It's a small engine, that's the only way to go fast!" lol.

I always wanted to learn to fly, it just never worked out. I still take advantage of any ride I can get, though!

I used to rent 172s quite a bit. They are nice airplanes, but I don't consider them to actually be 4 place at some of our hot high fields in Arizona. There have been some ugly incidents. I much preferred the 182. We ended up buying a Beech Musketeer; not exactly a hot rod but OK for our purposes. I flew enough to get my commercial, multi engine and instrument ratings. Getting the instrument rating convinced me there was not any place I really needed to go in actual IMC. Never made any those really long trips, but my wife and I still miss flying.

quote:

Originally posted by rock185:
I used to rent 172s quite a bit. They are nice airplanes, but I don't consider them to actually be 4 place at some of our hot high fields in Arizona. There have been some ugly incidents. I much preferred the 182. We ended up buying a Beech Musketeer; not exactly a hot rod but OK for our purposes. I flew enough to get my commercial, multi engine and instrument ratings. Getting the instrument rating convinced me there was not any place I really needed to go in actual IMC. Never made any those really long trips, but my wife and I still miss flying.

I've never flown a small aircraft that could be flown with a butt in every seat and full fuel, and forget any baggage. I think all the common trainer class aircraft suffer from that affliction.

I may be in the minority, but I preferred the 150 to the 172. I liked better the visibility when taxiing, and it was cheaper to rent. I stopped flying when we started having kids, but I did get my private.

My dad was Army Aviation (not a pilot) so I grew up around airfields and pilots. Worked at the Atlanta airport for several years, love aviation.

To the OP, something that really scratches that itch for me is Microsoft Flight Simulator, it has gotten so realistic and really teaches you a lot about what it is like to fly.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I always wanted to learn to fly, it just never worked out.

It is not too late. All it takes is time, money, and desire.

quote:

I still take advantage of any ride I can get, though!

This is definitely the more cost effective way to do it!

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:
I've never flown a small aircraft that could be flown with a butt in every seat and full fuel, and forget any baggage. I think all the common trainer class aircraft suffer from that affliction.

The 172 is a great three seat airplane that just happens to have four seats.

The Travel Air is no problem with full fuel, all four seats full, and a moderate amount of baggage, but only as a flat-lander airplane, not a high and hot machine. Before removing the optional fifth and sixth seats, we even did a trip up to Oregon with two other couples, but the legroom was abysmal in the fifth and sixth seats and there were places where it would have been ugly had an engine decided to take a powder.

Whatever you do and wherever you go, just don’t ask the airplane to do more than it can do.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:


I've never flown a small aircraft that could be flown with a butt in every seat and full fuel, and forget any baggage. I think all the common trainer class aircraft suffer from that affliction.

With full tanks (80 gallons) and my lard-ass in the pilot seat, the V-Tail could take another 550 pounds of people (three seats available in addition to me) and luggage.

Unless I needed the range, I usually just filled the tanks to the bottom of the tabs, for 60 gallons on board instead of 80. That gave me another 120 pounds to play with, for a total of 670 pounds, for up to three people and luggage compartment stuff.

In general, the location of the weight was more of a problem than the actual weight. 33 and 35 series Bonanzas are pretty sensitive to aft CG loading, so it was important to keep the heavy stuff as far forward as practical.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:
I've never flown a small aircraft that could be flown with a butt in every seat and full fuel, and forget any baggage. I think all the common trainer class aircraft suffer from that affliction.

The C177 Cardinal owned by the same owner of the above C150 carried 4 of us & light baggage from 45R near Beaumont to Oxford, MS without issue.
The 172 I flew, I'd agree as a 3 seater.

Had a few 182 rides & it handled 4-up much better.

Flew both 152's and 172's years ago. The 172 was better for cross country training, but the 152 was actually more fun to fly.

I miss it. A lot.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Flew both 152's and 172's years ago. The 172 was better for cross country training, but the 152 was actually more fun to fly.

I miss it. A lot.

I'll agree with this. Most fun I've ever had was an acrobatic lesson in a 152 Aerobat. Absolute blast & the instructor did her best to black me out [and nearly succeeded in a 4.7g (per the G-meter in the dash) loop]

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
In general, the location of the weight was more of a problem than the actual weight. 33 and 35 series Bonanzas are pretty sensitive to aft CG loading, so it was important to keep the heavy stuff as far forward as practical.

Excellent point. This is also true of the 55 & 56 Barons and the Travel Air. The 36 Bonanzas and 58 Barons are less CG challenged.

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Flew both 152's and 172's years ago. The 172 was better for cross country training, but the 152 was actually more fun to fly.

I miss it. A lot.

I'll agree with this. Most fun I've ever had was an acrobatic lesson in a 152 Aerobat. Absolute blast & the instructor did her best to black me out [and nearly succeeded in a 4.7g (per the G-meter in the dash) loop]

That wasn’t Amelia Reid out of Reid-Hillview airport in San Jose was it? I never had the pleasure of flying with her but heard from multiple folks that she was a pistol!

I don’t disagree with either one of you on 150/152 over 172, but I’d take my first airplane, the Mighty Cessna 140 complete with postage stamp flaps and awesome speedbrakes/alternate rudders (doors) over either one of them. Better for cross country too, at least as long as you goal was building time.

Cessna 172 is the aviation equvilant of an '82 Oldsmobile Cutlass. Solid machine, doesn't do anything poorly, just doesn't do anything particularly well.
I got my private in one, '97, Kona Hi. Good plane to learn on, or a good flat land family day tripper.
A friend let me land his J-3 Cub and I never looked back. Tailwheels forever!

OZ