A Cessna quick one

[fletchersteel]

Curiosity is killing me! Anybody know what the significane is of the different cessna models, ie... C172, C152, etc...?

[ppragman]

Originally Posted by fletchersteel

Curiosity is killing me! Anybody know what the significane is of the different cessna models, ie... C172, C152, etc...?

You mean in the naming? Like why a 152 is smaller than a 172 is smaller than a 182 etc.? Or why Skyhawk, skylark, skywagon, stationair etc?

[fletchersteel]

Yeah, it's the numbers. I thought that maybe it was co-related to something like the area of the wing or cabin size. Just a friendly discussion we are having late at night.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by fletchersteel

Curiosity is killing me! Anybody know what the significane is of the different cessna models, ie... C172, C152, etc...?

I read the book "Cessna, Wings for the World", written by their former head of engineering. He discusses the development of pretty much every airplane that Cessna built and he never hinted there was any other reason behind the naming, other than positioning the aircraft models within the product line.

[KC Jake]

I had always heard that it was the square footage of the wing. I could be wrong though, stranger things have occurred.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by KC Jake

I had always heard that it was the square footage of the wing. I could be wrong though, stranger things have occurred.

Numbers are in the vague ballpark.

C152 = 159.5 sq feet
C172 = 174 sq feet
C182 = 174 sq feet

For the C120/140, don't know the square footage, but the book says it's the same airplane, one without flaps, so the wing area would be the same.

Perhaps the original naming trend had its origin as the square footage, but it since became just a marketing thing, since they haven't followed the pattern very closely.

[fo4ever]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Numbers are in the vague ballpark.

C152 = 159.5 sq feet
C172 = 174 sq feet
C182 = 174 sq feet

For the C120/140, don't know the square footage, but the book says it's the same airplane, one without flaps, so the wing area would be the same.

Perhaps the original naming trend had its origin as the square footage, but it since became just a marketing thing, since they haven't followed the pattern very closely.

Which has a Lycoming! a Continental???

Quick!

I have no idea regarding the logic of the model numbers.

I've flown a "pull-start" 150, though.

[SteveC]

<self-deleted colorful commentary; assuming wrong kind of "Cessna quickie"...>

[fletchersteel]

Thanks guys! It looks like we'll have to go with the sq ft idea for now, coupled with thought of cessna continuing with their tradition. I stumbled on the title, my apologies! It is better this way.

[NJA_Capt]

It's nothing mysterious and nothing like the "meaning" in Piper aircraft numbers. Cessna merely broke them out as "series." Alphabet lettering increases with each new (updated) version. "A" is not the first version. For example: the C170....There are 170/170A/170B variants.

100 series - basic 2/4 seats
200 series - more complex/more seats
300 series - twin engines
400 series - "wide" cabin twin engine
500 series - jet

[butt]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

It's nothing mysterious and nothing like the "meaning" in Piper aircraft numbers. Cessna merely broke them out as "series." Alphabet lettering increases with each new (updated) version. "A" is not the first version. For example: the C170....There are 170/170A/170B variants.

100 series - basic 2/4 seats
200 series - more complex/more seats
300 series - twin engines
400 series - "wide" cabin twin engine
500 series - jet

600 series - large jet
700 series - super fast jet

also, if it ends in a zero, its a tailwheel with the exception of the C-150. When they bought Columbia, they messed their numbering system all up with the C-400 and C-350