It might look cheesy but for aviation school and commercial use I think they are definitely going in the right direction. It isn't much different than what you would find in a work truck and that is okay.
The landing gear may fall off due to a Tesla technician not installing the bolt or it been substituted for one from the hardware store. Also won’t be certified as certification is anti business
At the price of this aircraft is we shouldn’t be seeing primer in between the cracks of the interior. Come on Cessna I love my 1965, but the quality of the newer versions needs to pick up a bit.
Agree. Honestly not that impressed. Kind of embarrassed for them that they did a promotional video on some USB-C power plugs and Allen head bolts. Most of price is in the glass panel probably. Not much else has changed in the last decade.
Ik im late but having flown it today it honestly looks quite nice. Very sleek and modern. Also very nice for night flying as in front of me and my student it was just black and very appealing to the eye. No strain and no contrast. Thoroughly enjoyed the new interior!
I would like to see the non-flight school version of their new interior. This one is making me not feel too bad about the interior of my 1977 210. Also, the black panel is still out for deliberation. Boeing grey would have been a great choice too.
It struck me, at 3:04, whether having a water bottle or similar in the cup holder would interfere with the leads coming out from the headset and USB charging ports that are co-located. I wonder whether they’ve done usage and ergonomics testing on those. Similarly the upper eyeball air vents seemed from the quick glimpse to be slightly obscured by the sun visor up front. Maybe not, I guess it could just be camera angles. I have to agree with the majority of folks who comment on the it looking a little utilitarian, perhaps a bit ‘cheap’. I don’t think I’d want to spend 500k as an owner operator to get this interior, though I sense they’re still going to sell well to schools/rental operators; it’s definitely skewed toward that demographic, and if so durability and maintenance are going to be the big draws. Just hope it’s tested for high cycle, low-care use. Interesting to see how they dress up the 182 and up to aim more at the Owner Operator.
That cupholder in front of the plugs caught my attention also. While I understand realestate is limited in a small aircraft like this, it seems like a lot of these designers are not pilots and not using the product.
Tryng to compete with Cirrus. The white interior is stunning, but would be a massive pain to keep clean. Avgas, oil and stains from use, pens, markers, lipstick, you name it...good thing i dont need to worry about those problems..
having just flown one for my flight school its much more of a grey interior, not quite white. Could be an issue but we operate more than most flight schools and yet the plane looked great after 200 hours. could change in the future but its certainly not something that needs fixed everyday
i know im quite late but i just got use the aircraft and the cupholder is in center and not blocking any USB ports, so i can safely say this is not an issue
Not that they will be torqued very high, but I really love when aircraft manufacturers use a fastener that is almost a circle, but not quite. Really helps when they strip out… mostly Diamond I’d rather use torx
Fortunately that is a very easy swap to make, at least it would be in other sectors. I'm not in aviation so there is a chance that there is something I don't know about aviation that would make this a problem but I'll be darned if that is true. I definitely support the call for using Torx.
I think the word you’re looking for is utilitarian. I would hope there is an upgraded package that has a more refined look and feel along with the ease of maintenance fr the prices you sell those thing off the line.
Just flew this aircraft today (I work for a top flight school) its quite nice as the pilot, the screws were a bit off putting but i definitely enjoyed the top cubby to put my iPad in. All twist knobs were quite underwhelming. Feeling very non tactile and with a high risk to get stuck. The color of the interior was great for night flying as it was extremely dark and made adjustment to night conditions easier. The seats were much more comfortable and held an extremely upright position helping to improve my sight picture and comfort while on the controls. The bolts were quite off putting from a pilot perspective but I will talk to maintenance soon and see what they think. The extra USB slots was very nice and I'm already enjoying the thought of using them in cross countries with my students. Overall it is definitely an improved design. I can't say if it is worth it from a consumer perspective (I don't think it is) but from a maintenance perspective I could see the ease of work being quite the addition and overall helping ROI. That is my take on the aircraft and I believe Cessna is trending towards a training/large buyer over the everyday consumer
I know im late but that obviously isn't the point, they know there new aircraft aren't purchased by low level consumers but by flight schools. Think of it as an 18 wheeler, you aren't looking for driver cushiness but rather easy upkeep and minor benefits to trainers and trainees. Thats where cessna shines
I think they missed the memo about carbon fiber. For how much these birds cost, it should be dripping with it.. and it actually makes sense for weight savings.
Textron/Cessna is screwed when the new LSA MOSAiC changes go into effect. Noone needs a $500k 172 when most LSA manufacturers have or will have a better product with more features for less than half the price of a 172.
Most local/private flight schools probably aren't buying a new 172, so I'm guessing the highlights in this video are appealing to the university level places with a Cessna fleet, like ERAU, UND etc. For anyone dropping $500k on a new 172 for personal use, I would imagine this interior isn't appealing (as we can see from some of the comments). Hope they have a separate interior design choice for those customers 😂 Lucky for Textron, they already positioned themselves to compete in the LSA space by buying out Pipistrel last year
They have been lobbying congress with millions for years trying to delay this inevitable change. That’s why none of their planes have improved, all the money went to pockets in DC instead of aircraft development, especially the piston line. All they have done is barrow technology from other people like Garmin to make their garbage look better.
@@bsaleem97 A year+ late but as an instructor working for ERAU, yup we have purchased them, they're honestly quite nice. No real complaints about the interior besides the fact that I have to unlock the windows to open them in the arizona heat and unlock them to close them before take off. Already kinda figured a way around that within the first few flights but overall I would consider it an upgrade
It's 2023 and new Cessna piston singles still have a 1953 microphone at the bottom of the center stack. But hey, the seats now have modern contoured stitching.
I mean, I know my eyes are a little older, but those panel gaps and hard plastics look pretty much the same as they did in the 80's. The seats look nicer, as they should in a $600k Skyhawk.
Chris - Cessna needs new airplanes, not interiors. Anyone can by a 30 year old airplane and do an interior for a LOT less money. Give us something new. FADEC, composite, faster, farther, etc. etc. Please.
@@karlhab1009 yea, awesome idea that would have made the Bonanza look really bad. So then they would have had to upgrade that line of acft also. All that money went to congress to delay mosaic as long as possible.
A new interior is always very pleasing to see, but I'm not quite sure how well this aesthetic will age. And a "durable" yet white interior is an oxymoron.
Its more of a stealth grey, Definitely not white but very appealing especially when flying at night. Very little visual besides the instrument panel with it being all black and grey.
USB ports look too close together. Sometimes the plugs can be a little to wide. Wires from the same look like they run into the drink cup area. Looks very nice.
You would think that at least the could have used black anodized metal to blend the metal with other black knobs, and matching lighter anodization for lighter panels. Why not use simple slotted 1/4 twist allen panel screw covers to hide the alen screws for ease of cleaning. Also hopefully the overhead light has a red LED option with white light and would be nice to have a separate function for high brightness when on the ground to use in the cockpit. Would be great to have a floor pedal light option and I would assume the USB receptacles would have led. Just thoughts to make a great plane greater.
PUtting the plugs (USB and headset jacks) in front of the goblet holders just renders either one of them unusable: can’t use them at the same time because of the rigid input shafts and plastic heads: please check the usability of your design in the back!
NICE... if their intent was to capture the economy car interior feel of a mid-1960s VW Beetle. So they designed it for the mechanics and not for the consumer. Brilliant.
Is the price point going to come down with this new interior because the hard plastic parts and generic bolts that stick out everywhere have to be cheaper to manufacture/source.
The seats look nice, but they should be more concerned with building and selling a 172 for less than $100k. If you could do that, I bet the flight schools wouldn't care if the seats were made out of recycled burlap sacks and old bus seats.
Functional! Whoopee. I'm 80. My first used car had more style. You could make it convenient to service and MAKE IT COOL FOR A LITTLE MONEY. THEY BROUGHT IN MECHANICS. .THEY WANTED A ZIPPER TO OPEN EVERYTHING
Unbelievable the lack of innovation in the airframe and power plant. They should be embarrassed with the lack of progress. How can that guy do the video with a straight face?? Seriously, after half a century all they can do is spiff up the interior??
It's a serious problem at Cessna. Their main competitors (piston & jet aircraft) are innovative, bold, and modern in terms of their design and use of cutting edge technologies. Cessna is refreshing their interiors while some of their competitors have introduced clean sheet designs and advanced cockpit & engine technologies to raise the bar in the 21st century. For example, Pilatus added auto-throttles to their PC-24 from the start, they introduced an engine system that essentially can double as an APU, learned some important lessons about interior design and quality and applied that knowledge and experience to their latest models, and continue to innovate and plan for the future. These are just a few of the aspects that give them an edge in the market. Embraer brought clean sheet designs to market in the form of their Phenom 100 and 300, and had to deal with some teething issues, but they kept on innovating and improving their product in ways Cessna could only dream of doing in the light jet market. Cessna did a Gen2 interior refresh of their light jets and called it innovative. I don't think they know the meaning of the word. I'm not saying that their light jets are bad per se, I'm saying they're old designs in a market where their competitors are not standing still.. they're innovating and moving forward fast. Cessna's larger jets are clean sheet designs, but their entry level jets and piston aircraft can't compete with the quality of the competition (i.e. Diamond, Tecnam, Pilatus, Embraer), especially when it comes to modern design and innovation. It's sad.
The plastic on the interior of this $500,000 skyhawk makes it look like a car, not really a fan whatsoever. Seems like it may be the beginning of “they dont make them like they used to” (as far as the interior goes) and not for the better
Nothing but computer screens on the panel? I hate that! Sure, give me some of the latest, greatest technology. BUT I still want my basic, tried and true, RELIABLE dial instruments! I'm not flying at my gaming station in the Family Room at home!!!!!
I understand that Cessna has lost all capacity for innovation approximately 50 years ago, but you would think they'd be able to design a decent looking interior, at least for a demo aircraft. Nope.
As terrible as this interior looks - it's not the problem. The problem is that the aircraft from 1970 now costs $500k because it has 2 LED displays installed. That is... well, the problem.
Half a million dollars for an aircraft that looks like a teenager's rendition of a cheap sports car. Why in earth did they have to try to make it look sporty? What exactly is sporty about the Cessna singles?
Not a fan! It looks cheap and has like a hint of cyberpunk. It just doesn’t fit with the airplane’s character. It should have modern upgrade like to USB C (not A) and still have a luxury look like cognac brown leather. Idk if it looked more like a porche than that would be an upgrade but this is like a stripped down tesla cybertruck Its just terrible in my opinion. Also white seats for flights schools?? I mean blue jeans alone will f those up.
That's great but the plane is too expensive for anyone but ATOs.. And even then only the richest of ATOs. Instead fancy seats, how about you make a plane half the price?
This video is hilarious. In Germany we would call it "unfreiwillig komisch" - unintentionally hilarious. At 1:30 I can see right through between the plug panel and the (cheap) sidewall. My parents 1984 VW Passat from my childhood had a better finish. I fly C172s. Our Club has 3 of them, 1997 to 2001 models. I really like cessna. But the way they sell this totally embarassing interior (not to mention the outdated engine) for HALF A MILLION dollars - its beyond belief. I understand why - but this must stop.
the 172 needs to go away. the plane hasnt changed very much since it was originally launched. the only updates to it is the avionics which they had no hand in developing, but people still want to pay over $500K for a 66 year old design, with all but the same engine offering. It would be like Ford coming out with 2024 Mustang the was the same body as the 1969, slightly different engine but based off the same engine from 1969 with a digital dash and a new interior for 100k.
I think the seats are nice but the visibility and the plane at large is still an awful tractor. That dash design is a war crime. It's like looking over a fence or in a bunker. Why are you spending a lot of redesign effort on an awful plane? Crush all 172s in front of all employees and look at Risen and Lancair IV-P and do better. I know you tried with the Columbia but you managed to mess that up, made it mediocre and grotesquely expensive. A 4 seater sleek like the Risen, maybe not pressurized, single piece composite fuselage optimized for simple fast construction, maybe a rotax 915 or that new jetA burning piston if they can be talked down to letting you have many for 25k instead of their nonsense 60k. Glide ratio like the Risen, always think actually good engineering, not awful tractor like you are used to and if the price is over 200k you have failed. There is maybe 6k$ worth of quality carbon fiber in such a plane if you do it right so it should not cost 800k. If Garmin isn't willing to lower their prices for the 1990s computers, develop your own with at least 20" screens, all in one unit including "navigation" and radio. Uncluttered synthetic vision display as close to MS flight sim quality as possible, no bs compass rose or speed tape. Get all that stupid clutter off those screens. Powerful electronics and displays are dirt cheap today. Don't indulge Garmin's 50k$ bs. If they don't play ball, replace them. Same goes for the engine producers. One obvious good way to replace them all is to make a 15kg turbofan engine with single piece turbines. Jet can be quite simple and the natural twin engine config, the speed and the lightness are potent competitive parameters. Such a 4 seater plane should weigh no more than 200kg empty. Any more and you are doing it wrong. And Garmin is helping you.
2:18 I'm sorry, but this is garabage. How could you be designing something, and do such a bad job making the one prototype. Middle school kids could have done a better job.
That new finish level competes with a $12k car from the 80s. For a half million dollars product, some would be right expecting way better than that.
Truth, looks terrible.
It might look cheesy but for aviation school and commercial use I think they are definitely going in the right direction. It isn't much different than what you would find in a work truck and that is okay.
I wish at Tesla would build an airplane. They could probably build one for $100,000.
Exactly
The landing gear may fall off due to a Tesla technician not installing the bolt or it been substituted for one from the hardware store.
Also won’t be certified as certification is anti business
Not going to lie, that just looks like a city bus interior
I think you nailed it.
At the price of this aircraft is we shouldn’t be seeing primer in between the cracks of the interior. Come on Cessna I love my 1965, but the quality of the newer versions needs to pick up a bit.
Agree. Honestly not that impressed. Kind of embarrassed for them that they did a promotional video on some USB-C power plugs and Allen head bolts. Most of price is in the glass panel probably. Not much else has changed in the last decade.
I use to rent brand new '97 and '98 Skyhawks back then and those interiors looked far superior. Hard to believe that was almost 30 years ago.
I'd like to see Cessna introduce a split cowl that can be opened for inspection before each flight.
Maybe the "customer feedback panel" will suggest that for the 2032 upgrade. For now? cup holders won out. LOL!
It's available for an extra 100k. But hey, it's certified!
imagine paying 500k for an aircraft and its got an interior put together like a geo metro
Lol
Looks awful. You can make it rugged without it looking like cheap plastic.
Yup. This manufacturer's days are behind it. Cirrus, Diamond, and etc are the future.
@@PatrickMichalina what a shame
Ik im late but having flown it today it honestly looks quite nice. Very sleek and modern. Also very nice for night flying as in front of me and my student it was just black and very appealing to the eye. No strain and no contrast. Thoroughly enjoyed the new interior!
I would like to see the non-flight school version of their new interior. This one is making me not feel too bad about the interior of my 1977 210. Also, the black panel is still out for deliberation. Boeing grey would have been a great choice too.
It struck me, at 3:04, whether having a water bottle or similar in the cup holder would interfere with the leads coming out from the headset and USB charging ports that are co-located. I wonder whether they’ve done usage and ergonomics testing on those. Similarly the upper eyeball air vents seemed from the quick glimpse to be slightly obscured by the sun visor up front. Maybe not, I guess it could just be camera angles.
I have to agree with the majority of folks who comment on the it looking a little utilitarian, perhaps a bit ‘cheap’. I don’t think I’d want to spend 500k as an owner operator to get this interior, though I sense they’re still going to sell well to schools/rental operators; it’s definitely skewed toward that demographic, and if so durability and maintenance are going to be the big draws. Just hope it’s tested for high cycle, low-care use. Interesting to see how they dress up the 182 and up to aim more at the Owner Operator.
That cupholder in front of the plugs caught my attention also. While I understand realestate is limited in a small aircraft like this, it seems like a lot of these designers are not pilots and not using the product.
Tryng to compete with Cirrus. The white interior is stunning, but would be a massive pain to keep clean. Avgas, oil and stains from use, pens, markers, lipstick, you name it...good thing i dont need to worry about those problems..
having just flown one for my flight school its much more of a grey interior, not quite white. Could be an issue but we operate more than most flight schools and yet the plane looked great after 200 hours. could change in the future but its certainly not something that needs fixed everyday
At 3:04 I see the headset jacks / USB ports will preclude placing anything tall in the cupholders.
That's a HUGE design oversight.
i know im quite late but i just got use the aircraft and the cupholder is in center and not blocking any USB ports, so i can safely say this is not an issue
I would like to add that the release version did not have the door cup holders so that was fixed in time for release cause yeah that was an issue
Not that they will be torqued very high, but I really love when aircraft manufacturers use a fastener that is almost a circle, but not quite. Really helps when they strip out… mostly Diamond
I’d rather use torx
Torx is definitely superior to every thing out there currently,Philips and flat should be banished to the annals of time.
Fortunately that is a very easy swap to make, at least it would be in other sectors. I'm not in aviation so there is a chance that there is something I don't know about aviation that would make this a problem but I'll be darned if that is true. I definitely support the call for using Torx.
Panel screws are low torque...they'll be fine.
@@MikeCris yep, just as I stated, but they are also unappealing, to me anyways.
Did they get the doors to close properly yet
I doubt it.
I think the word you’re looking for is utilitarian. I would hope there is an upgraded package that has a more refined look and feel along with the ease of maintenance fr the prices you sell those thing off the line.
These Allen head screws look really bad. Also they strip rather easily and protrude too much. A button head with torx would be much better. In black.
Just flew this aircraft today (I work for a top flight school) its quite nice as the pilot, the screws were a bit off putting but i definitely enjoyed the top cubby to put my iPad in. All twist knobs were quite underwhelming. Feeling very non tactile and with a high risk to get stuck. The color of the interior was great for night flying as it was extremely dark and made adjustment to night conditions easier. The seats were much more comfortable and held an extremely upright position helping to improve my sight picture and comfort while on the controls. The bolts were quite off putting from a pilot perspective but I will talk to maintenance soon and see what they think. The extra USB slots was very nice and I'm already enjoying the thought of using them in cross countries with my students. Overall it is definitely an improved design. I can't say if it is worth it from a consumer perspective (I don't think it is) but from a maintenance perspective I could see the ease of work being quite the addition and overall helping ROI. That is my take on the aircraft and I believe Cessna is trending towards a training/large buyer over the everyday consumer
These are great videos! thank you for bringing Airventure to us that can't be there
sooo, to compete with cirrus or Diamond you used new screws? and a cupholder? I have to admit, this is brave.
I know im late but that obviously isn't the point, they know there new aircraft aren't purchased by low level consumers but by flight schools. Think of it as an 18 wheeler, you aren't looking for driver cushiness but rather easy upkeep and minor benefits to trainers and trainees. Thats where cessna shines
Looks like the Pontiac Aztek of the sky. Didn’t anyone warn Textron about design by committee?
The interior looks very cheap for a half million bucks. Also why don't you give us a better, cheaper, and faster airplane?
I think they missed the memo about carbon fiber. For how much these birds cost, it should be dripping with it.. and it actually makes sense for weight savings.
No reason that cheap light plastic panels need to be made of carbon fiber. Get real.
Textron/Cessna is screwed when the new LSA MOSAiC changes go into effect. Noone needs a $500k 172 when most LSA manufacturers have or will have a better product with more features for less than half the price of a 172.
Most local/private flight schools probably aren't buying a new 172, so I'm guessing the highlights in this video are appealing to the university level places with a Cessna fleet, like ERAU, UND etc. For anyone dropping $500k on a new 172 for personal use, I would imagine this interior isn't appealing (as we can see from some of the comments). Hope they have a separate interior design choice for those customers 😂 Lucky for Textron, they already positioned themselves to compete in the LSA space by buying out Pipistrel last year
They have been lobbying congress with millions for years trying to delay this inevitable change. That’s why none of their planes have improved, all the money went to pockets in DC instead of aircraft development, especially the piston line. All they have done is barrow technology from other people like Garmin to make their garbage look better.
@@bsaleem97 A year+ late but as an instructor working for ERAU, yup we have purchased them, they're honestly quite nice. No real complaints about the interior besides the fact that I have to unlock the windows to open them in the arizona heat and unlock them to close them before take off. Already kinda figured a way around that within the first few flights but overall I would consider it an upgrade
We did not see much fit and finish detail. I am confused about the allen head screws vs torx or any other new format drives. Am I missing something?
I also vote for Torx.
It's 2023 and new Cessna piston singles still have a 1953 microphone at the bottom of the center stack. But hey, the seats now have modern contoured stitching.
I mean, I know my eyes are a little older, but those panel gaps and hard plastics look pretty much the same as they did in the 80's. The seats look nicer, as they should in a $600k Skyhawk.
Chris - Cessna needs new airplanes, not interiors. Anyone can by a 30 year old airplane and do an interior for a LOT less money.
Give us something new. FADEC, composite, faster, farther, etc. etc.
Please.
It was supposed to be the Cessna NGP
@@karlhab1009 yea, awesome idea that would have made the Bonanza look really bad. So then they would have had to upgrade that line of acft also. All that money went to congress to delay mosaic as long as possible.
A new diamond da40 is half a million dollars like this. Arguably a better trainer that flies well, is cheap to run, and is safer in an incident.
A new interior is always very pleasing to see, but I'm not quite sure how well this aesthetic will age. And a "durable" yet white interior is an oxymoron.
Its more of a stealth grey, Definitely not white but very appealing especially when flying at night. Very little visual besides the instrument panel with it being all black and grey.
I would love to see the old Retro Cessna paint schemes be brought back to the modern fleet..
It's about time cessna upgrade their line-up, just look ate cirrus and diamond and you can see the brutal difference...
“Modern stitching”
That’s rich
USB ports look too close together. Sometimes the plugs can be a little to wide. Wires from the same look like they run into the drink cup area. Looks very nice.
172 are legendary work horse's very fun too fly and cross country 😊😊
Just as well the interior looks good because you certainly cannot see out once you are inside
You would think that at least the could have used black anodized metal to blend the metal with other black knobs, and matching lighter anodization for lighter panels. Why not use simple slotted 1/4 twist allen panel screw covers to hide the alen screws for ease of cleaning. Also hopefully the overhead light has a red LED option with white light and would be nice to have a separate function for high brightness when on the ground to use in the cockpit. Would be great to have a floor pedal light option and I would assume the USB receptacles would have led. Just thoughts to make a great plane greater.
About time... NICE..AIRPLANE...
PUtting the plugs (USB and headset jacks) in front of the goblet holders just renders either one of them unusable: can’t use them at the same time because of the rigid input shafts and plastic heads: please check the usability of your design in the back!
So did they fix the seat rails and associated AD?
An improvement of looks as well as an increase of rugged. Adding serviceability really makes this a smart redesign
NICE... if their intent was to capture the economy car interior feel of a mid-1960s VW Beetle. So they designed it for the mechanics and not for the consumer. Brilliant.
It's about time Cessna upgraded it's interiors to modern standards. Well done, nicely done!
Is the price point going to come down with this new interior because the hard plastic parts and generic bolts that stick out everywhere have to be cheaper to manufacture/source.
So now that you've replaced the insides, replace the outsides, and you'll have a nice plane.
Wow ! It looks amazing... where is the shop based out of ?
To me it just seems revised plastics but things get heavy fast so I suppose they had those constraints.
The seats look nice, but they should be more concerned with building and selling a 172 for less than $100k. If you could do that, I bet the flight schools wouldn't care if the seats were made out of recycled burlap sacks and old bus seats.
What is “modern stitching”? Will it include the cigarette lighter in the center console? Must have at this price point.
What are “pissed on aircraft”?
Anything on the new Bonanzas?
Why not build an airplane that looks like it’s from 2023?
Have at it. You'll make millions.
Cirrus does it
I suggest a new committee. Cup holders and usb? Come on….Update the panel.
One way to deal with inflation.....
Functional! Whoopee.
I'm 80. My first used car had more style.
You could make it convenient to service and MAKE IT COOL FOR A LITTLE MONEY.
THEY BROUGHT IN MECHANICS.
.THEY WANTED A ZIPPER TO OPEN EVERYTHING
How is textron even staying afloat selling these new for 450k, who’s even buying at that price
Flight schools. Huge demand for pilots post covid retirements. Number of students at my local school has tripled in size in the last 5 years.
Unbelievable the lack of innovation in the airframe and power plant. They should be embarrassed with the lack of progress. How can that guy do the video with a straight face?? Seriously, after half a century all they can do is spiff up the interior??
It's a serious problem at Cessna. Their main competitors (piston & jet aircraft) are innovative, bold, and modern in terms of their design and use of cutting edge technologies. Cessna is refreshing their interiors while some of their competitors have introduced clean sheet designs and advanced cockpit & engine technologies to raise the bar in the 21st century. For example, Pilatus added auto-throttles to their PC-24 from the start, they introduced an engine system that essentially can double as an APU, learned some important lessons about interior design and quality and applied that knowledge and experience to their latest models, and continue to innovate and plan for the future. These are just a few of the aspects that give them an edge in the market. Embraer brought clean sheet designs to market in the form of their Phenom 100 and 300, and had to deal with some teething issues, but they kept on innovating and improving their product in ways Cessna could only dream of doing in the light jet market. Cessna did a Gen2 interior refresh of their light jets and called it innovative. I don't think they know the meaning of the word. I'm not saying that their light jets are bad per se, I'm saying they're old designs in a market where their competitors are not standing still.. they're innovating and moving forward fast. Cessna's larger jets are clean sheet designs, but their entry level jets and piston aircraft can't compete with the quality of the competition (i.e. Diamond, Tecnam, Pilatus, Embraer), especially when it comes to modern design and innovation. It's sad.
This is loooooonng overdue.
The plastic on the interior of this $500,000 skyhawk makes it look like a car, not really a fan whatsoever. Seems like it may be the beginning of “they dont make them like they used to” (as far as the interior goes) and not for the better
Nothing but computer screens on the panel?
I hate that! Sure, give me some of the latest, greatest technology.
BUT I still want my basic, tried and true, RELIABLE dial instruments!
I'm not flying at my gaming station in the Family Room at home!!!!!
Ok, 100K more to the base price then?
I understand that Cessna has lost all capacity for innovation approximately 50 years ago, but you would think they'd be able to design a decent looking interior, at least for a demo aircraft. Nope.
Very nice
Sooo... No rich Corinthian Leather?
That's $500,000.00...for a 172. I'll keep my 1978 N model.
Sorry it looks like a cheap seat. Paying this much for a plane I would expect more. Old seats looked much better in sight and quality
That’s like putting new interior on a 1965 car …
A bit reflective and shows grime quickly. Just saying?.
What’s the point
430K for a 172? it better have nice seats. Recaro maybe.
As terrible as this interior looks - it's not the problem. The problem is that the aircraft from 1970 now costs $500k because it has 2 LED displays installed. That is... well, the problem.
Wow, very nice!
Half a million dollars for an aircraft that looks like a teenager's rendition of a cheap sports car.
Why in earth did they have to try to make it look sporty? What exactly is sporty about the Cessna singles?
Not a fan! It looks cheap and has like a hint of cyberpunk. It just doesn’t fit with the airplane’s character. It should have modern upgrade like to USB C (not A) and still have a luxury look like cognac brown leather. Idk if it looked more like a porche than that would be an upgrade but this is like a stripped down tesla cybertruck Its just terrible in my opinion. Also white seats for flights schools?? I mean blue jeans alone will f those up.
Its not 500 thousand nice
Reminds me of the New Suburban interior - plastic, plastic and fake leather - for half a mil Tex/Cessna should do better - a lot better
That's great but the plane is too expensive for anyone but ATOs.. And even then only the richest of ATOs. Instead fancy seats, how about you make a plane half the price?
Cessna cutting corners and trying to cheaply become Cirrus 😂
1960s Royalite for $500,000
This video is hilarious. In Germany we would call it "unfreiwillig komisch" - unintentionally hilarious. At 1:30 I can see right through between the plug panel and the (cheap) sidewall. My parents 1984 VW Passat from my childhood had a better finish.
I fly C172s. Our Club has 3 of them, 1997 to 2001 models. I really like cessna. But the way they sell this totally embarassing interior (not to mention the outdated engine) for HALF A MILLION dollars - its beyond belief.
I understand why - but this must stop.
$432,000.00?
182nd...
see what I did there?
the 172 needs to go away. the plane hasnt changed very much since it was originally launched. the only updates to it is the avionics which they had no hand in developing, but people still want to pay over $500K for a 66 year old design, with all but the same engine offering. It would be like Ford coming out with 2024 Mustang the was the same body as the 1969, slightly different engine but based off the same engine from 1969 with a digital dash and a new interior for 100k.
I'd buy it! The new 69 Mustang, that is.
I think the seats are nice but the visibility and the plane at large is still an awful tractor. That dash design is a war crime. It's like looking over a fence or in a bunker. Why are you spending a lot of redesign effort on an awful plane? Crush all 172s in front of all employees and look at Risen and Lancair IV-P and do better. I know you tried with the Columbia but you managed to mess that up, made it mediocre and grotesquely expensive. A 4 seater sleek like the Risen, maybe not pressurized, single piece composite fuselage optimized for simple fast construction, maybe a rotax 915 or that new jetA burning piston if they can be talked down to letting you have many for 25k instead of their nonsense 60k. Glide ratio like the Risen, always think actually good engineering, not awful tractor like you are used to and if the price is over 200k you have failed. There is maybe 6k$ worth of quality carbon fiber in such a plane if you do it right so it should not cost 800k. If Garmin isn't willing to lower their prices for the 1990s computers, develop your own with at least 20" screens, all in one unit including "navigation" and radio. Uncluttered synthetic vision display as close to MS flight sim quality as possible, no bs compass rose or speed tape. Get all that stupid clutter off those screens. Powerful electronics and displays are dirt cheap today. Don't indulge Garmin's 50k$ bs. If they don't play ball, replace them. Same goes for the engine producers. One obvious good way to replace them all is to make a 15kg turbofan engine with single piece turbines. Jet can be quite simple and the natural twin engine config, the speed and the lightness are potent competitive parameters. Such a 4 seater plane should weigh no more than 200kg empty. Any more and you are doing it wrong. And Garmin is helping you.
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ Cessna team please
Nooo, production quality is so bad
These silly car inspired head rests are only weight. Nobodies head touches them and there are no rear end collisions 😂🎉😢😮😅
Fit and finish is horrible for a half million dollar aircraft, not impressed at all..
Wow, more ugly plastic in a Cessna for only $700,000; what a bargain
Totally out of touch. Half a million for a trainer.
This looks terrible.
Looks cheap and penny pinching
2:18 I'm sorry, but this is garabage. How could you be designing something, and do such a bad job making the one prototype. Middle school kids could have done a better job.
at 1:54 the cup holder looks like the cup would interfere with headset and USB plugs. Might just be the angle.