At the club I fly at, there is an older Cessna 172 that has a manual "Johnson Bar" that is used to put the flaps down.

In the newer 152, and I believe the rest of the planes (I have yet to fly them), the flaps are controlled via a electronic (or hydraulic?) lever.

It appears to me that the manual flaps are more reliable, more maintainable, and a hell of a lot more fun in my opinion. Additionally, the manually flaps don't require a lot of strength to operate IMO. Does anyone know why the automatic design is favored over the manual counterpart? Same question applies to car transmissions...

  • $\begingroup$ mechanical needs control rods/cables running through the frame $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ This guide has some interesting details. $\endgroup$
    – Farhan
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 23:02
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Not electronic. Electric. It is just a switch and an electric motor (maybe some limit switches, too). Electronics include electrical circuits that involve active electrical components such as vacuum tubes, transistors, diodes and integrated circuits, and associated passive interconnection technologies. $\endgroup$ Commented May 29, 2014 at 1:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think whether one prefers manual flaps or electrical is very much a matter of personal preference. Personally, I was very happy to move from manual flaps to electrical. And I'm unhappy to have to put up with Johnson bar flaps in the Cessna Skycatcher I'm checking out in. The bar is really in the way for me. I have to rest my forearm on the raised bar, and that's very uncomfortable. $\endgroup$
    – Terry
    Commented Sep 27, 2014 at 20:37
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Today, things like manual flaps with a giant bar on the floor are fun and interesting retro designs. Back in the 1960s powered anything was modern and progressive. The manual bar would have been as exciting as manual steering / transmission on your 1965 Buick Riviera. You can't promote a retro feature from the originating era. $\endgroup$
    – paul
    Commented Sep 28, 2014 at 23:19

4 Answers 4


Nobody can definitively answer this for you except Cessna's 1965/1966 engineering team (the year they made the change), but there are two reasons I can think of:
Because switches are cooler than Johnson bars; or Because everyone else is doing electric flaps.

Much like with manual transmissions, some people just don't like the extra work of manual flaps, and for those folks electric "flip a switch and don't worry about it" flaps are a selling point.

In terms of reliability it's a trade-off (as are all engineering decisions), so let's look at a few of the factors:

Mechanical Flaps

  • +Flaps still work when the battery is dead.
  • +The pilot can control the extension/retraction rate to some extent.
  • +Usually cross-linked with a bar (so you can't have a "split-flap" condition)
  • +Simple to rig, adjust, and maintain.
  • -Actuation requires more pilot skill
    You need to develop the muscle memory to grab the handle without looking.
    You need to learn to govern the extension/retraction rate smoothly.
  • -The failure mode is usually "Flaps Up"
    You could lose your flaps on short final if the cable or lock mechanism fails.

Electric Flaps

  • +"Easier to Operate" (you don't need to reach down to the floor)
  • +Extension/Retraction rate is constant (governed by the motor)
  • +Fewer moving cables running through the fuselage (wires replace them)
  • +Typical failure mode (e.g. dead battery) is "Flaps stuck where you left them"
    Less chance of losing your flaps on short final.
  • +Depending on the design they may save some weight over a mechanical system.
  • -You lose control of the flaps if the battery dies (no-flap landings are more likely)
  • -You have one or more motors to maintain/replace if they fail
  • -Depending on the design it's possible to have a "split-flap" condition

Cessna's engineers and marketing folks looked at those factors (and probably many others) and decided that electric flaps "made sense". On the other side of the GA fleet, Piper's engineers looked at the same factors and decided to keep the Johnson bar flaps (which are still found in the PA-28 series today).

From a manufacturing standpoint it makes sense for all of the aircraft a manufacturer produces to use the samecontrol mechanisms -- either all the planes use mechanical flaps or all the planes use electric flaps because it simplifies production and allows everything to run through on one assembly line rather than stopping at the flaps and diverting aircraft to different teams.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I guess I'm just bitter that they didn't go with "let's make it an additional feature" $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ The older I get, the less I like gimmicky things like electric flaps and the more I like good simple mechanical linkages. Failure rates are comparable, but diagnostics and repairs are so much easier on mechanical... $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 17, 2014 at 18:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just a side note, Johnson bar systems can encounter the split flap issue and it happened to one of the Warriors I fly in (not while I was in it though) $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Commented May 24, 2015 at 3:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Dave Yeah, in the PA-28 you can have a pushrod (or more likely cotter pin) failure that has the potential to really ruin your day (one flap is no longer linked to the torque tube). Likewise the cause of split-flap conditions in light GA planes' electric flap systems seems to be flap rollers coming off the track (as opposed to any intrinsic problem with the electric aspect of the system) - You could have an electric system that moves a torque tube and be in the same situation as Johnson-bar/pushrod flaps as far as split-flap conditions go. $\endgroup$
    – voretaq7
    Commented May 26, 2015 at 21:09
  • $\begingroup$ Electric flaps in the Cessna Cardinal drive fowler flaps, which move down and back when they deploy. I suggest having that kind of movement would be difficult to do with a bar. Electric motors and limit switches, even tho flap type is different than other Cessnas like 150/152, 172, maybe even 182. $\endgroup$
    – CrossRoads
    Commented Aug 30, 2018 at 14:05

There are some great answers here, but as someone who spent some time flying a C172C with manual flaps, I prefer electric flaps. Probably the most notable improvement with electric flaps comes in performing a go-around. Imagine you're on short final, in-close and slow with 40 degrees of flaps and you need to go around. Ok so full throttle, you get a healthy serving of torque, along with a nose that wants to aim at the sky, push that right rudder while pushing the nose level and at the same time pull up that flap handle and push the button to release the lock and then lower it trying to find the 20 degrees setting. While you're doing that you're wishing your right hand was free to start trimming down that nose. Its easy to incrementally add flaps, but incrementally decreasing the flaps was tough for me because you can't just pull up until it clicks... the locking system isn't designed to operate like that when lowering the handle.


Electric flaps were installed in the 1965 Cessna 172 because the Air Force specified electric flaps and offered to buy a lot of aircraft if the change was made. As a result, the Air Force and Army bought a slew of them as the T-41 Mescalero (Credit to Wikipedia):

In 1964, the US Air Force (USAF) decided to use the off-the-shelf Cessna 172F as a lead-in aircraft for student pilots. The USAF ordered 237 T-41As from Cessna. The first USAF class (67-A) of students began training on the T-41 from the civilian airport in Big Spring, Texas, in August 1965.

The T-41B was the US Army version, with a 210 hp Continental IO-360 engine and constant-speed propeller in place of the 145 hp (108 kW) Continental O-300 and 7654 fixed-pitch propeller used in the 172 and the T-41A.

In 1968, the USAF acquired 52 of the more powerful T-41Cs, which used 210 hp (160 kW) Continental IO-360 and a fixed-pitch climb propeller, for use at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Four of these aircraft remain in service supporting USAFA programs.

In 1996, the aircraft were further upgraded to the T-41D, which included an upgrade in avionics[1] and to a constant-speed propeller.

This aircraft later became the Hawk XP and was sold for civil use - great airplane, I own one. At a flight review 4 years ago, the very impressed newly minted flight instructor commented, this thing is a beast!


One can imagine a relatively simple and robust linkage between the lever and flaps on a low wing e.g. Piper Cherokee. Maybe not so straightforward for a high wing like a C-172, where there is likely already a complex cable routing for the ailerons.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Simple, yes. Robust.... well as robust as any other cable linkage in the control system I suppose :) (Getting the Johnson bar to work in a high-wing is just a matter of some different pulleys to change the angle - a little more complex, but no more than say the ailerons.) $\endgroup$
    – voretaq7
    Commented May 26, 2015 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ I don't claim to know with any certainty, but pretty sure I once saw a cutaway illustration of the Piper (low wing) system showing pushrods, levers, and a torque tube - no cables. $\endgroup$
    – Anthony X
    Commented May 27, 2015 at 0:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .