Cessna Aerobat

[Wind Up Turn]

Just curious........
Sat in an Aerobat for the first time today. Even with the seat fully back, the Aerobat seemed to have significantly less leg-room than the F152 on which I did most of my training. Is it just me or is the Aerobat somewhat smaller in that respect? I'm 6ft plus and yoke only just cleared my knees!

[High Wing Drifter]

They are identical. However, seat height adjustment was optional equipment. Check if the Aerobat has one.

[Monocock]

Exactly the same in terms of ergonomics.

I agree with HWD, if the seat was set higher then it wil have given the impression of being more cramped.

Great little planes they are!!!!!:ok:

[LowNSlow]

As mentioned above, it must be the seat height. Apart from internal strengthening in the main and tail planes and the roof windows, the structure is identical. Oh yes, the Reims built C150 version had an O-240 130hp engine which did wonders for the climb rate : ok:

Those roof windows usually make the cockpit feel more spacious due to the extra light rather than more cramped.

Not the most capable aerobatic mount on the planet but loads of fun and "cheap" to run.

[BigEndBob]

Being a 150 its probably had several referbs.
The seats could have been over stuffed with foam to try and make the darn thing more comfortable.
Thus you could lose out on height and reach.
Also keep on eye on the rudder pedal attachments...tend to take a bit more of a bashing than the average cessna.

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

As mentioned above, the feeling (or not) of space is all determined by the seats and their adjustment. I fly a selection of rented 152's, including Aerobats, and the comfort level is highly dependant on being able to max out the adjustments to their original limits.

There is a 152 at one of the clubs I fly from that simply will not accept my 6'4 and a bit frame because both "adjustments" are fixed. Although the seat is fairly far back, it is too high to allow full movement of the yoke over my knobbly knees.

A couple of tips:
1) Always adjust the seats BEFORE entering the aircraft.
2) Set the height adjustment to mid-position before sliding the seat back, then wind it down again. You can reach an extra notch on the slider.
3) Check for pencils, paper scraps and 'rucks' in the carpet / upholstery fouling the runners.

Flying with my 6'2" dad is always fun. Constant reminders about keeping limbs clear of the controls are required. Keeping his feet clear of the pedals AND his knees clear of the yoke AND his elbows out or my ribs is a constant challenge.:ugh:

TG.
p.s. still love flying the 152 though!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Here is what an Aerobat should look like. :ok:

www.chuckellsworth.com

Chuck

[WelshFlyer]

I have only ever flown a C150F With the O-240. What are the Lycoming engined C150s like to fly? (I know this might seem a bit abstract)

I'm 5 foot 10 inch, and I have trouble fitting into a 150, so I know how you feel! But they are cheep 'n' cheerful. (Exept when you pay your fees, they don't seem so cheep!) I must try flying an Aerobat variant, the sound fun! what can you do in the aerobat that you can't in the normal 150? I thought all Cessna 150s were flying bricks?

WF.

[Tinstaafl]

Less power in the Cont. O-200 C150 vs the Lyc. O-235 C152 ie 100hp vs 110hp. MTOW 727kg vs 752kg (or thereabouts. It's been 10yrs since I last operated them).

The aerobat is slightly heavier than the non-aero model (~20kg?). Quite a few extra rivets in it and, I think, some thicker aluminium. It has skylights in the roof (optional on the standard models), 4 point harnesses, removable seat cushions to allow for flat pack parachutes and quick-release door hinge pins. The aerobat also has an aerobatic approved engine

The standard C150/152 can operate in Utility category ie +4.4/-1.76g. It's approved for intentional spins.

The aerobat model is certified in the aerobatic category @ +6/-3 g. It's approved for spins, loops, rolls (aileron, barrel & snap), stall turns and combinations of these. Some of the limiting speeds are different eg Vne & Vno.

They're my favourite basic trainer. :ok:


Forgot to add

Like many Cessna singles they're all equipped with Cessna's 'Land-o-matic' (tm) undercarriage :hmm: & 'Omni-vision' (tm) rear window :hmm:. Their 'Nav-o-matic' (tm] autopilot is a possible option. :hmm:

[WelshFlyer]

Freudian slip - I have only ever flown the continental engine (O-200)

WF.

[Bottle Fatigue]

Pah! I'm 6'6" and can fit in both, with or without seat height adjustment.

Dead flexible me:cool:

Weight and balance is a bit of a problem though: me + full fuel = overweight (and no, I'm not fat - long range tanks).

[MLS-12D]

WelshFlyer - I believe that all of the Lycoming-engined "150s" are actually 152s(?) Anyway I've only flown the 152, never the 150, so I can't compare them for you. Probably very similar, I would think.

It is amazing how often I hear people claim that they "can't fit" into a 150/152 (I am 6'2" and have never had any difficulty). It seems that this is encouraged by instructors, who would prefer to be logging 172 time. Of course, they're not paying the freight; most students are better off flying the 150/152, which is perfectly adequate for training and is certainly cheaper to rent.

MLS-12D :D

P.S. to instructors: 1,000 hrs of 172 time is not more impressive than 1,000 hours of 150/152 time. :rolleyes:

[FlyingForFun]

P.S. to instructors: 1,000 hrs of 172 time is not more impressive than 1,000 hours of 150/152 timeNo, I'm sure you're right - but I suspect it's a lot more comfortable ;) Especially if someone else is paying for it! :D

FFF
-------------