View Full Version : Cessna 150/152 Performance Figures


the dean
2nd Nov 2006, 10:45
guys,

i have a friend looking at purchasing an aircraft.

he is field limited. it is 1300 feet from drain to road with rising ground on one end on the departure line.surface is tarmac 1000 feet then grass so that is no use going one way. the field is level and at sea level.

looking at cessna 150/152 but many years since i flew a 150 from here...it may have had a fine prop but it worked ok...

i want to look at the figures again but can't find them.

can anyone give me a link or take off data. :confused: .i am not worried about the landing data.

also i flew a PA 38 tomahawk for many years but from a major airport...think it might be a bit iffy in certain conditions for that field though we have had the odd one there := ...any PA38 drivers out there comment please.??:confused: i am sure he would develope his own technique for doing it but getting out fully loaded in summer with maybe 23 degrees might in zero wind or worse a x/w might be problematical.

anybody with a COLT or TRI-PACER. that might just have the take off roll and 50 foot handy say for standard sea level conditions ??:confused: ...just for comparison.

my friend is quite low time so no point telling him i used to drive a seminole in and out of there..!!:oh:

thanks guys anyone who has the time....:ok:

dean.



epsum
2nd Nov 2006, 19:35
Cant find it in the web either, but had a quick look in the 152 op. manual, and see these figures: if pressure alt 0 and temperature 0, t/o distance is 195m (363 to 15m), usual t/o distance in finnish summer is 271m/501m - > in case of 30C temp and press.alt 1000. Anyhow, 1000ft is almost enough till 3000ft press.alt and 20C temperature(305m T/o distance). But for landing it is clearly enought.

I think, its a bit tricky, but 150 might fit.. but only in good rate prop...

Pilot DAR
3rd Nov 2006, 04:11
Hi Dean,

The Cessna 150, as opposed to the 152, should handle a 1000' runway safely, with: a 48" pitch propeller, a Horton STOL kit, no obstacles and favourable winds and density altitude. A still, hot day will need more runway. If there are obstacles in the departure path, it will only be safe with a cool day, and a good wind. I have a 150M so configured, and can manage 600' or better ground roll in most conditions. 300' departure, and 200' arrival ground rolls are possible in ideal conditions. Obstacle clearance is never spectacular in a 150!

A factory original 152 is nowhere near as good in short runway, do not try it! If the 152 is "Sparrowhawk" modified, it will be much better. The Tomahawk is a great plane, but not for short runways, particularly with low time pilot. Colt or Tripacer are great in short runways, but less common, and perhaps more costly for long term maintenance.

The Horton STOL kit is worth its weight in gold for safety for this type of operation. You will not find performance figures for it though. I rotate at 45 MPH, and approach at 65 to 55 MPH with power all the time. It is possible to fly full power, full (40) flaps at 25 MPH indicated, and do 30 degree bank turns without loosing altitude, or control. The STOL kit costs you money, but not cruise speed.

Some cautions about STOL kits in general though: Do not glide at speeds lower than the original Cessna book figures, the plane will do it, but there will be no reserve energy for the flare, and you'll go thump! The installation of the STOL kit removes spin approval for the plane - no good for flight training. If spun with STOL kit, the spin recovers itself, and changes to a spiral dive on its own. Spin recovery on a sprial dive is not safe. The plane can easily be flown at pitch attitudes so as to strike the tail on the ground, and the tail tiedown ring really cannot withstand it - it's an expensive fix.

And 150HP in a Cessna 150? not worth the cost. Yes, it will go faster, but the low speed performance actually suffers, as well as the useful load. I am well experienced with these types of operations, if your friend needs more information, feel free to ask. (I do have the original flight manual for my 150M)

Cheers, Pilot DAR

bose-x
3rd Nov 2006, 08:34
Eh? Where do you get the idea that a 150 will out perfrom a 152? I had a 152 and did over a thousand hours in it over a 3 year period and can assure you it leaves a 150 standing in all circumstances!

I have operated in and out of sub 300m strips without a problem. ABout 400hrs in I put on the Sensenich prop, gap seal kit and K&N and gained even better performance (sparrowhawk). But even a standard 152 will breeze 1300ft at max weight on an ISA day.

smarthawke
3rd Nov 2006, 08:58
A standard 150 and 152 have similar take-off perormance, if you can find an FRA150L/M then they have the 130hp RR O-240 motor which helps greatly with the take-off and climb.

The Sensenich props are available for the 152s (in fact the McCauleys aren't available new now) and are available in either climb, normal or cruise pitch.

Bose-x, the 152 Sparrowhawk you didn't have, you had a standard 152 with go-faster bits. The Sparrowhawk was a high compression O-235 pushing out 125hp. It worked well on the bench according to Lycoming but not so well out in the field although you still see some advertised in Trad-a-Plane.

Sub 300m strips in a 152? In the real world, real weights, real temps? Mmmmmm....

Particularly if it's grass, to be safe with any margin of error (and to keep on the correct side of the Pilot's Operating Handbook and therefore your insurance company) work on 500m minimum.

the dean
3rd Nov 2006, 10:50
thanks for the data guys...:D

epsum and pilot DAR...your figures are about what i recall...

an aircraft dealer who seemed to know what he was talking about commented that the 150 outperformed the 152..

i know the 150 can do it as i flew one there for some years but never a 152..

have a lot of time instructing in tomahawks but from a 12000 ' runway...it was nice aircraft with zero timed engine so it should be perky but that elevator out of the slipstream i think makes it a longer runner than the 150...about 870 feet if i recall correctly in standard conditions...

anybody have anything on the colt or tri pacer..??

we had a tri pacer there foryears...i know it will get out with 2 only onboard..three would be pushing it :eek: unless with a strong headwind...but i can't remember anything about those aircraft neither take off or cruise..

thanks again guys..:D :ok:

the dean.

Rod1
3rd Nov 2006, 11:21
Any reason you have to go c of a. Many permit VLA aircraft which would do the job, save you money and be very suitable for a low hour pilot. Things like a C42 or Eurostar would be well within on the performance.

Rod1

Pilot DAR
3rd Nov 2006, 12:50
Hi Dean,

I do have a Colt flight manual. It has excellent takeoff performance charts. To summarize them: At sea level, 40 degree day, 1400 pound takeoff weight, no wind, ground roll 790 feet, 50' 1170 feet, 20 MPH wind g.r. 280', 50' - 540'. At 1650 pounds, 1330', 1820', 500', 900' for the same conditions. If you need more detailed information from that, or any of the Cessna 150 flight manuals, I will figure out how to get it to you.

It does appear that you have cracked open the age old discussion on the performance of C150 vs C152. The factory 152's suffered in takeoff performance and low speed climb because of the choice of propeller. It was a good prop in cruise, but you can't have it all ways. The lackluster takeoff performance was probably the reason for the flap travel being limited to 30 degrees instead of the 40 of the 150. If you do a full flap go around, and circuit (presuming flap system failed at full flap) the performance of the 152 struggles to match that of the 150 at 40 flap.

If the 150 in question is model earlier than 1969, and you have a 50" or 52" prop, you will probably find cruise (and takeoff) performance similar to the original 152. Certainly, the 152 has been the subject of many performance improvement mods. The only one I have experience with is the Sparrowhawk - a very worthwhile mod, particularly with a STOL kit.

A final thought to convey the sense of confidence of C152 short field performance is that my good friend, who is very skilled, and owns several Cessnas, including an original 152 Aerobat, flies it from his 2600' grass runway with great caution, but will not fly it into my 2100' no obstacle grass runway, due to takeoff performance concern. He has flown his C185 amphib, and many other types in here with no problem. I too would be cautious with a 152 in here, though very happliy operated my 150, a 182RG and Twin Otter (among many other types) when it was only 1300 feet long.

I hope that helps. If you need the flight manual data, let me know...

Cheers, Pilot DAR

smarthawke
3rd Nov 2006, 13:27
Re the 30 deg full flap mod on the 152, I think you'll find this has more to do with product liability claims than anything else - a 150 doesn't go far with 40 degrees down.

Remember the 150 was 100hp, the 152 112hp (108hp in the latter ones with the O-235 N2C fitted in place of the L2C - supposed to help prevent lead fouling of the plugs by a change in the combustion chamber design - it didn't work!). The 152 airframe was pretty much the same as the last 150Ms but with 28V electrics and the engine change.

The 172P onwards was also limited to 30 degrees maximum flap.

gasax
3rd Nov 2006, 14:06
Having operated a C150, C150 Aerobat (O-240), C152 and TriPacer into the same 480yd concrete runway I'd largely agree with most of the above - apart from the 300m bit!

The C152 was by far the poorest performer. given the choice the Tripacer is the machine, it would get 3 people and full fuel in and out on days when the C152 struggled. The Aerobat was pretty good but ours had an engine that always seemed to need attention and so it was pretty expensive. We sold it for what was then a late model C152 and were pretty disappointed by its performance initially. It was significantly slower into the air and meant clearing the fence by less than 50 feet a lot of the time. It was fine in the cruise but on grass the poorer take off performance really made a difference with some of the group members having interesting tales to tell.

I now have a zodiac 601 and 300m is more than enough......

Genghis the Engineer
3rd Nov 2006, 15:17
This might help (http://www.bmaa.org/upload/techdocs/006_1.pdf), written for microlights but equally applicable to a light aeroplane such as a C150.

C150 TODR: 419m / 1375 ft; LDR 328m / 1075 ft; climb rate 670 fpm (D-G models)
PA38 TODR: 445m / 1460 ft; LDR 471m / 1544 ft; climb rate 718 fpm


I can't help think for for a 2-seater, low-ish hour pilot, and a short field, he'd be much better off with a microlight anyhow. For example:

MXP 740 Savannah with a Jabiru engine: TODR: 198m / 650ft; LDR 140m / 460 ft; climb rate 740 fpm

Sky Ranger 912: TODR: 254m / 833ft; LDR 250m / 821ft; climb rate 860 fpm.

(Not to mention that most microlights are years ahead of most Cessna-singles in terms of comfort, performance, utility and operating costs).

G

the dean
3rd Nov 2006, 15:53
gee genghis...

thanks a lot for that info. i'll print and have a look at it over the weekend...but in ireland one needs a microlite rating. would be easier to stick to the conventional...but i take your point. also he will want to use it in winter conditions to meetings and so might need something on the more substantial side but not as expensive as some of the very new and very solid microlites.

he will need to go back a bit in time..

gasax..and smarthawke

thanks for all that info...which i will print and give to my friend.

pilot DAR...many thanks indeed...can you give me figures for the COLT..for sea level ,tarmac, level runway, standard (15 degrees) no wind roll and 50'and the same for 20 degrees.from what you say things can only get better with wind on the runway so a colt would not be a problem and i see one for sale in the uk at the moment but they are not too common..

do they have an standard lycoming engine or is there anything expensive about them??

any idea of typical cruise and fuel comsumption..??:confused:

sorry for all the questions...:{ . hope you have the time to answer.PM me if you wish.

thanks and thanks again to all who have responded.:D

dean.

Genghis the Engineer
3rd Nov 2006, 16:38
On a technical point - a modern microlight is no less robust than a light aeroplane, and in the UK also you need microlight differences training (probably only an hour or two for an SEP rated pilot onto 3-axis microlights). But, there may be issues if he wants to fly in night/IMC with the aircraft.

Then again, there are probably far greater issues for anybody who wishes to fly at night/IMC into a small farmstrip anyhow, regardless of what they are flying.

The cost of doing differences training / rating for microlights is likely to be comfortably outweighed by the savings in running a modern microlight compared to something with a Lycoming and CofA.

G

cool_pilot
4th Nov 2006, 14:48
Hi all,
I am just wondering if anyone can help me out to know any major differences between the C152 and C150,coz i will be flying the latter one at the begining of the next month,I thought it would be a good idea to know some diferences about them such as handling,technical information,etc......

Many thanks in advance,
cheers,
:cool: cool-pilot:cool:
(dear mods if u feel that this post is not in the right place plz feel free to remove it from here and inform me where shall i find it)

Pilot DAR
4th Nov 2006, 15:17
Hi Dean,

Colt figures from the Owner's Manual:

Takeoff Performance: (at sea level)(presumed hard surface level, but it does not say)

1400 pounds, temp 40F, no wind, ground roll 790', to 50' - 1170'
1650 pounds, temp 40F, no wind, ground roll 1140', to 50' - 1600'
1400 pounds, temp 40F, 20MPH wind, ground roll 280', to 50' - 540'
1650 pounds, temp 40F, 20MPH wind, ground roll 440', to 50' - 790'
1400 pounds, temp 80F, no wind, ground roll 910', to 50' - 1320'
1650 pounds, temp 80F, no wind, ground roll 1330', to 50' - 1820'
1400 pounds, temp 80F, 20MPH wind, ground roll 320', to 50' - 650'
1650 pounds, temp 80F, 20MPH wind, ground roll 500', to 50' - 900'

Engine: Lycoming O-235-C1B or C1 (the difference is only magnetos),(very similar to the engine found in the Cessna 152, but quite different propeller). Fuel consumption should be very close to a C152, Colt book says a full rich, full power fuel flow of 8.7GPH, to a leaned lower power (2100RPM) 4.2GPH.

I have many hours flying a Colt. Although it flies somewhat differently from a C150/152, it is delightfull, and I'd be happy to fly one anytime. They are not a common aircraft, and subject to the same added maintenance requirements as any tube and fabric aircraft. They really should be hangared. Added to that, the newest Colts you might find will be in the age range of the oldest C150's you would find. How old a plane do you want?

Having owned 2 C150's since 1984, I recommend to your friend that if economical safe flying is the objective, you can't beat it; reasons as follows: There are lots around, so they are well supported by parts supplies and maintenance shops. Insurance companies unerstand them, so will charge reasonable rates. As they are common, they are resonably priced, and you will have a good choice of condition and extras, which you will not have with some other aircraft. If you find a Colt for sale, it will be "take it or leave it", not choose from a dozen available... I think that when compared to much newer non-type certified aircraft, you may find that to get comparable performance and capability, the newer type will be considerably more costly to buy and insure than a C150. Though I can't argue against newer condition, technology, performance, instruments and comfort....

The differences (in general) between the C150's are as follows: First made in 1959. In 1964, back window added, in 1966 electric flaps added, tail swept, in 1967, cabin widened 3" and 60A alternator replaced generator (charges at lower engine speed & lighter), in 1969, key start instead of pull start, in 1971, cabin widened (by bowing doors) 3" more, tubular main gear, in 1975 the fin was made 6" taller, in 1977 the flap selector changed to preselect. The 1977 C152 was identical firewall aft to the 1977 C150, other than than the flap travel change to 30 degrees. The only change after that of consequence was to a 28 volt electrcial system, which saved weight, but is miserable if you have to boost the battery.

If the limited runway length is the primary concern, don't select an aircraft with less than the best STOL performance. It's not worth being scared by a fence later in your flying career! I cannot say enough good things about the Horton STOL kit on a Cessna wing - it is not costly, and has prevented countless accidents. In Canada they are very common. In addition to noticable improvements in STOL performance, it makes the aircraft much safer near the stall, particularly in a turn. The ailerons are also made more affective by gap seals. The Robertson STOL kit is even better (droops the ailerons with the flaps), but is very expensive, and the C150 does not have the power to make good use of the increased lift.

I hope that helps, Pilot DAR

MikeJ
4th Nov 2006, 16:18
We've two 150/152 threads running. Perhaps the mods should merge them.

My own view is that its daft to consider almost all modern Cof A aircraft for a 1300ft strip. I went to a recent GASCo seminar, where one speaker showed that this year in the UK, we had days when at sea level, the density altitude was 2500ft! A Maule may be good, but probably outside the budget of anyone cosidering a 150/152.

I trained on a 150, and thought that the reduction of flaps from 40deg to 30deg was due to the very large trim change required from a full flapped approach to a full powered go-around. You needed a very hard push to keep the aircraft from rising up into a stall, and I think that there have been a number of fatals from this.

You are looking for a 2 seater. As always, Ghengis gives words of wisdom. Modern 450KG microlights are the present day equivalent for the past role of the 150. Some would comfortably operate from this runway, as would several permit types. They cost much less to operate. I think it absolutely wrong for the CAA to limit suitable types from operating as CofA aircraft, eg under IFR.

MikeJ

the dean
10th Nov 2006, 16:52
ok thanks guys for all the helpful info. ...my friend is still looking but with the benefit of your data....:D

pilot DAR...thanks indeed for all the figures. when you live about 10 degrees west you do'nt get many 80 degree days :{ ...but thanks anyway...:D

gear up...:ok:

dean.

Scottbral
16th Nov 2006, 15:32
Pilot Dar,

I am about to purchase a 150m. Sounds like your experience and opinion is that keeping the 100hp and installing Horton STOL is the best combo for short field performance.

What is your opinion about the best Model 150/152 and what STOL setup. Anyone else care to comment also?

Pilot DAR
17th Nov 2006, 14:29
Hello Scottbral,

The C150 is the better choice for STOL performance in that class of aircraft. The C152 suffers in STOL performance because of the factory propeller choice (though some are changed by now), and the 30 degree flap limit. Now there's good wisdom in the reality that having flaps which are so effective in drag that you get get into runways which you cannot get out of is not such a great idea, but with good judgement, the greater flap travel is still nice to have. For me, every landing, no matter what the wind, is full flap. An 18Kt direct crosswind is manageable, and I've landed with winds 38 gusting to 43Kts. Every takeoff is 10 degrees flap. It is only occasional zero flap for the practice of a failed flap motor.

The choice of STOL kit brand is really not a big factor. I have a liking for the Horton kits, but the Sportsman and Bush kits are quite good as well. The STOL kits come with new wing tips, because of the change in airfoil shape at the tip. It is my experience that these have very little affect, other that they look cool. At one point I lost one (suspect bird strike, but it was night so I don't know for sure). I did not notice it missing until the walk around the next day. There was no change in handling with only one. There are also extreme droop tips. They are not compatible with STOL kits, and in my opinion, provide no apparent benefit. They do block quite a bit of view under the wing! With the installation of a STOL kit, you want to be certain that the propeller is a 48" pitch. the 50" or 52" will give disappointing climb (and thus STOL) performance.

A few comments about flying STOL kitted Cessnas; Aside from higher G flying, there will be very little difference in the handling and performance with less than full power. With full power, you can easily get yourself into a phase of flight where a sudden engine failure is going to be a real problem - you will suddenly stall before you get the nose down to start a glide (you'll already be flying well below glide speed). The aircraft will be very controllable throughout, but you will loose altitude rapidly because of the high drag of the angle of attack. Similarly, it is possible to glide at much slower airspeeds quite safely, except that if the glide is to a landing (which most are), there will be no inertia left with which to flare. The aircraft will change pitch as expected, but promptly stall and hit the ground at the same rate of descent. If you were planning an off airport crash, this might be a good idea, but it otherwise results in embarrasingly hard landings! The C150 will be placarded agaist spins wit the installation of a STOL kit. This is because it can no longer meet the requirement to perform a six turn spin - it comes out on its own after a turn or so. The spin changes to a spiral dive, and thus the speed builds up rapidly, and the recovery is different. The STOL kit does not cost you any airspeed in cruise. The STOL kit will dramatically reduce the stall speed in high G turns. The possiblity of reduced engine cooling at lower airspeeds and igh power is ever present, but the engine cools very well. If you are going to monitor a CHT, put the probe on the aft passenger side cylinder.

The C150 with the 150HP Lycoming conversion is not a worthwhile aircraft for STOL work. It is much heavier, and if the prop is optimised for cruise, it will be very disapointing for STOL work. The 150HP C150 I used to fly had 14 pounds of lead in the tail and this made the low speed handling very mushy in pitch - the last thing you want in a STOL plane!

There are also vortex generator kits. The only thing which is negative with these, is the possible damage resulting from needing to clean the wings of snow or ice, or their interaction with wing covers.

Oh, leave the wheel fairings at home. They seem to have little speed benefit, and a weight detrement - The 10 pounds of mud which each one will carry, that you don't know is there!

If you've got a C150 L or M (and perhaps K), it will have a "key start clutch", unless the starter motor has been changed. These are fantastic units until they start to go wrong, then they are horrible. At THE FIRST SIGN of slipping during starting, do not start the engine with the starter again until the clutch is cleaned by a suitably skilled shop. Special tools and skills are required for reassembly, so not a lot of shops can do this work. Failure to heed this advice (because after slipping, the engine did start afterall, and you went happily flying, and forgot all about it), WILL result in a ruined clutch, and the very real possiblity of circulating very hard bits of broken bearings through the engine's very expensive close fitting surfaces. More detail on this is available if required.

I hope that helps,

Pilot DAR

Pilot DAR
17th Nov 2006, 14:35
Hello Scottbral,

The C150 is the better choice for STOL performance in that class of aircraft. The C152 suffers in STOL performance because of the factory propeller choice (though some are changed by now), and the 30 degree flap limit. Now there's good wisdom in the reality that having flaps which are so effective in drag that you get get into runways which you cannot get out of is not such a great idea, but with good judgement, the greater flap travel is still nice to have. For me, every landing, no matter what the wind, is full flap. An 18Kt direct crosswind is manageable, and I've landed with winds 38 gusting to 43Kts. Every takeoff is 10 degrees flap. It is only occasional zero flap for the practice of a failed flap motor.

The choice of STOL kit brand is really not a big factor. I have a liking for the Horton kits, but the Sportsman and Bush kits are quite good as well. The STOL kits come with new wing tips, because of the change in airfoil shape at the tip. It is my experience that these have very little affect, other that they look cool. At one point I lost one (suspect bird strike, but it was night so I don't know for sure). I did not notice it missing until the walk around the next day. There was no change in handling with only one. There are also extreme droop tips. They are not compatible with STOL kits, and in my opinion, provide no apparent benefit. They do block quite a bit of view under the wing! With the installation of a STOL kit, you want to be certain that the propeller is a 48" pitch. the 50" or 52" will give disappointing climb (and thus STOL) performance.

A few comments about flying STOL kitted Cessnas; Aside from higher G flying, there will be very little difference in the handling and performance with less than full power. With full power, you can easily get yourself into a phase of flight where a sudden engine failure is going to be a real problem - you will suddenly stall before you get the nose down to start a glide (you'll already be flying well below glide speed). The aircraft will be very controllable throughout, but you will loose altitude rapidly because of the high drag of the angle of attack. Similarly, it is possible to glide at much slower airspeeds quite safely, except that if the glide is to a landing (which most are), there will be no inertia left with which to flare. The aircraft will change pitch as expected, but promptly stall and hit the ground at the same rate of descent. If you were planning an off airport crash, this might be a good idea, but it otherwise results in embarrasingly hard landings! The C150 will be placarded agaist spins wit the installation of a STOL kit. This is because it can no longer meet the requirement to perform a six turn spin - it comes out on its own after a turn or so. The spin changes to a spiral dive, and thus the speed builds up rapidly, and the recovery is different. The STOL kit does not cost you any airspeed in cruise. The STOL kit will dramatically reduce the stall speed in high G turns. The possiblity of reduced engine cooling at lower airspeeds and igh power is ever present, but the engine cools very well. If you are going to monitor a CHT, put the probe on the aft passenger side cylinder.

The C150 with the 150HP Lycoming conversion is not a worthwhile aircraft for STOL work. It is much heavier, and if the prop is optimised for cruise, it will be very disapointing for STOL work. The 150HP C150 I used to fly had 14 pounds of lead in the tail and this made the low speed handling very mushy in pitch - the last thing you want in a STOL plane!

There are also vortex generator kits. The only thing which is negative with these, is the possible damage resulting from needing to clean the wings of snow or ice, or their interaction with wing covers.

Oh, leave the wheel fairings at home. They seem to have little speed benefit, and a weight detrement - The 10 pounds of mud which each one will carry, that you don't know is there!

If you've got a C150 L or M (and perhaps K), it will have a "key start clutch", unless the starter motor has been changed. These are fantastic units until they start to go wrong, then they are horrible. At THE FIRST SIGN of slipping during starting, do not start the engine with the starter again until the clutch is cleaned by a suitably skilled shop. Special tools and skills are required for reassembly, so not a lot of shops can do this work. Failure to heed this advice (because after slipping, the engine did start afterall, and you went happily flying, and forgot all about it), WILL result in a ruined clutch, and the very real possiblity of circulating very hard bits of broken bearings through the engine's very expensive close fitting surfaces. More detail on this is available if required.

I hope that helps,

Pilot DAR

Scottbral
18th Nov 2006, 03:31
Excellent. Thank you. I wondered about the 150/150. We are thinking of using this plane at a 5000' field elevation in Africa 3 degrees below the equator so density altitudes will be high. I'm wondering if the 150 with a climb prop would be worth the trade-off in useful load? Not too worried about cruise speed.

I understand what you are saying about no energy left for the flare. Sounds like you'd need to get the plane up over best glide near touchdown to generate enough energy to flare power off.

Did you say you have a 150M? What density altitudes are you flying? Why every takeoff with 10 deg. flap? How high of a wieght have you flown and was the climb/handling aweful?

Thanks again,

Scott

Pilot DAR
19th Nov 2006, 03:24
Hi Scott,

A 5000' density altitude will obviously decrease performance. I do not have experience with ground operations in a 150 at those density altitudes. I have cruised it at altitudes as high as 12000', but it sure takes a while to get there! My usual operations are from less than 1000' ASL runways, though on days as hot as 100F. Performance suffers, the flight manual describes it well. The climb prop is the way to go, don't bother with cruise props on C150's, the plane just does not have the good aerodynamics to operate well at the higher speeds, very shiny C177's are good Cessnas for that.

The type of operation you plan would certainly benefit from a four cylinder EGT (I have an 8 chanel EI instrument, and highly recomend it), this would allow you to lean during takeoff.

As for the 150HP 150, I'm not a fan. They can have poor useful loads, and mushy handling in pitch as a result of weight in the tail. They do not benefit from the added power at low speed. They are generally very expensive for what you are getting. For the cost, you may as well buy a 172, and get the extra room inside. Cessna has an excellent product range, so you can select a model with just the characteristics you need. Aside from STOL kits on the earlier wings, I don't see much value in spending a lot of money to try to convert one model of Cessna to be more like another - just buy the one which best suits the role.

As for the glide with a STOL kit, gliding more slowly than the factory glide speed has no benefit, if safety and distance are the objective. If you glide more slowly with the STOL wing, with a plan to increase the speed near the end to enable a flare, you'll give up more altitude as you lower the nose than you would have saved flying more slowly (and it's the worst phase of flight to be fooling around with an unstable approach). It's sort of like gliding with 20 flap, and then retracting the flaps in the latter phase of the glide for more distance - you'll loose a whole bunch of altitude as the flaps come up, and any drag reduction advantage is lost right away.

Flying C150's overgross is a poor idea, they just do not have the power to carry it off safely, and there's a good chance that you had to load an aft C of G to get to that weight - unsafe. The 150 is an economical way to fly, so expecting more than what the performance figures offer is just not realistic. The C182 has remarkable performance and capacity, and very early ones can sometimes be had for not much more than twice the cost of a good C150, but the operating cost are a lot more. I cannot speak to higher weights with 150Hp C150's, the one I used to fly was still a 1600 pound gross weight. The C152 is 1670 pounds if I recall correctly, I don;t remember how much of this is extra useful load.

As for flaps, aside from occasional zero flap pracitce in case of system failure, I fly all takeoffs at 10, and landings at 40. My reasoning is simple, flaps cost you nothing to use (I've never seen a worn out Cessna flap motor!), brakes, tires and shimmy dampers do. If ground speeds are lower, costs and risks of damage are lower too. A lot of my operations are from less than perfect runways, so I try to minimize wear and tear on the airframe, I think lower speeds on the ground helps with this.

That's all for now, Pilot DAR

Scottbral
21st Nov 2006, 16:24
Super! Thanks for the time...

Fokkerwokker
28th Jan 2007, 22:34
Apart from Sensenich has any other prop manufacturer had a go at improving C 152 performance?