C150/C152 differences

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm sure that I remember a thread a few months back discussing the fine detail of the differences between the C150 and the C152, but I can't find it for the life of me.

Does anybody else remember it, or better still be able to post a link?

Cheers,

G

[Dave Gittins]

Have a look at the bottom of the page in the "similar threads" section. There are about 5 threads with the right sort of title.

DGG

:ok:

[100LL]

Try here

http://www.cessna150-152.com/faqs/models.htm

Genghis

[rtl_flyer]

G,

150 has 40% flap and some have a 130hp engine.....!!

Dare I also say mine is for sale at Popham - VERY good condition...

www.gapilot.co.uk for details.

Tim

[A and C]

The 152 is just a "sorted" 150 there are a number of structual changes including a very much better main landing gear instalation, better stab/fin mountings, 28V electrics, the only downside was the loss of the 40 flap setting. the engine was changed to a Lycoming O-235 L2C.

[MikeJ]

Ghengis,
One of the apparently unnoticed statistics recently discovered is that over the period 1980 - 2006 there have been

10 stall/spin fatal crashes in C150
1 " " " " " C152.

In this period there were many more hours flown in the C152, making the apparent risk per hour about 16 times greater in the C150.
On these numbers the difference is hugely statistically significant, over 99%.

The tragic death of a teenager on second solo at Southend last year was in a C150. Over the 27 years analysed, there was a total of just 4 stall/spin fatals of solo students on all types, but 3 of these were in C150. The other was an AA5.

Needless to say, very serious study is now being made of the reasons for this difference.

[Genghis the Engineer]

MikeJ - I know, that's why I'm looking into it for you. See you at the meeting on Friday.

G

[G SXTY]

Perhaps stating the obvious, but as a newbie PPL I found the flap system on the C150 quite nasty, whereas on the 152 it’s simplicity itself.

Compare setting approach flap on base leg for instance; on the 152 you would confirm white arc speed, move the flap lever to the 20 degree position, and that’s it – a few seconds work at most, then back to the ASI and looking out of the window.

On the 150 you have to operate (and hold) the flap toggle with your right hand, then monitor the flap position indicator to your left, ensuring that you stop the flaps travelling at 20 degrees. It’s a fiddly procedure which draws attention away from monitoring airspeed and traffic at a critical stage of flight. It’s not difficult to imagine a scenario where a low-hours pilot becomes distracted while operating the flaps, lets the airspeed get a little low, realises they’ve continued a little too far on base, turns final a bit late, tightens the turn . . .

I think it’s a nasty little ‘gotcha’ that is waiting to trap the unwary, and may go some way to explaining the difference in stall/spin statistics between the two types.

Are these stall/spin crashes concentrated in one particular phase of flight?

[rtl_flyer]

G SXTY

Have you actually flown a C150 with the different flap switch? I have and find it BETTER than the C152 - especially if on a go around.

Any problems a low hours PPL may have is doing a go around with 40% flap down.

Tim.

[G SXTY]

Yes I've flown both, and IMHO the C152 flap system is significantly easier to use.

The fact that Cessna changed it suggests they might agree.

[rtl_flyer]

That does not suggest that the 150 flap switch type and position are unsafe. It was in service for long enough!!
You suggest looking at the indicator on the pillar (next to the screen where you are looking out) is less safe than looking down into the cockpit at the indicator on the lower centre of the panel.
It is also common knowledge the gate on the 152 switch gets warn with age and causes problems.
One advantage of the switch rather than stepped 152 switch you are able on go-around to take the flaps up in smaller steps, rather than 10% at a time. Or more if the gate is not as positive as it should be on a 152.
The 150 is like every other aircraft - they have a slightly different flap (and other systems) operation and requires the pilot to be familiar with the operation of the aircraft they are flying.

[smarthawke]

The last of the 150s the 150M (there were some N's produced but are rare) had the same flap pre-select system as the 152. The non pre-select switch had the switch sprung loaded back to 'neutral' when putting flaps down and 'locked' up when selecting flaps up. This could catch some out when they tried to take a bit of flap off during go-arounds and the whole lot went - ie 40 deg to zero. Happened to a 150 at Sibson in the late 80s, aircraft ended up in the trees, luckily no harm to the solo student.

As for the gear, again it was different on much earlier 150s with the flat spring legs as opposed to the later faired tapered rod setup which was carried through to the 152s.

The first 152s had the same fin/stab attachment brakets as the 150s, there then followed Mks II and III on the 152, the last being a one-piece casting.

If you're talking spin charcteristics the 150M had the same larger fin and longer dorsal fairing as the 152. The 150L and earlier had a shorter fin and rudder and shorter dorsal fin.

Going back further in time there was of course the straight-tailed, fast back (non 'Omni-Vision' windows!) with manual flaps a la Piper.

[Whirlybird]

I had a share in a C150 for several years, and flew it quite a lot. And I agree that the flap system is horrible. Looking up to see how much flap you've got on final, when you should be looking at the runway, is awkward to say the least. And putting the flaps up when doing a go-around is really awkward! It was nearly as bad after a few years as it was at the beginning. Recently I flew a C152 for the first time for a few years, and the flaps were so, so much easier to operate.

I have no idea if this relates to the accidents, but if I was a new PPL finding landings difficult the C150 certainly wouldn't make it any easier for me. :(

[G SXTY]

RTL

Genghis started this thread to ask about differences between the two aircraft. Statistics suggest C150s are involved in significantly more stall/spin crashes than 152s. The obvious question is why. Without knowing details of every accident we can’t say if there is a discernable pattern, but if (as I suspect) many of them involve base to final turns, it would suggest that maybe it’s worth comparing differences between the two types on base leg.

One clear difference is operation of the flaps. You prefer the C150’s system, I (and others) think the 152’s is better. The reason I prefer the 152 is that as a wet behind the ears 50hr PPL, I was nearly bitten by a 150 in a base to final turn. (I learned about flying from that). Mulling it over on the ground, I believed it was allowing myself to get fixated on operating the flaps that caused me to let the airspeed get dangerously low. Maybe it was low-hours, maybe it was because I learned in a 152 and was new to the 150, maybe I’m being unfair on the aircraft and I’m just a rubbish pilot. Who knows.

At the risk of going round in circles, I’m not claiming the C150 is a menace to all who fly it (and I do know how much fun you can have with 40 degrees of flap).:ok: All I’m suggesting is that the 152 has a flap operation which is simpler for the inexperienced and/or unwary – at a stage of flight where mistakes are very costly.

How much do you want for your 150 by the way?;)

[smarthawke]

All this talk of flap operation causing problems when turning base to final - surely one shouldn't be altering flap setting whilst turning?

Apart from the distraction, there is the risk of asymetric flap (the starboard flap is driven directly by the motor, the port one by cables) when operating them and for that to happen when going round a corner isn't exactly ideal....

As for rtl's FRA150 - whatever he asks it's worth it, you have to see it to appreciate just what a nice example it is.

[BigEndBob]

Surely the biggest difference is the engine. Its OK, just the position of the carb. is the problem. About the only aircraft i have suffered real carb icing with the engine stopping, and thats before i even got airborne.

With 200 rpm drop with carb heat hot thats the killer.

[Final 3 Greens]

Just a dumb question.

What is the ratio of 150 to 152 in the UK.

Not 16:1 by any chance?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Worth saying that MikeJ's stats are standardised by flying hours from CAA's annual returns.

G

[Final 3 Greens]

That closes that train of thought :ok:

[BeechNut]

Used to own a C150 many moons ago. Never found it to be particularly nasty in stall/spins. Good little bird actually, very economical to fly, honest 100 mph cruise on 5 gph. I agree the flap system stinks especially if you're flying a clapped-out flying school bird that has a wonky or missing indicator.

The 40 degree flap setting could be fun for short landings, but it could also bite in a couple of ways. First of all with that flap setting you could land in a remarkably short distance, on a small grass strip only to realize (hopefully not the hard way) that you didn't have enough room for that little 100 hp Continental to pull you out. Secondly, in a go-around, you required fairly large forward stick force to keep the bird from pitching up, plus it would not climb with 40 deg, which was all drag. So you had to get rid of 20 degrees quickly. See comments about wonky indicators...sometimes you could be surprised at going too far, losing lift, and watching the trees at the end of the runway coming up, and suddenly wishing for another 100 hp.

Students have also been known to forget to milk off 20 degrees in a go-around. I flew out of a place for a while that had a house off the end of the airstrip. A student from another field came in and did a go around but forgot to milk off 20 degrees. He went around the house, not over it...fortunately he or his instructor realized the mistake and they eventually got airborne, but I suspect a change of underpants was required upon return to home base.

There were a few spin training related accedents due to jamming rudders due to a faulty rudder stopper. Might have something to do with the stats.

Overall the C152 is a nicer little aircraft except for the 28v electrics (no more jump-starting with the car). The O-235 is nicer, not as prone to carb ice as the O-200, and the bonus for private flyers, it has a 2400 hr TBO vs 1800 hr on the Continental. This reflects itself in the selling price, at least this side of the pond, where a 152 will fetch a good $5-10k more than the equivalent C150. Plus as is pointed out the flap system was simple and fool-proof and you don't really need the extra 10 degrees of flap.

I liked the 150 a lot though, had loads of fun without spending large wads of money, and sometimes I daydream about selling my Sundowner and buying a little 150 to fly off into retirement...

[ShyTorque]

I think I came close to a big accident at Ipswich in an old C150 in 1973 (one tends not to forget). I was a student practicing some short field landings. I applied the final stage of flap and let go of the switch. Shortly afterwards, I was very surprised when the aircraft buffeted and fell out of the sky, landing well short, despite me applying a lot of power (probably full throttle, thinking back). Fortunately for me I had aimed 1/3 of the way into the field as a touchdown point - if I hadn't I would have possibly been down on the main road in the undershoot.

The switch, which was worn, had flipped up through the "OFF" gate into the retract position as i released it and the flaps completely retracted themselves on short finals. I was then doing a flapless short field landing, which obviously didn't work out too well.

I had the pleasure of flying a couple of brand new Reims C152s shortly afterwards and realised the new flap operating system was much better.

[Pilot DAR]

I am certainly a fan of 40 degrees of flap on a Cessna 150, particularly when combined with a Horton STOL kit. Yes, one can easily land in a place too small to take off from!

I agree that the Later Cessna flap preselect switch of the later 150's and 152's is pleasing to use, but they can be more demanding of maintenance though. When they go wrong, they go way wrong!

The original flap switch is the subject of a service bulletin, which suggests its replacement with a spring to center from both position type. This is not mandatory though, and I have preferred to leave mine original. You just have to pay attention a little.

The flap position indicator on the door post is not perfect, but it is an improvement over the earlier version, which was right above the pilot's head (good for instructors to see though). I have devised a very presentable decal which is applied to the inside of the left wing rib aft area, which becomes exposed when the flap is extended. This simply makes 10 degree increment lines become visible as the flap extends. I have not evaluated it on 30 degree flap Cessnas, but I can't see why it would not work. When you're flying left hand circuits, you spend some time looking right out in that direction anyway, so a quick glance, and your flap setting is confirmed. Should anyone wish a CorelDraw file of this decal, PM me and I'll be pleased to sent it along via email. It's installation would not require modification approval by Canadian standards.

I am not of the opinion that flap asymmetry in a single Cessna is a risk of any concern. If it were to happen during extension from flaps up, retracting the flaps would fix the problem. If one flap suddenly retracted from full flaps - forget it, you'd be done, unless you had lot's of altitude, and manual flaps.

A greater risk, and is has happened to me in a Cessna 180 floatplane, is a flap track breaking off. During water touch and go's (way further from shore than I should have been) I quickly retracted from 40 to 20 while on the step, and took off again. The flap handle felt a little funny. Once airborne, I could not move the right flap at all, and the left had become a very unsafe aileron. I flew home with 20 flap out, and landed with that setting, and great care. Once on the water, the right flap hung down inboard at an odd angle. It's track had come completely out of the wing!

One other 152 note; as factory configured, they had a very poor short/soft field takeoff compared to a 150. A different propeller played a part in this. Lots of grass runways I'd been into in a 150 terrified me in a 152.

In 1977, the introduction of the 152 was very anticipated. By chance I was the first person to first solo the first one into Canada. It had 33 hrs TTSN at that time, and my instructor was nearly fired for sending me off in it! Once we got to know them, many of us were every bit as happy back in 150's.

Sparrowhawk is a very worthwhile conversion to a 152.

Pilot DAR

[sternone]

Dare I also say mine is for sale at Popham - VERY good condition...
www.gapilot.co.uk for details.
Why is it that most previous owners only kept this plane for a few years ?? They hated the flaps probably ?

Previous Owners:
Sue Griffin, Peterborough Cambs 3/1997 - 11/2001 (50% share with me from 200).
Brian Mills, Cambridge 1/1994 - 3/1997
Nicholas Wiszowaty (Echo Victor Flying Group), London 6/1990 - 1/1994
Kathleen Seaton-Stedham, New Milton 6/1989 - 6/1990
Bryan Axford, Lymington 5/1986 - 6/1989
Paul Dupon, London 9/1985 - 5/1986
Andrewsfield Flying Club, Stebbing 11/1984 - 9/1985
David Chisholm, 3rd Armoured Division 7/1983 - 11/1984
South Midland Communications Ltd, Totton 7/1976 - 6/1983
Bennett Bros (Chandlers Ford) Ltd, Chandlers Ford 8/1973 - 6/1976
Brymond Aviation, Woking 9/1972 - 7/1973

[cessna-kevin]

bit strong ,ive known of an arrow thats changed hands twice in recent months does this make it a bad aircraft ? cant get much more simple to fly than a 150 yet still people bang on about holding down a switch

[Piltdown Man]

So the difference is that one is a bit crappier than the other then?

PM

[Pilot DAR]

Cessna Kevin has a good point. It's a switch! What would those naysayers have to say if they were flying a manual flap 150? I had to move a lever...!

I was testing another type certified aircraft, whose manual landing gear retraction and extension system was in airworthy condition, in accordance with it's type design, and I decided to actually measure the actuation force (lever moves like a Cessna flap lever/car parking brake). Force to retract gear: 80 pounds! Oh, and you have to fly the plane at the same time!

There are many venerable aircraft whose systems are not that way we might design them now. We either learn to live with it and love them, or pay up for brand new planes!

Piot DAR

[redbarron55]

Depending on which model 150 yoy are talking about there is little difference except 40 vs 30 degrees and Lycoming O-235 vs Continental O-200 engines.
On the M model 150's the flap controls are exactly like the 152 except the travel was restricted to 30 degrees.
They are bith preselector controls. The flap indicators were different for earlier aircraft with the switch you held dow for the amount of flap you wanted.
A major difference is with the last 10 degrees of travel the pitching moment of the nose was heavier and if you were unwary you could drop the airspeed too low pretty easily if you didn't retrim or push the nose down to compensate. It's a lot like flying an airplane.
As far as being dangerous that depends on if you have an instructor that teaches you how to fly or if you just blunder around in the sky.
I prefer manual flaps, but either is OK. The airplane is what it is and the pilot must control it as necessary.
I have had probably 7 or 8 Cessna 150's over the years of many different models. I prefer the M's but the L are OK too. All are very similar and depend on the condition of an individual example more than the model.
The 152's are not bad airplanes, but in my mind the main reason for their existance is Cessna is owned by the Textron company as is lycoming. The O-235 was supposed to work with LL100 better than the O-200, but that didn't prove to be the case. The 152 may have slightly better rate of climb, but again it depends more on the particular example.
Competitors who operated the 152's and bad mouthed my 150's spent more timew in my hangar having their plugs cleaned so they could go home than mine ever did (never).
You pays your money and takes your choice. Stall / spins happen because of poor training. The flap switch has nothing to do with it.

[timzsta]

I had that very flap switch gotcha as a low hours PPL in the very aircraft that poor lad at Southend was killed in last year. Looking back nobody ever warned me about it so I wonder if there is a lack of general awareness of this problem. Perhaps we should try and raise awareness of the potential dangers.

Regarding the 16:1 issue - I would be surprised if there are 16 times more
Cessna 150's in the Uk then 152's.

Remember there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. What you need to do is look at each incident and try and draw comparisions as has been hinted at - ie base to finals turn with the flaps inadvertently being raised or how many of the accidents have involved 150 aerobats doing aerobatics, continental more prone to carb icing etc.

[wulf190a]

I had an older 150B with manual flaps, No problems, near instant change of flap.

[smarthawke]

Lies, damn lies and statistics sums it up.
Don't let the fact of how many million flying hours have been flown by pilots of all ages, experience and skill without a problem get in the way of a good story invention......
What type has the best risk of flying into the ground in cr@p weather or fall out of the sky during aerobatics that went wrong?
The 150 and 152 are excellent aircraft but like any aeroplane may suffer an accident if flown incorrectly.
Carb ice is a risk to any carburetted engine and some installations are more prone to it than others. How many aircraft are fitted with O-200s and how many O-235s.
Please, give up with this death trap cr@p!!

[Pilot DAR]

Redbarron and Smarkhawke have it right. Love the 150 and 152 as they are, or pay to have a better plane designed, approved ,put into production, and supported for 50 years. That's why Cessna is still in business!

High pitch forces!? Fly a dozen circuits in a Cessna 207 at gross weight, and try the 150 again...

Pilot DAR

[Whirlybird]

The 150 and 152 are excellent aircraft but like any aeroplane may suffer an accident if flown incorrectly.

True. And the only way to guarantee you won't have an aircraft accident is to remain on the ground. :( But the originator of this thread - if I remember rightly - was looking into why there is a disproportionately high number of C150 accidents, compared with the C152. So it's got to be worth looking at how much more likely a low hours pilot is to fly the C150 incorrectly, and why. So that perhaps we can prevent it turning into a death trap for him/her.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thank you Whirly, well said.

I confess, I rather wish this particular genie would have stayed in the bag for a little while longer (purely because I'd like some answers before telling the world what the question was), but since it's out...

MikeJ and I are both involved with a UK organisation with an objective of promoting and improving safety in GA. One of the things that has been going on lately is a review of roughly 25 years of GA fatal accidents (1980-2004); there have been well over 100 fatal accidents in the UK in that period (looking at Group A at the moment) so there's a reasonable statistical sample. (And, being brutal, an unpleasantly high body count - some of those people were friends of mine, and probably friends of other people reading this).

A very large proportion (something around 2/3) of these fatals involved, in some way, a stall and/or spin. This is not exactly surprising, but it does allow us to start analysing things statistically since we're still on big numbers.

You can see reasonable trends by type. For example the tapered wing PA28s (e.g. the PA28-161 Warrior II) show NO stall/spin related fatals in that period. On the other hand whilst the C152 shows 1 such fatal in that period, the C150 shows 10. Since in the UK the CAA helpfully retains a record of the hours flown by everything, we can standardise that by flying hours. This shows that whilst remaining generally very safe, the C150 is about 16 times more likely to suffer such an accident than the C152. The bulk of these fatal accidents appear to occur during the climb-out or go-around.

So, we're asking ourselves why? There are a few theories: many concentrating upon the flap mechanisms; but, they also include CG differences, slight wing shape differences, different profiles of the pilots flying each type - and no-doubt a few other theories will come out of the woodwork. There are other, far worse types statistically than the C150 (and far better than the C152), but the fact that they're so similar makes it relatively easy to study the differences.


There are two big reasons why we want to know the answer to this question, it's not just academic interest. These are:

(1) When we know what the reason(s) is/are, we can tell pilots on this, and other types, what mistakes to avoid.

(2) It'll also allow us to feed information to aircraft designers and evaluators so that whatever that subtle difference is between the two, we can use that knowledge to make future aeroplanes safer.

G

[rtl_flyer]

On the other hand whilst the C152 shows 1 such fatal in that period, the C150 shows 10. Since in the UK the CAA helpfully retains a record of the hours flown by everything, we can standardise that by flying hours. This shows that whilst remaining generally very safe, the C150 is about 16 times more likely to suffer such an accident than the C152. The bulk of these fatal accidents appear to occur during the climb-out or go-around.
Statistics are great, but subject to what data has been collected. C152 1 Fatal - 16 C150. How many accidents or are we just talking about fatal accidents.
C150's are not generally used for training/schools now days where 152's are so the 152 is probably being flown with an experienced instructor on board for most of the flying hours they are in the air. Perhaps we should be looking at the statistics as to how current the pilot involved in the accident was?
Eg 152 training school, licenced airfield, CPL PIC. C150 Private owner, only 1 hour in the past 60 days (winter) into a private strip. See my pont?
All I am trying to say - by experience - statistics can give different results.
Depending on which model 150 yoy are talking about there is little difference except 40 vs 30 degrees and Lycoming O-235 vs Continental O-200 engines.
The model FRA150L - the R is for Rolls Royce Cont.O-240. Has a 130 hp engine fitted.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Your point is clear, and have no doubt - we'll be looking at all of that. Which is precisely the reason that, if I'm honest, I wasn't all that keen on there being much public discussion before we had some answers.

We are just looking at fatal accidents at the moment - on the grounds that it's dead bodies we care about most.

G

[Whirlybird]

Genghis,

You mentioned in about your second post on this thread that you were looking into this, so it wasn't me that spilled the beans, honest!

[redbarron55]

Stall / spin in take off?
This looks more like training accidents in take off and departure stall training. In this mode the cessna with full flaps and full (although low at 100 hp) power the little bird can get a little touchey. It is very common to spin over the top if the coordination is not good. A go around with full flaps is not likely with 40 deg. flap.
This sounds more like training accidents. The proper use of this much flap requires some training that would be absent if one trained in a 152 and then transitioned (?) to a 150.
The FAA limited the flaps to 30 deg since you can get into trouble with 40 if you were not trained for it.
For example the pilot must be trained to ptoperly fly the Cessna 150 where if trained ina Piper warrior the "pilot" needs almost no training at all.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Don't panic Whirly - wasn't pointing at you!

G

[NutLoose]

Remember there is an AD in the works for these aircraft to check the rudder stops after those poor people in the USA spun in, you have to make sure the lip on the plate that the rudder stop strikes is Forward, on the one they where flying it had been fitted the wrong way round trapping the rudder full over and causing it to spin in :( Checked all the ones I work on already......

[NutLoose]

For those wishing to check there rudder stops before they fly ( it only takes a second to do them) please refer to this, It gives you all the details and photographs to see what you need to check.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2007/A07_33.pdf

[Pilot DAR]

RTL Flyer makes a very good point. I think that the aerodynamics of the 152 vs the 150M (aside from flaps beyond 30, and powerplant) are effectively identical. The wings are the same on all models. The obvious statistical difference is probably not attributable to the aircraft model itself, but more who, and how it is being flown. The 150's were probably older, and to put it bluntly, less cared for (pilot horsing around, 'cause he's flying a junk heap anyway). 152's are more prized, simply because they are newer. It's like saying older cars are more likely to be in a collision than newer ones. Its' not the car, it's how it's driven.

40 flaps should not factor in to departure stall spin accidents. If you took off or went around, and that much flap were still out, you would not climb high enough to fall far enough to hurt yourself! Stall/spin during foolish low flying, or landing, much more likely. The plane is just so comfortable to the end during this kind of manuevering, that it does not scare you until it's too late. Other types (Tomahawk, which I like, but flies differently) tend to be less assured in slow or abusive flight, and scare the pilot back to reason before all is lost.

It is my opinion that stall/spin/slow flight may not always be taught well enough. I've had instructors tell other pilots that "[me] was flying my plane around below stall speed". At least one was asked "how come it did not stall then?" STOL kit.

The rudder stop issue, and another erroneously issued AD for STOL kit wing fence height, are in my considered opinion unworthy non-starters.

In the case of the rudder stops, look at a 150 rudder. The bellcrank would have to be soooo far bent or falling off for this to be possible, that it was already quite damaged, and this should be evident on a walkaround. In the Canadian accident of this nature, I suspect that it was possible that the rudder over the stop happened after contact with the ice, and it was just a completely mis-managed manuever, or the rudder was predamaged, and not noticed. If the stops were installed incorrectly, that's a maintenance issue/design allows mis-installation. The revised stop kit solved a problem which was not there in the first place, and was a cheap resolution to a liability open end. 22000 150's in 40+ years, and two accidents, one with mis-installation of parts as the cause, not statistically worthy of AD action in my opinion.

The STOL kit wing fence height AD suggests that the aircraft is somehow sensitive to this characteristic. NOT AT ALL!. I spoke with the FAA inspector who issued this AD, and he did not test fly any combination of STOL kit on a 150 before issuing the AD. He just assumed that because the wrong fences were there, that was the problem. My 150M has the same wrong fences, and there is no negative characteristic as a result. If there were I would have found it by now. I've put over 2000 hours on this particular plane in the last 20 years I have owned it. The aircraft generally cannot be held into a spin (hence the removal of spin approval - no prohibition though, so don't start on me). The STOL kitted 150 can no longer demonstrate the requirement to hold in for 6 turns, and recover after 4 more - it just will not stay in. The spin becomes a spiral dive, which requires a much different recovery technique.

I do not believe that it was the FAA who limited the 152 flap travel, it was Cessna's choice for many of their models. Any competent 152 pilot will have no problem with 40 degree flaps in a 150. It is only in the manual flap 150's that you can go from 40 to zero instantly where a hazard could exist, but in that case, you startle yourself, and put the flap part way back down just as quickly.

Were any of the 150's 150 or 180 HP mods? Those do fly differently to their underpowered sister ships, and that is worthy of consideration. The torque affect of a departure stall in one of these would encourage a spin.

The task of improving safety in the fleet is worthy, and close to my heart, but I find that there is a large enough proportion of accidents (and I've helped investigate a few) which were just pure stupidity, that looking for a problem with the plane is just not where the problem is to be found.

Pilot DAR

[BeechNut]

I should perhaps throw in a little info on the Canadian spin accident. Ice was not a factor as the crash happened on the 18th of July 1998.

Maintenance was a factor though. In addition to the rudder stopper issue, the rudder bar return spring was missing due to improper maintenance.

You can read the full report here: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98q0114/a98q0114.asp

Interestingly, I did my intial training for my PPL with the flight school involved in the crash; at the time (1980) they flew a fleet of C150s for ab-initio training. I had an excellent instructor but he was fired, so after my solo x-country, I switched to another smaller school and completed my PPL on a nearly new C152. The C150s at the earlier school were, umm, considerably less attractive.

Gosh can it be 27 years already...

[Pilot DAR]

Beechnut is correct, I have mistaken the surface upon which this 150 crashed, with that of another 150 accident, where the aircraft hit a frozen lake in Quebec. Frozen lake? Quebec? July? No, I guess not.....

My mistake.

Pilot DAR

[Final 3 Greens]

For example the pilot must be trained to ptoperly fly the Cessna 150 where if trained ina Piper warrior the "pilot" needs almost no training at all.

Am I the only person who gets weary of some of the stuff that gets posted here?

For the benefit of RedBaron55

1) Try landing a taper winged PA28 into a critically short runway with 5 knots of excess airspeed - then note the result - to do it properly requires appropriate training and adherence to the Piper performance data

2) I could reasonably argue that a comparison between a DH82 and C150 could lead someone to conclude that the Cessna pilot needs almost no training at all
Rather than concluding that these incidents are "training accidents", we might all be wiser to let Ghengis get on with his investigation, since he is qualified to investigate and draw conclusions and most of the rest of us are not.

[mark sicknote]

I agree with the go around comment - much easier in the 150. But with the accident stats, I'm happy with the 152 and were my kids out on their first solo, I'd prefer them to be in the 152. BTW, the 152 had a rudder "fix" did it not? And was this fix also necessary for the 150? Anyone?

[redbarron55]

I didn't say the warrior would not float like a fast frisby over a hot asphalt parking lot. I said that you don't particularly need to know how to fly to get a license in a Warrior.
No adverse yaw to speak of. The plane basically files itself. Really well designed. Just too easy to learn to fly and miss those little details about flying.
I have run flight schools and seen the difference. The C-150 is one of the best trainers around. It will demonstrate those little quirks of airmanship that are necessary for a properly trained airman. :rolleyes:
It is possible to be taught how to fly and miss these things in a C-150(2), but less likely than in a late model Piper. :mad:
One of the most difficult probelms is a low time instructor who flew exclusively in Pipers and got his instructors rating (all except the required spins in a C-150) and was taught by one of the same being turned loose on the aviation world. :ugh:
The question would be do you want to learn to fly airplanes or an airplane. If you want to learn how to fly airplanes you need to learn how you fly them, not how they fly themselves.:=
Don't get me wrong the PA-151(181) etc are good airplanes, but I don't believe that they should be used for initial training. :D

[Pilot DAR]

Well said Redbarron....

[Final 3 Greens]

I said that you don't particularly need to know how to fly to get a license in a Warrior.

Lets start by saying that is a nonsensical statement. Even if the Warrior required no handling skills whatsoever, there is still navigation, situational awareness, decision making etc to learn. So your point is that you do not need particularly sharp handling skills to obtain a license on a Warrior. Let's accept that for the sake of argument.

Well by your logic, we should really be learning in a Cub or similar, since we all know that taildraggers produce better pilots, creating better airmanship and handling skills near/on the ground.

[redbarron55]

OK, OK I agree with you.
It would be nice and lots of piloting skills would be learned if cubs etc were used. They are just not available like they were. By the way a C-150 is much more civilized than even my PA-20 Pacer and the cub. The Aeronoca was (is) a nicer flying plane than the cub and faster too. If an airplane is too easy to fly the finer points of piloting can be lost. If the instructor doen not make special effort to point out those points that are masked by the detailed design of the craft.
The C-150(2) is civilized enough and picky enough to be a good trainer as long as the student and instructor are not too heavy. The C-172 is good too, but cost more to operate. It also is easier to fly as most larger airplanes are.
I had a couple of Ex Russian instructor pilots at my school who wanted US pilot's licenses, We had to start in King air 200's and work our way down through lances, C-182, C-172 to the C-150. They thought the 150's flew like butterflies.
They eventually got the hang of it and one of them now flies for FedEX. (big iron is still easier to fly and pays better too!).
Neither the Cessna nor the Piper are particularly better or worse aircraft, but the design philosophy is different. In my opinion Piper never made a trainer after the Cub series. They chose to compete at the Cherokee-172 level. For transportation they are roughly equal year for year, which is what competition is all about.
If you really want to learn how to fly airplanes-----I got this PA-20/150. Now then that airplane will teach lots about the art and science of flying for those wiling to learn. :ok:

[sunday driver]

Worn seat adjusters, anyone?

SD

[pumper_bob]

I can't believe how long this thread is going on? Surely the answer to the original question, "whats the difference between a 150 and a 152?"
The answer is simply 2!:E