PDA

View Full Version : C152 preferred trainer. Why?


NZGYPO
6th Apr 2009, 08:27
After gaining my CPL i thought that i would get a 152 rating because it is the preferred trainer aircraft for many years now.

What i was very surprised with is that for the one i flew, if i had two guys my size, 190 pounds then it can only take approximately 25 pounds of fuel. That is not enough to do any form of a descent length flight at all. So i was wondering why has this aircraft been the preferred trainer for so long.

I do realize that the aircraft i flew was slightly heavier due to leather seats and new carpets, but I'm sure it is not the only one which has had refurbishment done to it.
Can we say that for this aircraft MAUW is just a suggestion (which i was told by people from a different training organization to the one i attend) cause to me that is against all the training that i have been taught so far about safe flying.

corsair
6th Apr 2009, 08:44
The reasons are simple, most people weigh less than that so it's only limiting in that scenario. Another reason is that the 150/152 is cheap to run, simple enough to fly but with enough quirks to be valuable for training purposes. It's rugged enough to take the daily knocks it receives in flying schools. Some more recent 'sexy' trainers have a habit of breaking things.........and there's still a lot of them around.

The MAUW is limiting with big men on board. Most reputable flying schools point the bigger student towards the 172 as a trainer in that case. I've seen a 150 try to take off with two big guys on board. It just won't. I don't know why they even tried.

A and C
6th Apr 2009, 08:53
Corsair has most of the reasons correct but I can add that the aircraft has very few AD,s and parts are in good supply so even when some one breaks a part you can get a new one in a few days............. unlike some French aircraft!

Old Fella
6th Apr 2009, 09:01
Mate, the Maximum All Up Weight is most certainly not "just a suggestion". It is a LIMIT. That it becomes limiting in some cases is unfortunate, but anyone who tells you it is "just a suggestion" is telling you 'pork pies'. The aircraft flight manual will tell you the limit for any particular aircraft for the category in which it is being flown.

NZGYPO
6th Apr 2009, 09:58
corsair, are you calling me fat. just kidding, yeah that is what i figured, i just wanted confirmation because i thought that it was ridiculous to have such a reputable aircraft which is very low cost to operate with such limits.
Old Fella i know that it is a limit and that is why i thought it was shocking for some people to call it a suggestion. Thank you all for your input.

mark25787
6th Apr 2009, 10:18
There will be factors such as purchase price, maintenance costs which may well be cheaper than other training aircraft. The high-wing design of the C150 and C152s is a help to trainees as well as it gives a good frame of reference to the ground, and helps with navigation and PFLs as you get a much greater view that with low wing aircraft.
I qualified for my PPL 18 years ago on C150s and 152s and realy enjoyed flying them, although am going to have to swap to a low wing now for my PPL retraining.

Kerosene Kraut
6th Apr 2009, 10:22
It has very nice and predictable slow flight and stall characteristics. Some new trainers (162 anyone?) seem to be trickier. And a 150/152 will last thousands of hours of basic training abuse and can be repaired by anybody.

deltayankee
6th Apr 2009, 10:29
...most people weigh less than that


Thinking back on my time in 152s I realize that none of the instructors were even average size, never mind large. In fact most were skinny young hour builders of maybe 120lbs at most. I guess that was no accident. If the instructor and student are light enough it's a good choice -- cheap, easy to maintain and not so demanding it intimidates a beginner.

And if you have a MAUW issue you also want to avoid the hottest time of day, both to get off the ground and to avoid the worst bumps. I have flown a 152 out of Scottsdale AZ late in the morning and unless you were planning to practice thermalling it is not the best idea.

Lineboy4life
6th Apr 2009, 11:39
tried, tested and proven...

The high wing strut cessna design has one of if not the best safety records of any mass produced lightie.

The 152 is just an improvement on an already excellent design, slightly larger tail-feathers with awesome elevator authority and main-gear that can take the students hate.

Predictable flight/stall/spin traits combined with purchase/running costs and relaibility unmatched make it the training wepon of choice. As for the MAUW issues, better the students make errors in a 152 then something a little less forgiving.

AAARRRR!!! avalanches in the Aerobat, pure sex!!!!

the skycatcher has pretty big shoes to fill, Clive Cessna your a F-:mad:n legend!!!

Peter Fanelli
6th Apr 2009, 12:10
It's the preferred training aircraft..........only with people who didn't train in something better.

bsal
6th Apr 2009, 13:23
What i was very surprised with is that for the one i flew, if i had two guys my size, 190 pounds then it can only take approximately 25 pounds of fuel

From my POH on Cessna 152 1978 model it says MTOW 1670lb, max fuel load is 156lb, standard empty weight is 1100lb. I don't know where your getting the 25lb of fuel from. 1100+380+156=1636 there's still some room left. I know some C152's have slightly different standard empty weights but you should still be able to take almost full fuel onboard safely.

Kerosene Kraut
6th Apr 2009, 14:16
I learned to fly (powered) on a 152 "Sparrow Hawk" in California back then. I'm a tall guy as was my instructor. We frequently went into the mojave desert hot and high on x-countries. It worked. I learned to properly check my weight and balance and density altitude before.
Climb performance on a full payload is a different story.

Genghis the Engineer
6th Apr 2009, 18:17
I suspect that there are a reasonable number of schools who treat MAUW on these simple training aeroplanes as just a suggestion. They shouldn't, but it's also an aeroplane tolerant enough to deal with it.

Why is it so popular in schools? Mostly, I think, because it's so cheap to buy and run. But, in amongst that, it's got excellent handling, benign stall characteristics, a pretty good view out, very uncomplicated controls, and performance which if hardly sparkling, is almost always good enough enough. Plus, it's very cheap and easy to maintain, with a reasonably low fuel consumption.

So, at the end of the day, it's a really superb basic training aeroplane - if a bit limited in payload. So, lots of schools operate them, and you'd struggle to find many pilots worldwide who haven't flown one at some point.

Personally, I also think that it's the second most boring aeroplane in the world after the C172, but that doesn't in itself make it a bad aeroplane for most purposes.

G

Denti
6th Apr 2009, 19:20
Never actually trained on any cessna type, initial training was done on archers (180ps) and from hour 66 on on beech bonanzas (f33). However we hired a 152 to have some fun during training after we had our ppl. We were kinda shocked about the poor performance compared to our archers who were not the best planes either. Never looked back and stayed well free of those cessna SEPs.

rcl7700
6th Apr 2009, 20:37
As a student I thought it was too small. I wanted to fly bigger, heavier, and faster planes. As an instructor I really enjoyed it. Equip it for IFR and you got yourself a really cheap platform for different kinds of instruction. I instructed on many planes including the usual Pipers and Cessnas. I think the 152 hold its own still today, at least for primary instruction.

rcl

jetglo
6th Apr 2009, 21:01
The Cessna 152 IMHO is still the best civil basic training aeroplane even after all the years it has been around.
Very stable in flight and an ideal learning platform, it is relatively economical to operate, easy to maintain and get parts for while able to accommodate most levels of avionics fit for training. I have been flying them and instructing on them for 25 years on and off; I think they are the most forgiving of aeroplanes and for the nervous low-hour ppl student ideal as it really has to be bad before the aeroplane bites back.
The downside is always the reduced visibility because of the high wing and the uncomfortable seat backs; watch out for the weight and balance!

NZGYPO
6th Apr 2009, 21:19
Bsal, the plane i flew had a basic empty weight of approximately 1260 pounds. It had heavy leather seats and a new carpet. It was still very basic and not fit for IFR, so I'd hate to think how much it would weigh if it had all the instruments to make it fit for IFR.

Duchess_Driver
6th Apr 2009, 21:28
From my POH on Cessna 152 1978 model it says MTOW 1670lb, max fuel load is 156lb, standard empty weight is 1100lb. I don't know where your getting the 25lb of fuel from. 1100+380+156=1636 there's still some room left. I know some C152's have slightly different standard empty weights but you should still be able to take almost full fuel onboard safely.

Then sir, you have an anorexic Cessna.

My 1984 POH has standard empty as 1136. We have five in our fleet, all about the same age, lightest at 1170 and heaviest at 1206lbs. With those figures then 'the enough fuel for a circuit' statement seems plausable.

BeechNut
6th Apr 2009, 22:00
It's not only a decent trainer but if the average punter wants to own an aircraft, for the simple pleasure of being in the air, it's one of the easiest, most affordable birds to own. I had a 1972 C150 back about 26 years ago. I sold it for $8000, biggest mistake I ever made, they go for 3x that now.

It was easily the cheapest bird to own and operate I've ever had. and chugging along at 1000' AGL on a calm summer evening, window open, is what pleasure flying is all about. For 90% of the type of flying I do now as I get older and the kids leave the nest, the 150/152 is all I would need.

They are cheap all around: purchase price, maintenance costs, reasonable fuel burn and the cheapest aircraft there is to insure especially for low-time pilots.

I love my Beech but the old 150 could take around the patch at 5.5 gal/hour instead of 10.5 gal/hour.

Mind you back then I weighed 150, I now weigh 200 :}

thrust clb
6th Apr 2009, 22:16
Don't forget that on an operator's point of view, the Lycoming o-235-L2c engine's TBO is a whopping 2400 hours and easily reached without problems. As against the 1800hour tbo on the continental-powered c150's. At usd30/hour leaseback, the owner/operator would have earned 18g's more on a 152 than a 150 before they send the engine for overhaul.

FlightlessParrot
7th Apr 2009, 04:40
In 1957, people were a lot lighter on average than now. Also, 100 HP was a lot of power.

james ozzie
7th Apr 2009, 19:26
When training in PA38s, my CFI used to regularly brim off the tanks & put 2 adult males in. I think in reality this is widespread. But aside from that, consider the actual weight for a typical cross country training flight:

People "in socks" plus:

Shoes, underwear, pants, shirt, jacket, pens, watch, cap, sunglasses, wallet per person
POH & aircraft documents
Flight bag with charts, prayer wheel, clip board, GPS, spare batteries, spare spectacles
First aid kit, strips, tie down kit, spare can of oil, towing bar & (sometimes) chocks
Sandwiches and drink bottle/thermos

Most of this clutter does not go into the weight & balance calc. I have always meant to assemble this mountain of stuff & weigh it all together - my guess is it would easily gobble up that 25lbs mentioned and some more.

Flash2001
7th Apr 2009, 20:19
Hmm...

Puts me in mind of my PPL flight test in a 152. Don't remember the W&B details but I must have worked them out before the flight. I weighed about 180 lb, about the same for the DFE who had given many tests in 152s. When asked to do an incipient spin I could not stall the aircraft. The DFE said "Here, I'll show you how", same result, aircraft very nose high, high sink rate, no stall. Passed, but I never figured out what the problem was.

Any takers?

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!

john_tullamarine
7th Apr 2009, 22:23
Any takers?

Could you perhaps have been somewhat forward of the CG forward limit ? .. and then run out of elevator ?

Flash2001
8th Apr 2009, 00:07
In retrospect that's what I think. There was no luggage etc.

After an excellent landing etc...

Graybeard
8th Apr 2009, 16:02
We bought a 1963 fastback, straight tail 150 for learning to fly. My designated flight examiner had me put in partial flaps, then pull up into a stall, and I obliged with a sharp pull up. The left spin started so quick I was aghast. I instinctively mashed right rudder and recovered in less than one turn. I said in surprise, "What happened?"

He explained as he was signing me off later that the early 150 would do that with partial flaps if you weren't really on top of the rudder controls. It taught me a lesson.

Wife still hasn't forgiven me for selling "her" plane to buy a Bellanca Cruisair.

GB

john_tullamarine
8th Apr 2009, 21:55
The left spin started so quick

.. and potentially for many other aircraft. Why are we not, at all, surprised ?

Interestingly, the typical "pilot" stall procedure and recovery technique is quite at variance with what is done for design and certification. That unexpected things can happen is not at all surprising. Another example of the regulatory flight standards folk not reading the certification design standards ...

We are fortunate that most training Types are very forgiving ...

Oktas8
9th Apr 2009, 08:53
Another example of the regulatory flight standards folk not reading the certification design standards ...

Sounds very ominous John. What specifically are you referring to? I would have thought that the C152 is certified to recover from a spin no matter how grossly mishandled it is at entry, provided of course the recovery technique is correct.

On GYPO's original topic, I wonder how popular the 152 would be if people actually tried to operate within MTOW? Rugged it certainly is, but then every other trainer is built to have a practical payload of more than 1.5 standard adults...

john_tullamarine
9th Apr 2009, 10:05
What specifically are you referring to?

Stall considerations are well worth talking over for the pilot community as there are various misconceptions out there in the field.

I'm off for a day or two just now .. but, why don't you start a thread on, say, "Certification versus Operations and Stall Considerations". That will entice some high ranking test pilots and certification folk into the discussion.....

taildrag
11th Apr 2009, 04:16
A highly experienced instructor who had a fleet of Cessna 152s told me some years back that Cessna realized pilots were getting "bigger" (read: fatter and wider), so built the 152 2" wider and added horsepower.

That was in 1978! Today's pilots, especially Americans, are fatter and wider still.

I have a 152. I'm somewhat of a blimp myself, so it is used mostly as a one-up flivver, unfortunately.:(

Exaviator
11th Apr 2009, 04:24
"After gaining my CPL"

Are you for real? You hold a CPL and still do not understand the meaning of MAUW. Please tell me you were joking. :confused:

Piper19
11th Apr 2009, 23:24
A C152 is cheap and forgiving. Also, when being a student you cannot fill an aircraft with passengers except your instructor, no more places needed than 2.
A long range 152 I learned to fly in carried fuel for over 5 hours, that's a lot more than 25lb.

However, when transferring to 172, Archer, SuperCub,... they all teached me a lot more on flying. The 152 was just too simple I guess.

Genghis the Engineer
13th Apr 2009, 22:22
What specifically are you referring to?

Stall considerations are well worth talking over for the pilot community as there are various misconceptions out there in the field.

I'm off for a day or two just now .. but, why don't you start a thread on, say, "Certification versus Operations and Stall Considerations". That will entice some high ranking test pilots and certification folk into the discussion.....

Indeed - although the flight test forum might be the best place to get a really good discussion going.

It is absolutely true. One really obvious example is that a Test Pilot will happily define a stall as being full back stick and "mush" - which is a safe and benign characteristic. Then instructors all over the world will try all sorts of stupid tricks to get what they think is a "proper stall" after the flight test team went to great lengths to give those instructors a very safe aircraft which doesn't do anything exciting.

G

john_tullamarine
13th Apr 2009, 22:39
although the flight test forum might be the best place to get a really good discussion going

Agreed .. but the need is for the non test community folk to get a handle on the problem .. maybe we should start a thread ourselves ? You a starter for discussion, Genghis ? I imagine that John F could wax lyrical for ages on the topic. If we could get a well-known TP with an impish smile from Mojave involved, I know that he is rather concerned about the problem.

Probably the greater concern is that the flying operations community "require" these imaginative techniques presumably in ignorance of the design and certification environment .. and the poor pilot in the street, knowing no better, puts him/herself regularly in the position of needless risk.

which doesn't do anything exciting.

Excitement is what overnights are for .. not aeroplanes .. unless you are in the experimental flight test game .. and then you spend a LOT of effort trying to avoid unexpected excitement .. and never without a means of stepping outside.

Tinstaafl
14th Apr 2009, 02:52
Relating that to the C150/152 - the original topic of conversation - I used find it was an excellent trainer for stalls. I could predictably arrange quite benign stalls and then increase the 'sharpness' (not a good term but it'll suffice) just by changing flap, power &/or pitch/roll attitude - all while confining pitch & roll to within normal flight limits. I found it was quite able to demonstrate what would happen if incorrect control inputs were used.

No strange techniques I think, just taking advantage of the aircraft's benign straight & steady stall behaviour power off & clean then gradually applying flap or angle of bank or power + plus a bit of judicious choice about what direction to turn with power applied. Compare a straight & steady stall/power off compared to one in a climbing right turn at 15 or 20 deg AoB, for example.

Graybeard
14th Apr 2009, 03:24
FWIW, the original 150, from 1959-63, was about 1,000 lbs empty, with 1500 gross. Adding the rear window in 1964 added 100 lbs to empty and gross, which didn't change with the new shark tail in 1966. It also got about 10-12 mph slower with the back window. Going from 100 hp Continental in the 150 to 115 hp in the 152 was needed for the extra weight of engine and airframe. It gained higher TBO engine, and higher fuel consumption, at no real increase in performance. I never noticed the 152 was wider.

If you're a big student, get a small instructor. It's a better chance she'll be easier on the eyes, too.

GB

john_tullamarine
14th Apr 2009, 05:28
Maybe we don't need a new thread .. this looks like it might be cranking up nicely ..

.. then increase the 'sharpness' (not a good term but it'll suffice) just by changing flap, power &/or pitch/roll attitude - all while confining pitch & roll to within normal flight limits.

.. that's fine .. but it's not what the certification test program was required to do .. or did. ie you (and the very great majority of well-intentioned instructors) are venturing into experimental test flying territory .. but without an anti-spin chute or personal parachute.

Try that with a less benign Type and you might find yourself in an inverted spin in a few blinks of the eye .. just as a for instance ...

Bottlehead
14th Apr 2009, 12:54
I can see why the C152 a good basic machine, very forgiving and tolerent.

When I was training for my PPL aroung 8 years ago, using grass runways during the winter when they are boggy/wet such as Sywell, my instructor was around 200 lbs and I am tall and also around 200 lbs. To fit I could have my shoulder behind his to fit then throw the seat cushion in the back and close doors. Plus full fuel we just made sure we did not stop, just keep it rolling and she would always get off and climb at about 300 ft/min. 700 meter runway no problem at near sea level (sub 500 ft) and cold! Stalls etc apeared to go to plan. Well over weight. In flight test for Weight and Balance check. I suddenly became a 10 stone (140) weakling. otherwise could not carry more than a gallon or two.

The Aerobat version to practice aeros was always advised to never have mre than about 40% fuel to keep it safe. It did what was asked of it.

Reminds me of driving original Minis

Now I have a C172 Rhiems Rocket, A bit more comfort and go!

Still dream of owning a C150 Aerobat after the economy recovers.

notceststupid
14th Apr 2009, 13:14
I hated the 152...I flew it for 1 hour in PPL training...it feels every bump...it wassssssssssssssssss like I had to be temperment with it...Plus the OFT planes broke down all the time...

Genghis the Engineer
14th Apr 2009, 13:20
Maybe we don't need a new thread .. this looks like it might be cranking up nicely ..

.. then increase the 'sharpness' (not a good term but it'll suffice) just by changing flap, power &/or pitch/roll attitude - all while confining pitch & roll to within normal flight limits.

.. that's fine .. but it's not what the certification test program was required to do .. or did. ie you (and the very great majority of well-intentioned instructors) are venturing into experimental test flying territory .. but without an anti-spin chute or personal parachute.

Try that with a less benign Type and you might find yourself in an inverted spin in a few blinks of the eye .. just as a for instance ...


Indeed - and there are a few instances of instructors making aeroplanes less safe than flight test departments made sure that they are. Offering a few instances:


- Accelerated stall entry (say, 4kn/s) rather than the 1kn/s used in certification, to get a "proper" pitch break at the stall, which was never called for in the certification programme.

- Teaching low speed recoveries in aircraft with a low thrustline, which START with full throttle: thus pushing the nose up and creating yaw when the aircraft is already spin-prone by the incipient stall.

- Adding another 12 knots (I kid you not) onto the taught approach speed compared to the POH, thus completely invalidating the landing distance figures. (Amongst other likely effects.)


I'm not sure which is worst, experienced pilots such as this playing test pilot without the proper training and backup in how to do so, or doing it with a student on board.

G

Tinstaafl
14th Apr 2009, 23:01
Who's talking accelerated stalls (apart from turning flight of course)? No more than 1kt/sec was always quite adequate. You only need be in a turn (left or right for different responses) or in various flap configurations or power setting up to high cruise and the like compared to power off S&L to effect a noticeable change in stall characteristics.

According to my reading of FAR23 those are all within the testing envelope.

john_tullamarine
15th Apr 2009, 10:05
Tinny .. not having a go at you at all, good sir.. the problem is Industry wide and endemic.

Our concern merely is to draw it to the attention of the folks in PPRuNe .. what they might do with the knowledge is another matter, I guess ..

According to my reading of FAR23 those are all within the testing envelope.

.. and this is where we would like the discussion to go in due course.

However, before that, how about a few people list their thoughts on how to

(a) approach the stall

(b) recover from the stall

It would be best if this could be done in boring bullet point detail.

After that it might be quite useful to have a look at

(a) the regs

(b) a few AFM/POH to see what the OEM suggests

and then see to what extent reality matches the airworthiness certification presumption.

So far as being adventurously boring in aircraft handling matters, the earlier reference to an inverted spin was related by a TP (but one who is well up the TP ladder) who had an airforce TP student in one particular well known light twin simply hold the aircraft into the stall, rather than recovering per the OEM procedure at the onset of stall indications ... onto its back and around it went to the amusement/surprise of both ....

The concern is that the instructing industry, aided and coerced by the flying side of the regulatory processes, encourages protocols which are potentially dangerous and certainly outside the intent of the certification process .. no problem, I guess, if the exercise, knowingly, is intentional between consenting adults .. but, if in ignorance - especially with an impressionable newbie student who knows no better, that may be a different matter and worthy of discussion here ?

Genghis the Engineer
15th Apr 2009, 13:03
Also, there are numerous standards in use around the world for certifying light aircraft; FAR-23 is only one of them.

G

Daniel_11000
15th Apr 2009, 13:10
My small contribution on the ‘stall’ topic, based on 7+ years of engineering flight testing on Part 23/25 aircraft.

First of all, it is not only the Regulation (FAR/Part 23 or FAR/Part 25) which determines the ways in which a stall should be investigated : the basic guide for the authority is the Advisory Circular AC23-8 or 25-8 (and the equivalent for the EASA side). Here you can see how many types or stall stall entries etc should be investigated for the handling quality side. Having cleared the handling, normally you proceed with the performance side To demonstrate good handling , you need to investigate very slow entries (<< 1 kts/sec), 1 g entries (close to 1 kts/sec) and fast entries (3-5 kts/sec) . it is interesting to note that the fast entries do not normally correspond to an accelerated entry (>> 1 g), as the manoeuvrability of whatever a/c at those low starting speeds (trimmed at 1.3 stall speed) do not allow to load many g’s.

The different entry decelerations allows also to interpolate the nominal 1 kts/sec entry speed, which is normally the ‘performance’ stall speed. It is interesting to note that , contrary to common sense, very often the ‘fast deceleration’ entry is more predictable and more straightforward than the 1 kts/s entry, with less wing drop, etc. Low deceleration stalls at 35000+ ft are often more strange, with hard wing drop and less clean nose pitching.
Power-on stall can sometimes results in very, very high deck angles, with an usual marked wing drop at the break.

For multiengine, the OEI stall with the other at 75% power is… frightening (at least, I always was frightened), because , though the VMC should have been already investigated and cleared, stall speed and VMC are often too close to allow to remain … relaxed . For FAR /Part 25 a/c , the performance determination of the stall speed is even more complicated (use of trailing cones, precision pitot tubes, etc to measure the exact static / total pressure). This is due to the fact that all runway speeds( and, as consequence, take-off and landing performance) are factored over the stall speed in TO configuration ( plus other speeds as VMCG, etc) .

For what refers to the post stall spin, I am pretty confident that, even 50 years ago during the C150 certification, being AC 23-8 already in use in its primitive form, quite all types of spins have been investigated ( at least those with the W & CG inside the promulgated envelope), and for the C152 Aerobat also those with a negative AoA ( being that aircraft certificated in the acrobatic category).

Note also that , for single engine aircraft, the spin, and its different spin entries, should be investigated anyway , which implies a matrix of many configurations (power/flaps/landing gear/weight/CG) . Recently Cessna lost two prototypes of their new trainer aircraft in spin investigation/certification, though not intending to certify it in the acrobatic category.

In the ’70, I learned to fly on a C150 with floats ; my AUW was 82 kg, hopefully the instructor was , and still is, smaller than me. Training lessons were 00:50 each, and after two lessons we needed to refuel. Waves / OAT affected veeeery much the take off run, sometimes in summer we counted 80 seconds between power application and take-off ! But I still think that, for basic training (also for learning seaplane technique) is one of the best aircraft .

Having learned take-off and landings on a 50 km long / 3 km wide runway (=lake) , I had lot of difficulties , when I transitioned on land planes, to align during landing with the runway, which was now very narrow and short compared to that on which I learned to fly……


SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1