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