Genghis,
RTL Flyer makes the point, which I would also make in respect of your inquiry. If the UK is anything like Canada, C-150’s seem to end up as the uncared for, and abused time builder – flown by newer pilots, and most importantly, without supervision or good nearby influence. At the very least, they are not respected for their own importance as an aeroplane.
For some reason, C-152’s seem to hold a value a few rungs farther up the ladder, and are much more likely to be found in a more professional flight training environment. Much less unsupervised careless flying.
To draw an appropriate comparison, consider the well regarded C-182. It is renown as having the best safety record of the single GA fleet. Is that because it is a safer aeroplane than the C-172? No, they have extremely similar flying qualities, the only thing the 182 has over the 172 would be that if both aeroplanes are flown solo, the 182 has lots more reserve power with which to get out of trouble. If they are both loaded to gross weight, they are closer to each other in performance.
So why are 182’s safer? It’s who is flying them and how. 182’s are just too expensive to treat like junk. They are hard to rent, and owners take much more care in who flies their pride and joy. Judge by appearance alone; it’s pretty common to see a really tired looking C-150. Not so much for any of the other higher number Cessna’s. When you get to 182, 206, 210, they are nearly all pretty good looking. It costs about the same to repaint and refurnish a 150 as any of the others. The others hold a higher value, so people take better care of them, the 150’s are ignored. This holds true about the way they are flown as well.
I suggest that your research is only looking at part of the problem, and indeed the less influential part, if you are not concentrating also on the experience and attitude of the pilots, and the appearance (which will equal the attitude toward, and care taken of, the aeroplane).
Simple check: The accident aircraft you are studying, do you have photos of either the fuselage side (by which to evaluate the condition of the paint job) or interior to evaluate it’s condition? This will give a real insight into how the plane was treated. Well cared for will often equal well flown.
I’m certainly not accusing you of casting a poor light on C-150’s, it’s the careless pilots doing that. But this is not much of a “by type” problem to be found, it’s a “by attitude toward type” problem.
Cheers, Pilot DAR