MK, you are right. I did most of my training on Cessna 150s and did what Cessna was hoping and that was to later (much later) acquire a Cessna 182 (since gone).
Cessna's thrust was to train pilots and have them buy its products afterwards, which worked like a dream (it was done so aggressively, especially in Europe, that other manufacturers struggled).
However, there are training organisations running these 'ultralight' aircraft, although the cost to customer isn't a great deal less. One such is AFOS in Johannesburg - (they successfully run Tecnams by the way). In order to find additional sales, some of these manufacturers suddenly latched onto the flight training industry, claiming their aircraft were well suited to teaching pilots how to fly. The reality is that many of these types are not suited to training - they show reluctance to recover from a spin or their nosewheel structure isn't strong enough or they just plain don't handle very well and can't take gusty circuit conditions.
Nothing much wrong with a 150 or 152 - they can make it difficult for the training school proprietor to make any money though. And for what it's worth, I'm keenly looking forward to discovering why Cessna chose to use an O-200 engine for the 162 - I see no advantage. I believe it was serious mistake, despite the improvements made to the wee Continental.
Last edited by John Miller; 22nd Jan 2011 at 08:18.