C152 and C150?

[med-pilot]

Hi all,

Does anyone know any major differences between the c152 and the c150 ? handling skills,limitations,technical information,etc

Many thanks in advance,
the Med-pilot:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

They are virtually the same to fly, the main difference being flaps.

The C152 goes to 30° flaps, whilst the C150 has 40° - making for much more entertaining short-field landings! Also the flap control switch is ungated on the C150, so needs a little more mental effort to operate.

I *think* that the cockpit is slightly smaller on the C150.


Apart from that, most differences are engineering rather than piloting. It's no effort really to go straight from one to the other so long as you take 2 minutes to think about the flap control - although I'd personally recommend that a less experienced pilot flew a couple of 40° flap approaches with an instructor before trying on their own.

G

[effortless]

I *think* that the cockpit is slightly smaller on the C150.


It may be psychosomatic, but I was always a bit more cramped in the 150. I was told though that there was no real difference in the cockpit space.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It may be psychosomatic, but I was always a bit more cramped in the 150. I was told though that there was no real difference in the cockpit space.

I look at it differently - being something of a shorthouse, I can see over the coaming better in a C150!

G

[Whirlybird]

The 150 is much more prone to carb icing. It's to do with the engine configuration (is that the right word?), and I've been shown why, and instantly forgotten. But from the point of view of the pilot, in the 150 you probably need to apply carb heat about every five minutes, put it on if you have to hold before takeoff, and be constantly alert for any changes in RPM which could possibly mean carb ice. Yes, I know you do that in the 152 as well, but it's much more important in the 150.

[A and C]

The C150 is powered by a Contnental C200 but the C152 has the Lycoming O-235, other improvments on the 152 include 28V electrics and a much better main landing gear mounting structure.

The thing to remember is that the C152 was built with all the problems of the C150 sorted out.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The thing to remember is that the C152 was built with all the problems of the C150 sorted out.

Negative. It still has appalling ailerons and handles like a wet sponge.:}

[smarthawke]

The C150 evolved over many years from a staight tailed fast back version up to the 150L including 'omni-vision' windows, they had the same 'para flaps' and of course eventually got 'land-o-matic' undercarrige - superb Cessna sales speak!

The fuselage got wider through the years but the last, the 150L and the 152 were pretty much absolutely identical - certainly sizewise. Under the cowlings the engine changed and the volts doubled to 28 whilst the flaps went to 30 degrees max.

[chevvron]

Early models of 150 had a different aerofoil section from later models (G onwards and all 152's) which was much more efficient at low speed. I was taught in 'F' models; for short takeoff; 10 flap; full throttle on the brakes; brakes off, rotate at 45 mph, climb at 52 mph. Frightened you to death first time; don't try that in a 152 though!

[tmmorris]

I must admit I did a proper short field takeoff for the first time in ages in the Archer I usually fly last week and scared myself similarly. The deck angle was truly spectacular and certainly impressed my passenger - last time we flew it was in a DR400 with the small engine (is it 115hp? can't remember).

And yes, I know I should try a Pitts if I think that was spectacular.

Tim

[A and C]

I was only talking about the engineering items in the 152 vs the 150 NOT the way it flys!

I see the C152 as the best "flying economic tool" in the business at the moment and the best way to get new people into flying quickly it is not an aircraft that I would fly for pleasure just a I would not use an Extra 300 for PPL training.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I would if I got the chance! Inverted Nav-Ex's, proper unusual attitudes.... Yes please.

I think I'll have to try an experiment with our Pitts. Any potential PPL students up for it? It might take a few more hours before you solo. I'm not sure our insurance company would like it either!

[kevmusic]

When I was 4 hrs into my PPL (in 1981) I went up with John Maclean in his ex-Rothmans S2a. He did the whole routine on me. I loved it to bits!!! Didn't know where the hell I was! He taught me how to do a stall turn and a slow roll. £25 for 15 mins! (turned out to be nearer 20.) They gave you little certificates showing how much + & - 'g' you'd experienced.

That afternoon I was so hooked I went up again with Marcus Edwards.

RIP both.

Kev.

Edited to say "apologies to Med-pilot for thread-creep". This doesn't help him much!

[llanfairpg]

The alternator charging systym indication is different. The ASI is in MPH on early C150s.Early C150 s will have Turn Indicators rather than Turn Co Ordinators

The main difference which no one seems to have picked up on is the Go Around with 40 flap. I once flew over a student in a C150 that had just killed himself at Coventry attempting a full flap GA. (Early C150s do not have continuos travel on the electric flaps when switched). Despite old wives tales C150 do climb away with full flap down but only if you fly accurately( i used to teach take off and circuit with full flap selected to demonstrate capability and trim changes etc)

Remember a bad instructor always teaches landing as a priority over going around.

[chevvron]

Remember that point too; you had to be very careful with pitch on a full flap go around as when you opened the throttle, there was VERY marked nose up pitch, and as you're trimmed for landing, you need a lot of force on the wheel to avoid overpitching; you were also taught to retract flap in stages rather than all at once so that the wheel force reduced gradually. Think about it; hold wheel forward, re-trim, retract flaps, full throttle to be maintained, and with your fifth hand.........!
But short landings were great! Approach at 55mph steadily dropping full flap; aim for 45-50 at the flare, dab the brakes as the mainwheels touched and you stopped dead - or at least it felt like you did!
I think I recall the flap switch worked this way; for down, you had to hold the switch down until the required setting was reached; release the switch and it returned to neutral (the switch not the flaps); select up, and the switch stayed up so if you wanted to retract fully, you needn't keep your hand on the switch.

[EvilKitty]

I would if I got the chance! Inverted Nav-Ex's, proper unusual attitudes.... Yes please.

I think I'll have to try an experiment with our Pitts. Any potential PPL students up for it? It might take a few more hours before you solo. I'm not sure our insurance company would like it either!

Now that *does* sound like fun! If it's possible this is one student who would definately be interested :8

[rtl_flyer]

The C150 is powered by a Contnental C200 but the C152 has the Lycoming O-235, other improvments on the 152 include 28V electrics and a much better main landing gear mounting structure.
The thing to remember is that the C152 was built with all the problems of the C150 sorted out.
The FRA150 has a Continental O-240 engine. 130hp rather than the Lyc 110.
FYI. The Cessna codes are - eg FRA150L
F = French built
R = RollsRoyce (Continental) O-240 engine
A = Aerobat
L (Last letter) = Is the model - A to M for the 150 from memory.
C150L is approx 1972 USA built
F150L is approx 1972-3 French built
The French aerobat was the only one with the O-240 engine. French built have anti corrosion from new. Check out some of the Cessna club websites for a full code list and model changes.
Personally I still think they are a great first aircraft, build some hours and experience. Not just local. I flew mine to Valencia Spain. Now have 400hrs so moving onto a tailwheel RV7 - learning again!! The 150 may not be the best aerobat, but you will learn about getting speeds correct and flying accuratly - otherwise it won't work!!

[fallen eagle]

If my memory serves me correctly another differance between the 150 and 152 is the demonstrated crosswind performance the 150 being 20mph for take off 15 mph for landing and the 152 12 kts for take off and landing.This factor and 90 deg to the direction of t/off ldg. worth remembering this is not a crosswind limit but the conditions Cessna claim the aicraft can be operated without applying any crosswind piloting teqniques the loads during these conditions accaptable to the undercarrige construction. Ofcourse a competent pilot will be able to operate safely above these conditions if applying correct crosswind T/O and Ldg teqniques................This differance is because of the slightly taller fin and rudder on the 152

[smarthawke]

Not wishing to be picky but the fin/rudder size on the 150L (the last of the 150s) is identical to the 152.

[IO540]

There is a pretty major difference between the two:

If you are a girl student, of reasonable (or better) looks, you are more likely to end up pregnant after 50hrs in a C150 than after 50hrs in a C152.

Ask any ATPL hour builder, and watch the grin ;)

Both are ghastly planes, and the sooner they vanish from the GA scene the sooner we might move forward into the 20th century (notice I am being very conservative here; best to not over-innovate in this game). It's not as ghastly as the Tomahawk though :yuk:

[fallen eagle]

Hi Smarthawke you are quite correct I was basing my info on earlier models probably all a bit academic anyway. I am more concerned with i0540s contribution not really relivant probably because of contributions like that is the reason I have been away from the site for a couple of years. Firstly a Plane is a carpenters tool dont mind aircraft aeroplane or even airplane or gentlemans/laidies aeronautical carrage. Secondly I suggest Io540 gets out there and designs something to take the place of said aeroplane.Quite a few British, American,French and even Australian bods have tried and failed miserably.At the end of the day they do the job very well.Much like the Tiger Moth and apart form the historical point of view the Tiger Moth aint that brilliant to fly.And yes I have and the Stampe is much better...Bye for now maybe even another two years. Harrah say some

[SlipSlider]

Smarthawke:
Not wishing to be (really) picky, but the last (F)150 was the N model! :) see G-CLUB ... only a very few made, the last quantity model 150 was the M.

Slip

[SlipSlider]

It was a challenging flight, but somehow I managed .... :E :ok:

[smarthawke]

SlipSlider

Your absolutely correct - my point was supposed to be that the last of the 150s actually had the same tail as the 152s - I did slip in a quick typo, I meant to put 150M not L.... doh. The 150Ls actually had the shorter fin and dorsal fin and didn't have pre-select flaps etc etc.

[spernkey]

A cessna 150 is a good aircraft to introduce abit of everything inasmuch as it will Train, Tour, Aerobat to a certain extent. It kind of does a bit of everything yet excels at nothing. It can get into anywhere and has a relatively short take off ability, it has a robust undercarriage and the nose wheel is bolted into the engine frame (the 172's nose leg is held on by hope alone). It will take some abuse. All conti 0-200's are carb ice prone - i think it is the design of the carb that means you sometimes have to almost fly with a bit of carb heat on continuously in some conditions!
All round good thing - cheap to run - almost all engineers are familiar with them. Designed as a metal trainer they can be repaired and most show signs of several "ocurrances".
Dare say some clever git could design a composite modern looking replacement but i am not sure the long term cost effectiveness and repairability would shame a humble 150 which needs to be "long term" economical with good serviceability.
Reckon 150's are OK for what they are!;)

[Pilot DAR]

Gee IO540,

It sounds like you are being held captive flying Cessna 150's! Do you not have the choice to look the other way, and let those of us who really enjoy the reliability, economy and simplicity of the C150, do so free of assault?

My 1975 Cessna 150M is presently sitting happily in its hangar, 300' from where I now sit and type in my home. It was completely paid for in 1987, when I bought it (completely airworthy for $7000), and since, I have flown it 2382 hours, all across Canada, the United States, and into the Bahamas. My wife and I regularly take our two excellent English Brompton bikes in the back, and fly somewhere new for the day. I fly it day and night, summer and winter, from my own 2100' runway, and offer its services free of charge to the community for emergency services. I have actually rescued one injured person from an inaccessable frozen lake, and found 7 others (4 alive, 3 not). These were only a few of the 85+ emergency calls I have flown in the "gastly" C150 in the last 14 years! It has never not flown when I needed it to (100% dispatch reliability).

Do I have any basis for comparison to assert that it is such a good plane? Well, yes, the other half of my 5000+ hours of flying is on 77 other fixed and rotor wing types, including nearly most all propeller Cessna models, flown in 17 countries. Are there better planes than a Cessna 150? sure! For what each was designed for! Could I wish for a few improvements to the C150? Yes! But I'm so damn lucky to be able to get in and fly where I want, when I want, and not have to worry about the cost, you won't hear me saying anything negative - about the C150, or any other type (including a Tomahawk - a fine plane in the environment for which it was designed!).

When you have suceeded in producing and selling tens of thousands of aircraft, most of which remain in service as many as 50 years later, let me know, I'll come for a test flight. Until then, perhaps your efforts are best spent supporting and encouraging your fellow aviators, and assisting them in flying safely, in whatever aircraft type they choose!

Oh, and when an air traffic controller refered to my aircraft to a King Air pilot as "justa 150", I landed, stopped, and cleared the runway on the button, called "clear of the active", and asked him what type he owned and flew? He didn't, and later apologized.

My best wishes for your harmonious reintegration into the private flying peer group...

Pilot DAR

[sternone]

Gee IO540,

It sounds like you are being held captive flying Cessna 150's! Do you not have the choice to look the other way, and let those of us who really enjoy the reliability, economy and simplicity of the C150, do so free of assault?

My 1975 Cessna 150M is presently sitting happily in its hangar, 300' from where I now sit and type in my home. It was completely paid for in 1987, when I bought it (completely airworthy for $7000), and since, I have flown it 2382 hours, all across Canada, the United States, and into the Bahamas. My wife and I regularly take our two excellent English Brompton bikes in the back, and fly somewhere new for the day. I fly it day and night, summer and winter, from my own 2100' runway, and offer its services free of charge to the community for emergency services. I have actually rescued one injured person from an inaccessable frozen lake, and found 7 others (4 alive, 3 not). These were only a few of the 85+ emergency calls I have flown in the "gastly" C150 in the last 14 years! It has never not flown when I needed it to (100% dispatch reliability).

Do I have any basis for comparison to assert that it is such a good plane? Well, yes, the other half of my 5000+ hours of flying is on 77 other fixed and rotor wing types, including nearly most all propeller Cessna models, flown in 17 countries. Are there better planes than a Cessna 150? sure! For what each was designed for! Could I wish for a few improvements to the C150? Yes! But I'm so damn lucky to be able to get in and fly where I want, when I want, and not have to worry about the cost, you won't hear me saying anything negative - about the C150, or any other type (including a Tomahawk - a fine plane in the environment for which it was designed!).

When you have suceeded in producing and selling tens of thousands of aircraft, most of which remain in service as many as 50 years later, let me know, I'll come for a test flight. Until then, perhaps your efforts are best spent supporting and encouraging your fellow aviators, and assisting them in flying safely, in whatever aircraft type they choose!

Oh, and when an air traffic controller refered to my aircraft to a King Air pilot as "justa 150", I landed, stopped, and cleared the runway on the button, called "clear of the active", and asked him what type he owned and flew? He didn't, and later apologized.

My best wishes for your harmonious reintegration into the private flying peer group...

Pilot DAR

Word up...i learned to fly in C152 and i loved it