Cessna 150, what are your toughts about this nice little bird?

[Özcan]

I've started flying the C150, and i'm interested in what your thoughts, comments and opinions about this aircraft is.

[shortstripper]

It's a perfectly nice little aeroplane that does everything it was designed to do. Of course it's a bit cramped, a bit sedate, a bit underpowered and not very crisp in handling, but I've always rather liked them.

SS

[aviator84]

from what ive heard she will drop a wing v quick in a stall
av84

[Final 3 Greens]

Shortstripper sums it up well.

Just use your carb heat regularly, as the O-200 can get ice build up :-)

[contrail]

The Reims 150 Aerobat is the best. Slightly more power (130hp).

Ive never had rapid wing drop in the stall unless its been self induced..... :E

[rtl_flyer]

I had a FRA150L (130hp Aerobat) for seven years. My first aircraft and learn a lot about flying. Long trips, small strips. I think they are great machines. Not high performance. Fuel bill is not too high and mainternance not too bad (all the AD's have been out for years).
I only sold mine as I built a Vans RV7, would have loved to keep her as I still really enjoyed flying the 150. Lovely machine. Go for the 130hp as it is better, get the best condition one you can find.
Tim

[sternone]

Try to get a 152 instead.

The 150 had numerous flaps problems resulting in alot of crashes.

Great trainers!!

[J.A.F.O.]

Think of a Ford Fiesta.

It ain't the roomiest, it ain't the quickest, it ain't anything flash but it does the job, can be good fun and isn't too expensive or complicated.

I always enjoyed them and they never did anything nasty that wasn't all my fault.

[BeechNut]

I miss mine! It was my first aircraft, purchased way back in 1982. If what you are looking for is a cheap way to get yourself into the air, it can't be beat. Cheapest aircraft to own, cheapest to insure.

Not exactly high performance but it can give you enough challenges to keep you honest. Wing drop thing is nonsense. The aircraft stalls nicely. To be sure you can spin it readily, intentionally or not (see above about challenges), especially you are ham-fisted with it, but it is also easy to recover if there's enough room between you and the earth. It was after all, designed as a trainer and spin recovery was once on the curriculum.

One thing you will learn very quickly in a 150, is the importance of carb heat; that and the flaps are the only real vices. And the only real vice of the flaps is the 40 degree setting; in a go-around with 40 flaps, you won't climb, period. You will have very strong pitch-up forces requiring lots of nose-forward correction on the stick and nose-down trim. You need to bleed off 20 degrees immediately to reduce drag and see a positive rate (and don't go beyond 20 as the aircraft will start to sink),, and on electric flap models, that can seem to take an eternity if you're coming up on obstacles...and you will be very busy with the trim, and the strong pitch-up tendency. Then as you establish a positive rate of climb, you bleed off the remaining flaps 10 degrees at a time. Moreover, it will land very short with 40 degrees...beware landing in places only to find you don't have enough room to take off...read the performance section of the POH very thoroughly before going into tight spots, especially if you're loaded. Of course there is no rule that says you that you must use the 40 degree flap setting.

You can get an honest 100 mph on about 5 GPH (US) on it so it's cheap on fuel. That works out to about 20 mpg...roughly what a smaller US-style SUV would get (and probably not much faster in real life...)

Some say "get a 152". True, slightly better engine (2400 vs 1800 TBO, 108 vs 100 hp), but the 24v electrical system on the 152 can be expensive trouble, and 150s can be had for much less money, for the same basic airframe. The 1800 TBO shouldn't be an issue if you buy one with lots of time remaining on the engine; typical private pilots fly about 50 hours a year...you do the math!

In short, a simple, honest aircraft, and for most of us $100 hamburger types, probably all you really need. Not nearly as vice-laden as a Tomahawk or the Grumman AA1 series; cheaper than a Skipper or anything more recent, though perhaps not as "fun".

You could also opt for an Aerobat if you can find it...see thread elsewhere. It is not really suited to serious aerobatics but it can do some simple stuff and with only 100 hp, should make you learn energy management.

I have kind of been hoping to find a buyer for my aerobat Sundowner actually, now that I rarely use all 4 seats, in order to buy a nice little 150, but the Canadian $'s meteoric rise in value has caused a drop in aircraft prices...not good if you're selling a more expensive bird to buy a cheaper one, so I am hanging onto it.

Only downside I can see (and this applies to all two-seaters) is that with the 1600 lb gross weight, and a typical empty weight of about 1100 lbs, if you're a big bloke, say 200 lbs, and you fly with other big blokes, say 200 lbs, you've only got about 100 lbs left for fuel and baggage, so basically 3 hours flying no baggage, 2 hours with 30 lbs. baggage.

Bottom line, a 150 ain't no Ferrari of the air, but it is honest aerial transportation and can be a good deal of fun.

[Finals19]

Flew a C150 out of Cranfield during my PPL training. Good as a trainer for you and a lightweight instructor, crap if you carry anyone who is more than medium weight (i.e. two 12 stone guys)

C150 stalls very benignly power off, but like any a/c leave some power on (or firewall it) and hold for a given climb rate until zero and with the high AOA and power she WILL drop a wing and if you're not quick on the rudder (or pants on the aileron inputs - i.e. try to pick up the wing) will enter an incipient spin. With enough altitude, she will recover on her own (not advisable, but I believe a pre-requisite design criteria of a training a/c?) and you should be able to impress your mates with a recovery within 500-700 feet)

Flap issues - yeah that forty degrees setting will bite you in the ass for sure if you decide to go around. I made the almost grave mistake of going around at Elstree's 06 runway without on-schedule retraction, realised my error and then cleaned her up in one hit of the flap switch with an ensuing sink towards the trees at the end of the other the strip.

One big caveat - DENSITY ALTITUDE! Hot days and little 150's dont go well. Add a couple of 180+ pound blokes into the mix and you could find your climb rate on rotation inversely proportional to the clenching of your buttock cheeks!!!!!!!!!

[Charles Sierra]

Ask Frank Spencer, he had great fun in a 152 G-BFRV

[BHenderson]

C150 75-80kts
C152 105kts!

[Whirlybird]

I gave up my half share in a C150 when I moved house nearly two years ago, and I still miss it. :{

Easy to fly, easy to land, reliable little aeroplane. Not particularly fast or exciting of course. Not good for touring unless you have two light people who can carry minimal luggage...and we flew to Austria in ours, since we fitted those criteria. It doesn't like being at 5000 ft over mountains in hot weather though, as I think someone has said.

The 150 had numerous flaps problems resulting in a lot of crashes.


Not true, AFAIK. As others have said, the 40 degree flap setting has caught out the unwary, that's all. I used it once to make sure I could if I needed to (eg, very short field); after that I never used more than 30 degrees.

Only problem I remember - that Continental engine is VERY prone to carb icing. Use carb heat frequently...and then a bit more. Keep an eye on your RPM, listen to your engine, and be extra careful in warm, damp conditions.

But overall, nice little aeroplane - I miss her. :{

[sunday driver]

C150 + flaps 40 = tin parachute . . . marvellous!!
(Don't forget the block of wood behind P1's seat runners)
SD

[BeechNut]

C150 75-80kts
C152 105kts!
Hmm, I flew both for my PPL 27 years ago, owned my own C150 in the mid-80s, still fly a friend's from time to time (I currently own a Sundowner), and also rented extensively before buying my own aircraft.

The C150 is not quite that slow, and the C152 is not quite that fast!!! It is quite reasonable to expect 100 mph out of a 150 (which is about 87 knots), and maybe 95-100 knots from a 152. FWIW I typically show about 105 indicated on the Sundowner. I can coax it up to about 120 true at higher altitudes though.

Mind you this is for aircraft in good condition. Clapped-out school/rental aircraft may differ...more likely on the low side!

[jamestkirk]

whirly pretty much has the machine to rights.

keep checking for carb ice. if you read the aaib reports, there are many engine failures on c150's due to the above.

for crying out loud, only play arounfd with 40 degrees of flap if you know what you are doing.

a bit under-powered but a lovely little aircraft.

OH,AND PERSONALLY SPEAKING, G-BFRV (FRANK SPENCER ETC.) LIVES UP TO HER THEATRICAL PROWESS AND IS PROBABLY THE NICEST AND SHARPEST C152 YOU COULD EVER FLY.

[ericferret]

Single pilot 12,000 feet over the Atlas mountains.

4 galls an hour.

Cheap(ish) spares.

Hundred of hours touring in Europe only broke down once (starter clutch boooo)
New light weight starter fitted (hooray!!)

Probably the cheapest certified aircraft to operate.

[EGBM]

I love my FRA150M Aerobat. Been flying her since 98 and don't want to swap her for anything else.

Yes those 40 degree barn doors are "interesting" but you can set the flaps at 30 to replicate the 152 with judicious use of the flap lever.

A great flying machine, and good value for money.:D

[Pilot DAR]

I love my 150M. I bought it 20 years ago, and have a couple of thousand hours on it. I love the 40 flaps, and use them for EVERY landing. The slower you're going when you land, the less wear and tear, and chance of damage if your landing path changes. Full flap go around is possible and safe, if done with patience and caution. If you can't make it over the far end obstical, you would not have taken off from there anyway had you completed the landing! Takeoff and climb out with full flaps is also safely possible, but not necessary or recommended. Don't let 40 flap naysayers put you off.

Horton STOL kit is an excellent safety enhancement. STOL kit makes performance at gross weight seem like a light load. A light load is really fun. With a good breeze, I've been off and on again in less than 300' on a frozen lake (no braking action).

Maintenance is very reasonable, and parts are easy to find. No AD surprises. Beware slipping key start clutches. Have it repaired or replaced at the first sign of slipping. Letting it go will result in a ruined clutch, and possible expensive engine internal damage. I run mine on Mogas exclusively, using 100LL as an emergency fuel only. Never had a problem Went over 3500 hours to overhaul on the "on condition" program, and the engine was in great shape when it came apart.

Own cheap, rent or borrow expensive. If I need more seats or speed, I can get another plane. I carry two Brompton folding bikes in a frame in the back for my wife and I on our day trips.

My 150M is worth many times what I paid for it 20 years ago, and after all of that flying time, I figure that it's been paying me to fly it! I wish I'd bought a bunch back then!

Enjoy a good Cessna product...

Pilot DAR

[NW_Pilot]

I Own a 1976 150M Very Simple to fly dose every thing i need to stay current and Gas is Cheap $$$ about 5 gph I have Had it for Going on 4 years. I am abusing her becuse I do not get to fly her much to busy ferrying everyone elses airplanes.


Best Regards,
Steven L. Rhine
Portland, OR USA
+1-503-475-3347
http://www.internationalferryflights.com (http://www.internationalferryflights.com/)
http://www.ferrypilotservice.com (http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/)

[Bob the Hamster]

I bought a 150G as soon as I passed my skills test. I have had it for 4 years now and it flies beautifully. Watch out for the early models with the Delco pull start though, the clutch on mine disintegrated leading to an engine rebuild at 2300 hrs (well over TBO). I would recommend a lightweight replacement starter and spin off oil filter as an immediate upgrade.
Fun to fly and cheap to run. Not fast but with a new prop and engine I get a steady 85kt at 2400 RPM. Full power will realise a max level flight at 102kt.
Short field landing is great, but beware of the take off performance, especially on soft grass you may not get out again without a strong favourable wind.

Bob

[A and C]

All round a very good aircraft but as with all aircraft years of flying teaches the manufactuer what was not so good about the aircraft.

These problems have largly been sorted in the Cessna 152 and so I would always recomend the C152 if you wanted to buy a small Cessna as the maintenance costs would probably out weigh the extra cost of the aircraft.

The only thing that was better on the C150 was the 40 flap setting, but I can see why Cessna dropped this as it was very much a trap for new players.

[rtl_flyer]

The C150 is not quite that slow, and the C152 is not quite that fast!!! It is quite reasonable to expect 100 mph out of a 150 (which is about 87 knots), and maybe 95-100 knots from a 152. FWIW I typically show about 105 indicated on the Sundowner. I can coax it up to about 120 true at higher altitudes though.
I had the 130hp model - FRA150L (Aerobat). Cruise at 110-115mph. Better climb also with the 130hp.
40% flap - I generally used 30% and used the 40% when it was needed. I have gone around with 40%. It is harderwork than at 30% just requires you do it properly as you were trained to do so.
Nice machine had lots of fun from mine.

[chevvron]

C150 75-80kts
C152 105kts!

Not if you have a 150 Aerobat; 30hp extra makes a hell of a difference.

[RatherBeFlying]

Post solo, I was taken through an extensive series of 40° flap slow flight, stalls and incipient spins and yes, climbs (not very much).

If you plan to use 40 flap, familiarize yourself with them at altitude.

With practice you could reduce to 30 flap for a go around, but there are traps with the electric flap switch and I suspect there may differences between models in how that switch behaves that can result in your being in a different flap setting than what you intended:uhoh:

My last instructor in 172s had a habit of telling me I had just lost the engine after I pulled carb heat on downwind. 40 flap works very nicely in getting rid of excess altitude once the field is made (excess altitude being a more workable problem than insufficient altitude) ;)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I learned to fly on 150s back in the '70s.

Best thing about them? The 40 degree flaps.

Worst thing? Appallingly rubbery unresponsive handling (but no worse than any other spamcan, better than some, not as bad in this respect as the truly awful PA28).

If all aeroplanes handled like (think 2CV) that I'd have walked away from flying immediately following my PPL. Brian Lecomber was right when he referred to spamcans as 'an insult to the airman's art' in his ecellent book, 'Talk Down'.

But they are tough, and cheap to buy and run, so still form the basis of the training fleet at many clubs. Pity the 152 dropped those lovely barn-door flaps!

[150 Driver]

Bought it immediately after PPL for just over £10k. Engine had 700 hours left so it will be time that gets it to overhaul not hours. Over 10,000 hours on the airframe. Five years on I’ve flown her nearly 300 hours and can’t imagine not owning her.

40 degree flap is really useful for short grass strip landings, with a head wind you can land it like a helicopter. Although I confess that if faced with a cross wind landing I only use 30 degrees

I’ve spent a fortune on avionics (833 radios and mode s transponder), worth bearing in mind that the aircraft is IMC certified day and night. It came with ADF, DME, ILS and two radios

Cruises at 90-95 knots and I do a fair number of longish trips a year (East Anglia to West Country) and get out the other end refreshed.

Need to watch fuel loading if two large-ish chaps are in it). And you’ll get to know your passenger well !

Stalling... I went up today to practice some skills, stalling included. At clean configuration, wings level, stall warner blaring, power off and the stick full back it just wouldn’t drop. ASI read 15 knots and it was still flying!

For sure, if I won the lottery I’d probably buy a Ciruus. But that would be in addition to...

My first car was a 2CV, wish I still had that.

[Zombywoof]

Ten year bump. Well played!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

My first car was a 2CV, wish I still had that.

I only ever once had a ride in one. It was like being inside a lawn mower, except it rolled so much in even moderate corners it had scrape marks on the door handles.

[BillieBob]

I only ever once had a ride in one. It was like being inside a lawn mower, except it rolled so much in even moderate corners it had scrape marks on the door handles. Not too sure whether this is meant to refer to a C150 or a 2CV but, to be fair, it applies equally to both. The C150, like the 2CV, is a perfectly acceptable machine if you can't afford anything better.

[dera]

94-96kts IAS on 150, later 150's have the same airframe as 152 (last few M models got the larger tail). 152 is 2-5kts faster, nothing in it really. Much cheaper to maintain than 152, 40 deg flaps are fantastic - 4000ft runway, you can be at pattern altitude over the numbers (on final...), and still land on that runway. The thing drops like a brick with 40 degree flaps and full sideslip. Fun!

[Haraka]

Has anybody flown the tail wheel conversion? There was one flying around in Kenya a few years back but only managed a quick look at it on the ground at Malindi.

[B737C525]

Compared to, say, some of the Robins, the AA-5A, and a handful of other uncommon types, I've always thought the C150/152 were quite unpleasant little aeroplanes. They're certainly nothing special to look at, they're uncomfortable to get in and out of and to sit in, the view out is awful, their handling is absolutely nothing to write home about, and certain C150 models do stick out like sore thumbs in the crash statistics (links below). I'd level most of those criticisms at the PA-28 too, with its typically-Piper ponderous control response.

I do wonder whether, if we trained people in aircraft which were actually pleasant to fly, and maybe even nice to look at, (and just possibly vaguely modern), we might have a much more vibrant community of pilots continuing to fly after licence issue.

http://www.gasco.org.uk/upload/docs/Final%20Proof%20Approved%20Version.pdf

http://dev.aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Events/Conferences/2008/602/(8)%20Guy%20Gratton.pdf

[Homsap]

B737C525......... I agree to a point, aircraft such as the Grob115, SAH1, Beagle Pup, Robin400, SlingsbyT67, Chipmunk were much better aircraft both from a handling point and visually.

I would say that the Cessna150/152 is a stable training platform which is why so many flying schools opted for them. From memory when the civilian version of the Grob115 was introduced, they were modified to reduced the rate of roll, as 'Cessna' pilots found it difficult to handle!

From memory the C150/C152 did not really have big wing drops unless really mishandled. The C150's 40 degree flap had its uses, but could be a handfull for student pilots on a go around, hence I beleive the reason Cessna only fitted 30 degrees on the C152. The Cessna 172, 182 and 206 all retained 40 flap.

As to loading, again from memory with anything above two pilots weighting 12 stone, you can not fly with full tanks, yet for many years people have! To add with two pilots at 12 stone it is pretty cramped.

[B2N2]

I’ve always preferred the 150 over the 152, mainly for the 40 degr flap.
Seating position is better also.

[dont overfil]

B737C525......... I agree to a point, aircraft such as the Grob115, SAH1, Beagle Pup, Robin400, SlingsbyT67, Chipmunk were much better aircraft both from a handling point and visually.

I would say that the Cessna150/152 is a stable training platform which is why so many flying schools opted for them. From memory when the civilian version of the Grob115 was introduced, they were modified to reduced the rate of roll, as 'Cessna' pilots found it difficult to handle!


Back in the eighties Tayside Aviation had three of the first Grob 115A models. I thought they were a disappointment. They were overweight/underpowered and had very unpleasant handling due to the rudder aileron connection, deleted on later models. I think this is the mod referred to by Homsap. A student and instructor were killed in one of Tayside's after a possible weather related in flight break up.

The Grob was one of several new types tried over the years but the students and instructors preferred the Cessna's. Only in the last few years the Cessna's have been replaced by Warriors at a higher cost to operate.

ACS at Perth have committed to the Cessna's and have completely refurbished four up to now, to a fabulous standard, with the rest to follow.

There is still nothing to replace the Cessna 150/152, particularly for flight training. Some are aerobatic, they can all be spun and I have been told there has never been an in flight break up of a strutted metal Cessna.

[ericferret]

A friend of mine made in a 150 a complete hash of a landing at Oxenhope. Approaching the wall with insufficient airspeed to get off and too much too stop they elected to put in full rudder. The aircraft turned sharp left with the r/h wing tip almost on the ground. Tip missed the wall by not a lot and all was well. I can't think of many aircraft where the undercarriage would have stayed on in these circumstances let alone kept the aircraft upright.. No damage to the aircraft.

Maybe Cessnas sales line for the 150 should have been

"This aircraft will save you, even when it shouldn't"

[Piper.Classique]

It's a decent aircraft. Anyone can fly it safely, but you need to be good to make it sing. Easy enough to be a trainer, bites enough to make you think.
Does everything adequately, nothing exceptionally well or badly. Will sell at not too much of a loss when you decide what you really want. Strong, cheap, cheerful.

[chevvron]

I’ve always preferred the 150 over the 152, mainly for the 40 degr flap.
Seating position is better also.
Agree entirely. I also prefer the Continental engine to that dificult to start Lycoming.

[Pilot DAR]

I bought my 1975 150M n 1987, and have flown it more than 3000 hours since. Albeit small and slow, with lackluster handling, but it will do a little bit of most everything, and is very low cost to operate.

A friend with the same vintage 150 as mine, very unwisely flew a high G stalled turn to final at 80 MPH, the crash was fatal. I opened the cockpit door to access him, the right door also opened without difficulty. Though the plane was bent everywhere, the cabin was mostly uncompromised. The coroner told me later that my friend's stop had approached 200G (referencing internal injuries). They are tough planes.....

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I have few regrets in life, but selling my 1974 C150 is one of them. She did everything I needed, I toured Europe and North Africa, flew from Unst to the Scillies, and whenever I just wanted an evening bimble she was there, looking perky and eager. I thought I needed bigger, with full IFR and longer range, wrong. I needed what I had, and I will have another, a friend owns an absolute beauty if he ever sells I will be at the front of the queue.

SND

[ChickenHouse]

You ride a Landrover Series 1 or 2?
You'll be happy with a C150 ;-).

Pretty basic, but cheap and fun.
40 flaps for tin parachuting, great.

But, it remains a 20% 172usability at 80% 172costs.
If you are on a tight budget, it keeps you in the air, even in rough times.

Don't think of going 152, SID and engine mount trouble is the cost for the few MPH.

[Homsap]

dont overfill .... To add my fTO had one of the first UK imported Grob115 on loan from the dealer for a few weeks, so to be honest I only did probably twenty instructional hours on it. I don't recall any issues with it. The G115 Tutor is the usual RAF upgrade, so like the difference between the Beagle Pup 100 (which was underpowered) and BAe Bulldog.

My main concern was flying a composite aircraft and having a lightening strike without parachutes. In the accident you mentioned were there CB's around? Can you let me know the regn, I would like to read the report.

[old,not bold]

I have a fond memory of being checked out at Cambridge in a 152, quite a while ago, and rounding off the trip with a PFL, which I did as I was taught at Sleap by Adam Wojda, ie keep the final turn nice and high, then all the flap and as steep a sideslip as I could manage to get a touchdown just over the notional hedge.

It was like going down in a hi-speed lift. To his eternal credit the instructor kept his hands in his lap, but when the very short roll-out ended, and I admitted that I had scared myself quite a lot he said, with feeling, "Me too".

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You ride a Landrover Series 1 or 2?
You'll be happy with a C150 ;-).

Pretty basic, but cheap and fun.


Have to disagree. An old Landy will have bags of character. The 150 / 152 is bland in the extreme.

[First_Principal]

Have to disagree. An old Landy will have bags of character. The 150 / 152 is bland in the extreme.

I've had 48 Land Rover's, and one 150. Take from that what you will, but I recall both the 150, and Landy's past, with a smile.

Like some of the Land Rover's, the 150 could have done with a bit more power, but unlike its four-wheeled cousins (apparently, here on Pprune!) it was generally more reliable and didn't break axles, diffs or gearboxes. It did, however, leak a little and the doors were as flimsy as my Series 1's.

Given that my 150 had a nickname, used with affection by many on the airfield(s) where it was domiciled, I'd say it had character aplenty.

FP.

[dont overfil]

dont overfill .... To add my fTO had one of the first UK imported Grob115 on loan from the dealer for a few weeks, so to be honest I only did probably twenty instructional hours on it. I don't recall any issues with it. The G115 Tutor is the usual RAF upgrade, so like the difference between the Beagle Pup 100 (which was underpowered) and BAe Bulldog.

My main concern was flying a composite aircraft and having a lightening strike without parachutes. In the accident you mentioned were there CB's around? Can you let me know the regn, I would like to read the report.

G-BPKG 1992 Loch Muick. Weather related.

[Homsap]

dont overfil ... Thanks, I have read it now, a bit inconclusive apart from it probably the right wing struck the water initially.

[tecman]

For all its operational limitations I loved my C150F, which I owned for a number of years and in which I flew many hundreds of hours. The 40 deg flaps are magic on bush strips and, flown sensibly and well, it's fine little machine. Despite the slight speed advantage of the C152, I never felt they trimmed up as nicely as the 150 and, as others have noted, I was rather sorry to have sold my C150.

Having said that, I've recently owned a Tecnam P2002-JF which, like all aircraft, comes with its own foibles. While there are quite a few years and a large number of dollars separating the two aircraft types, in absolute terms I'd take the Tecnam for comfort, operational economy, range, handling and fun factor. Before launching into C150 ownership in 2017, I'd have a good look at the LSA market - there are many fine little aircraft around now. You're not getting all the ruggedness of a C150 but you're not hauling as much empty weight, either. That translates into some significant gains for many pilots.

[BEagle]

l learned to fly back in 1968 on the Reims Cessna F150H at the Bedfordshire Air Centre, Cranfield. Delightful little aeroplanes, but slow. The one on which I flew my first solo (4 days after starting the course - a 'B' gliding badge helped) was G-AVVY and was only 5 months old at the time. Still flying today as G-UFLY.

We were taught to use 40° flap, including short landings at 50 mph with about 2000 rpm. No problem - but the aircraft were brand spanking new!

[27/09]

If I never have to fly one again I'll be quite happy.

Cramped, underpowered.

[chevvron]

. The G115 Tutor is the usual RAF upgrade, so like the difference between the Beagle Pup 100 (which was underpowered) and BAe Bulldog.
.

I once checked out in a Pup 100. In my opinion it wasn't underpowered; about the same weight as a C150 with the same (O-200) engine but with a higher wing loading hence it had a longer takeoff run, I found it very pleasant to fly, but having said that, the O-240 would have made it better!

[The Ancient Geek]

It depends what you want to do. If you are building hours or just want to bimble around the air for the joy of flying the 150 is a great little aircraft. I was taught to always do short landings with flaps 40, the touch & gos during training teach you to get the flaps up to 10 or 20 as soon as the wheels are on the ground which is good practice because they are easily dented by FOD on dirt strips. To be fair, the hot & high performance leaves a lot to be desired but this is not an issue in the UK. Load and elbow room can both be a problem for larger adults who will feel cramped and/or run out of MTOW easily. OTOH if you want to lug weight around you need a 182 anyway.

[Corrosion]

Agree entirely. I also prefer the Continental engine to that dificult to start Lycoming.

I prefer O-235 because it is not having nasty valve problems which may lead to emergency landing, O-235 is good starter if you know what you are doing and penny pincher owner puts in decent choke system instead of standard one cylinder nozzle, it is not that prone to carb icing, littlebit more power, not that easy to have carb fire during bad starting.
(i am not owner of any aircraft, thank god, but work with them long time and having had PPL as well, with both 150/152)
O-235 is having its own light tech problems but most of them not affecting run if maintenance is doing its job.
O-235 is not having starter clutch in eng aft gearing like O-200, if this clutch slips too much it can broke and destroy gearing... very old model pull-start is better.

As mentioned several time on this thread, it is quite robust little plane which is going for ever if owner takes care of it even little. :ok: