View Full Version : Furthest Traveled in a 150/152
kindupnorth
3rd Jun 2013, 20:49
Hi All,
I have just transitioned from club hire to owning a share of a cessna 150 !
Im not one to stay local but i am aware that a 150 is hardly a tourer.
Whats the furthest you have strayed ? Would your cross the Irish sea in one? (minus the tricycle gear/water somersault issue) :O
piperboy84
3rd Jun 2013, 21:06
Im not one to stay local but i am aware that a 150 is hardly a tourer.
Why not? under 200hp, spamcans are all about the same, around 100MPH burning between 7 to 9 USG makes for a fine tourer, unless your planning on hauling a lot of sh*t the 150/152 does just fine, the longest leg you want to do before a break is about 3 or 4 hours anyway and that would get you a fair old distance up or down the country.
On Track
3rd Jun 2013, 21:27
A year or two ago I met a pilot who'd just flown his C150 from Tasmania to the south island of New Zealand non-stop. That's roughly 900 nautical miles.
I must say it's not the way that I would choose to cross the Tasman.
welkyboy
3rd Jun 2013, 21:28
A C150 was flown from UK to Australia about 25 years ago, is that far enough?
On Track
3rd Jun 2013, 21:36
But I bet it wasn't non-stop!
I have personally done about 268 NM in a C152, from KMMK to KBHB. then down to Portland ME all in the same day. Seemed ok, but I was a lot younger.
Bryan
Big Pistons Forever
3rd Jun 2013, 23:50
A friend of mine once did a 740 Nm non stop flight in his C 150. He had the long range tanks and a honking tailwind and ended up with a flight time of just over 6 hours.
Just the thought of sitting in a C 150 for 6 hours straight makes my butt start hurting :ugh:
Some used C150's to cross the Atlantic Ocean as well.
Pilot DAR
4th Jun 2013, 03:13
My longest flight in a 150 was Toronto to Brownsville, Texas - 3050 NM return.
Also Toronto to Freeport Bahamas return -2550 MN (50 over ocean), with my wife and two bikes, Toronto to Madeline Islands return - 1700 NM (60 over ocean).
And also Toronto to Florida, Kansas City, Winnipeg, and Edmonton.
A reliable and very economical cross country machine, if you're patient....
squawking 7700
4th Jun 2013, 07:18
KUN - if it's the 150 that I think you've bought a share in it's certainly done it's share of long range trips, it may have been as far as Morocco, it's certainly been to France and the Scillies and back in a day.
7700
KUN
All manners of flying machines to far less capable aircraft than the Cessna 150 have flown around the world so there is no reason on Earth why a 150 should not either.
I learnt to fly 30 years ago in 3 150s and saw one of them still cruising the skies recently.
It was like meeting up with an old friend you have not seen for 30 years and felt very strange.
Enjoy your aircraft as they are great little aircrafts and a lot of fun
Pace
localflighteast
4th Jun 2013, 13:27
how does 64 days sound ?
The world record longest flight in a single engine airplane | rnjennison on Xanga (http://rnjennison.xanga.com/709208045/the-world-record-longest-flight-in-a-single-engine-airplane/)
:eek:
Piper.Classique
4th Jun 2013, 18:31
Why on earth shouldn't you go touring in a C 150? it's a very capable aircraft. Make sure you have at least a PLB for France. Enjoy!
kindupnorth
4th Jun 2013, 19:41
It seems like i have a lot of catching up to do ! Ive got quite a few long distance trips planned this month, if the weather stays as it is of course ! :D
dieseldo
4th Jun 2013, 20:47
Get hold of some of Chris Beltons trips in back copies of pilot magazine..
Rumania, Bosnia, Morrocco (edge of the Sahara), round the Baltic are but a few of her trips. Well written and always very entertaining.
Not seen anything from her in recent years although I hear her regularly on the radio.
Her aircraft being described on a flight plan as being white with orange tits!!!!!!!!!
The Flying Stool
4th Jun 2013, 20:51
Flew EGNT to LFAT on a couple of occasions. Not a bad touring a/c really.
It's (with the standard tanks) got about 2.5-3 hrs with a sensible amount for divs etc depending on how hard you drive it. Depends what prop it has as well, a cruise prop will give you around 100kts cruise at 2400rpm. So you have about 300nm still air range which is a fair bit, your backside will give out a long time before the a/c.
Wasn't there a 'marine' version of the 150 with long range tanks?
AdamFrisch
5th Jun 2013, 05:19
I seem to recall there's an aux fuel tank you can install in the baggage compartment that holds 18gals. So if you happen to have the long range tanks factory installed (36gals?) you're looking at almost 54gals capacity. That should be enough for almost 1000nm if favourable conditions. Don't know if you can carry that much fuel with a pilot, though.
Adam
It does not matter about W&B with the 150. They are unique aircraft not subject to such detail.
Even the flying clubs train in them overweight :ugh:
Do a W&B calc and you wont carry much in people or fuel
Pace
Unusual Attitude
5th Jun 2013, 08:56
Adam
It does not matter about W&B with the 150. They are unique aircraft not subject to such detail.
Even the flying clubs train in them overweight
Do a W&B calc and you wont carry much in people or fuel
Pace
Reminds me of my skills test in a C152 many moons ago, I'm 6'3" and fairly well built and my examiner was considerably larger.....pre flight discussion went something like this:-
Eaxminer: Have you done a W&B for our flight?
Me: Yes
Examiner: And what does it say?
Me: We are XXKg over weight and out of the forward CG limit.
Examiner: Thats fine, as long as your aware of it, lets go!
Flew fine if a little lethargic in the climb but then when is a C152 not?
It does not matter about W&B with the 150. They are unique aircraft not subject to such detail.
Even the flying clubs train in them overweight :ugh:
Do a W&B calc and you wont carry much in people or fuel
This is the bit that does get bandied around (not having a pop at you Pace, I've just heard this a lot). I have in front of me the weight schedule for our 152.
Aircraft basic weight 1080.3 lbs
Full tanks fuel weight 152 lbs
MTOW 1670 lb
Which leaves 437.7 lbs cockpit/baggage payload. Enough for two 200 lb guys and a couple of overnight bags. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
There are 3 152s where I fly. The lightest has an empty weight of 1213lbs.
Big Pistons Forever
6th Jun 2013, 01:30
This is the bit that does get bandied around (not having a pop at you Pace, I've just heard this a lot). I have in front of me the weight schedule for our 152.
Aircraft basic weight 1080.3 lbs
Full tanks fuel weight 152 lbs
MTOW 1670 lb
Which leaves 437.7 lbs cockpit/baggage payload. Enough for two 200 lb guys and a couple of overnight bags. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
There is not a C 152 in the world that has an empty weight of 1080 lbs. The 5 C 152 that my club runs have empty weights that range from 1151 lbs to 1210 lbs.
Most instructor/student combination will not allow full standard (22 gal) tanks let alone baggage. But the bottom line is any instructor that does a flight with the aircraft over gross is going to get fired.
Any student that flies at a school where the aircraft are being operated above MGTOW is stupid !
Pilot DAR
6th Jun 2013, 02:04
Me: We are XXKg over weight and out of the forward CG limit.
Examiner: Thats fine, as long as your aware of it, lets go!
Flew fine if a little lethargic in the climb but then when is a C152 not?
... and you were both satisfied with the handling characteristics in that configuration....
It's okay, I once wrote a multiple choice Transport Canada exam, where the correct answer was that you were flying out of limits. I got that question wrong, when I marked the answer saying that I stayed in limits the whole flight ('cause I did not burn fuel). I pointed this error out, and TC agreed that the exam should be changed.
There is not a C 152 in the world that has an empty weight of 1080 lbs.
Obviously the weight schedule is wrong then, thanks for pointing that out, we'll send it back for a re weighing.
Thing
It some time since I flew a 150 series and I stress the word series Cessna.
We are not just talking about a 152!
I used to fly a 65hp 150, a 152 aerobat and a weird and wonderful 130 hp 150.
This was 27 years ago and had a 150 revisited flight which I thoroughly enjoyed.
All I remember is that with two well fed pilots on board and a full tank of fuel they were overweight but on busy days the instructors jumped in and went regardless
Pace
Pilot DAR
6th Jun 2013, 10:49
I used to fly a 65hp 150
I hope it got the engine maintenance that it obviously desperately needed to return the missing 35HP!
The empty weight in the POH, you know the official Cessna handbook that the people at Cessna wrote is 1101 lbs. Ours has had some avionic changes that have reduced the weight to 1080.3 lbs. I've even taken some photos of the relevant pages/documents but I've a feeling even putting those up will make no difference.
At that documented empty weight, for god's sake don't re-weigh it.
Bryan
Big Pistons Forever
6th Jun 2013, 21:40
The empty weight in the POH, you know the official Cessna handbook that the people at Cessna wrote is 1101 lbs.
I assume you are talking about the "sample" weight in the weight and balance calculation example in section 6 of the POH.
You actually can get a plane that light if you don't specify any "optional" equipment like gyro's, a radio, lights etc etc . The factory delivered weight for any particular aircraft will be that weight plus options which means they all weigh more. Ordering every available option will add over 120 lbs to the the aircraft.
I say again there is no way a flying school C 152 actually weighs only 1080 lbs. If that is what your weight and balance report says then it is wrong.
hoodie
6th Jun 2013, 21:49
As others have already said, it's fine (if not ideal) for long touring trips. Go for it - the irish Sea is nothing! :D
Must respond to tis, though:
...minus the tricycle gear/water somersault issue
That's overly pessimistic.
See here (http://www.equipped.org/ditchingmyths.htm) (Equipped to Survive: Ditching Myths)
Jerico
6th Jun 2013, 22:09
Have a look at G-AWAW RESTORATION (http://www.g-awaw.org/) this aircraft flew from Denham to Darwin flown by Janette Schönburg in 1980, an epic journey with a superb pilot.
I assume you are talking about the "sample" weight in the weight and balance calculation example in section 6 of the POH.
No I'm talking about the weight that is in the frontspiece, the performance data page.
Big Pistons Forever
7th Jun 2013, 16:00
Thing
The front page of the Cessna POH only has space to record the serial number and the registration of the aircraft. This is important because the official POH is serial number specific.
Unless there is some weird UK only rule, there will never be an official empty weight record in the POH. Lots of people will make a note of the empty weight in the POH but the only official record will be in the aircraft documents as noted in the weight and balance report.
BTW I rechecked the Cessna POH "sample" weight as I provided the 110 lb figure from memory. Cessna gives an example weight of 1238 lbs. This is 58 lbs heavier than your airplane and I have never seen a C 152 with a 1238lb empty weight. The lowest empty I have seen was 1151 lbs.
So here is the deal either
1) You have a "special" C 152 that is magically 70 to 125 lbs lighter than every other C 152 in existence, or
2) The empty weight figure you are using is wrong.
Can only tell you what is in the POH and weight schedule. Can't see the weight schedule being wrong, it's from a highly respected and well established eng facility that we use all the time. I have flown it, and do so quite often at MTOW using our own figures and it flies perfectly well, performing to book figures. According to your (and everyone elses opinion) it would seem I'm flying it around 150 lbs overweight. Something's not adding up if you would excuse the pun.
Typical UK flying club practice. If you beg, you are given the "POH". But it is the generic manual, it has been carefully made non-specific.
I recall the first 4 seaters I rented. Did the weight and balance, took my passengers flying and then another member said you did use the weighing certificate rather than the example? Of course no one in the flying club had mentioned that the generic POH bore very little resemblance to the aircraft I was actually flying....... Of course the weight certificate was in the maintenance folder - and not made available to any members (apart from those in the 'know').
Older, wiser and much, much less innocent, I have an aircraft with an exceptional C of G envelope - having owned a couple where there were quite a few limitations.
But my experience in the non-weight limited C152 has stood me in good stead!
Ampage
7th Jun 2013, 19:14
Just recently done my solo cross country in a 152. The longest leg was from EGSF to EGBJ, about 80nm - aprox 75kt ground speed due to headwind.
Exhausting for a low hour chap like me. Bum definitely fell asleep.
Typical UK flying club practice. If you beg, you are given the "POH". But it is the generic manual, it has been carefully made non-specific.We always use the weight schedule weight for all of our a/c w/b calcs. It's a military club, no gash practises. Our CFI (ex CFS instructor) is a bit keen on stuff like that.
By the way Ampage, congrats on the XC! :D:D:D
Get a grip thing! If you are looking at the original Cessna weight schedule, as you claim, it should be written on parchment!
ALL AIRCRAFT GAIN WEIGHT OVER THE YEARS - THEY DO NOT LOOSE IT!
Are you part of the 'best of the best'? Without knowing what 'best' is?
There is a compelling reason for microlights to be re-weighed every 5 years. If you are flying an aircraft with a 20 plus year old weight certificate it is a work of nothing more than historic interest.
Que? The weight schedule is three years old.
Where did I say I was looking at the original weight schedule?
Big Pistons Forever
9th Jun 2013, 00:45
Thing
So the fact that your airplane is so much lighter than every other C 152 in existence doesn't concern you at all ?
A weight loss program for an older aircraft is entirely possible....modern goodies are so much lighter than the original fit... Add in a strip an respray to remove the collected paint layers and you can easily end up lighter than delivered from the factory... Not a LOT lighter normally, but enough to make a real difference.
Big Pistons Forever
9th Jun 2013, 01:54
What "goodies" can you change on a C 152 that will reduce the weight 70 lbs ?
Once had an aircraft professionally weighed by two different people, there was 150 lbs difference. Decided that the lighter figure was correct:=
So the fact that your airplane is so much lighter than every other C 152 in existence doesn't concern you at all ?
There has to be a 152 somewhere that is the lightest, maybe this is it. I have a feeling that even if I took it to the shop of your choice and they weighed it ten times you still wouldn't accept it. Also let's say you were right, how come I can fly it at MTOW and it operates in a perfectly acceptable way? No sluggishness getting off the ground, 100kt cruise at 2,400?
Four other weight schedules from the same place:
PA28-161 Warrior 2, weight schedule 1532 lbs. Does that sound about right or is that 100 or so lbs too light?
Exactly the same model as above, weight schedule 1448 lbs. Crikey it must be a mistake, how can it weigh less than the one above? Ah, it doesn't have a DME and other goodies.
C172 with standard tanks and 160hp engine, weight schedule 1483 lbs.
C172 with long range tanks and 180hp engine, weight schedule 1545 lbs.
Do they sound about right or are they all underweight too?
Pilot DAR
9th Jun 2013, 10:24
Can't see the weight schedule being wrong
I will objectively state that weight and balance records for GA aircraft are for my personal experience (and in this case, that lots) the most screwed up and untrustworthy documents I encounter in my work.
My Transport Canada advisers have many times told me to pay extra attention to this, as they have been made aware that not every Cessna was actually weighed before leaving the factory. Some had optimistic weight and balance documents prepared based upon similarity.
When I am doing approval work for which the W&B is critical, I witness the weighing. My experience has been to see it done right first time about 20% of the time. It would not have been redone had I not squawked. Imagine my client's surprise in my insisting that I travel from Toronto to Vancouver to witness a weighing, to find that indeed, it was more than 150 pounds optimistic in its first attempt.
I ask the shops who weigh aircraft for the approvals I do the weigh them three times, changing the scales under the wheels each time. You'd be amazed at the surprised looks on their faces when they have trouble getting within 1% each of the three times, and we end up weighing even more times to actually determine the weight.
Be suspicious in the extreme if an aircraft has a W&B which seems optimistically light, or less than factory or previous weights. It is very rare for aircraft to get lighter with age, unless lots of equipment is removed, and not at all replaced. The weight of a full IFR suite of avionics is rarely more than 15 pounds in a GA aircraft, and there's not much else which gets removed and replaced.
Remember that if the weight is not correct, and C of G position probably is not either, and that could affect the aircraft handling even more dramatically than a wrong weight.
Ah, thanks for that DAR. If weight schedules are in general incorrect though would having them reweighed make any difference? In that the error margin is likely to be just as great on the reweigh?
Does this also mean that most of us are flying in a/c that are not correctly within w/b?
I must admit, as I've said before that the a/c flies perfectly normally at what I think is MTOW according to the weight schedule. (I've flown other 152's of the same age and fit and can compare).
How much 'fudge factor' does the a/c manufacturer build into the w/b graphs? Obviously if youre a pound overweight or the loaded moment is slightly out then the a/c isn't going to come crashing out of the sky.
Edit: I was always led to believe that DME equipment in particular is quite heavy. I'm talking about 70's stuff now not modern kit.
Where did you say you were reading the original weight schedule?
The empty weight in the POH, you know the official Cessna handbook that the people at Cessna wrote is 1101 lbs. Ours has had some avionic changes that have reduced the weight to 1080.3 lbs. I've even taken some photos of the relevant pages/documents but I've a feeling even putting those up will make no difference
As Cessna obviously did not weight your aircraft 3 years ago then.......
So you should now suspect that either your airframe has been fitted with a helium flooding system, or the W&B might be a tad optimistic! Certainly the one I had a share in weighed more than 1250lb. But then it did have a Nav/com AND DME
My fault, that was quoting the Cessna empty weight (the generic empty in the POH) as opposed to the weight schedule weight, which is the one everyone is at odds with.
The whole thing is a concern for everyone really, if as DAR says weight schedules are in general not that good. Either that or we can all breath a sigh of relief that our a/c can operate well outside of the envelope.
Pilot DAR
9th Jun 2013, 11:44
How much 'fudge factor' does the a/c manufacturer build into the w/b graphs? Obviously if youre a pound overweight or the loaded moment is slightly out then the a/c isn't going to come crashing out of the sky.
Very true. There is a fudge factor built in to W&B, and it is described in the FAA flight test guide. When flight tests are done for certification, aircraft are flown slightly overweight, and slightly outside limits. But they are also being flown by a pilot who is extra skilled in flying safely through an unexpected event.
Saying that the plane flies "normally" in the configuration you're flying it might be overlooking a few details in the dusty corners, which might very suddenly become vitally important. Structural capacity, stall speed and performance are all affected by the gross weight. Add weight, surrender some of each of the three - how much are you willing to surrender?
Stall and spin recovery characteristics are affected by the C of G location. "Normally" in normal flying might be okay, but if the unexpected happens, the plane might not recover in the same why you've come to expect. I have flown a Cessna 206 in which at a certain, very attainable configuration, full elevator down control input would not lower the nose - that's scary bad, and C of G dependent. The aircraft was not misloaded - believe me, I triple checked!
When you pilot an aircraft, you're always thinking ahead, looking for the unsafe condition which you would rather carefully avoid than have to skillfully deal with. You're looking for the bad weather which could be ahead, the ATC clearance which might put you in conflict with another aircraft, the destination which might have too great a crosswind. Would it not seem odd, in that aura of caution and self preservation to blindly accept as accurate a W&B which seems too good to be true?
It is probable that the W&B records for the aircraft right back to the Cessna original are with the aircraft, or easily available. Sit on a rainy day, and go through them, doing all the additions and subtractions, and see if they pass the sanity check. As I have said, the empty W&B is the MOST screwed up things I encounter with aircraft - 'cause it is one of the more difficult things for the pilot to quickly recheck!
I agree, but we can't check the w/b and have to go on what it says on the bit of paper. That being the case, and bearing in mind that pilots of vast experience who have been in flying, both military and civil all of their professional lives fly the same a/c and haven't flagged it up, how is a relative sprog like me supposed to pick it up, and how often is it happening at airfields all over the world and in all types of a/c?
It's quite a cause for concern surely?
Big Pistons Forever
9th Jun 2013, 16:22
Thing
My advice and it is worth every penny you paid ;) is to go to your club manager and say that you are concerned that that the weight of this aircraft seems unusually low compared to every other similar aircraft and that you think it should be reweighed.
If the answer is no then I would use the Cessna Sample empty weight, 1238lbs in my flight planning. Low powered light aircraft like the C 152 will be disproportionately effected by flying overweight and so care should be taken not to allow the already meager performance margins to be reduced.
Already had that conversation BPF thanks. It has been questioned and reweighed which is why the last weight schedule was done, with the figures that it has. I'm assured that its been looked into as apparently the question of it's weight (or lack of) was a cause for concern.
Just back from shooting instrument approaches in it actually, two up, tanks full no probs.
I think it's just one of those weird ones, maybe it's made out of balsa...:)
By the way, where do you get your sample weight from?
Big Pistons Forever
9th Jun 2013, 19:48
By the way, where do you get your sample weight from?
Page 6-9 of the official Cessna POH for a 1979 C 152. You guys do have a Cessna issued serial number specific POH I hope ?
Of course. I don't have it to hand but I'll have a look at it next time I'm at the club and quote the weight.
Pilot DAR
10th Jun 2013, 10:39
You guys do have a Cessna issued serial number specific POH I hope ?
I would be very surprised to see a serial number specific Flight Manual for a C152, I don't recall ever seeing one, I think they were generic back then for the small Cessnas. Any weights quoted in the Flight Manual would be generic in any case.
However, what is relevant, and could be expected to be with the aircraft would be the original Cessna factory weight and balance. It's usually in a wad of weight and balance documents stuffed in a pocket somewhere. A rainy day review of that document, and the subsequent W&B revisions can produce surprising information. Do they pass the sanity test one to the next? Would it appear that what was changed from one revision to the next justifies the change in weight stated?
That's where I see mistakes, typos and transposition errors much too often....
Big Pistons Forever
10th Jun 2013, 15:02
I would be very surprised to see a serial number specific Flight Manual for a C152, I don't recall ever seeing one, I think they were generic back then for the small Cessnas. Any weights quoted in the Flight Manual would be generic in any case.
However, what is relevant, and could be expected to be with the aircraft would be the original Cessna factory weight and balance. It's usually in a wad of weight and balance documents stuffed in a pocket somewhere. A rainy day review of that document, and the subsequent W&B revisions can produce surprising information. Do they pass the sanity test one to the next? Would it appear that what was changed from one revision to the next justifies the change in weight stated?
That's where I see mistakes, typos and transposition errors much too often....
Prior to 1976 officially there was no such thing as a POH. All that was required was the appropriate limitation placarded in the cockpit. However all manufacturers issued what was in effect an owners manual.
In 1976 however as a result of a GAMA initiative virtually all of the manufacturers adopted a standard format POH which then became a required document. When ordering a POH from the manufacturer you have to provide the serial number of the aircraft it is for and the front page of these will have a space to record the serial number.
Since all C 152's were built in 1978 or later it will have a proper POH. For C 150's however only the last 2 years of production, 1976/1977, have a proper POH. I used to teach at a school that had 2 1976 C 150M's.
pudoc
10th Jun 2013, 17:33
I did 3 hours 11mins in a C152 once.
Most. Uncomfortable. Flight. Ever.
ericferret
10th Jun 2013, 21:17
Had a sneaky peak at my Mrs's log book. Sandtoft to Toussus le Noble in a 152 with the long range tanks. March 1993, 3.9 hours. Next day Toussus to Challes 3.3.
On the return trip Montellimar to Caen 4.5
Now I know why her butt is the shape it is!!!!
One important thing about the 150 is the low fuel consumption. You get a lot of mileage if the rear end can take the pain, years of horse riding is obviously a benefit.
Weighing 8 stone also helps.
kindupnorth
12th Jun 2013, 20:00
First trip a success !
I went from EGNE - Goodwood - Isle of Wight - EGNE on sunday !
Took 2:10 to get to Goodwood (slight tailwind) 80kt groundspeed.
0:20 to get to Isle of Wight
2:20 to get back to EGNE
Perfect trip ! Le touquet on sunday if the weather clears
and then the Scilly isles the week after depending on weather ! I took a pillow with me and sat on that the entire journey ! Not to bad on the old posterior
even after a 2:20min leg. Lets see if i am singing a different tune after the Scilly trip !!!!!
Blind Squirrel
25th Mar 2014, 17:10
I've done Providence, RI (Atlantic coast) to San Diego, CA (Pacific coast) and back in a C150. Took me 75 flying hours -- obviously, a lot faster on the way back than the way out, given the prevailing westerlies.
I don't fly longer legs than three hours, because the fuel gauges are crap, and GPH varies with atmospheric conditions. Thinking of putting in an EI fuel monitor, which would tell me to a high degree of accuracy how much I've burned, and might make me more comfortable about extending that three-hour range a bit.
thing
26th Mar 2014, 08:42
because the fuel gauges are crap It's better if they are snagged for not working at all, then you stop looking at them and wondering. I've only flown two different 152's. One had gauges that indicated full until you had about a third in each tank and the other had one side that didn't work at all (stuck on full) and the other side indicated about half full when full. You still look at them though. In fact you're probably better off just covering them up with bodge tape.