Familiarisation training for SEP aircraft?

[Flyingdoc93]

Hi all,

struggling to find the legal/official answer to this. I’m currently working as an F/O for a uk biz jet AOC and have a frozen ATPL (Easa).

I also fly a fait bit of SEP stuff for fun in my spare time. I’ve been asked by a friend to go and pick up a Cessna 150 for him but I’ve never flown one. I’ve flown loads of 152s and 172s etc but checking my logbook seemingly not a 150.

Legally, do I need to get a check out flight with an FI before I can fly this? I appreciate this might be a wise thing to do but is it legally required?

Thanks

[PURPLE PITOT]

Legally, no, it's the same class rating. If you can fly a 152 and a biz jet, you should have no problems. There are minor differences, but being a pro, I'm sure you will read the book before you get in it.
Have fun!

[FZRA]

Hi all,

struggling to find the legal/official answer to this. I’m currently working as an F/O for a uk biz jet AOC and have a frozen ATPL (Easa).

I also fly a fait bit of SEP stuff for fun in my spare time. I’ve been asked by a friend to go and pick up a Cessna 150 for him but I’ve never flown one. I’ve flown loads of 152s and 172s etc but checking my logbook seemingly not a 150.

Legally, do I need to get a check out flight with an FI before I can fly this? I appreciate this might be a wise thing to do but is it legally required?

Thanks

I used to flick between the 150/152/172 a fair bit.

Biggest difference on the 150 is that it has a flipper switch Up/Down for the flaps rather than a “gated” lever. A few people have been killed trying to go around whilst the flaps move to zero unbeknown to them.

Also the 150 has max 40 degrees flap (rather than 30)...useful for landing on a very short farm strip but very draggy on a go around if you’re not quick to get them up. My school used to recommend flap 30 for landing unless 40 was absolutely required.

Otherwise I think it was almost identical to the 152...

[Miles Magister]

Flying Doc

You will find the answers to type rating differences here EASA Type and class ratings (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/01082019%20EASA%20T_R_List_Acft.pdf)
You will find explanatory notes here EASA type rating explanatory notes (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Type%20rating%20list%20Explanatory%20Notes%20EASA%20T_R_List _03052018.pdf)

Whilst no one should offer opinion on this site as to your particular case without examining the details carefully, I have myself flown both C152 and C150 aircraft without differences training in the past. However I am now too fat to fly either and I would always be outside the front end of the CofG envelope with whatever load I had on board so do check this. The C150 is more likely to have a larger envelope as they are generally lighter aircraft.

All that said you are very wise to seek advice and do seek advice from an experienced instructor on type before operating. An example is that I once took off in a C172 and put the fuel booster pump on for take off as that is how I had always operated single piston aircraft but there had been a Cessna service bulletin for the C172 stating that the fuel booster pump should be off for take off because having it on could cause a rich cut. Interestingly the junior instructor I was flying with knew this but did not mention it to me because I was a very experienced instructor, examiner, ATPL etc etc etc. I found out later and went back to said junior instructor and politely corrected his ways for not speaking up.

Do not assume, check

MM

[Maoraigh1]

The Continental O200 is more prone to carb icing than the Lycoming.

[18greens]

I flew a 150 again recently. I fly 152 s regularly. The main differences have been pointed out but the big shock for me was the performance. About half the climb rate of a 152.

Apart from that, very pleasant aircraft to fly.

[733driver]

I flew a 150 again recently. I fly 152 s regularly. The main differences have been pointed out but the big shock for me was the performance. About half the climb rate of a 152.

Apart from that, very pleasant aircraft to fly.

That has not been my experience. I have however flown a 152 with a 150hp conversion. That one did of course climb much better than other 150s and 152. I think there are also different props available for these airplanes, such as climb or cruise props. Did the 150 you refer to perhaps have a cruise prop, resulting in higher cruise speeds but poorer climb rates?

[18greens]

That has not been my experience. I have however flown a 152 with a 150hp conversion. That one did of course climb much better than other 150s and 152. I think there are also different props available for these airplanes, such as climb or cruise props. Did the 150 you refer to perhaps have a cruise prop, resulting in higher cruise speeds but poorer climb rates?

I think it had an 80hp engine vs the 100hp in the 152. The prop could have been a factor plus the fact it was at MAUW. I think it was also very very old as opposed to just old. I'm glad we had a long runway

150hp now that would worth seeing, almost Pitts like performance. I've heard stories of the Aerobat with the 130 engine but never experience it.

[Maoraigh1]

Standard C152 has a115hp Lycoming, standard C150 has a 100hp Continental O200.
Both hp numbers nominal and frequently quoted.

[733driver]

I wasn't sure anymore. It's been 20+years. But, according to wikipedia and a POH I found online the standard 152 has 110hp. The 150 has 100hp. The standard 150 was a few pounds lighter than a 152. I don'r remember a significant difference in performance between the two. But as 18greens said, one could have been very tired (but not to the point of achieving only half the climb rate of a 152) and/or have had a different propeller. It could also have been a particularly heavy aircraft. Or it was a very hot day when he flew it. Probably a combination of factors.

[18greens]

I wasn't sure anymore. It's been 20+years. But, according to wikipedia and a POH I found online the standard 152 has 110hp. The 150 has 100hp. The standard 150 was a few pounds lighter than a 152. I don'r remember a significant difference in performance between the two. But as 18greens said, one could have been very tired (but not to the point of achieving only half the climb rate of a 152) and/or have had a different propeller. It could also have been a particularly heavy aircraft. Or it was a very hot day when he flew it. Probably a combination of factors.

There may have been many factors but I was very surprised at how slowly it climbed and others have made similar comments. Ironically the C150 was the first aircraft I ever flew. I don't recall being ahead of it very much in those days.

Anyway as I said it was delightful to fly I'm sure anyone with 152 experience won't have any trouble with it. (One quirk is the flap indicator is on the A pillar)

[Duchess_Driver]

The only thing you need to (legally) be wary of is the 3-in-90 rule. If you fly SEP often then it shouldn’t be an issue but you need to have three take offs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls in the SAME CLASs in the last 90 days before carrying passengers.

As it’s single crew, anybody else other than an instructor is classified as a passenger therefore you could do three solo circuits then pick up your friend and away you go.

Usual caveats on POH knowledge etc...