Cessna Aerobat
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna Aerobat
Just curious........
Sat in an Aerobat for the first time today. Even with the seat fully back, the Aerobat seemed to have significantly less leg-room than the F152 on which I did most of my training. Is it just me or is the Aerobat somewhat smaller in that respect? I'm 6ft plus and yoke only just cleared my knees!
Sat in an Aerobat for the first time today. Even with the seat fully back, the Aerobat seemed to have significantly less leg-room than the F152 on which I did most of my training. Is it just me or is the Aerobat somewhat smaller in that respect? I'm 6ft plus and yoke only just cleared my knees!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly the same in terms of ergonomics.
I agree with HWD, if the seat was set higher then it wil have given the impression of being more cramped.
Great little planes they are!!!!!
I agree with HWD, if the seat was set higher then it wil have given the impression of being more cramped.
Great little planes they are!!!!!
As mentioned above, it must be the seat height. Apart from internal strengthening in the main and tail planes and the roof windows, the structure is identical. Oh yes, the Reims built C150 version had an O-240 130hp engine which did wonders for the climb rate : ok:
Those roof windows usually make the cockpit feel more spacious due to the extra light rather than more cramped.
Not the most capable aerobatic mount on the planet but loads of fun and "cheap" to run.
Those roof windows usually make the cockpit feel more spacious due to the extra light rather than more cramped.
Not the most capable aerobatic mount on the planet but loads of fun and "cheap" to run.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a 150 its probably had several referbs.
The seats could have been over stuffed with foam to try and make the darn thing more comfortable.
Thus you could lose out on height and reach.
Also keep on eye on the rudder pedal attachments...tend to take a bit more of a bashing than the average cessna.
The seats could have been over stuffed with foam to try and make the darn thing more comfortable.
Thus you could lose out on height and reach.
Also keep on eye on the rudder pedal attachments...tend to take a bit more of a bashing than the average cessna.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: surrey
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned above, the feeling (or not) of space is all determined by the seats and their adjustment. I fly a selection of rented 152's, including Aerobats, and the comfort level is highly dependant on being able to max out the adjustments to their original limits.
There is a 152 at one of the clubs I fly from that simply will not accept my 6'4 and a bit frame because both "adjustments" are fixed. Although the seat is fairly far back, it is too high to allow full movement of the yoke over my knobbly knees.
A couple of tips:
1) Always adjust the seats BEFORE entering the aircraft.
2) Set the height adjustment to mid-position before sliding the seat back, then wind it down again. You can reach an extra notch on the slider.
3) Check for pencils, paper scraps and 'rucks' in the carpet / upholstery fouling the runners.
Flying with my 6'2" dad is always fun. Constant reminders about keeping limbs clear of the controls are required. Keeping his feet clear of the pedals AND his knees clear of the yoke AND his elbows out or my ribs is a constant challenge.
TG.
p.s. still love flying the 152 though!
There is a 152 at one of the clubs I fly from that simply will not accept my 6'4 and a bit frame because both "adjustments" are fixed. Although the seat is fairly far back, it is too high to allow full movement of the yoke over my knobbly knees.
A couple of tips:
1) Always adjust the seats BEFORE entering the aircraft.
2) Set the height adjustment to mid-position before sliding the seat back, then wind it down again. You can reach an extra notch on the slider.
3) Check for pencils, paper scraps and 'rucks' in the carpet / upholstery fouling the runners.
Flying with my 6'2" dad is always fun. Constant reminders about keeping limbs clear of the controls are required. Keeping his feet clear of the pedals AND his knees clear of the yoke AND his elbows out or my ribs is a constant challenge.
TG.
p.s. still love flying the 152 though!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wales
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have only ever flown a C150F With the O-240. What are the Lycoming engined C150s like to fly? (I know this might seem a bit abstract)
I'm 5 foot 10 inch, and I have trouble fitting into a 150, so I know how you feel! But they are cheep 'n' cheerful. (Exept when you pay your fees, they don't seem so cheep!) I must try flying an Aerobat variant, the sound fun! what can you do in the aerobat that you can't in the normal 150? I thought all Cessna 150s were flying bricks?
WF.
I'm 5 foot 10 inch, and I have trouble fitting into a 150, so I know how you feel! But they are cheep 'n' cheerful. (Exept when you pay your fees, they don't seem so cheep!) I must try flying an Aerobat variant, the sound fun! what can you do in the aerobat that you can't in the normal 150? I thought all Cessna 150s were flying bricks?
WF.
Less power in the Cont. O-200 C150 vs the Lyc. O-235 C152 ie 100hp vs 110hp. MTOW 727kg vs 752kg (or thereabouts. It's been 10yrs since I last operated them).
The aerobat is slightly heavier than the non-aero model (~20kg?). Quite a few extra rivets in it and, I think, some thicker aluminium. It has skylights in the roof (optional on the standard models), 4 point harnesses, removable seat cushions to allow for flat pack parachutes and quick-release door hinge pins. The aerobat also has an aerobatic approved engine
The standard C150/152 can operate in Utility category ie +4.4/-1.76g. It's approved for intentional spins.
The aerobat model is certified in the aerobatic category @ +6/-3 g. It's approved for spins, loops, rolls (aileron, barrel & snap), stall turns and combinations of these. Some of the limiting speeds are different eg Vne & Vno.
They're my favourite basic trainer.
Forgot to add
Like many Cessna singles they're all equipped with Cessna's 'Land-o-matic' (tm) undercarriage
& 'Omni-vision' (tm) rear window . Their 'Nav-o-matic' (tm] autopilot is a possible option.
The aerobat is slightly heavier than the non-aero model (~20kg?). Quite a few extra rivets in it and, I think, some thicker aluminium. It has skylights in the roof (optional on the standard models), 4 point harnesses, removable seat cushions to allow for flat pack parachutes and quick-release door hinge pins. The aerobat also has an aerobatic approved engine
The standard C150/152 can operate in Utility category ie +4.4/-1.76g. It's approved for intentional spins.
The aerobat model is certified in the aerobatic category @ +6/-3 g. It's approved for spins, loops, rolls (aileron, barrel & snap), stall turns and combinations of these. Some of the limiting speeds are different eg Vne & Vno.
They're my favourite basic trainer.
Forgot to add
Like many Cessna singles they're all equipped with Cessna's 'Land-o-matic' (tm) undercarriage
& 'Omni-vision' (tm) rear window . Their 'Nav-o-matic' (tm] autopilot is a possible option.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 29th Oct 2003 at 21:07.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WelshFlyer - I believe that all of the Lycoming-engined "150s" are actually 152s(?) Anyway I've only flown the 152, never the 150, so I can't compare them for you. Probably very similar, I would think.
It is amazing how often I hear people claim that they "can't fit" into a 150/152 (I am 6'2" and have never had any difficulty). It seems that this is encouraged by instructors, who would prefer to be logging 172 time. Of course, they're not paying the freight; most students are better off flying the 150/152, which is perfectly adequate for training and is certainly cheaper to rent.
MLS-12D
P.S. to instructors: 1,000 hrs of 172 time is not more impressive than 1,000 hours of 150/152 time.
It is amazing how often I hear people claim that they "can't fit" into a 150/152 (I am 6'2" and have never had any difficulty). It seems that this is encouraged by instructors, who would prefer to be logging 172 time. Of course, they're not paying the freight; most students are better off flying the 150/152, which is perfectly adequate for training and is certainly cheaper to rent.
MLS-12D
P.S. to instructors: 1,000 hrs of 172 time is not more impressive than 1,000 hours of 150/152 time.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.S. to instructors: 1,000 hrs of 172 time is not more impressive than 1,000 hours of 150/152 time
Especially if someone else is paying for it! FFF
-------------
