C150/C152 differences
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,609
Received 467 Likes
on
247 Posts
I think I came close to a big accident at Ipswich in an old C150 in 1973 (one tends not to forget). I was a student practicing some short field landings. I applied the final stage of flap and let go of the switch. Shortly afterwards, I was very surprised when the aircraft buffeted and fell out of the sky, landing well short, despite me applying a lot of power (probably full throttle, thinking back). Fortunately for me I had aimed 1/3 of the way into the field as a touchdown point - if I hadn't I would have possibly been down on the main road in the undershoot.
The switch, which was worn, had flipped up through the "OFF" gate into the retract position as i released it and the flaps completely retracted themselves on short finals. I was then doing a flapless short field landing, which obviously didn't work out too well.
I had the pleasure of flying a couple of brand new Reims C152s shortly afterwards and realised the new flap operating system was much better.
The switch, which was worn, had flipped up through the "OFF" gate into the retract position as i released it and the flaps completely retracted themselves on short finals. I was then doing a flapless short field landing, which obviously didn't work out too well.
I had the pleasure of flying a couple of brand new Reims C152s shortly afterwards and realised the new flap operating system was much better.
Moderator
I am certainly a fan of 40 degrees of flap on a Cessna 150, particularly when combined with a Horton STOL kit. Yes, one can easily land in a place too small to take off from!
I agree that the Later Cessna flap preselect switch of the later 150's and 152's is pleasing to use, but they can be more demanding of maintenance though. When they go wrong, they go way wrong!
The original flap switch is the subject of a service bulletin, which suggests its replacement with a spring to center from both position type. This is not mandatory though, and I have preferred to leave mine original. You just have to pay attention a little.
The flap position indicator on the door post is not perfect, but it is an improvement over the earlier version, which was right above the pilot's head (good for instructors to see though). I have devised a very presentable decal which is applied to the inside of the left wing rib aft area, which becomes exposed when the flap is extended. This simply makes 10 degree increment lines become visible as the flap extends. I have not evaluated it on 30 degree flap Cessnas, but I can't see why it would not work. When you're flying left hand circuits, you spend some time looking right out in that direction anyway, so a quick glance, and your flap setting is confirmed. Should anyone wish a CorelDraw file of this decal, PM me and I'll be pleased to sent it along via email. It's installation would not require modification approval by Canadian standards.
I am not of the opinion that flap asymmetry in a single Cessna is a risk of any concern. If it were to happen during extension from flaps up, retracting the flaps would fix the problem. If one flap suddenly retracted from full flaps - forget it, you'd be done, unless you had lot's of altitude, and manual flaps.
A greater risk, and is has happened to me in a Cessna 180 floatplane, is a flap track breaking off. During water touch and go's (way further from shore than I should have been) I quickly retracted from 40 to 20 while on the step, and took off again. The flap handle felt a little funny. Once airborne, I could not move the right flap at all, and the left had become a very unsafe aileron. I flew home with 20 flap out, and landed with that setting, and great care. Once on the water, the right flap hung down inboard at an odd angle. It's track had come completely out of the wing!
One other 152 note; as factory configured, they had a very poor short/soft field takeoff compared to a 150. A different propeller played a part in this. Lots of grass runways I'd been into in a 150 terrified me in a 152.
In 1977, the introduction of the 152 was very anticipated. By chance I was the first person to first solo the first one into Canada. It had 33 hrs TTSN at that time, and my instructor was nearly fired for sending me off in it! Once we got to know them, many of us were every bit as happy back in 150's.
Sparrowhawk is a very worthwhile conversion to a 152.
Pilot DAR
I agree that the Later Cessna flap preselect switch of the later 150's and 152's is pleasing to use, but they can be more demanding of maintenance though. When they go wrong, they go way wrong!
The original flap switch is the subject of a service bulletin, which suggests its replacement with a spring to center from both position type. This is not mandatory though, and I have preferred to leave mine original. You just have to pay attention a little.
The flap position indicator on the door post is not perfect, but it is an improvement over the earlier version, which was right above the pilot's head (good for instructors to see though). I have devised a very presentable decal which is applied to the inside of the left wing rib aft area, which becomes exposed when the flap is extended. This simply makes 10 degree increment lines become visible as the flap extends. I have not evaluated it on 30 degree flap Cessnas, but I can't see why it would not work. When you're flying left hand circuits, you spend some time looking right out in that direction anyway, so a quick glance, and your flap setting is confirmed. Should anyone wish a CorelDraw file of this decal, PM me and I'll be pleased to sent it along via email. It's installation would not require modification approval by Canadian standards.
I am not of the opinion that flap asymmetry in a single Cessna is a risk of any concern. If it were to happen during extension from flaps up, retracting the flaps would fix the problem. If one flap suddenly retracted from full flaps - forget it, you'd be done, unless you had lot's of altitude, and manual flaps.
A greater risk, and is has happened to me in a Cessna 180 floatplane, is a flap track breaking off. During water touch and go's (way further from shore than I should have been) I quickly retracted from 40 to 20 while on the step, and took off again. The flap handle felt a little funny. Once airborne, I could not move the right flap at all, and the left had become a very unsafe aileron. I flew home with 20 flap out, and landed with that setting, and great care. Once on the water, the right flap hung down inboard at an odd angle. It's track had come completely out of the wing!
One other 152 note; as factory configured, they had a very poor short/soft field takeoff compared to a 150. A different propeller played a part in this. Lots of grass runways I'd been into in a 150 terrified me in a 152.
In 1977, the introduction of the 152 was very anticipated. By chance I was the first person to first solo the first one into Canada. It had 33 hrs TTSN at that time, and my instructor was nearly fired for sending me off in it! Once we got to know them, many of us were every bit as happy back in 150's.
Sparrowhawk is a very worthwhile conversion to a 152.
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dare I also say mine is for sale at Popham - VERY good condition...
www.gapilot.co.uk for details.
www.gapilot.co.uk for details.
Previous Owners:
Sue Griffin, Peterborough Cambs 3/1997 - 11/2001 (50% share with me from 200).
Brian Mills, Cambridge 1/1994 - 3/1997
Nicholas Wiszowaty (Echo Victor Flying Group), London 6/1990 - 1/1994
Kathleen Seaton-Stedham, New Milton 6/1989 - 6/1990
Bryan Axford, Lymington 5/1986 - 6/1989
Paul Dupon, London 9/1985 - 5/1986
Andrewsfield Flying Club, Stebbing 11/1984 - 9/1985
David Chisholm, 3rd Armoured Division 7/1983 - 11/1984
South Midland Communications Ltd, Totton 7/1976 - 6/1983
Bennett Bros (Chandlers Ford) Ltd, Chandlers Ford 8/1973 - 6/1976
Brymond Aviation, Woking 9/1972 - 7/1973
Join Date: May 2007
Location: sussex uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bit strong ,ive known of an arrow thats changed hands twice in recent months does this make it a bad aircraft ? cant get much more simple to fly than a 150 yet still people bang on about holding down a switch
Moderator
Cessna Kevin has a good point. It's a switch! What would those naysayers have to say if they were flying a manual flap 150? I had to move a lever...!
I was testing another type certified aircraft, whose manual landing gear retraction and extension system was in airworthy condition, in accordance with it's type design, and I decided to actually measure the actuation force (lever moves like a Cessna flap lever/car parking brake). Force to retract gear: 80 pounds! Oh, and you have to fly the plane at the same time!
There are many venerable aircraft whose systems are not that way we might design them now. We either learn to live with it and love them, or pay up for brand new planes!
Piot DAR
I was testing another type certified aircraft, whose manual landing gear retraction and extension system was in airworthy condition, in accordance with it's type design, and I decided to actually measure the actuation force (lever moves like a Cessna flap lever/car parking brake). Force to retract gear: 80 pounds! Oh, and you have to fly the plane at the same time!
There are many venerable aircraft whose systems are not that way we might design them now. We either learn to live with it and love them, or pay up for brand new planes!
Piot DAR
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
150-152
Depending on which model 150 yoy are talking about there is little difference except 40 vs 30 degrees and Lycoming O-235 vs Continental O-200 engines.
On the M model 150's the flap controls are exactly like the 152 except the travel was restricted to 30 degrees.
They are bith preselector controls. The flap indicators were different for earlier aircraft with the switch you held dow for the amount of flap you wanted.
A major difference is with the last 10 degrees of travel the pitching moment of the nose was heavier and if you were unwary you could drop the airspeed too low pretty easily if you didn't retrim or push the nose down to compensate. It's a lot like flying an airplane.
As far as being dangerous that depends on if you have an instructor that teaches you how to fly or if you just blunder around in the sky.
I prefer manual flaps, but either is OK. The airplane is what it is and the pilot must control it as necessary.
I have had probably 7 or 8 Cessna 150's over the years of many different models. I prefer the M's but the L are OK too. All are very similar and depend on the condition of an individual example more than the model.
The 152's are not bad airplanes, but in my mind the main reason for their existance is Cessna is owned by the Textron company as is lycoming. The O-235 was supposed to work with LL100 better than the O-200, but that didn't prove to be the case. The 152 may have slightly better rate of climb, but again it depends more on the particular example.
Competitors who operated the 152's and bad mouthed my 150's spent more timew in my hangar having their plugs cleaned so they could go home than mine ever did (never).
You pays your money and takes your choice. Stall / spins happen because of poor training. The flap switch has nothing to do with it.
On the M model 150's the flap controls are exactly like the 152 except the travel was restricted to 30 degrees.
They are bith preselector controls. The flap indicators were different for earlier aircraft with the switch you held dow for the amount of flap you wanted.
A major difference is with the last 10 degrees of travel the pitching moment of the nose was heavier and if you were unwary you could drop the airspeed too low pretty easily if you didn't retrim or push the nose down to compensate. It's a lot like flying an airplane.
As far as being dangerous that depends on if you have an instructor that teaches you how to fly or if you just blunder around in the sky.
I prefer manual flaps, but either is OK. The airplane is what it is and the pilot must control it as necessary.
I have had probably 7 or 8 Cessna 150's over the years of many different models. I prefer the M's but the L are OK too. All are very similar and depend on the condition of an individual example more than the model.
The 152's are not bad airplanes, but in my mind the main reason for their existance is Cessna is owned by the Textron company as is lycoming. The O-235 was supposed to work with LL100 better than the O-200, but that didn't prove to be the case. The 152 may have slightly better rate of climb, but again it depends more on the particular example.
Competitors who operated the 152's and bad mouthed my 150's spent more timew in my hangar having their plugs cleaned so they could go home than mine ever did (never).
You pays your money and takes your choice. Stall / spins happen because of poor training. The flap switch has nothing to do with it.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had that very flap switch gotcha as a low hours PPL in the very aircraft that poor lad at Southend was killed in last year. Looking back nobody ever warned me about it so I wonder if there is a lack of general awareness of this problem. Perhaps we should try and raise awareness of the potential dangers.
Regarding the 16:1 issue - I would be surprised if there are 16 times more
Cessna 150's in the Uk then 152's.
Remember there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. What you need to do is look at each incident and try and draw comparisions as has been hinted at - ie base to finals turn with the flaps inadvertently being raised or how many of the accidents have involved 150 aerobats doing aerobatics, continental more prone to carb icing etc.
Regarding the 16:1 issue - I would be surprised if there are 16 times more
Cessna 150's in the Uk then 152's.
Remember there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. What you need to do is look at each incident and try and draw comparisions as has been hinted at - ie base to finals turn with the flaps inadvertently being raised or how many of the accidents have involved 150 aerobats doing aerobatics, continental more prone to carb icing etc.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lies, damn lies and statistics sums it up.
Don't let the fact of how many million flying hours have been flown by pilots of all ages, experience and skill without a problem get in the way of a good story invention......
What type has the best risk of flying into the ground in cr@p weather or fall out of the sky during aerobatics that went wrong?
The 150 and 152 are excellent aircraft but like any aeroplane may suffer an accident if flown incorrectly.
Carb ice is a risk to any carburetted engine and some installations are more prone to it than others. How many aircraft are fitted with O-200s and how many O-235s.
Please, give up with this death trap cr@p!!
Don't let the fact of how many million flying hours have been flown by pilots of all ages, experience and skill without a problem get in the way of a good story invention......
What type has the best risk of flying into the ground in cr@p weather or fall out of the sky during aerobatics that went wrong?
The 150 and 152 are excellent aircraft but like any aeroplane may suffer an accident if flown incorrectly.
Carb ice is a risk to any carburetted engine and some installations are more prone to it than others. How many aircraft are fitted with O-200s and how many O-235s.
Please, give up with this death trap cr@p!!
Moderator
Redbarron and Smarkhawke have it right. Love the 150 and 152 as they are, or pay to have a better plane designed, approved ,put into production, and supported for 50 years. That's why Cessna is still in business!
High pitch forces!? Fly a dozen circuits in a Cessna 207 at gross weight, and try the 150 again...
Pilot DAR
High pitch forces!? Fly a dozen circuits in a Cessna 207 at gross weight, and try the 150 again...
Pilot DAR
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 150 and 152 are excellent aircraft but like any aeroplane may suffer an accident if flown incorrectly.
But the originator of this thread - if I remember rightly - was looking into why there is a disproportionately high number of C150 accidents, compared with the C152. So it's got to be worth looking at how much more likely a low hours pilot is to fly the C150 incorrectly, and why. So that perhaps we can prevent it turning into a death trap for him/her.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Thank you Whirly, well said.
I confess, I rather wish this particular genie would have stayed in the bag for a little while longer (purely because I'd like some answers before telling the world what the question was), but since it's out...
MikeJ and I are both involved with a UK organisation with an objective of promoting and improving safety in GA. One of the things that has been going on lately is a review of roughly 25 years of GA fatal accidents (1980-2004); there have been well over 100 fatal accidents in the UK in that period (looking at Group A at the moment) so there's a reasonable statistical sample. (And, being brutal, an unpleasantly high body count - some of those people were friends of mine, and probably friends of other people reading this).
A very large proportion (something around 2/3) of these fatals involved, in some way, a stall and/or spin. This is not exactly surprising, but it does allow us to start analysing things statistically since we're still on big numbers.
You can see reasonable trends by type. For example the tapered wing PA28s (e.g. the PA28-161 Warrior II) show NO stall/spin related fatals in that period. On the other hand whilst the C152 shows 1 such fatal in that period, the C150 shows 10. Since in the UK the CAA helpfully retains a record of the hours flown by everything, we can standardise that by flying hours. This shows that whilst remaining generally very safe, the C150 is about 16 times more likely to suffer such an accident than the C152. The bulk of these fatal accidents appear to occur during the climb-out or go-around.
So, we're asking ourselves why? There are a few theories: many concentrating upon the flap mechanisms; but, they also include CG differences, slight wing shape differences, different profiles of the pilots flying each type - and no-doubt a few other theories will come out of the woodwork. There are other, far worse types statistically than the C150 (and far better than the C152), but the fact that they're so similar makes it relatively easy to study the differences.
There are two big reasons why we want to know the answer to this question, it's not just academic interest. These are:
(1) When we know what the reason(s) is/are, we can tell pilots on this, and other types, what mistakes to avoid.
(2) It'll also allow us to feed information to aircraft designers and evaluators so that whatever that subtle difference is between the two, we can use that knowledge to make future aeroplanes safer.
G
I confess, I rather wish this particular genie would have stayed in the bag for a little while longer (purely because I'd like some answers before telling the world what the question was), but since it's out...
MikeJ and I are both involved with a UK organisation with an objective of promoting and improving safety in GA. One of the things that has been going on lately is a review of roughly 25 years of GA fatal accidents (1980-2004); there have been well over 100 fatal accidents in the UK in that period (looking at Group A at the moment) so there's a reasonable statistical sample. (And, being brutal, an unpleasantly high body count - some of those people were friends of mine, and probably friends of other people reading this).
A very large proportion (something around 2/3) of these fatals involved, in some way, a stall and/or spin. This is not exactly surprising, but it does allow us to start analysing things statistically since we're still on big numbers.
You can see reasonable trends by type. For example the tapered wing PA28s (e.g. the PA28-161 Warrior II) show NO stall/spin related fatals in that period. On the other hand whilst the C152 shows 1 such fatal in that period, the C150 shows 10. Since in the UK the CAA helpfully retains a record of the hours flown by everything, we can standardise that by flying hours. This shows that whilst remaining generally very safe, the C150 is about 16 times more likely to suffer such an accident than the C152. The bulk of these fatal accidents appear to occur during the climb-out or go-around.
So, we're asking ourselves why? There are a few theories: many concentrating upon the flap mechanisms; but, they also include CG differences, slight wing shape differences, different profiles of the pilots flying each type - and no-doubt a few other theories will come out of the woodwork. There are other, far worse types statistically than the C150 (and far better than the C152), but the fact that they're so similar makes it relatively easy to study the differences.
There are two big reasons why we want to know the answer to this question, it's not just academic interest. These are:
(1) When we know what the reason(s) is/are, we can tell pilots on this, and other types, what mistakes to avoid.
(2) It'll also allow us to feed information to aircraft designers and evaluators so that whatever that subtle difference is between the two, we can use that knowledge to make future aeroplanes safer.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand whilst the C152 shows 1 such fatal in that period, the C150 shows 10. Since in the UK the CAA helpfully retains a record of the hours flown by everything, we can standardise that by flying hours. This shows that whilst remaining generally very safe, the C150 is about 16 times more likely to suffer such an accident than the C152. The bulk of these fatal accidents appear to occur during the climb-out or go-around.
C150's are not generally used for training/schools now days where 152's are so the 152 is probably being flown with an experienced instructor on board for most of the flying hours they are in the air. Perhaps we should be looking at the statistics as to how current the pilot involved in the accident was?
Eg 152 training school, licenced airfield, CPL PIC. C150 Private owner, only 1 hour in the past 60 days (winter) into a private strip. See my pont?
All I am trying to say - by experience - statistics can give different results.
Depending on which model 150 yoy are talking about there is little difference except 40 vs 30 degrees and Lycoming O-235 vs Continental O-200 engines.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Your point is clear, and have no doubt - we'll be looking at all of that. Which is precisely the reason that, if I'm honest, I wasn't all that keen on there being much public discussion before we had some answers.
We are just looking at fatal accidents at the moment - on the grounds that it's dead bodies we care about most.
G
We are just looking at fatal accidents at the moment - on the grounds that it's dead bodies we care about most.
G
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
You mentioned in about your second post on this thread that you were looking into this, so it wasn't me that spilled the beans, honest!
You mentioned in about your second post on this thread that you were looking into this, so it wasn't me that spilled the beans, honest!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-150 stalls
Stall / spin in take off?
This looks more like training accidents in take off and departure stall training. In this mode the cessna with full flaps and full (although low at 100 hp) power the little bird can get a little touchey. It is very common to spin over the top if the coordination is not good. A go around with full flaps is not likely with 40 deg. flap.
This sounds more like training accidents. The proper use of this much flap requires some training that would be absent if one trained in a 152 and then transitioned (?) to a 150.
The FAA limited the flaps to 30 deg since you can get into trouble with 40 if you were not trained for it.
For example the pilot must be trained to ptoperly fly the Cessna 150 where if trained ina Piper warrior the "pilot" needs almost no training at all.
This looks more like training accidents in take off and departure stall training. In this mode the cessna with full flaps and full (although low at 100 hp) power the little bird can get a little touchey. It is very common to spin over the top if the coordination is not good. A go around with full flaps is not likely with 40 deg. flap.
This sounds more like training accidents. The proper use of this much flap requires some training that would be absent if one trained in a 152 and then transitioned (?) to a 150.
The FAA limited the flaps to 30 deg since you can get into trouble with 40 if you were not trained for it.
For example the pilot must be trained to ptoperly fly the Cessna 150 where if trained ina Piper warrior the "pilot" needs almost no training at all.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,181
Received 3,039 Likes
on
1,281 Posts
Remember there is an AD in the works for these aircraft to check the rudder stops after those poor people in the USA spun in, you have to make sure the lip on the plate that the rudder stop strikes is Forward, on the one they where flying it had been fitted the wrong way round trapping the rudder full over and causing it to spin in Checked all the ones I work on already......
Checked all the ones I work on already......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,181
Received 3,039 Likes
on
1,281 Posts
For those wishing to check there rudder stops before they fly ( it only takes a second to do them) please refer to this, It gives you all the details and photographs to see what you need to check.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2007/A07_33.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2007/A07_33.pdf