C150/C152 differences
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
RTL Flyer makes a very good point. I think that the aerodynamics of the 152 vs the 150M (aside from flaps beyond 30, and powerplant) are effectively identical. The wings are the same on all models. The obvious statistical difference is probably not attributable to the aircraft model itself, but more who, and how it is being flown. The 150's were probably older, and to put it bluntly, less cared for (pilot horsing around, 'cause he's flying a junk heap anyway). 152's are more prized, simply because they are newer. It's like saying older cars are more likely to be in a collision than newer ones. Its' not the car, it's how it's driven.
40 flaps should not factor in to departure stall spin accidents. If you took off or went around, and that much flap were still out, you would not climb high enough to fall far enough to hurt yourself! Stall/spin during foolish low flying, or landing, much more likely. The plane is just so comfortable to the end during this kind of manuevering, that it does not scare you until it's too late. Other types (Tomahawk, which I like, but flies differently) tend to be less assured in slow or abusive flight, and scare the pilot back to reason before all is lost.
It is my opinion that stall/spin/slow flight may not always be taught well enough. I've had instructors tell other pilots that "[me] was flying my plane around below stall speed". At least one was asked "how come it did not stall then?" STOL kit.
The rudder stop issue, and another erroneously issued AD for STOL kit wing fence height, are in my considered opinion unworthy non-starters.
In the case of the rudder stops, look at a 150 rudder. The bellcrank would have to be soooo far bent or falling off for this to be possible, that it was already quite damaged, and this should be evident on a walkaround. In the Canadian accident of this nature, I suspect that it was possible that the rudder over the stop happened after contact with the ice, and it was just a completely mis-managed manuever, or the rudder was predamaged, and not noticed. If the stops were installed incorrectly, that's a maintenance issue/design allows mis-installation. The revised stop kit solved a problem which was not there in the first place, and was a cheap resolution to a liability open end. 22000 150's in 40+ years, and two accidents, one with mis-installation of parts as the cause, not statistically worthy of AD action in my opinion.
The STOL kit wing fence height AD suggests that the aircraft is somehow sensitive to this characteristic. NOT AT ALL!. I spoke with the FAA inspector who issued this AD, and he did not test fly any combination of STOL kit on a 150 before issuing the AD. He just assumed that because the wrong fences were there, that was the problem. My 150M has the same wrong fences, and there is no negative characteristic as a result. If there were I would have found it by now. I've put over 2000 hours on this particular plane in the last 20 years I have owned it. The aircraft generally cannot be held into a spin (hence the removal of spin approval - no prohibition though, so don't start on me). The STOL kitted 150 can no longer demonstrate the requirement to hold in for 6 turns, and recover after 4 more - it just will not stay in. The spin becomes a spiral dive, which requires a much different recovery technique.
I do not believe that it was the FAA who limited the 152 flap travel, it was Cessna's choice for many of their models. Any competent 152 pilot will have no problem with 40 degree flaps in a 150. It is only in the manual flap 150's that you can go from 40 to zero instantly where a hazard could exist, but in that case, you startle yourself, and put the flap part way back down just as quickly.
Were any of the 150's 150 or 180 HP mods? Those do fly differently to their underpowered sister ships, and that is worthy of consideration. The torque affect of a departure stall in one of these would encourage a spin.
The task of improving safety in the fleet is worthy, and close to my heart, but I find that there is a large enough proportion of accidents (and I've helped investigate a few) which were just pure stupidity, that looking for a problem with the plane is just not where the problem is to be found.
Pilot DAR
40 flaps should not factor in to departure stall spin accidents. If you took off or went around, and that much flap were still out, you would not climb high enough to fall far enough to hurt yourself! Stall/spin during foolish low flying, or landing, much more likely. The plane is just so comfortable to the end during this kind of manuevering, that it does not scare you until it's too late. Other types (Tomahawk, which I like, but flies differently) tend to be less assured in slow or abusive flight, and scare the pilot back to reason before all is lost.
It is my opinion that stall/spin/slow flight may not always be taught well enough. I've had instructors tell other pilots that "[me] was flying my plane around below stall speed". At least one was asked "how come it did not stall then?" STOL kit.
The rudder stop issue, and another erroneously issued AD for STOL kit wing fence height, are in my considered opinion unworthy non-starters.
In the case of the rudder stops, look at a 150 rudder. The bellcrank would have to be soooo far bent or falling off for this to be possible, that it was already quite damaged, and this should be evident on a walkaround. In the Canadian accident of this nature, I suspect that it was possible that the rudder over the stop happened after contact with the ice, and it was just a completely mis-managed manuever, or the rudder was predamaged, and not noticed. If the stops were installed incorrectly, that's a maintenance issue/design allows mis-installation. The revised stop kit solved a problem which was not there in the first place, and was a cheap resolution to a liability open end. 22000 150's in 40+ years, and two accidents, one with mis-installation of parts as the cause, not statistically worthy of AD action in my opinion.
The STOL kit wing fence height AD suggests that the aircraft is somehow sensitive to this characteristic. NOT AT ALL!. I spoke with the FAA inspector who issued this AD, and he did not test fly any combination of STOL kit on a 150 before issuing the AD. He just assumed that because the wrong fences were there, that was the problem. My 150M has the same wrong fences, and there is no negative characteristic as a result. If there were I would have found it by now. I've put over 2000 hours on this particular plane in the last 20 years I have owned it. The aircraft generally cannot be held into a spin (hence the removal of spin approval - no prohibition though, so don't start on me). The STOL kitted 150 can no longer demonstrate the requirement to hold in for 6 turns, and recover after 4 more - it just will not stay in. The spin becomes a spiral dive, which requires a much different recovery technique.
I do not believe that it was the FAA who limited the 152 flap travel, it was Cessna's choice for many of their models. Any competent 152 pilot will have no problem with 40 degree flaps in a 150. It is only in the manual flap 150's that you can go from 40 to zero instantly where a hazard could exist, but in that case, you startle yourself, and put the flap part way back down just as quickly.
Were any of the 150's 150 or 180 HP mods? Those do fly differently to their underpowered sister ships, and that is worthy of consideration. The torque affect of a departure stall in one of these would encourage a spin.
The task of improving safety in the fleet is worthy, and close to my heart, but I find that there is a large enough proportion of accidents (and I've helped investigate a few) which were just pure stupidity, that looking for a problem with the plane is just not where the problem is to be found.
Pilot DAR
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
From: Canada (Southeastern Québec)
I should perhaps throw in a little info on the Canadian spin accident. Ice was not a factor as the crash happened on the 18th of July 1998.
Maintenance was a factor though. In addition to the rudder stopper issue, the rudder bar return spring was missing due to improper maintenance.
You can read the full report here: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...4/a98q0114.asp
Interestingly, I did my intial training for my PPL with the flight school involved in the crash; at the time (1980) they flew a fleet of C150s for ab-initio training. I had an excellent instructor but he was fired, so after my solo x-country, I switched to another smaller school and completed my PPL on a nearly new C152. The C150s at the earlier school were, umm, considerably less attractive.
Gosh can it be 27 years already...
Maintenance was a factor though. In addition to the rudder stopper issue, the rudder bar return spring was missing due to improper maintenance.
You can read the full report here: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...4/a98q0114.asp
Interestingly, I did my intial training for my PPL with the flight school involved in the crash; at the time (1980) they flew a fleet of C150s for ab-initio training. I had an excellent instructor but he was fired, so after my solo x-country, I switched to another smaller school and completed my PPL on a nearly new C152. The C150s at the earlier school were, umm, considerably less attractive.
Gosh can it be 27 years already...
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
Beechnut is correct, I have mistaken the surface upon which this 150 crashed, with that of another 150 accident, where the aircraft hit a frozen lake in Quebec. Frozen lake? Quebec? July? No, I guess not.....
My mistake.
Pilot DAR
My mistake.
Pilot DAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Am I the only person who gets weary of some of the stuff that gets posted here?
For the benefit of RedBaron55
1) Try landing a taper winged PA28 into a critically short runway with 5 knots of excess airspeed - then note the result - to do it properly requires appropriate training and adherence to the Piper performance data
2) I could reasonably argue that a comparison between a DH82 and C150 could lead someone to conclude that the Cessna pilot needs almost no training at all
Rather than concluding that these incidents are "training accidents", we might all be wiser to let Ghengis get on with his investigation, since he is qualified to investigate and draw conclusions and most of the rest of us are not.
Am I the only person who gets weary of some of the stuff that gets posted here?
For the benefit of RedBaron55
1) Try landing a taper winged PA28 into a critically short runway with 5 knots of excess airspeed - then note the result - to do it properly requires appropriate training and adherence to the Piper performance data
2) I could reasonably argue that a comparison between a DH82 and C150 could lead someone to conclude that the Cessna pilot needs almost no training at all
Rather than concluding that these incidents are "training accidents", we might all be wiser to let Ghengis get on with his investigation, since he is qualified to investigate and draw conclusions and most of the rest of us are not.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 17th May 2007 at 09:48.
Registered User **
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
I agree with the go around comment - much easier in the 150. But with the accident stats, I'm happy with the 152 and were my kids out on their first solo, I'd prefer them to be in the 152. BTW, the 152 had a rudder "fix" did it not? And was this fix also necessary for the 150? Anyone?
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Texas, USA
150 Vs 152 Vs PA151
I didn't say the warrior would not float like a fast frisby over a hot asphalt parking lot. I said that you don't particularly need to know how to fly to get a license in a Warrior.
No adverse yaw to speak of. The plane basically files itself. Really well designed. Just too easy to learn to fly and miss those little details about flying.
I have run flight schools and seen the difference. The C-150 is one of the best trainers around. It will demonstrate those little quirks of airmanship that are necessary for a properly trained airman.
It is possible to be taught how to fly and miss these things in a C-150(2), but less likely than in a late model Piper.
One of the most difficult probelms is a low time instructor who flew exclusively in Pipers and got his instructors rating (all except the required spins in a C-150) and was taught by one of the same being turned loose on the aviation world.
The question would be do you want to learn to fly airplanes or an airplane. If you want to learn how to fly airplanes you need to learn how you fly them, not how they fly themselves.
Don't get me wrong the PA-151(181) etc are good airplanes, but I don't believe that they should be used for initial training.
No adverse yaw to speak of. The plane basically files itself. Really well designed. Just too easy to learn to fly and miss those little details about flying.
I have run flight schools and seen the difference. The C-150 is one of the best trainers around. It will demonstrate those little quirks of airmanship that are necessary for a properly trained airman.
It is possible to be taught how to fly and miss these things in a C-150(2), but less likely than in a late model Piper.
One of the most difficult probelms is a low time instructor who flew exclusively in Pipers and got his instructors rating (all except the required spins in a C-150) and was taught by one of the same being turned loose on the aviation world.
The question would be do you want to learn to fly airplanes or an airplane. If you want to learn how to fly airplanes you need to learn how you fly them, not how they fly themselves.
Don't get me wrong the PA-151(181) etc are good airplanes, but I don't believe that they should be used for initial training.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I said that you don't particularly need to know how to fly to get a license in a Warrior.
Lets start by saying that is a nonsensical statement. Even if the Warrior required no handling skills whatsoever, there is still navigation, situational awareness, decision making etc to learn. So your point is that you do not need particularly sharp handling skills to obtain a license on a Warrior. Let's accept that for the sake of argument.
Well by your logic, we should really be learning in a Cub or similar, since we all know that taildraggers produce better pilots, creating better airmanship and handling skills near/on the ground.
Lets start by saying that is a nonsensical statement. Even if the Warrior required no handling skills whatsoever, there is still navigation, situational awareness, decision making etc to learn. So your point is that you do not need particularly sharp handling skills to obtain a license on a Warrior. Let's accept that for the sake of argument.
Well by your logic, we should really be learning in a Cub or similar, since we all know that taildraggers produce better pilots, creating better airmanship and handling skills near/on the ground.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Texas, USA
150 handling cubs etc.
OK, OK I agree with you.
It would be nice and lots of piloting skills would be learned if cubs etc were used. They are just not available like they were. By the way a C-150 is much more civilized than even my PA-20 Pacer and the cub. The Aeronoca was (is) a nicer flying plane than the cub and faster too. If an airplane is too easy to fly the finer points of piloting can be lost. If the instructor doen not make special effort to point out those points that are masked by the detailed design of the craft.
The C-150(2) is civilized enough and picky enough to be a good trainer as long as the student and instructor are not too heavy. The C-172 is good too, but cost more to operate. It also is easier to fly as most larger airplanes are.
I had a couple of Ex Russian instructor pilots at my school who wanted US pilot's licenses, We had to start in King air 200's and work our way down through lances, C-182, C-172 to the C-150. They thought the 150's flew like butterflies.
They eventually got the hang of it and one of them now flies for FedEX. (big iron is still easier to fly and pays better too!).
Neither the Cessna nor the Piper are particularly better or worse aircraft, but the design philosophy is different. In my opinion Piper never made a trainer after the Cub series. They chose to compete at the Cherokee-172 level. For transportation they are roughly equal year for year, which is what competition is all about.
If you really want to learn how to fly airplanes-----I got this PA-20/150. Now then that airplane will teach lots about the art and science of flying for those wiling to learn.
It would be nice and lots of piloting skills would be learned if cubs etc were used. They are just not available like they were. By the way a C-150 is much more civilized than even my PA-20 Pacer and the cub. The Aeronoca was (is) a nicer flying plane than the cub and faster too. If an airplane is too easy to fly the finer points of piloting can be lost. If the instructor doen not make special effort to point out those points that are masked by the detailed design of the craft.
The C-150(2) is civilized enough and picky enough to be a good trainer as long as the student and instructor are not too heavy. The C-172 is good too, but cost more to operate. It also is easier to fly as most larger airplanes are.
I had a couple of Ex Russian instructor pilots at my school who wanted US pilot's licenses, We had to start in King air 200's and work our way down through lances, C-182, C-172 to the C-150. They thought the 150's flew like butterflies.
They eventually got the hang of it and one of them now flies for FedEX. (big iron is still easier to fly and pays better too!).
Neither the Cessna nor the Piper are particularly better or worse aircraft, but the design philosophy is different. In my opinion Piper never made a trainer after the Cub series. They chose to compete at the Cherokee-172 level. For transportation they are roughly equal year for year, which is what competition is all about.
If you really want to learn how to fly airplanes-----I got this PA-20/150. Now then that airplane will teach lots about the art and science of flying for those wiling to learn.
