C150/C152 differences
Moderator
Thread Starter
C150/C152 differences
I'm sure that I remember a thread a few months back discussing the fine detail of the differences between the C150 and the C152, but I can't find it for the life of me.
Does anybody else remember it, or better still be able to post a link?
Cheers,
G
Does anybody else remember it, or better still be able to post a link?
Cheers,
G
C150 vs C152
Have a look at the bottom of the page in the "similar threads" section. There are about 5 threads with the right sort of title.
DGG
DGG
Last edited by Dave Gittins; 8th May 2007 at 13:02. Reason: Can't f'@#ing read
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G,
150 has 40% flap and some have a 130hp engine.....!!
Dare I also say mine is for sale at Popham - VERY good condition...
www.gapilot.co.uk for details.
Tim
150 has 40% flap and some have a 130hp engine.....!!
Dare I also say mine is for sale at Popham - VERY good condition...
www.gapilot.co.uk for details.
Tim
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 152 is just a "sorted" 150 there are a number of structual changes including a very much better main landing gear instalation, better stab/fin mountings, 28V electrics, the only downside was the loss of the 40 flap setting. the engine was changed to a Lycoming O-235 L2C.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghengis,
One of the apparently unnoticed statistics recently discovered is that over the period 1980 - 2006 there have been
10 stall/spin fatal crashes in C150
1 " " " " " C152.
In this period there were many more hours flown in the C152, making the apparent risk per hour about 16 times greater in the C150.
On these numbers the difference is hugely statistically significant, over 99%.
The tragic death of a teenager on second solo at Southend last year was in a C150. Over the 27 years analysed, there was a total of just 4 stall/spin fatals of solo students on all types, but 3 of these were in C150. The other was an AA5.
Needless to say, very serious study is now being made of the reasons for this difference.
One of the apparently unnoticed statistics recently discovered is that over the period 1980 - 2006 there have been
10 stall/spin fatal crashes in C150
1 " " " " " C152.
In this period there were many more hours flown in the C152, making the apparent risk per hour about 16 times greater in the C150.
On these numbers the difference is hugely statistically significant, over 99%.
The tragic death of a teenager on second solo at Southend last year was in a C150. Over the 27 years analysed, there was a total of just 4 stall/spin fatals of solo students on all types, but 3 of these were in C150. The other was an AA5.
Needless to say, very serious study is now being made of the reasons for this difference.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps stating the obvious, but as a newbie PPL I found the flap system on the C150 quite nasty, whereas on the 152 it’s simplicity itself.
Compare setting approach flap on base leg for instance; on the 152 you would confirm white arc speed, move the flap lever to the 20 degree position, and that’s it – a few seconds work at most, then back to the ASI and looking out of the window.
On the 150 you have to operate (and hold) the flap toggle with your right hand, then monitor the flap position indicator to your left, ensuring that you stop the flaps travelling at 20 degrees. It’s a fiddly procedure which draws attention away from monitoring airspeed and traffic at a critical stage of flight. It’s not difficult to imagine a scenario where a low-hours pilot becomes distracted while operating the flaps, lets the airspeed get a little low, realises they’ve continued a little too far on base, turns final a bit late, tightens the turn . . .
I think it’s a nasty little ‘gotcha’ that is waiting to trap the unwary, and may go some way to explaining the difference in stall/spin statistics between the two types.
Are these stall/spin crashes concentrated in one particular phase of flight?
Compare setting approach flap on base leg for instance; on the 152 you would confirm white arc speed, move the flap lever to the 20 degree position, and that’s it – a few seconds work at most, then back to the ASI and looking out of the window.
On the 150 you have to operate (and hold) the flap toggle with your right hand, then monitor the flap position indicator to your left, ensuring that you stop the flaps travelling at 20 degrees. It’s a fiddly procedure which draws attention away from monitoring airspeed and traffic at a critical stage of flight. It’s not difficult to imagine a scenario where a low-hours pilot becomes distracted while operating the flaps, lets the airspeed get a little low, realises they’ve continued a little too far on base, turns final a bit late, tightens the turn . . .
I think it’s a nasty little ‘gotcha’ that is waiting to trap the unwary, and may go some way to explaining the difference in stall/spin statistics between the two types.
Are these stall/spin crashes concentrated in one particular phase of flight?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G SXTY
Have you actually flown a C150 with the different flap switch? I have and find it BETTER than the C152 - especially if on a go around.
Any problems a low hours PPL may have is doing a go around with 40% flap down.
Tim.
Have you actually flown a C150 with the different flap switch? I have and find it BETTER than the C152 - especially if on a go around.
Any problems a low hours PPL may have is doing a go around with 40% flap down.
Tim.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I've flown both, and IMHO the C152 flap system is significantly easier to use.
The fact that Cessna changed it suggests they might agree.
The fact that Cessna changed it suggests they might agree.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That does not suggest that the 150 flap switch type and position are unsafe. It was in service for long enough!!
You suggest looking at the indicator on the pillar (next to the screen where you are looking out) is less safe than looking down into the cockpit at the indicator on the lower centre of the panel.
It is also common knowledge the gate on the 152 switch gets warn with age and causes problems.
One advantage of the switch rather than stepped 152 switch you are able on go-around to take the flaps up in smaller steps, rather than 10% at a time. Or more if the gate is not as positive as it should be on a 152.
The 150 is like every other aircraft - they have a slightly different flap (and other systems) operation and requires the pilot to be familiar with the operation of the aircraft they are flying.
You suggest looking at the indicator on the pillar (next to the screen where you are looking out) is less safe than looking down into the cockpit at the indicator on the lower centre of the panel.
It is also common knowledge the gate on the 152 switch gets warn with age and causes problems.
One advantage of the switch rather than stepped 152 switch you are able on go-around to take the flaps up in smaller steps, rather than 10% at a time. Or more if the gate is not as positive as it should be on a 152.
The 150 is like every other aircraft - they have a slightly different flap (and other systems) operation and requires the pilot to be familiar with the operation of the aircraft they are flying.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last of the 150s the 150M (there were some N's produced but are rare) had the same flap pre-select system as the 152. The non pre-select switch had the switch sprung loaded back to 'neutral' when putting flaps down and 'locked' up when selecting flaps up. This could catch some out when they tried to take a bit of flap off during go-arounds and the whole lot went - ie 40 deg to zero. Happened to a 150 at Sibson in the late 80s, aircraft ended up in the trees, luckily no harm to the solo student.
As for the gear, again it was different on much earlier 150s with the flat spring legs as opposed to the later faired tapered rod setup which was carried through to the 152s.
The first 152s had the same fin/stab attachment brakets as the 150s, there then followed Mks II and III on the 152, the last being a one-piece casting.
If you're talking spin charcteristics the 150M had the same larger fin and longer dorsal fairing as the 152. The 150L and earlier had a shorter fin and rudder and shorter dorsal fin.
Going back further in time there was of course the straight-tailed, fast back (non 'Omni-Vision' windows!) with manual flaps a la Piper.
As for the gear, again it was different on much earlier 150s with the flat spring legs as opposed to the later faired tapered rod setup which was carried through to the 152s.
The first 152s had the same fin/stab attachment brakets as the 150s, there then followed Mks II and III on the 152, the last being a one-piece casting.
If you're talking spin charcteristics the 150M had the same larger fin and longer dorsal fairing as the 152. The 150L and earlier had a shorter fin and rudder and shorter dorsal fin.
Going back further in time there was of course the straight-tailed, fast back (non 'Omni-Vision' windows!) with manual flaps a la Piper.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a share in a C150 for several years, and flew it quite a lot. And I agree that the flap system is horrible. Looking up to see how much flap you've got on final, when you should be looking at the runway, is awkward to say the least. And putting the flaps up when doing a go-around is really awkward! It was nearly as bad after a few years as it was at the beginning. Recently I flew a C152 for the first time for a few years, and the flaps were so, so much easier to operate.
I have no idea if this relates to the accidents, but if I was a new PPL finding landings difficult the C150 certainly wouldn't make it any easier for me.
I have no idea if this relates to the accidents, but if I was a new PPL finding landings difficult the C150 certainly wouldn't make it any easier for me.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTL
Genghis started this thread to ask about differences between the two aircraft. Statistics suggest C150s are involved in significantly more stall/spin crashes than 152s. The obvious question is why. Without knowing details of every accident we can’t say if there is a discernable pattern, but if (as I suspect) many of them involve base to final turns, it would suggest that maybe it’s worth comparing differences between the two types on base leg.
One clear difference is operation of the flaps. You prefer the C150’s system, I (and others) think the 152’s is better. The reason I prefer the 152 is that as a wet behind the ears 50hr PPL, I was nearly bitten by a 150 in a base to final turn. (I learned about flying from that). Mulling it over on the ground, I believed it was allowing myself to get fixated on operating the flaps that caused me to let the airspeed get dangerously low. Maybe it was low-hours, maybe it was because I learned in a 152 and was new to the 150, maybe I’m being unfair on the aircraft and I’m just a rubbish pilot. Who knows.
At the risk of going round in circles, I’m not claiming the C150 is a menace to all who fly it (and I do know how much fun you can have with 40 degrees of flap). All I’m suggesting is that the 152 has a flap operation which is simpler for the inexperienced and/or unwary – at a stage of flight where mistakes are very costly.
How much do you want for your 150 by the way?
Genghis started this thread to ask about differences between the two aircraft. Statistics suggest C150s are involved in significantly more stall/spin crashes than 152s. The obvious question is why. Without knowing details of every accident we can’t say if there is a discernable pattern, but if (as I suspect) many of them involve base to final turns, it would suggest that maybe it’s worth comparing differences between the two types on base leg.
One clear difference is operation of the flaps. You prefer the C150’s system, I (and others) think the 152’s is better. The reason I prefer the 152 is that as a wet behind the ears 50hr PPL, I was nearly bitten by a 150 in a base to final turn. (I learned about flying from that). Mulling it over on the ground, I believed it was allowing myself to get fixated on operating the flaps that caused me to let the airspeed get dangerously low. Maybe it was low-hours, maybe it was because I learned in a 152 and was new to the 150, maybe I’m being unfair on the aircraft and I’m just a rubbish pilot. Who knows.
At the risk of going round in circles, I’m not claiming the C150 is a menace to all who fly it (and I do know how much fun you can have with 40 degrees of flap).
All I’m suggesting is that the 152 has a flap operation which is simpler for the inexperienced and/or unwary – at a stage of flight where mistakes are very costly.How much do you want for your 150 by the way?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk of flap operation causing problems when turning base to final - surely one shouldn't be altering flap setting whilst turning?
Apart from the distraction, there is the risk of asymetric flap (the starboard flap is driven directly by the motor, the port one by cables) when operating them and for that to happen when going round a corner isn't exactly ideal....
As for rtl's FRA150 - whatever he asks it's worth it, you have to see it to appreciate just what a nice example it is.
Apart from the distraction, there is the risk of asymetric flap (the starboard flap is driven directly by the motor, the port one by cables) when operating them and for that to happen when going round a corner isn't exactly ideal....
As for rtl's FRA150 - whatever he asks it's worth it, you have to see it to appreciate just what a nice example it is.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the biggest difference is the engine. Its OK, just the position of the carb. is the problem. About the only aircraft i have suffered real carb icing with the engine stopping, and thats before i even got airborne.
With 200 rpm drop with carb heat hot thats the killer.
With 200 rpm drop with carb heat hot thats the killer.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to own a C150 many moons ago. Never found it to be particularly nasty in stall/spins. Good little bird actually, very economical to fly, honest 100 mph cruise on 5 gph. I agree the flap system stinks especially if you're flying a clapped-out flying school bird that has a wonky or missing indicator.
The 40 degree flap setting could be fun for short landings, but it could also bite in a couple of ways. First of all with that flap setting you could land in a remarkably short distance, on a small grass strip only to realize (hopefully not the hard way) that you didn't have enough room for that little 100 hp Continental to pull you out. Secondly, in a go-around, you required fairly large forward stick force to keep the bird from pitching up, plus it would not climb with 40 deg, which was all drag. So you had to get rid of 20 degrees quickly. See comments about wonky indicators...sometimes you could be surprised at going too far, losing lift, and watching the trees at the end of the runway coming up, and suddenly wishing for another 100 hp.
Students have also been known to forget to milk off 20 degrees in a go-around. I flew out of a place for a while that had a house off the end of the airstrip. A student from another field came in and did a go around but forgot to milk off 20 degrees. He went around the house, not over it...fortunately he or his instructor realized the mistake and they eventually got airborne, but I suspect a change of underpants was required upon return to home base.
There were a few spin training related accedents due to jamming rudders due to a faulty rudder stopper. Might have something to do with the stats.
Overall the C152 is a nicer little aircraft except for the 28v electrics (no more jump-starting with the car). The O-235 is nicer, not as prone to carb ice as the O-200, and the bonus for private flyers, it has a 2400 hr TBO vs 1800 hr on the Continental. This reflects itself in the selling price, at least this side of the pond, where a 152 will fetch a good $5-10k more than the equivalent C150. Plus as is pointed out the flap system was simple and fool-proof and you don't really need the extra 10 degrees of flap.
I liked the 150 a lot though, had loads of fun without spending large wads of money, and sometimes I daydream about selling my Sundowner and buying a little 150 to fly off into retirement...
The 40 degree flap setting could be fun for short landings, but it could also bite in a couple of ways. First of all with that flap setting you could land in a remarkably short distance, on a small grass strip only to realize (hopefully not the hard way) that you didn't have enough room for that little 100 hp Continental to pull you out. Secondly, in a go-around, you required fairly large forward stick force to keep the bird from pitching up, plus it would not climb with 40 deg, which was all drag. So you had to get rid of 20 degrees quickly. See comments about wonky indicators...sometimes you could be surprised at going too far, losing lift, and watching the trees at the end of the runway coming up, and suddenly wishing for another 100 hp.
Students have also been known to forget to milk off 20 degrees in a go-around. I flew out of a place for a while that had a house off the end of the airstrip. A student from another field came in and did a go around but forgot to milk off 20 degrees. He went around the house, not over it...fortunately he or his instructor realized the mistake and they eventually got airborne, but I suspect a change of underpants was required upon return to home base.
There were a few spin training related accedents due to jamming rudders due to a faulty rudder stopper. Might have something to do with the stats.
Overall the C152 is a nicer little aircraft except for the 28v electrics (no more jump-starting with the car). The O-235 is nicer, not as prone to carb ice as the O-200, and the bonus for private flyers, it has a 2400 hr TBO vs 1800 hr on the Continental. This reflects itself in the selling price, at least this side of the pond, where a 152 will fetch a good $5-10k more than the equivalent C150. Plus as is pointed out the flap system was simple and fool-proof and you don't really need the extra 10 degrees of flap.
I liked the 150 a lot though, had loads of fun without spending large wads of money, and sometimes I daydream about selling my Sundowner and buying a little 150 to fly off into retirement...