Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Cessna 150, what are your toughts about this nice little bird?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Cessna 150, what are your toughts about this nice little bird?

Old 20th Jul 2007, 06:15
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 12
I bought a 150G as soon as I passed my skills test. I have had it for 4 years now and it flies beautifully. Watch out for the early models with the Delco pull start though, the clutch on mine disintegrated leading to an engine rebuild at 2300 hrs (well over TBO). I would recommend a lightweight replacement starter and spin off oil filter as an immediate upgrade.
Fun to fly and cheap to run. Not fast but with a new prop and engine I get a steady 85kt at 2400 RPM. Full power will realise a max level flight at 102kt.
Short field landing is great, but beware of the take off performance, especially on soft grass you may not get out again without a strong favourable wind.

Bob
Bob the Hamster is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2007, 08:05
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,169
All round a very good aircraft but as with all aircraft years of flying teaches the manufactuer what was not so good about the aircraft.

These problems have largly been sorted in the Cessna 152 and so I would always recomend the C152 if you wanted to buy a small Cessna as the maintenance costs would probably out weigh the extra cost of the aircraft.

The only thing that was better on the C150 was the 40 flap setting, but I can see why Cessna dropped this as it was very much a trap for new players.
A and C is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2007, 11:37
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
The C150 is not quite that slow, and the C152 is not quite that fast!!! It is quite reasonable to expect 100 mph out of a 150 (which is about 87 knots), and maybe 95-100 knots from a 152. FWIW I typically show about 105 indicated on the Sundowner. I can coax it up to about 120 true at higher altitudes though.
I had the 130hp model - FRA150L (Aerobat). Cruise at 110-115mph. Better climb also with the 130hp.
40% flap - I generally used 30% and used the 40% when it was needed. I have gone around with 40%. It is harderwork than at 30% just requires you do it properly as you were trained to do so.
Nice machine had lots of fun from mine.
rtl_flyer is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 11:25
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by BHenderson View Post
C150 75-80kts
C152 105kts!
Not if you have a 150 Aerobat; 30hp extra makes a hell of a difference.
chevvron is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 15:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,208
Post solo, I was taken through an extensive series of 40į flap slow flight, stalls and incipient spins and yes, climbs (not very much).

If you plan to use 40 flap, familiarize yourself with them at altitude.

With practice you could reduce to 30 flap for a go around, but there are traps with the electric flap switch and I suspect there may differences between models in how that switch behaves that can result in your being in a different flap setting than what you intended

My last instructor in 172s had a habit of telling me I had just lost the engine after I pulled carb heat on downwind. 40 flap works very nicely in getting rid of excess altitude once the field is made (excess altitude being a more workable problem than insufficient altitude)
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 17:32
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,336
I learned to fly on 150s back in the '70s.

Best thing about them? The 40 degree flaps.

Worst thing? Appallingly rubbery unresponsive handling (but no worse than any other spamcan, better than some, not as bad in this respect as the truly awful PA28).

If all aeroplanes handled like (think 2CV) that I'd have walked away from flying immediately following my PPL. Brian Lecomber was right when he referred to spamcans as 'an insult to the airman's art' in his ecellent book, 'Talk Down'.

But they are tough, and cheap to buy and run, so still form the basis of the training fleet at many clubs. Pity the 152 dropped those lovely barn-door flaps!
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 18:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 171
Love mine to pieces

Bought it immediately after PPL for just over £10k. Engine had 700 hours left so it will be time that gets it to overhaul not hours. Over 10,000 hours on the airframe. Five years on Iíve flown her nearly 300 hours and canít imagine not owning her.

40 degree flap is really useful for short grass strip landings, with a head wind you can land it like a helicopter. Although I confess that if faced with a cross wind landing I only use 30 degrees

Iíve spent a fortune on avionics (833 radios and mode s transponder), worth bearing in mind that the aircraft is IMC certified day and night. It came with ADF, DME, ILS and two radios

Cruises at 90-95 knots and I do a fair number of longish trips a year (East Anglia to West Country) and get out the other end refreshed.

Need to watch fuel loading if two large-ish chaps are in it). And youíll get to know your passenger well !

Stalling... I went up today to practice some skills, stalling included. At clean configuration, wings level, stall warner blaring, power off and the stick full back it just wouldnít drop. ASI read 15 knots and it was still flying!

For sure, if I won the lottery Iíd probably buy a Ciruus. But that would be in addition to...

My first car was a 2CV, wish I still had that.
150 Driver is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 19:56
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 85
Ten year bump. Well played!
Zombywoof is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 20:11
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,336
Originally Posted by 150 Driver View Post
My first car was a 2CV, wish I still had that.
I only ever once had a ride in one. It was like being inside a lawn mower, except it rolled so much in even moderate corners it had scrape marks on the door handles.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 00:32
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,414
I only ever once had a ride in one. It was like being inside a lawn mower, except it rolled so much in even moderate corners it had scrape marks on the door handles.
Not too sure whether this is meant to refer to a C150 or a 2CV but, to be fair, it applies equally to both. The C150, like the 2CV, is a perfectly acceptable machine if you can't afford anything better.
BillieBob is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 03:17
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seoul
Posts: 141
94-96kts IAS on 150, later 150's have the same airframe as 152 (last few M models got the larger tail). 152 is 2-5kts faster, nothing in it really. Much cheaper to maintain than 152, 40 deg flaps are fantastic - 4000ft runway, you can be at pattern altitude over the numbers (on final...), and still land on that runway. The thing drops like a brick with 40 degree flaps and full sideslip. Fun!
dera is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 05:47
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 69
Posts: 1,382
Has anybody flown the tail wheel conversion? There was one flying around in Kenya a few years back but only managed a quick look at it on the ground at Malindi.
Haraka is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 07:25
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: With Wonko, outside the asylum
Posts: 69
Compared to, say, some of the Robins, the AA-5A, and a handful of other uncommon types, I've always thought the C150/152 were quite unpleasant little aeroplanes. They're certainly nothing special to look at, they're uncomfortable to get in and out of and to sit in, the view out is awful, their handling is absolutely nothing to write home about, and certain C150 models do stick out like sore thumbs in the crash statistics (links below). I'd level most of those criticisms at the PA-28 too, with its typically-Piper ponderous control response.

I do wonder whether, if we trained people in aircraft which were actually pleasant to fly, and maybe even nice to look at, (and just possibly vaguely modern), we might have a much more vibrant community of pilots continuing to fly after licence issue.

http://www.gasco.org.uk/upload/docs/...%20Version.pdf

http://dev.aerosociety.com/Assets/Do...%20Gratton.pdf
B737C525 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 09:42
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
B737C525......... I agree to a point, aircraft such as the Grob115, SAH1, Beagle Pup, Robin400, SlingsbyT67, Chipmunk were much better aircraft both from a handling point and visually.

I would say that the Cessna150/152 is a stable training platform which is why so many flying schools opted for them. From memory when the civilian version of the Grob115 was introduced, they were modified to reduced the rate of roll, as 'Cessna' pilots found it difficult to handle!

From memory the C150/C152 did not really have big wing drops unless really mishandled. The C150's 40 degree flap had its uses, but could be a handfull for student pilots on a go around, hence I beleive the reason Cessna only fitted 30 degrees on the C152. The Cessna 172, 182 and 206 all retained 40 flap.

As to loading, again from memory with anything above two pilots weighting 12 stone, you can not fly with full tanks, yet for many years people have! To add with two pilots at 12 stone it is pretty cramped.
Homsap is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 11:02
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,380
Iíve always preferred the 150 over the 152, mainly for the 40 degr flap.
Seating position is better also.
B2N2 is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 11:56
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Originally Posted by Homsap View Post
B737C525......... I agree to a point, aircraft such as the Grob115, SAH1, Beagle Pup, Robin400, SlingsbyT67, Chipmunk were much better aircraft both from a handling point and visually.

I would say that the Cessna150/152 is a stable training platform which is why so many flying schools opted for them. From memory when the civilian version of the Grob115 was introduced, they were modified to reduced the rate of roll, as 'Cessna' pilots found it difficult to handle!
Back in the eighties Tayside Aviation had three of the first Grob 115A models. I thought they were a disappointment. They were overweight/underpowered and had very unpleasant handling due to the rudder aileron connection, deleted on later models. I think this is the mod referred to by Homsap. A student and instructor were killed in one of Tayside's after a possible weather related in flight break up.

The Grob was one of several new types tried over the years but the students and instructors preferred the Cessna's. Only in the last few years the Cessna's have been replaced by Warriors at a higher cost to operate.

ACS at Perth have committed to the Cessna's and have completely refurbished four up to now, to a fabulous standard, with the rest to follow.

There is still nothing to replace the Cessna 150/152, particularly for flight training. Some are aerobatic, they can all be spun and I have been told there has never been an in flight break up of a strutted metal Cessna.
dont overfil is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 12:40
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: England
Posts: 1,249
A friend of mine made in a 150 a complete hash of a landing at Oxenhope. Approaching the wall with insufficient airspeed to get off and too much too stop they elected to put in full rudder. The aircraft turned sharp left with the r/h wing tip almost on the ground. Tip missed the wall by not a lot and all was well. I can't think of many aircraft where the undercarriage would have stayed on in these circumstances let alone kept the aircraft upright.. No damage to the aircraft.

Maybe Cessnas sales line for the 150 should have been

"This aircraft will save you, even when it shouldn't"

Last edited by ericferret; 9th Oct 2017 at 12:08.
ericferret is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 12:50
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: France
Posts: 920
It's a decent aircraft. Anyone can fly it safely, but you need to be good to make it sing. Easy enough to be a trainer, bites enough to make you think.
Does everything adequately, nothing exceptionally well or badly. Will sell at not too much of a loss when you decide what you really want. Strong, cheap, cheerful.
Piper.Classique is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 13:59
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by B2N2 View Post
Iíve always preferred the 150 over the 152, mainly for the 40 degr flap.
Seating position is better also.
Agree entirely. I also prefer the Continental engine to that dificult to start Lycoming.
chevvron is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 14:07
  #40 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 58
Posts: 4,203
I bought my 1975 150M n 1987, and have flown it more than 3000 hours since. Albeit small and slow, with lackluster handling, but it will do a little bit of most everything, and is very low cost to operate.

A friend with the same vintage 150 as mine, very unwisely flew a high G stalled turn to final at 80 MPH, the crash was fatal. I opened the cockpit door to access him, the right door also opened without difficulty. Though the plane was bent everywhere, the cabin was mostly uncompromised. The coroner told me later that my friend's stop had approached 200G (referencing internal injuries). They are tough planes.....
Pilot DAR is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.