C150 questions
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: UK
Why are we doing this? Well pure curiosity is in there somewhere, but the hope is that we can learn lessons from the differences between these two, quite similar, aeroplanes that can be fed into both flying training and aeroplane design towards minimising future fatal departures from controlled flight - something that we'd all like to see.
150's are not often used for training nowdays. Potentially it's a low hour private owner, not doing circuits daily.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Gents,
Points all noted and appreciated. I am concentrating upon the aircraft, but there are some very experienced FIs who will be looking at my results and considering how they apply to the pilot issue.
I've had that with C150 carb heat also, but don't think it's a major player - but I'm continuing to look at all avenues. It's not a simple problem, and gets more complex every time I go further into it!
All and any further thoughts always appreciated.
G
Points all noted and appreciated. I am concentrating upon the aircraft, but there are some very experienced FIs who will be looking at my results and considering how they apply to the pilot issue.
I've had that with C150 carb heat also, but don't think it's a major player - but I'm continuing to look at all avenues. It's not a simple problem, and gets more complex every time I go further into it!
All and any further thoughts always appreciated.
G
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
Genghis,
RTL Flyer makes the point, which I would also make in respect of your inquiry. If the UK is anything like Canada, C-150’s seem to end up as the uncared for, and abused time builder – flown by newer pilots, and most importantly, without supervision or good nearby influence. At the very least, they are not respected for their own importance as an aeroplane.
For some reason, C-152’s seem to hold a value a few rungs farther up the ladder, and are much more likely to be found in a more professional flight training environment. Much less unsupervised careless flying.
To draw an appropriate comparison, consider the well regarded C-182. It is renown as having the best safety record of the single GA fleet. Is that because it is a safer aeroplane than the C-172? No, they have extremely similar flying qualities, the only thing the 182 has over the 172 would be that if both aeroplanes are flown solo, the 182 has lots more reserve power with which to get out of trouble. If they are both loaded to gross weight, they are closer to each other in performance.
So why are 182’s safer? It’s who is flying them and how. 182’s are just too expensive to treat like junk. They are hard to rent, and owners take much more care in who flies their pride and joy. Judge by appearance alone; it’s pretty common to see a really tired looking C-150. Not so much for any of the other higher number Cessna’s. When you get to 182, 206, 210, they are nearly all pretty good looking. It costs about the same to repaint and refurnish a 150 as any of the others. The others hold a higher value, so people take better care of them, the 150’s are ignored. This holds true about the way they are flown as well.
I suggest that your research is only looking at part of the problem, and indeed the less influential part, if you are not concentrating also on the experience and attitude of the pilots, and the appearance (which will equal the attitude toward, and care taken of, the aeroplane).
Simple check: The accident aircraft you are studying, do you have photos of either the fuselage side (by which to evaluate the condition of the paint job) or interior to evaluate it’s condition? This will give a real insight into how the plane was treated. Well cared for will often equal well flown.
I’m certainly not accusing you of casting a poor light on C-150’s, it’s the careless pilots doing that. But this is not much of a “by type” problem to be found, it’s a “by attitude toward type” problem.
Cheers, Pilot DAR
RTL Flyer makes the point, which I would also make in respect of your inquiry. If the UK is anything like Canada, C-150’s seem to end up as the uncared for, and abused time builder – flown by newer pilots, and most importantly, without supervision or good nearby influence. At the very least, they are not respected for their own importance as an aeroplane.
For some reason, C-152’s seem to hold a value a few rungs farther up the ladder, and are much more likely to be found in a more professional flight training environment. Much less unsupervised careless flying.
To draw an appropriate comparison, consider the well regarded C-182. It is renown as having the best safety record of the single GA fleet. Is that because it is a safer aeroplane than the C-172? No, they have extremely similar flying qualities, the only thing the 182 has over the 172 would be that if both aeroplanes are flown solo, the 182 has lots more reserve power with which to get out of trouble. If they are both loaded to gross weight, they are closer to each other in performance.
So why are 182’s safer? It’s who is flying them and how. 182’s are just too expensive to treat like junk. They are hard to rent, and owners take much more care in who flies their pride and joy. Judge by appearance alone; it’s pretty common to see a really tired looking C-150. Not so much for any of the other higher number Cessna’s. When you get to 182, 206, 210, they are nearly all pretty good looking. It costs about the same to repaint and refurnish a 150 as any of the others. The others hold a higher value, so people take better care of them, the 150’s are ignored. This holds true about the way they are flown as well.
I suggest that your research is only looking at part of the problem, and indeed the less influential part, if you are not concentrating also on the experience and attitude of the pilots, and the appearance (which will equal the attitude toward, and care taken of, the aeroplane).
Simple check: The accident aircraft you are studying, do you have photos of either the fuselage side (by which to evaluate the condition of the paint job) or interior to evaluate it’s condition? This will give a real insight into how the plane was treated. Well cared for will often equal well flown.
I’m certainly not accusing you of casting a poor light on C-150’s, it’s the careless pilots doing that. But this is not much of a “by type” problem to be found, it’s a “by attitude toward type” problem.
Cheers, Pilot DAR
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
From: Canada (Southeastern Québec)
For some reason, C-152’s seem to hold a value a few rungs farther up the ladder, and are much more likely to be found in a more professional flight training environment. Much less unsupervised careless flying.
Other factors that might relate to the accident rate. First, there are simply fewer 152s than 150s. Secondly, the lower value of the C150 means they are the most affordable aircraft out there, and many newly minted PPLs choose the 150 as their first aircraft (I know I did, back in 1982...and I miss the d-mned thing...not sexy, but cheap and fun to fly). I'm in Canada too...a good 150 with a few hundred hours remaining to TBO will fetch about $25-30,000 CDN. A similar 152 will cost around $40k. That's getting close to Piper Cherokee territory and frankly for most people a good PA28-140 will be a more capable aircraft than a C152 except for short-field performance.
And being newer, the professional flight schools will, as you note, prefer them to a 150; the smaller mom-and-pop shop type flight schools tend to go for the 150 as they are cheaper.
I don't think there's anything inherently unsafe about the 150. As a small two-seat trainer/personal aircraft, for a low-time pilot, it is probably much safer than, say, a Grumman AA1 or Traumahawk...
