C150 vs C152
I got my initial training on some pre-1965 C150 models. The manual flaps were nice. You could do some instant tricks with manual flaps, once you got the hang of it. Also, the manuals said spins were approved, so up we went and spin we did - and had a good time. So many years ago...
full flap go round c152
Had to throw away a landing the other week with 30 degrees set in a 152 from about 10 ft agl on a gusty day. Patience & concentration?..yes, everything happens very slowly..drama? No.
Moderator
Last week we had a go 'round (pun intended) about Cessna 150 performance with full flaps. I was working overseas, and unable to present evidence to support my claim that a Cessna 150 can safely be flown in a go around with 40 flaps extended the whole time.
I have now returned from overseas, and today flew to aquire the evidence to support what I had stated earlier. Just so you know, I own the plane and the runway, and did not fly the aircraft in a way prohibited by regulation.
THE FACT THAT I HAVE FLOWN THE AIRCRAFT IN A WAY TO CREATE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIM, DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD GO AND DO THIS. IT IS NOT A PROCEDURE RECOMMENDED BY CESSNA.
Conditions of flight: 100 pounds under gross, temp 6C, 90 degree crosswind at 5-8 kts. 2000 foot grass runway, no obsticles. Airspeed at liftoff 45 MPH, accelerated to 60 MPH, and climbed out at that speed, never lower. Altitude above ground when crossing the far end of the runway 200+ feet. (and yes, I did use full power). Not quite the usual performance, but surprisingly good, I expected less. I did not retract the flaps at all for the circuit.
Here's the video, should anyone wish to watch:
Video of C150 40 Flap Takeoff - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
So, fly the plane the way your instructor, and the manufacturer say you should, but know that it will do a bit better if you really need it to, and you fly it right....
Pilot DAR
I have now returned from overseas, and today flew to aquire the evidence to support what I had stated earlier. Just so you know, I own the plane and the runway, and did not fly the aircraft in a way prohibited by regulation.
THE FACT THAT I HAVE FLOWN THE AIRCRAFT IN A WAY TO CREATE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIM, DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD GO AND DO THIS. IT IS NOT A PROCEDURE RECOMMENDED BY CESSNA.
Conditions of flight: 100 pounds under gross, temp 6C, 90 degree crosswind at 5-8 kts. 2000 foot grass runway, no obsticles. Airspeed at liftoff 45 MPH, accelerated to 60 MPH, and climbed out at that speed, never lower. Altitude above ground when crossing the far end of the runway 200+ feet. (and yes, I did use full power). Not quite the usual performance, but surprisingly good, I expected less. I did not retract the flaps at all for the circuit.
Here's the video, should anyone wish to watch:
Video of C150 40 Flap Takeoff - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
So, fly the plane the way your instructor, and the manufacturer say you should, but know that it will do a bit better if you really need it to, and you fly it right....
Pilot DAR
Moderator
Roger,
Appreciate the many merits of the 150! I'd take the 150 over the 152 any day.
The money control is also more or less the time control. Time is money. I would think that generally, people flying Cessna 150's are not doing so to get somewhere quickly! They're flying to build time, so the longer it takes to get where you're going, the better. As for flap use, you may find varying opinions on that. There were a lot of posts on that subject, and my recent reply. Check out the video clip I posted, that was done full flaps in a gentle crosswind, with not problem at all! It was certainly no accident!
Enjoy the 150, and it's wonderful flaps, and have a tiny amount of pity for the pilot who only has a 152 to fly!
Pilot DAR
Appreciate the many merits of the 150! I'd take the 150 over the 152 any day.
The money control is also more or less the time control. Time is money. I would think that generally, people flying Cessna 150's are not doing so to get somewhere quickly! They're flying to build time, so the longer it takes to get where you're going, the better. As for flap use, you may find varying opinions on that. There were a lot of posts on that subject, and my recent reply. Check out the video clip I posted, that was done full flaps in a gentle crosswind, with not problem at all! It was certainly no accident!
Enjoy the 150, and it's wonderful flaps, and have a tiny amount of pity for the pilot who only has a 152 to fly!
Pilot DAR
Regarding partial power take-offs, I was taught to never do this, as when at full power another jet in the carb operates -its function being to allow extra fuel to help cool the engine.
Moderator
The MA3 and MA4 carburettors which are common to most of these engines, and are installed (MA3) on the O-200 in the 150, contain additional jets for idle and very low power, principally to aid engine acelleration. Once any significant power is selected, the engine is being supplied fuel by the carburettor main jet, whose mixture is also pilot controlled. Presmuming that the pilot has the mixture control full rich (and the carburettor is set up correctly in the first place) the use of partial power cannot cause harm to the engine. If it were to cause harm to the engine fvor takeoff, flying at anything less than full power in cruise flight would also be causing that harm. Operating the engine for a partial power takeoff would be the same as operating the engine for cruise flight, just you began stopped on the ground. (This presupposes that a maximum performance takeoff is not required for safety).
All that being said, I'm not advocating partial power takeoffs for any reason other that pilots practicing technique and becoming more aware of aircraft handling. In certain operations, partial power takeoffs benefit aviation as a whole, in creating good public relations. (noise abatement)Most takeoffs, however, would be presumed to require full power to be conducted safely. Engines benefit from being operated at full power too.
Pilots from time to time experience unusual events. Safely practicing operating an aircraft outside the "norm" though still within it's limitations is an excellent way for pilots to be just a little more ready to handle an unusual event. There certainly cases where an otherwise flyable aircraft, albeit with a defect, has been crashed by a pilot, who perhaps a little more prepared for the unusual event, would have completed a safe flight.
Safe and appropriate practice is always a good idea....
Pilot DAR
All that being said, I'm not advocating partial power takeoffs for any reason other that pilots practicing technique and becoming more aware of aircraft handling. In certain operations, partial power takeoffs benefit aviation as a whole, in creating good public relations. (noise abatement)Most takeoffs, however, would be presumed to require full power to be conducted safely. Engines benefit from being operated at full power too.
Pilots from time to time experience unusual events. Safely practicing operating an aircraft outside the "norm" though still within it's limitations is an excellent way for pilots to be just a little more ready to handle an unusual event. There certainly cases where an otherwise flyable aircraft, albeit with a defect, has been crashed by a pilot, who perhaps a little more prepared for the unusual event, would have completed a safe flight.
Safe and appropriate practice is always a good idea....
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we're talking about C-150's........
I have a question for you 150 pilots out there;
How do you manage your O-200's fuel mixture on cross-countrys?
Do you run it full rich?
Do you lean it till it begins to run rough, then enrichen it slightly?
Do you lean it with the EGT gauge?
Do you run it Rich of Peak?
Do you run it Lean of Peak? (Is that even possible?)
And;
What is the optimum RPM setting, in reference to engine longevity, NOT speed...NOT economy, but to get her to her TBO?
I await your wisdom.
How do you manage your O-200's fuel mixture on cross-countrys?
Do you run it full rich?
Do you lean it till it begins to run rough, then enrichen it slightly?
Do you lean it with the EGT gauge?
Do you run it Rich of Peak?
Do you run it Lean of Peak? (Is that even possible?)
And;
What is the optimum RPM setting, in reference to engine longevity, NOT speed...NOT economy, but to get her to her TBO?
I await your wisdom.
Moderator
Buzzerd,
I always lean my Cessna 150, unless staying in the circuit. I lean with reference to the digital EGT. I lean so as to be about 50 rich of peak on the leanest cylinder. You can go more lean, though at higher power settings I'm not so happy with the extreme temperatures to which the entire exhaust system will be subjected. It is possible to damage the muffler with very high EGT's (ask me how I know!). I run at 2500 RPM, as that is the engine speed at which the mixture at each of the cylinders is the closest to ideal. At higher or lower power settings, the mixture distribution is much less even. It is possible to run lean of peak, though I would only do this in situations of dire need to increase endurance. The small increase in endurance could come at quite a cost in exhaust valve/ exhaust damage. As said, I run at 2500RPM unless some circumstance dictates otherwise. You can easily expect 3500 to 4000 hours between overhauls for a well cared for O-200, though expect to have at lease one set of cyilnders replaced during that time. I run Mogas nearly exclusively, and credit the lead free fuel with preventing lead fouling and other unhappy engine events. I have never had a problem which I attributed to the use of Mogas.
I overhauled my engine at 3750 hours since the previous overhaul. I did this only because I found metal in the oil filter. It turned out to be shavings from the crimped on alternator drive coupling (which would only have required removal of the alternator, but I did not know that). The engine was otherwise in excellent condition. The only thing which was non-conforming, was wear on one crankshaft journal which was .0008" undersized in one dimension only. I had the crank ground 10 under, and it will serve me as long as I fly. I have had the 1975 150M for 21 years, during which I have flown it 2660 hours. I could not be happier with it!
I hope this helps.
Pilot DAR
I always lean my Cessna 150, unless staying in the circuit. I lean with reference to the digital EGT. I lean so as to be about 50 rich of peak on the leanest cylinder. You can go more lean, though at higher power settings I'm not so happy with the extreme temperatures to which the entire exhaust system will be subjected. It is possible to damage the muffler with very high EGT's (ask me how I know!). I run at 2500 RPM, as that is the engine speed at which the mixture at each of the cylinders is the closest to ideal. At higher or lower power settings, the mixture distribution is much less even. It is possible to run lean of peak, though I would only do this in situations of dire need to increase endurance. The small increase in endurance could come at quite a cost in exhaust valve/ exhaust damage. As said, I run at 2500RPM unless some circumstance dictates otherwise. You can easily expect 3500 to 4000 hours between overhauls for a well cared for O-200, though expect to have at lease one set of cyilnders replaced during that time. I run Mogas nearly exclusively, and credit the lead free fuel with preventing lead fouling and other unhappy engine events. I have never had a problem which I attributed to the use of Mogas.
I overhauled my engine at 3750 hours since the previous overhaul. I did this only because I found metal in the oil filter. It turned out to be shavings from the crimped on alternator drive coupling (which would only have required removal of the alternator, but I did not know that). The engine was otherwise in excellent condition. The only thing which was non-conforming, was wear on one crankshaft journal which was .0008" undersized in one dimension only. I had the crank ground 10 under, and it will serve me as long as I fly. I have had the 1975 150M for 21 years, during which I have flown it 2660 hours. I could not be happier with it!
I hope this helps.
Pilot DAR
There are a lot of technical dissections of the C150 as compared with the C152 on this thread and I am certain the authors are very well informed. I can't add to the technical side, but I have flown both aircraft.
In my experience the C150 is lovely to fly but awfully slow. The two particular C150s I have flown managed 90 mph almost flat out with about 2450 RPM. The C152s I have flown many hours on all returned 90 kts from a 2300 RPM cruise. I seem to remember being annoyed at increased fuel consumption despite going slower! Then again, my memory might be a little rusty
In summary, quite unsurprisingly the C152 feels like a more powerful evolution of the older C150. I don't recall the handling being much different.
In my experience the C150 is lovely to fly but awfully slow. The two particular C150s I have flown managed 90 mph almost flat out with about 2450 RPM. The C152s I have flown many hours on all returned 90 kts from a 2300 RPM cruise. I seem to remember being annoyed at increased fuel consumption despite going slower! Then again, my memory might be a little rusty
In summary, quite unsurprisingly the C152 feels like a more powerful evolution of the older C150. I don't recall the handling being much different.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a 152 for years, flew a thousand hours in it all over Europe. Great bit of kit. I fitted K&N Filter, Gap Seals and Sensenich prop when I zero timed the enngine along with a full IFR fit, Garmin, Fuel computer etc. With the mods it would cruise at 100kts at 2300rpm doing 23lph.
Cheap fun flying in anyone's book. I swapped it in for a souped up Hawk XP for private flying. You can't beat a Cessna for performance, value and versatility.
Cheap fun flying in anyone's book. I swapped it in for a souped up Hawk XP for private flying. You can't beat a Cessna for performance, value and versatility.
DeeCee
FYI we have a standard 100hp C150 Aerobat here, also a re-engined 150hp Aerobat. The former is very underpowered but a tidy machine, the latter is much better power-wise but there's some question over the ability to officially do aero's due to the motor change...
Interestingly my standard (ie. non-Aerobat) 150 is a little better to fly than the 100hp Aerobat - gets to higher places more quickly
FYI we have a standard 100hp C150 Aerobat here, also a re-engined 150hp Aerobat. The former is very underpowered but a tidy machine, the latter is much better power-wise but there's some question over the ability to officially do aero's due to the motor change...
Interestingly my standard (ie. non-Aerobat) 150 is a little better to fly than the 100hp Aerobat - gets to higher places more quickly
Moderator
American made Aerobats are the same as regular 150's firewall forward (I think the same holds for 152 Aerobats, but I'm not quite as certain). I understand that French made Aerobats may have had different engines, but that is someone else's to answer - we don't get the French built Cessnas in North America very much.
Pilot DAR
Pilot DAR
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one that I flew was the French built version. My recollection is that somebody told me it was 130hp. It certainly went up well!
I find the differences between 150s and 152s quite minor really. Some definately fly a bit faster than others, but unless you are planning a longish trip it won't make much difference in time.
Both are fun and easy to fly.
I find the differences between 150s and 152s quite minor really. Some definately fly a bit faster than others, but unless you are planning a longish trip it won't make much difference in time.
Both are fun and easy to fly.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read this thread,I'm supprised no-one has mentioned the fact that the 152 has a more powerfull engine (115/118hp) than the standard (100hp) 150, but the increase in weight is exactly the amount that it takes the extra horses to lug it into the air!
There is no significant differance between a well worn 152 and a good 150 ,in fact a pristine early (read-light) 150 can out perform a slghtly tired 152.Hence it all comes down to the condition of every idividual plane.
The choice of prop is an important factor in cruise performance,most 152's have corse pitch props fitted as standard and don't achieve anything like full power on take off (max power @ 2750rpm). You can get cruise props for a 150 but the climb is degraded.
General rule of thumb is 2 aircraft in good condition,early 150 will come off the deck better,more suited to small strips(250 yards flown light) but a 152 will cruise faster,but not significantly unless you are going over 100miles.
The early 150's fly nicer and lighter controls in my opinion.
I have operated a number of both and ferried many of both!
There is no significant differance between a well worn 152 and a good 150 ,in fact a pristine early (read-light) 150 can out perform a slghtly tired 152.Hence it all comes down to the condition of every idividual plane.
The choice of prop is an important factor in cruise performance,most 152's have corse pitch props fitted as standard and don't achieve anything like full power on take off (max power @ 2750rpm). You can get cruise props for a 150 but the climb is degraded.
General rule of thumb is 2 aircraft in good condition,early 150 will come off the deck better,more suited to small strips(250 yards flown light) but a 152 will cruise faster,but not significantly unless you are going over 100miles.
The early 150's fly nicer and lighter controls in my opinion.
I have operated a number of both and ferried many of both!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The early straight-tail 150 has noticeably less friction in the rudder pedals, thus more pleasant turn coordination. If you look at the cable runs and rudder control horns, comparing straight-tail vs swept, you can understand why.
And not to put too fine a point on it - this accident is related to the above.
And not to put too fine a point on it - this accident is related to the above.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our club had several C150 Aerobats. They were FR150L and FR150M models which I believe were fitted with 125hp and 130hp O-240 Rolls Royce Continentals. Being French built they were factory corrosion proofed. They had a shorter TBO than the Lycomings and were more expensive to overhaul but performed very well. 65% cruise was 2400rpm and gave 90kt cruise. 40 degree flap go arounds were not a problem.
DO.
DO.
Last edited by dont overfil; 17th Nov 2008 at 16:32.
Moderator
The several accidents attribuited to the rudder stop, should be attributed to pilots aggressively flying unairworthy aircraft, having failed to observe a very obvious unsafe condition during the preflight inspection. The AD which was written in Canada to address this was particularly silly in it's wording. I used my 150 as the example as to how an airworthy rudder could not possibly jam under such circumstances, and the Transport Canada engineer at the time agreed, after a detailed inspection, but by then the AD was out, and not to be withdrawn. It's hard to argue against making a plane safer, even if it's already plenty safe!
There are certainly cases where a fatal accident is investigated up to the point where a possible cause is found, and then no further. The fact that the possible cause was a poor maintenance/preflight inspection situation, rather than a design shortcoming fails to be mentioned. So to protect against liabilty, Cessna provides service kit with overkill parts in it. Who can blame Cessna?
As applicable to all flying, if you fly an aircraft with a defect, undected or otherwise, you chances of a problem increase. The rudder control horn and stops are very easily inspected during a preflight.
The rudder control runs of both the eariler and later 150's and 152 are effectively identical, other than the use of 3 pulleys instead of 3 fairleads, which should be expected to reduce friction in the system. The rudder itself is quite different, and may require a little more force, but is also somewhat more effective too, and so will not require so much deflection to achieve the same control. There should be no net difference.
A regular 150 does not require a lot of additional rudder during normal flying. However, the addition of a STOL kit has the affect of a slight reduction in dihedral effect, and an improvement in aileron authority, so there is a need for the application of rudder to offset the aileron input, or else the ball will wander all over. I usually lead my turns with a bit of rudder, so the ball stays in the middle from the onset of the turn.
Beginning with the "M" model of the 150, and all 152's, the height of the rudder was increased 6" so as to increase the area of the rudder for improved spin recovery. The "M" is more desireable for airwork and STOL kits for this reason. With the lower touchdown speeds possible with the STOL kit, the better rudder authority is helpful in crosswinds.
Agreed, full flap go-arounds are no problem in a 150, as I presented with a video earlier in this thread. I am pleased that some pilots will give the credit due to such a good and economical aircraft design. I think that the Skycatcher will have some stiff competition in it's predecessor!
Pilot DAR
There are certainly cases where a fatal accident is investigated up to the point where a possible cause is found, and then no further. The fact that the possible cause was a poor maintenance/preflight inspection situation, rather than a design shortcoming fails to be mentioned. So to protect against liabilty, Cessna provides service kit with overkill parts in it. Who can blame Cessna?
As applicable to all flying, if you fly an aircraft with a defect, undected or otherwise, you chances of a problem increase. The rudder control horn and stops are very easily inspected during a preflight.
The rudder control runs of both the eariler and later 150's and 152 are effectively identical, other than the use of 3 pulleys instead of 3 fairleads, which should be expected to reduce friction in the system. The rudder itself is quite different, and may require a little more force, but is also somewhat more effective too, and so will not require so much deflection to achieve the same control. There should be no net difference.
A regular 150 does not require a lot of additional rudder during normal flying. However, the addition of a STOL kit has the affect of a slight reduction in dihedral effect, and an improvement in aileron authority, so there is a need for the application of rudder to offset the aileron input, or else the ball will wander all over. I usually lead my turns with a bit of rudder, so the ball stays in the middle from the onset of the turn.
Beginning with the "M" model of the 150, and all 152's, the height of the rudder was increased 6" so as to increase the area of the rudder for improved spin recovery. The "M" is more desireable for airwork and STOL kits for this reason. With the lower touchdown speeds possible with the STOL kit, the better rudder authority is helpful in crosswinds.
Agreed, full flap go-arounds are no problem in a 150, as I presented with a video earlier in this thread. I am pleased that some pilots will give the credit due to such a good and economical aircraft design. I think that the Skycatcher will have some stiff competition in it's predecessor!
Pilot DAR
I managed a 40 deg flap takoff as an inexperienced PPL with the yolk still wet behind my ears. I'd forgotten to retract the flaps after checking their travel. The 150 was a good one and levitated into the air as I was heading straight into a 10 knot wind. It didn't want to go forward very quickly and I soon realised what I had done. I just eased the flaps up gently and she accelerated away with no hight loss.
I had an A150L which was an imported Aerobat with the Continental O-200. Lovely little thing. Shame that she was wrecked in a gale. The FRA 150 had the R-R Continental O-240 which is basically an O-200 with O-360 cylinders to take the capacity out to 240 cu ins. Huge improvement on the climb and makes it a more usable aerobatic machine. Rumour has it that the R-R built O-200s put out 105hp compared to the 100hp (on a good day) that was expected from Continental's offering.
I had an A150L which was an imported Aerobat with the Continental O-200. Lovely little thing. Shame that she was wrecked in a gale. The FRA 150 had the R-R Continental O-240 which is basically an O-200 with O-360 cylinders to take the capacity out to 240 cu ins. Huge improvement on the climb and makes it a more usable aerobatic machine. Rumour has it that the R-R built O-200s put out 105hp compared to the 100hp (on a good day) that was expected from Continental's offering.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilot dar
did you have to do any adjustments to engine settings to use Mogas or are avagas and mogas interchangeable without adjustment
I assume we are not allowed to mogas use it C150 in uk
did you have to do any adjustments to engine settings to use Mogas or are avagas and mogas interchangeable without adjustment
I assume we are not allowed to mogas use it C150 in uk