The 152
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: upminster
Age: 32
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 152
Have been thinking about this for some time now, and havent been able to come up with an answer.
Most Cessna 152s are 30 years old or more and have served flying clubs/schools since the 70s, they are (in my opinion) the best light trainers around able to withstand elephant landings from heavy handed students and spins and other aerobatic maneuvers that most other trainers could not.
My question is: does anyone think Cessna will bring out another trainer version of the 152 with analogue cockpit instruments (not glass cockpit) and im not talking about the new 162 which is almost like a microlight with a flimsy stick and a seat that doesnt move back and foward, or from now on are Cessna just into 21st century aircraft with stick and glass cockpit, (not that i have any problem with glass) or do you think that they have something else up their sleeve?
Mr Cessna
Most Cessna 152s are 30 years old or more and have served flying clubs/schools since the 70s, they are (in my opinion) the best light trainers around able to withstand elephant landings from heavy handed students and spins and other aerobatic maneuvers that most other trainers could not.
My question is: does anyone think Cessna will bring out another trainer version of the 152 with analogue cockpit instruments (not glass cockpit) and im not talking about the new 162 which is almost like a microlight with a flimsy stick and a seat that doesnt move back and foward, or from now on are Cessna just into 21st century aircraft with stick and glass cockpit, (not that i have any problem with glass) or do you think that they have something else up their sleeve?
Mr Cessna
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Cessna,
I agree with you that the Cessna 152 is an excellent little trainer. I've got lots of happy hours tooling around in Cessna 150's and 152's with students, landing in fields, chasing deer, inspecting fields, and experimenting. They're great airplanes, and very economical, as well as easy to maintain.
I really don't think that you'll see them return to production. The modern student wants something that looks modern, and even cars have turned to electronic display screens for instrumentation. My mini-van has touch screen controls and all kinds of gadgets. I have no idea how to work them, but it sells, and my wife loves it.
Many today consider the 152 to be old fashioned. I disagree, and I think it could easily soldier on with little more than a face-lift, but Cessna won't go into production again based on what I think, or the hundreds of airplanes I can't buy to make it worth their while.
With airplanes such as the Katana and the Cirrus on the market, the face of new airplane sales is slowly switching to more modern designs, with more modern instrumentation, more advanced materials, and newer and more developed motors.
The 152's big drawback is it's size; it's not comfortable for many adults, and the straight-leg feature of sitting without sitting makes it even more uncomfortable for some. A natural step away from the 152 is the 172, which has an actual seat and a little more room than the 152. It also makes a good student trainer, and a very economical airplane in general.
I prefer the analog instruments, and the older airplanes. Of course, from an ownership point of view, when one is stuck with an expensive gyro replacement or instrument overhaul, the electronic gear with its' much greater mean times between failures looks very good. For now, airplanes with analog instruments and a few years and hours on the airframe are still available, and a whole lot less expensive than the modern tricked-out aircraft. They're getting harder to find as rentals, but it does mean that for some, they've become more available, affordable alternatives to the overpriced plastic junk that's on the market today.
I agree with you that the Cessna 152 is an excellent little trainer. I've got lots of happy hours tooling around in Cessna 150's and 152's with students, landing in fields, chasing deer, inspecting fields, and experimenting. They're great airplanes, and very economical, as well as easy to maintain.
I really don't think that you'll see them return to production. The modern student wants something that looks modern, and even cars have turned to electronic display screens for instrumentation. My mini-van has touch screen controls and all kinds of gadgets. I have no idea how to work them, but it sells, and my wife loves it.
Many today consider the 152 to be old fashioned. I disagree, and I think it could easily soldier on with little more than a face-lift, but Cessna won't go into production again based on what I think, or the hundreds of airplanes I can't buy to make it worth their while.
With airplanes such as the Katana and the Cirrus on the market, the face of new airplane sales is slowly switching to more modern designs, with more modern instrumentation, more advanced materials, and newer and more developed motors.
The 152's big drawback is it's size; it's not comfortable for many adults, and the straight-leg feature of sitting without sitting makes it even more uncomfortable for some. A natural step away from the 152 is the 172, which has an actual seat and a little more room than the 152. It also makes a good student trainer, and a very economical airplane in general.
I prefer the analog instruments, and the older airplanes. Of course, from an ownership point of view, when one is stuck with an expensive gyro replacement or instrument overhaul, the electronic gear with its' much greater mean times between failures looks very good. For now, airplanes with analog instruments and a few years and hours on the airframe are still available, and a whole lot less expensive than the modern tricked-out aircraft. They're getting harder to find as rentals, but it does mean that for some, they've become more available, affordable alternatives to the overpriced plastic junk that's on the market today.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to bash my Cessna brothers (i'm going to join you soon with a 172 rating) i find the PA-38 much more comfortable, a 'proper' seat and enought shoulder room for two big blokes (but not full fuel)
What i did like about the Cessna was the slow speed approaches and the feeling you could experiment with it and it wouldn't bite you.
I still remeber staring in disbelief at the ASI reading 45kts while happily wheels off drifting down the runway (yes it was a bad floaty landing but it showed me something)
A Tommie would be dropping through the sky at 45kts.
I may even conceed my issue about the view.....
Back on thread a 'modern' version of the 152 with the standard six would sell like hotcakes, i can see the flying schools queueing up!
What i did like about the Cessna was the slow speed approaches and the feeling you could experiment with it and it wouldn't bite you.
I still remeber staring in disbelief at the ASI reading 45kts while happily wheels off drifting down the runway (yes it was a bad floaty landing but it showed me something)
A Tommie would be dropping through the sky at 45kts.
I may even conceed my issue about the view.....
Back on thread a 'modern' version of the 152 with the standard six would sell like hotcakes, i can see the flying schools queueing up!
Mr Guppy,
You are somewhat bewildering me by terming the C152 and C172 "very economical to operate". Isn't the economy of light aviation changing rapidly? The Cessna's are probably less expensive to operate than a Stearman or Staggerwing, but in today's G/A market they are on the expensive side.
The total cost of operating a plane is of course composed of fuel burn plus maintenance plus a few minor others, and all factors vary between places. For a 4-seater, the C172 has its merits and its place in the market, though the twin Rotaxen are loudly ringing the doorbell. And those prepared to spend big bucks on good looks will not go for a Cessna anyway.
The C152 is in my observation a poor alternative to today's LSA's, mostly single Rotax powered. It does make a solid rugged trainer, OK, but so does (to name only one that comes to mind first) the Rans S6 Coyote. And that one is cheaper to acquire and cheaper to operate, in most places.
Cessna saw good reason to explore the new C162 way - the C152 was no more going anywhere. No wonder, of course, after all those years. It has been a very fine aircraft in its day.
If the C162 hits success, we may hope to see a "next generation" C172 next. It had better be diesel powered from the beginning.
You are somewhat bewildering me by terming the C152 and C172 "very economical to operate". Isn't the economy of light aviation changing rapidly? The Cessna's are probably less expensive to operate than a Stearman or Staggerwing, but in today's G/A market they are on the expensive side.
The total cost of operating a plane is of course composed of fuel burn plus maintenance plus a few minor others, and all factors vary between places. For a 4-seater, the C172 has its merits and its place in the market, though the twin Rotaxen are loudly ringing the doorbell. And those prepared to spend big bucks on good looks will not go for a Cessna anyway.
The C152 is in my observation a poor alternative to today's LSA's, mostly single Rotax powered. It does make a solid rugged trainer, OK, but so does (to name only one that comes to mind first) the Rans S6 Coyote. And that one is cheaper to acquire and cheaper to operate, in most places.
Cessna saw good reason to explore the new C162 way - the C152 was no more going anywhere. No wonder, of course, after all those years. It has been a very fine aircraft in its day.
If the C162 hits success, we may hope to see a "next generation" C172 next. It had better be diesel powered from the beginning.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent about a thousand hours or so doing tours in 172's, plus some rough-field, back country work. Out of all the airplanes we operated, which were 172's, 206's, 207's, 210's, and the Super Cub, the 172 had the highest profit margin, because it was so inexpensive to operate. The 172 is very economical.
Likewise, the 152 is very economical. It's not an expensive aircraft to operate. Especially given the low acquisition costs compared to more "modern" aircraft, the 152 or 172 can be operated for a very long time before the cost differential catches up. Personally, I'd rather spend that time flying and for the person putting their airplane to work, I'd much rather have it paid off and making money, than hanging over my head as a major expense.
Likewise, the 152 is very economical. It's not an expensive aircraft to operate. Especially given the low acquisition costs compared to more "modern" aircraft, the 152 or 172 can be operated for a very long time before the cost differential catches up. Personally, I'd rather spend that time flying and for the person putting their airplane to work, I'd much rather have it paid off and making money, than hanging over my head as a major expense.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super 152
While I perfer the PA38 as an aircraft to fly the C152 has the most "sorted" airframe that I have ever seen, it is an aircraft that has few problems.
As I see it the issue is with the AVGAS burning engine, give the C152 a FADEC controled MOGAS burning engine and some more modern avionics and you will have an aircraft that will fly for another thirty years.
As I see it the issue is with the AVGAS burning engine, give the C152 a FADEC controled MOGAS burning engine and some more modern avionics and you will have an aircraft that will fly for another thirty years.
While I perfer the PA38 as an aircraft to fly the C152 has the most "sorted" airframe that I have ever seen, it is an aircraft that has few problems.
As I see it the issue is with the AVGAS burning engine, give the C152 a FADEC controled MOGAS burning engine and some more modern avionics and you will have an aircraft that will fly for another thirty years.
As I see it the issue is with the AVGAS burning engine, give the C152 a FADEC controled MOGAS burning engine and some more modern avionics and you will have an aircraft that will fly for another thirty years.
G
A new-build C152 (much as I like that aircraft) would be far too expensive for a flying school to consider, particularly when considering the amount of used (and cheaper) C152's and C172's still around.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own a four-cylinder Lycoming that was run exclusively on an auto fuel STC for 20 years. That's not an engineering problem, its a paper problem. If the aircraft was on N-register in Europe, I'd be running auto fuel in it today.
(however I hate the smell of the stuff)
(however I hate the smell of the stuff)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Deepest, Surrey
Age: 14
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much more economical than avgas/mogas is avtur/diesel ?
The pump price of diesel is 139.9 here this morning so unless there is a big economy advantage or you can use TVO (agricultural pink diesel) the saving isn't enormous. Don't know how much avtur is; Tesco's didn't have any
The pump price of diesel is 139.9 here this morning so unless there is a big economy advantage or you can use TVO (agricultural pink diesel) the saving isn't enormous. Don't know how much avtur is; Tesco's didn't have any
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week I bought 92 litres for £150, that's £1.63/litre, £6.31/us.gal, or US$10.21/gal. And it's not getting any cheaper.
MOGAS, or AVTUR/Diesel must be the future I think.
G
MOGAS, or AVTUR/Diesel must be the future I think.
G
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pump price of diesel is 139.9 here this morning so unless there is a big economy advantage or you can use TVO (agricultural pink diesel) the saving isn't enormous.
That's totally crazy! Why are you guys in Europe happy to pay so much?
Out of all the airplanes we operated, which were 172's, 206's, 207's, 210's, and the Super Cub, the 172 had the highest profit margin
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,108
Received 2,952 Likes
on
1,259 Posts
Answer is No..........
The did a feasability study I believe when they were looking at re-introducing the singles range when the liability laws in the USA were capped...... They found that the cost would be prohibitive, indeed close to the price of the 172, hence why they went for the 172 instead... I believe it was rightly assumed that no one would pay the price of a 172 for the 152, that and also 60's man and 2010 man are a lot different in size, the 172 accommodates the extra girth.
Most of the cost in the construction is down to labour and the labour to produce a 152 will be close to that of a 172, after all a 172 construction wise is simply a 172 with a couple of extra feet of tin in every direction, still will be close to the manhours to build.
Hence the 162, only thing I can see on that which is a bit dodgy, at least with the 152 you had a strut to stop the student / passenger walking fwd into the prop..on the 162 you don't... it is behind them.
The did a feasability study I believe when they were looking at re-introducing the singles range when the liability laws in the USA were capped...... They found that the cost would be prohibitive, indeed close to the price of the 172, hence why they went for the 172 instead... I believe it was rightly assumed that no one would pay the price of a 172 for the 152, that and also 60's man and 2010 man are a lot different in size, the 172 accommodates the extra girth.
Most of the cost in the construction is down to labour and the labour to produce a 152 will be close to that of a 172, after all a 172 construction wise is simply a 172 with a couple of extra feet of tin in every direction, still will be close to the manhours to build.
Hence the 162, only thing I can see on that which is a bit dodgy, at least with the 152 you had a strut to stop the student / passenger walking fwd into the prop..on the 162 you don't... it is behind them.