Training aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 34
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training aircraft
Good evening all,
I am looking for some advice/opinions on the following. I was looking to take up training in a C150, but according to the CFI at my chosen FTO (Not one of the large ones) they like to use the C152 for training, and leave the 150's for hour building. The reason he gave me is that the 152 has a higher cruise speed, and also is perfect for short takeoff/landings. Is there actually much difference between the two in terms of learning?
I would have liked to have done it in the 150 as it's cheaper, which will allow me to build up more hours/landings etc for the same amount of money.
I am looking for some advice/opinions on the following. I was looking to take up training in a C150, but according to the CFI at my chosen FTO (Not one of the large ones) they like to use the C152 for training, and leave the 150's for hour building. The reason he gave me is that the 152 has a higher cruise speed, and also is perfect for short takeoff/landings. Is there actually much difference between the two in terms of learning?
I would have liked to have done it in the 150 as it's cheaper, which will allow me to build up more hours/landings etc for the same amount of money.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Where the work is.
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No difference really, you are the customer so you tell him you will be learning on the cheaper machine or go to another school. Do not put up with that sort of B/S that is everywhere in flying schools, it makes no difference what you learn in.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
both types are _very_ similar and - imo - VERY good trainers. Both are extremely benign and forgiving.
The C152 always seemed a bit more stable and a bit more powerful with two souls on board. On the other hand it was not as docile as a C150 and the flaps were limited to 30 degrees. The flap preselect was more comfortable than the "free" design of the C150.
The C150 is more docile (if one is allowed to use this words together with the term "Cessna" without being laughed at...) and it was more fun whilst slipping. The 40 degrees flaps are the literal "barn doors". They provide you with interesting glide angles when you have finally learned to flare correctly with them.
I would not say that one type is superior over the other one in terms of training. You'll learn things in the 150 that you won't learn in the 152 and vice versa as it is with every type.
Don't think about it. Go flying! You'll handle other types in the future and you'll be surprised how different a 172 feels to a 152 or a 150...
Have fun :-)
both types are _very_ similar and - imo - VERY good trainers. Both are extremely benign and forgiving.
The C152 always seemed a bit more stable and a bit more powerful with two souls on board. On the other hand it was not as docile as a C150 and the flaps were limited to 30 degrees. The flap preselect was more comfortable than the "free" design of the C150.
The C150 is more docile (if one is allowed to use this words together with the term "Cessna" without being laughed at...) and it was more fun whilst slipping. The 40 degrees flaps are the literal "barn doors". They provide you with interesting glide angles when you have finally learned to flare correctly with them.
I would not say that one type is superior over the other one in terms of training. You'll learn things in the 150 that you won't learn in the 152 and vice versa as it is with every type.
Don't think about it. Go flying! You'll handle other types in the future and you'll be surprised how different a 172 feels to a 152 or a 150...
Have fun :-)
The differences are largely irrelevant as far as learning to fly goes. They're both pretty good trainers. The C152 can cruise & climb a bit faster but in UK temperatures a C150 will still be quite OK.
A C150 can usually be landed in a shorter distance than a C152 thanks to the 40 deg flap setting. Not that it matters - it's a technique & judgement that you need to learn, something that will be a base to adapt to other types in your future. Just remember to get the flap retracted for go-arounds. Not that the procedure is any different in a C152. Just one fewer stages of flap to retract.
Depending on the year model there were some cabin width gains from early to late model C150s. Don't think there were changes from late model C150s to c152s. Might be a consideration if you're both hefty types.
They're both docile enough for confidence, and they both can be pushed enough to force good technique or get bitten.
You're the customer. Go with the cheapest ie the C150, as long as the useful load is adequate for you, the instructor & sufficient fuel. You can always fly the C152 for navigation exercises for the slight extra useful load & speed. The difference in handling just isn't big enough to worry about.
A C150 can usually be landed in a shorter distance than a C152 thanks to the 40 deg flap setting. Not that it matters - it's a technique & judgement that you need to learn, something that will be a base to adapt to other types in your future. Just remember to get the flap retracted for go-arounds. Not that the procedure is any different in a C152. Just one fewer stages of flap to retract.
Depending on the year model there were some cabin width gains from early to late model C150s. Don't think there were changes from late model C150s to c152s. Might be a consideration if you're both hefty types.
They're both docile enough for confidence, and they both can be pushed enough to force good technique or get bitten.
You're the customer. Go with the cheapest ie the C150, as long as the useful load is adequate for you, the instructor & sufficient fuel. You can always fly the C152 for navigation exercises for the slight extra useful load & speed. The difference in handling just isn't big enough to worry about.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Luton, UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is your choice with what is available
C152 tend to be better equipped and being newer are often in better condition
The C150 is great though and some are well looked after
What is the difference in price:? As from an overhead point of view they are the same to maintain. The C150 could be cheaper as I've mentioned for the above reasons.
C152 tend to be better equipped and being newer are often in better condition
The C150 is great though and some are well looked after
What is the difference in price:? As from an overhead point of view they are the same to maintain. The C150 could be cheaper as I've mentioned for the above reasons.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 34
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the feedback!
Tinstaafl - We're not really that big. I'm around 5'7 and he is approx. 5'9/10.
I'm pretty sure the 150 is a 'G' model, would that be the slightly larger version?
CATS - Thr difference is a little over £20 per hour, but like I say that would allow me 4 t'n'gs or 2 full stops. I've been in both, the 150 most recently and I found them both in near identical condition. Is the 150 possibly better off in fuel?
Tinstaafl - We're not really that big. I'm around 5'7 and he is approx. 5'9/10.
I'm pretty sure the 150 is a 'G' model, would that be the slightly larger version?
CATS - Thr difference is a little over £20 per hour, but like I say that would allow me 4 t'n'gs or 2 full stops. I've been in both, the 150 most recently and I found them both in near identical condition. Is the 150 possibly better off in fuel?
You should be fine. I'm 6'0" and used to fly a 'G' model C150 at a school where I was the CFI.
A C150 has a Continental O-200 engine, a C152 has a Lycoming O-235 so nominal power is 100 HP and 110 HP, respectively. Fuel burn is a few litres per hour less in the C150. Max. take-off weight is a less too.
At 20 quid /hr difference I'd insist on the C150 or take my business elsewhere.
A C150 has a Continental O-200 engine, a C152 has a Lycoming O-235 so nominal power is 100 HP and 110 HP, respectively. Fuel burn is a few litres per hour less in the C150. Max. take-off weight is a less too.
At 20 quid /hr difference I'd insist on the C150 or take my business elsewhere.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 34
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tinstaafl!
That gives me a little more info to work with when I'm next there. I'll stick to my guns about going out on the 150 and not the 152, and hopefully I'll get my way (Although I should - I'm the one paying!).
I'll add an update after my next lesson.
That gives me a little more info to work with when I'm next there. I'll stick to my guns about going out on the 150 and not the 152, and hopefully I'll get my way (Although I should - I'm the one paying!).
I'll add an update after my next lesson.
Yes basically the same, well apart from:
- Poorer take-off and climb performance on the C150
- C150 being about 1.5" further aft CG
- C150 needing about 1/3rd of the pull force to stall it, particularly significant with flaps down where the C152 needs about 1.5lb and the C150 about 0.5lb
- Some C150s (about half of them) will self-stall with full flaps and full power in a go-around, even if trimmed fully nose-down.
- The different flap lever and flap position indicator
- The extra 10 degrees of flap on the C150
- Most C150s having an ASI in mph whilst most C152s have an ASI in kts
Statistically the C150 has 16 times the C152's stall related fatal accident rate, at-least in the UK where the data's good enough to work it out.
You may guess that I have a bit of an issue with flying schools who allow students to just jump between the two routinely and without any training on the differences.
This is aside from the fact that as a pilot, I personally find the C150 more enjoyable to fly. The light controls and barn door flaps are enjoyable, but I'm under no illusions that they make it safe for a new pilot, it's not outright unsafe, but it's less safe and most importantly - different.
G
- Poorer take-off and climb performance on the C150
- C150 being about 1.5" further aft CG
- C150 needing about 1/3rd of the pull force to stall it, particularly significant with flaps down where the C152 needs about 1.5lb and the C150 about 0.5lb
- Some C150s (about half of them) will self-stall with full flaps and full power in a go-around, even if trimmed fully nose-down.
- The different flap lever and flap position indicator
- The extra 10 degrees of flap on the C150
- Most C150s having an ASI in mph whilst most C152s have an ASI in kts
Statistically the C150 has 16 times the C152's stall related fatal accident rate, at-least in the UK where the data's good enough to work it out.
You may guess that I have a bit of an issue with flying schools who allow students to just jump between the two routinely and without any training on the differences.
This is aside from the fact that as a pilot, I personally find the C150 more enjoyable to fly. The light controls and barn door flaps are enjoyable, but I'm under no illusions that they make it safe for a new pilot, it's not outright unsafe, but it's less safe and most importantly - different.
G
I like both the 150 and 152, but slightly prefer the 150. The big difference for a student is that the later 150s with electric flaps have no indent, so you have to stop the flaps up/down \t the required position. The 152 has indents, so you just put the lever in the required indent. I think this is a bigger difference than the degrees of flap.
Some 150s -Aerobats- have a 125 hp engine.
Some 150s -Aerobats- have a 125 hp engine.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're going to quote facts...
The last of the C150s the 'M' model had the same 'pre select' flap switch as the C152. Very early C150s had mechanical flaps as per a PA28.
The early electric flap C150s had the position indicator in the left A pillar. The switch is sprung for flaps down so only move when you hold the switch down. It would stay in the 'up' position which was handy on go arounds - if you want all the flap off.
C150s have 40 degrees of flap and C152s 30 degrees.
The FRA150L/M were Aerobats fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240 130hp engine. There are a few around still - most were operated originally by AST at Perth.
There was a version of the C152 Aerobat called the Sparrowhawk which had a high compression Lyc O-235 rated at 125hp. They found this wasn't a successful motor though and there aren't many about - most likely none in the UK.
And I never did like lies, damn lies or statistics....
The last of the C150s the 'M' model had the same 'pre select' flap switch as the C152. Very early C150s had mechanical flaps as per a PA28.
The early electric flap C150s had the position indicator in the left A pillar. The switch is sprung for flaps down so only move when you hold the switch down. It would stay in the 'up' position which was handy on go arounds - if you want all the flap off.
C150s have 40 degrees of flap and C152s 30 degrees.
The FRA150L/M were Aerobats fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240 130hp engine. There are a few around still - most were operated originally by AST at Perth.
There was a version of the C152 Aerobat called the Sparrowhawk which had a high compression Lyc O-235 rated at 125hp. They found this wasn't a successful motor though and there aren't many about - most likely none in the UK.
And I never did like lies, damn lies or statistics....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mostly what smarthawk said
However the C152 is the C150 with all the problems removed and so altogether a more reliable aircraft.
That having been said this far away from the factory it depends on how the aircraft are maintained on a day to day basis.
If you can find a C152 aerobat fly it , aircraft are best enjoyed upsidedown.
That having been said this far away from the factory it depends on how the aircraft are maintained on a day to day basis.
If you can find a C152 aerobat fly it , aircraft are best enjoyed upsidedown.
Moderator
The 1975 C-150M, which model continued in 1976, and 1977 for a few aircraft, are virtually identical to the 152 firewall aft. As noted, the differences between a late 150, and 152, other than engine installation, are the flap travel limits, and 24 volt electrical system, and 70 pounds more gross weight. The cockpit arrangement, dimensions, and controls of a 1977 150M, and a 1977 152 are identical (other than flap selector, and engine instruments) if I recall correctly. The 150 with the 100HP O-200 is offered with either a 48", 50" or 52" pitch propeller, I have flown all three, and very much prefer the 48" pitch version (prop can be later changed, or re pitched). I am not aware that the 152 offered alternative pitches.
I did my first solo, on the first 152 which came into Canada, in 1977. Though everyone was eager to fly the 152, my preferences soon returned for the 150. My like for the 40 flaps was the major reason, though the really poor soft field performance rated high on my dislike list too. The prop on the basic 152 is not optimized for soft field flying, and produced very disappointing results in grass strips I used to happily frequent in 150's. Bear in mind that a major factor of the choice of the Lycoming 235 to replace the Continental O-200 was not dis-satisfaction with the O-200, but the fact that it was very unhappy running on 100LL. It still is. The Lycoming runs just fine on it.
A very good book has been written on the 150/152, by Clark, and is published by TAB. It explains all these differences well. My personal preference is the 150M over the 152, and that is based on lots of flying of both. I do not believe that either is more troublesome, or costly to operate than the other, if equally well cared for.
People say bad things about the 150M balked landing climb with full flaps extended. To those negative remarks I say: Not true, it is acceptable, safe, and design compliant!
To support my assertion, I offer the following video clips:
Aircraft :: C 150 40 flap ice takeoff video by PilotDAR - Photobucket
and...
Aircraft :: C150 40 Flap Takeoff video by PilotDAR - Photobucket
A full flap takeoff serves nearly no useful purpose, other than to confirm that a balked landing climb is possible. Do not attempt - not an approved technique!
I did my first solo, on the first 152 which came into Canada, in 1977. Though everyone was eager to fly the 152, my preferences soon returned for the 150. My like for the 40 flaps was the major reason, though the really poor soft field performance rated high on my dislike list too. The prop on the basic 152 is not optimized for soft field flying, and produced very disappointing results in grass strips I used to happily frequent in 150's. Bear in mind that a major factor of the choice of the Lycoming 235 to replace the Continental O-200 was not dis-satisfaction with the O-200, but the fact that it was very unhappy running on 100LL. It still is. The Lycoming runs just fine on it.
A very good book has been written on the 150/152, by Clark, and is published by TAB. It explains all these differences well. My personal preference is the 150M over the 152, and that is based on lots of flying of both. I do not believe that either is more troublesome, or costly to operate than the other, if equally well cared for.
People say bad things about the 150M balked landing climb with full flaps extended. To those negative remarks I say: Not true, it is acceptable, safe, and design compliant!
To support my assertion, I offer the following video clips:
Aircraft :: C 150 40 flap ice takeoff video by PilotDAR - Photobucket
and...
Aircraft :: C150 40 Flap Takeoff video by PilotDAR - Photobucket
A full flap takeoff serves nearly no useful purpose, other than to confirm that a balked landing climb is possible. Do not attempt - not an approved technique!
If it's an early model C150 it'll have a straight tail and won't have Cessna's 'Omni-vision' (tm)** feature. 'Land-o-matic' (tm)** undercarriage was fitted as standard across the range.
Was the 'Nav-o-matic' (tm)** autopilot ever an option?
**
Was the 'Nav-o-matic' (tm)** autopilot ever an option?
**
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's an early model C150 it'll have a straight tail and won't have Cessna's 'Omni-vision' (tm)** feature. 'Land-o-matic' (tm)** undercarriage was fitted as standard across the range.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A full flap takeoff serves nearly no useful purpose, other than to confirm that a balked landing climb is possible. Do not attempt - not an approved technique!
I can remember a Cessna 172 taking off at High Wycombe with full flap that the pilot had obviously left down after his pre take off checks. The pilot and 3 pax were killed when the pilot lost control shortly after take off during the attempted climb out. I am sure if he had experienced a full flap take off at some stage he would have immeadiately recognised the problem and have been able to take corrective action and thats what professional flight training is about, training for the incident that may never happen.
Who was it that said
The emergencies you train for almost never happen. It's the one you don't train for that kills you.
Last edited by Pull what; 25th Aug 2011 at 11:34.
Moderator
Pull What, I entirely agree with you! It's hard to tell pilots to train things in planes, which the flight manual says are not approved, but there can be value, in a safe, supervised environment, for a new pilot to understand what happens if....
There is no excuse for "loosing control" after coming (or remaining) airborne with full flaps. Every certified GA aircraft has demonstrated climb in that configuration, as well as the ability to rapidly go from full to no flaps without loss of control. You might not get the expected climb performance with full flap out, but it will safely fly, and climb at least a little.
When I flight test, where I am expecting changed control effectiveness, I sometimes will take off with full flaps, to get the aircraft airborne at the lowest possible airspeed. This way I can evaluate the control effectiveness before a "flight" away from the runway is committed. I do this in accordance with a flight test plan though, so deviating from the flight manual is permitted.
Many aircraft have amazing capability beyond what the flight manual says. I recall seeing a Cessna publication titled "Getting the maximum performance form the Cessna 150". I never had the opportunity to read it, and now Cessna offers no acknowledgement of it's existence! Liability, I'm sure, but would I ever like to read what they wrote back in the day.....
There is no excuse for "loosing control" after coming (or remaining) airborne with full flaps. Every certified GA aircraft has demonstrated climb in that configuration, as well as the ability to rapidly go from full to no flaps without loss of control. You might not get the expected climb performance with full flap out, but it will safely fly, and climb at least a little.
When I flight test, where I am expecting changed control effectiveness, I sometimes will take off with full flaps, to get the aircraft airborne at the lowest possible airspeed. This way I can evaluate the control effectiveness before a "flight" away from the runway is committed. I do this in accordance with a flight test plan though, so deviating from the flight manual is permitted.
Many aircraft have amazing capability beyond what the flight manual says. I recall seeing a Cessna publication titled "Getting the maximum performance form the Cessna 150". I never had the opportunity to read it, and now Cessna offers no acknowledgement of it's existence! Liability, I'm sure, but would I ever like to read what they wrote back in the day.....
There is one other difference between the C 150 and C 152. The cowling on the C 152 is higher and has a square cross section. The C 150 slopes down and is more rounded. The significance of this is in the level flight attitude "picture" you will see out of the windshield is different. Therefor I would advise not switching between the two models when you are training, especially before solo.