Reims C150 Aerobat

[Pilot DAR]

I have read that Reims built about 200 C150 L & M Aerobats, which were factory equipped with Continental (Rolls Royce) O-240 engines (rather than O-200). Does anyone know what type certificate data sheet covers these planes? The FAA TCDS does not mention them, and I have not found an EASA TCDS. Does anyone have a parts catalog for this version of the 150, that I might compare the engine installation to a regular 150?

Thanks....

[ChickenHouse]

Reims Cessna are not C150 but F150 and the Aerobats are FA150. Reims 150 Aerobat with O-240 engine built are 141 aircraft type FA150L and later on 75 aircraft FA150L with M modification (letters at Reims are not always used 1:1 equal to the US). Their TCDS belongs to Textron now, link -> FAA TCDS A13EU. Aerobats may also be earlier FA150K running on the original O-200.

Parts Catalogue Cessna 150 (1976)

[smarthawke]

You just beat me to it....

One minor point - FA150s had O-200s, FRA150 had the O-240. Same TCDS - A23EU

I used to have a supplement for the IPC for the FRAs in a previous life, but not any more. Try emailing Dukeries Aviation (Netherthorpe, UK) they had quite a fe FRA150s on their fleet.

https://www.dukeriesaviation.co.uk/

[MrAverage]

Parts are one of the biggest problems...................

[Jhieminga]

The list of products for which EASA is responsible can be found here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-...-product-lists
It includes the FRA150L and FRA150M and refers to the US TCDS A13EU that ChickenHouse already linked to. So there is no separate EASA TCDS for the Ce150/152 family apparently.
I have a Ce150 Parts Manual that covers the FA150 serials FA1500001 through FA1500211. I haven't checked if it includes the O-240 engine installation but let me know if you want a copy of the PDF.
I had a quick look at the 150/152 owners club site, and there were 216 RR/Continental FRA150L/Ms produced, so that doesn't match the number covered in my Parts Manual. So I guess we need another document.

[OwnNav]

Weren't the Reims aircraft also corrosion proofed as standard as opposed to US built units ?

[Pilot DAR]

Thanks PPRuNers! Those were exactly the clues I needed to get a start. We're looking at converting an A150L to have an O-240, if it's practical. Having the "other" TCDS is a great start, as that demonstrates that it has already been done. Knowing the parts differences is a help. We'll see where this take us...

Weren't the Reims aircraft also corrosion proofed as standard as opposed to US built units

Correct, that's what I notice when I'm around "Cessnas" in Europe! If you ordered a factory floatplane from Cessna in the US, it came with zinc chromate primer throughout, otherwise they are bare. This has proven to be very false economy, considering the corrosion problems now seriously affecting some Cessnas. My other plane had factory primer throughout, and since its manufacture in 1975, no corrosion whatever. Whenever we do repairs now, we prime the repair parts.

[glen beard]

Pilot Var, just a bit of advice from an experienced parts supply man.May be worthless in yr situation,but, I would recpmmend engine replacements being a Lyco 0-235L2C instead of a Cont 0-240.Parts would be much more readily available and most probably cheaper.The L2C was/is used in C152,Piper PA38 Tomahawk,Beech 77 Skipper and a Grumman trainer from memory.The biggest problem that I have seen over the last 50 years in spare parts is that as these models are phased out of production,then the parts get harder to procure and normally more expensive than currently available engines.I am pretty sure Superior make a lot of 0-235 parts,which keeps the manufacturers prices on a par,whereas the 0-240 is a fairly rare engine with regards to the number still in service and Cont are the only source of parts (if they still make them).
Also by fitting the 0-235 you basically have a C152,the engine being the main diff between the C150.
Hope my advice is of some use and good luck

Glen Beard,Australia

[chevvron]

The Lycoming 0-235 was far inferior to the RR/Continental 0-240 in my opinion.
I believe the 0-240 was developed by RR at their 'small engines' factory at Leavesden where they already license built the 0-200.
Fitting the 0-240 to to the F150 made it into a much better aircraft to fly with a much higher cruising speed etc; I hated the C152 with the Lycoming which I found was difficul to 'hot start' and not as lively as the Aerobat although the pre-set flaps were a good feature as sometimes in the 150, I found if you set the flap you wanted then released the switch, it could flick to the 'up' position without you noticing.

[Jhieminga]

I have not flown the O-240 version, but have quite a few hours in C150s and C152s. For me the O-235 was the better of the two engines, mostly because it was easier to start in cold weather. With the priming setup of the O-200 engine it was quite easy to get a carb fire if you didn't follow the steps to the letter. And as we used them to train ab-initio pilots at a medium sized FTO... I have encountered a few of them.

[smarthawke]

Corrosion proofing on Reims-built arcraft was actually an optional extra but nearly all were painted on the inside. Only snag was that 'assemblies' were painted rather than individual components, so the skin faying surfaces were left bare metal. I have pictures of a very bent FA152 that demonstrated it where the skin joints failed. For my sins I've maintained a couple of fleets of 150s (including FRAs) and 152s for flying schools.

O-235 was an excellent engine but not the best starter - tight plug gaps and running the engines at 1700 rpm prior to shut down kept the plugs cleaned and that helped (as well as both mags being impulse type).

O-240 starter clutches were a very expensive and problematic item. B&C starter cured that problem! You can always spot an FRA150 by the blisters at the front of the top cowl over the cylinders - although some FRAs were re-engined with O-200s as the O-240s could be more expensive to maintain and crankshafts and other parts became extremely rare..

The 150M had the same pre-select flaps as the 152.

PS I would have liked an FA152 Sparrowhawk that had a 125 hp O-235 but apparently in the field, the engine didn't survive well although it was fine on the Lycoming test bed.

[Pilot DAR]

The 150M had the same pre-select flaps as the 152

Close, though not quite. Only the last C150M's had preselect flaps. My 1975 C150M has the "up/down" switch. It's a much more simple and reliable system anyway. All C150 flaps extend to 40, where all 152 flaps extend only to 30. I prefer the 40, and use them every landing.

Only snag was that 'assemblies' were painted rather than individual components, so the skin faying surfaces were left bare metal.

I didn't know that (I've only seen airworthy French Cessnas). Yes, that is a poor arrangement, as it is the joints which are the corrosion areas. Any corrosion proofed airplanes I have been involved with had all the parts primed before assembly, and the joints have been in very good condition upon disassembly.

Yes, the "key start" clutch in the later O-200 equipped 150s were troublesome. I was employed for many years repairing them, and ultimately designed and approved improvements, which were STC approved, and sold thousands. I also designed and flew a whole replacement starter motor, which was a direct bolt on onto either version of the O-200 engine. The very most important key to longevity for the "key start" clutch is to keep it internally clean. This means having it disassembled, and cleaned, which is a really tricky process. Even a slipping clutch may be fine again, once cleaned (my lesson about mine in 1987). It is vitally important that they be cleaned out following an engine break in, or cylinder change - 25 hours in service and it's time for a cleaning. There was also a "starter oiling" mod done to some engines, which helped keep the clutch oiled inside, but also put more fine metal into it. The best solution was the use of the later model Continental starter motor, which I have used happily for many years. Anyway... I drift...

Thanks for the help with the Reims question, and for the links to the TCDS, and other manuals, that has helped immensely. It brings about question though:

The TCDS, and references to the plane in this discussion has been: "FRA150(L/M)". The TCDS states that the serial number range for these planes is: FRA1500262 through FRA1500336, and, FA1500262 through FA1500336 when equipped with FKA150-2311, and FKA150-2316. Are FKA150-2311 & 2316 a kit? Engine change kit? And, neither of the two parts manuals I have been kindly provided includes the "FRA" version of the 150, just the "FA" version. Is anyone aware if there is a separate parts manual applicable to the "FRA" version?

Thanks again for the help... Pilot DAR

[smarthawke]

Good spot on the 150M with the pre-select flaps - I thought all the Ms had them. definitely the 40° flap was more 'fun' than 30°...

Leave the manual question with me - I may be able to get hold of them tomorrow. I 'lent' various manuals to my local friendly aircraft paintshop (Mick Allen & Son) years ago and I think they still have them. I've got to go to the airfield tomorrow so I'll see what's there with them and if the info is there, I can scan it for you.

From what I recall, the IPC for the FRA was a supplement to the F(A)150 manual.

[Pilot DAR]

From what I recall, the IPC for the FRA was a supplement to the F(A)150 manual.

Ahhh, that'd make sense! Your effort tomorrow will be appreciated...

[Forfoxake]

Cannot speak for the O-235 on a C152 but the O-240 much better than the O-200 on the C150s I flew because you could (usually) get back out of the short strips you could get into with the 40 degree flap down!

Can also vouch for the B&C starter. However, apart from potential parts problems, I suspect that the O-200 is a bit more reliable than the O-240.

And bear in mind that the 150 Aerobat was different in other ways. I understand that the airframe was beefed up for (basic) aerobatics.

[Forfoxake]

Smarthawke wrote in 2007:

As for pitfalls and differences, the Aerobats are exactly the same airframe but for stronger wing spars, bigger wing struts and beefed up tailplane spars. Some 150s (the FRA 150 L/M/N) had a RR O-240 130hp engine which is 30% more power than a standard 150 and 15% more power than a 152's O-235 Lycoming.

[smarthawke]

Not sure my 2007 post reads that the O-240 powered Aerobats had a different airframe....

What I appear to have written in 2007 was that the Aerobats (A150, FA150, FRA150, A152 and FA152) had beefed up airframes as described. Struts have a wider chord - good gotcha when ordering strut end cuffs (fairings).

Aft of the firewall, the FRA150 was identical to the other 150 Aerobats. Top cowl was modified with blisters (as described earlier), not sure if the lower cowl was different. The propeller was different with the O-240 powered aircraft.

[Forfoxake]

Originally Posted by smarthawke

Not sure my 2007 post reads that the O-240 powered Aerobats had a different airframe....

What I appear to have written in 2007 was that the Aerobats (A150, FA150, FRA150, A152 and FA152) had beefed up airframes as described. Struts have a wider chord - good gotcha when ordering strut end cuffs (fairings).

Aft of the firewall, the FRA150 was identical to the other 150 Aerobats. Top cowl was modified with blisters (as described earlier), not sure if the lower cowl was different. The propeller was different with the O-240 powered aircraft.

OK. My mistake. Should have said that Aerobat airframes were beefed up as you described! Have modified my post.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by Forfoxake

Cannot speak for the O-235 on a C152 but the O-240 much better than the O-200 on the C150s I flew because you could (usually) get back out of the short strips you could get into with the 40 degree flap down!

Back in about 1980, when Derek Johnson, CFI of 3 Counties Aero Club, was invited to take an aircraft into RMA Sandhurst, he used one of his Aerobats either G-BBNX or 'Y. The main parade ground in front of the Academy building is a shade under 200m long and he successfully landed, then took off again. I personally (with only 400hr TT) wouldn't like to try that in a C152 but I would in an Aerobat.
I suppose an AAC Auster or even a Beaver might have done it in the past but as far as I'm aware that was the only civil aircraft to do it.
The reason for the visit was 3 Counties had a contract to train some Sandhurst Officer Cadets to PPL standard.

[MrAverage]

The biggest problem comes at overhaul time (which is a large factor of hours earlier on the RR engine compared to the 235) and that is if the crankshaft gets condemned. We used to operate an FRA 150 and the crank only got through that process with some very clever work by a top engine man. However, it was made plain it could not be used again at the next overhaul. While this was going on we tried tirelessly to find a replacement - worldwide - without any success. Of course, your Authority may allow the use of a newly made crank from one of the excellent machine shops in North America as is indeed the case in FAA land. The UK CAA would not countenance such a proposal. We had similar problems with the unique exhaust system and some other unique parts. We now have an A152 instead.