C152 preferred trainer. Why?

[NZGYPO]

After gaining my CPL i thought that i would get a 152 rating because it is the preferred trainer aircraft for many years now.

What i was very surprised with is that for the one i flew, if i had two guys my size, 190 pounds then it can only take approximately 25 pounds of fuel. That is not enough to do any form of a descent length flight at all. So i was wondering why has this aircraft been the preferred trainer for so long.

I do realize that the aircraft i flew was slightly heavier due to leather seats and new carpets, but I'm sure it is not the only one which has had refurbishment done to it.
Can we say that for this aircraft MAUW is just a suggestion (which i was told by people from a different training organization to the one i attend) cause to me that is against all the training that i have been taught so far about safe flying.

[corsair]

The reasons are simple, most people weigh less than that so it's only limiting in that scenario. Another reason is that the 150/152 is cheap to run, simple enough to fly but with enough quirks to be valuable for training purposes. It's rugged enough to take the daily knocks it receives in flying schools. Some more recent 'sexy' trainers have a habit of breaking things.........and there's still a lot of them around.

The MAUW is limiting with big men on board. Most reputable flying schools point the bigger student towards the 172 as a trainer in that case. I've seen a 150 try to take off with two big guys on board. It just won't. I don't know why they even tried.

[A and C]

Corsair has most of the reasons correct but I can add that the aircraft has very few AD,s and parts are in good supply so even when some one breaks a part you can get a new one in a few days............. unlike some French aircraft!

[Old Fella]

MAUW a suggestion!!!!

Mate, the Maximum All Up Weight is most certainly not "just a suggestion". It is a LIMIT. That it becomes limiting in some cases is unfortunate, but anyone who tells you it is "just a suggestion" is telling you 'pork pies'. The aircraft flight manual will tell you the limit for any particular aircraft for the category in which it is being flown.

[NZGYPO]

corsair, are you calling me fat. just kidding, yeah that is what i figured, i just wanted confirmation because i thought that it was ridiculous to have such a reputable aircraft which is very low cost to operate with such limits.
Old Fella i know that it is a limit and that is why i thought it was shocking for some people to call it a suggestion. Thank you all for your input.

[mark25787]

There will be factors such as purchase price, maintenance costs which may well be cheaper than other training aircraft. The high-wing design of the C150 and C152s is a help to trainees as well as it gives a good frame of reference to the ground, and helps with navigation and PFLs as you get a much greater view that with low wing aircraft.
I qualified for my PPL 18 years ago on C150s and 152s and realy enjoyed flying them, although am going to have to swap to a low wing now for my PPL retraining.

[Kerosene Kraut]

It has very nice and predictable slow flight and stall characteristics. Some new trainers (162 anyone?) seem to be trickier. And a 150/152 will last thousands of hours of basic training abuse and can be repaired by anybody.

[deltayankee]

...most people weigh less than that

Thinking back on my time in 152s I realize that none of the instructors were even average size, never mind large. In fact most were skinny young hour builders of maybe 120lbs at most. I guess that was no accident. If the instructor and student are light enough it's a good choice -- cheap, easy to maintain and not so demanding it intimidates a beginner.

And if you have a MAUW issue you also want to avoid the hottest time of day, both to get off the ground and to avoid the worst bumps. I have flown a 152 out of Scottsdale AZ late in the morning and unless you were planning to practice thermalling it is not the best idea.

[Lineboy4life]

Why??

tried, tested and proven...

The high wing strut cessna design has one of if not the best safety records of any mass produced lightie.

The 152 is just an improvement on an already excellent design, slightly larger tail-feathers with awesome elevator authority and main-gear that can take the students hate.

Predictable flight/stall/spin traits combined with purchase/running costs and relaibility unmatched make it the training wepon of choice. As for the MAUW issues, better the students make errors in a 152 then something a little less forgiving.

AAARRRR!!! avalanches in the Aerobat, pure sex!!!!

the skycatcher has pretty big shoes to fill, Clive Cessna your a F-n legend!!!

[Peter Fanelli]

It's the preferred training aircraft..........only with people who didn't train in something better.

[bsal]

What i was very surprised with is that for the one i flew, if i had two guys my size, 190 pounds then it can only take approximately 25 pounds of fuel

From my POH on Cessna 152 1978 model it says MTOW 1670lb, max fuel load is 156lb, standard empty weight is 1100lb. I don't know where your getting the 25lb of fuel from. 1100+380+156=1636 there's still some room left. I know some C152's have slightly different standard empty weights but you should still be able to take almost full fuel onboard safely.

[Kerosene Kraut]

I learned to fly (powered) on a 152 "Sparrow Hawk" in California back then. I'm a tall guy as was my instructor. We frequently went into the mojave desert hot and high on x-countries. It worked. I learned to properly check my weight and balance and density altitude before.
Climb performance on a full payload is a different story.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect that there are a reasonable number of schools who treat MAUW on these simple training aeroplanes as just a suggestion. They shouldn't, but it's also an aeroplane tolerant enough to deal with it.

Why is it so popular in schools? Mostly, I think, because it's so cheap to buy and run. But, in amongst that, it's got excellent handling, benign stall characteristics, a pretty good view out, very uncomplicated controls, and performance which if hardly sparkling, is almost always good enough enough. Plus, it's very cheap and easy to maintain, with a reasonably low fuel consumption.

So, at the end of the day, it's a really superb basic training aeroplane - if a bit limited in payload. So, lots of schools operate them, and you'd struggle to find many pilots worldwide who haven't flown one at some point.

Personally, I also think that it's the second most boring aeroplane in the world after the C172, but that doesn't in itself make it a bad aeroplane for most purposes.

G

[Denti]

Never actually trained on any cessna type, initial training was done on archers (180ps) and from hour 66 on on beech bonanzas (f33). However we hired a 152 to have some fun during training after we had our ppl. We were kinda shocked about the poor performance compared to our archers who were not the best planes either. Never looked back and stayed well free of those cessna SEPs.

[rcl7700]

As a student I thought it was too small. I wanted to fly bigger, heavier, and faster planes. As an instructor I really enjoyed it. Equip it for IFR and you got yourself a really cheap platform for different kinds of instruction. I instructed on many planes including the usual Pipers and Cessnas. I think the 152 hold its own still today, at least for primary instruction.

rcl

[jetglo]

The Cessna 152 IMHO is still the best civil basic training aeroplane even after all the years it has been around.
Very stable in flight and an ideal learning platform, it is relatively economical to operate, easy to maintain and get parts for while able to accommodate most levels of avionics fit for training. I have been flying them and instructing on them for 25 years on and off; I think they are the most forgiving of aeroplanes and for the nervous low-hour ppl student ideal as it really has to be bad before the aeroplane bites back.
The downside is always the reduced visibility because of the high wing and the uncomfortable seat backs; watch out for the weight and balance!

[NZGYPO]

Bsal, the plane i flew had a basic empty weight of approximately 1260 pounds. It had heavy leather seats and a new carpet. It was still very basic and not fit for IFR, so I'd hate to think how much it would weigh if it had all the instruments to make it fit for IFR.

[Duchess_Driver]

Skinny 152

From my POH on Cessna 152 1978 model it says MTOW 1670lb, max fuel load is 156lb, standard empty weight is 1100lb. I don't know where your getting the 25lb of fuel from. 1100+380+156=1636 there's still some room left. I know some C152's have slightly different standard empty weights but you should still be able to take almost full fuel onboard safely.

Then sir, you have an anorexic Cessna.

My 1984 POH has standard empty as 1136. We have five in our fleet, all about the same age, lightest at 1170 and heaviest at 1206lbs. With those figures then 'the enough fuel for a circuit' statement seems plausable.

[BeechNut]

It's not only a decent trainer but if the average punter wants to own an aircraft, for the simple pleasure of being in the air, it's one of the easiest, most affordable birds to own. I had a 1972 C150 back about 26 years ago. I sold it for $8000, biggest mistake I ever made, they go for 3x that now.

It was easily the cheapest bird to own and operate I've ever had. and chugging along at 1000' AGL on a calm summer evening, window open, is what pleasure flying is all about. For 90% of the type of flying I do now as I get older and the kids leave the nest, the 150/152 is all I would need.

They are cheap all around: purchase price, maintenance costs, reasonable fuel burn and the cheapest aircraft there is to insure especially for low-time pilots.

I love my Beech but the old 150 could take around the patch at 5.5 gal/hour instead of 10.5 gal/hour.

Mind you back then I weighed 150, I now weigh 200

[thrust clb]

Don't forget that on an operator's point of view, the Lycoming o-235-L2c engine's TBO is a whopping 2400 hours and easily reached without problems. As against the 1800hour tbo on the continental-powered c150's. At usd30/hour leaseback, the owner/operator would have earned 18g's more on a 152 than a 150 before they send the engine for overhaul.