In 1957, people were a lot lighter on average than now. Also, 100 HP was a lot of power.

When training in PA38s, my CFI used to regularly brim off the tanks & put 2 adult males in. I think in reality this is widespread. But aside from that, consider the actual weight for a typical cross country training flight:

People "in socks" plus:

Shoes, underwear, pants, shirt, jacket, pens, watch, cap, sunglasses, wallet per person
POH & aircraft documents
Flight bag with charts, prayer wheel, clip board, GPS, spare batteries, spare spectacles
First aid kit, strips, tie down kit, spare can of oil, towing bar & (sometimes) chocks
Sandwiches and drink bottle/thermos

Most of this clutter does not go into the weight & balance calc. I have always meant to assemble this mountain of stuff & weigh it all together - my guess is it would easily gobble up that 25lbs mentioned and some more.

Hmm...

Puts me in mind of my PPL flight test in a 152. Don't remember the W&B details but I must have worked them out before the flight. I weighed about 180 lb, about the same for the DFE who had given many tests in 152s. When asked to do an incipient spin I could not stall the aircraft. The DFE said "Here, I'll show you how", same result, aircraft very nose high, high sink rate, no stall. Passed, but I never figured out what the problem was.

Any takers?

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!

Any takers?

Could you perhaps have been somewhat forward of the CG forward limit ? .. and then run out of elevator ?

In retrospect that's what I think. There was no luggage etc.

After an excellent landing etc...

We bought a 1963 fastback, straight tail 150 for learning to fly. My designated flight examiner had me put in partial flaps, then pull up into a stall, and I obliged with a sharp pull up. The left spin started so quick I was aghast. I instinctively mashed right rudder and recovered in less than one turn. I said in surprise, "What happened?"

He explained as he was signing me off later that the early 150 would do that with partial flaps if you weren't really on top of the rudder controls. It taught me a lesson.

Wife still hasn't forgiven me for selling "her" plane to buy a Bellanca Cruisair.

GB

The left spin started so quick

.. and potentially for many other aircraft. Why are we not, at all, surprised ?

Interestingly, the typical "pilot" stall procedure and recovery technique is quite at variance with what is done for design and certification. That unexpected things can happen is not at all surprising. Another example of the regulatory flight standards folk not reading the certification design standards ...

We are fortunate that most training Types are very forgiving ...

Sounds very ominous John. What specifically are you referring to? I would have thought that the C152 is certified to recover from a spin no matter how grossly mishandled it is at entry, provided of course the recovery technique is correct.

On GYPO's original topic, I wonder how popular the 152 would be if people actually tried to operate within MTOW? Rugged it certainly is, but then every other trainer is built to have a practical payload of more than 1.5 standard adults...

What specifically are you referring to?

Stall considerations are well worth talking over for the pilot community as there are various misconceptions out there in the field.

I'm off for a day or two just now .. but, why don't you start a thread on, say, "Certification versus Operations and Stall Considerations". That will entice some high ranking test pilots and certification folk into the discussion.....

Change from 150 to 152
 

A highly experienced instructor who had a fleet of Cessna 152s told me some years back that Cessna realized pilots were getting "bigger" (read: fatter and wider), so built the 152 2" wider and added horsepower.

That was in 1978! Today's pilots, especially Americans, are fatter and wider still.

I have a 152. I'm somewhat of a blimp myself, so it is used mostly as a one-up flivver, unfortunately.:(

"After gaining my CPL"

Are you for real? You hold a CPL and still do not understand the meaning of MAUW. Please tell me you were joking. :confused:

A C152 is cheap and forgiving. Also, when being a student you cannot fill an aircraft with passengers except your instructor, no more places needed than 2.
A long range 152 I learned to fly in carried fuel for over 5 hours, that's a lot more than 25lb.

However, when transferring to 172, Archer, SuperCub,... they all teached me a lot more on flying. The 152 was just too simple I guess.

Indeed - although the flight test forum might be the best place to get a really good discussion going.

It is absolutely true. One really obvious example is that a Test Pilot will happily define a stall as being full back stick and "mush" - which is a safe and benign characteristic. Then instructors all over the world will try all sorts of stupid tricks to get what they think is a "proper stall" after the flight test team went to great lengths to give those instructors a very safe aircraft which doesn't do anything exciting.

G

although the flight test forum might be the best place to get a really good discussion going

Agreed .. but the need is for the non test community folk to get a handle on the problem .. maybe we should start a thread ourselves ? You a starter for discussion, Genghis ? I imagine that John F could wax lyrical for ages on the topic. If we could get a well-known TP with an impish smile from Mojave involved, I know that he is rather concerned about the problem.

Probably the greater concern is that the flying operations community "require" these imaginative techniques presumably in ignorance of the design and certification environment .. and the poor pilot in the street, knowing no better, puts him/herself regularly in the position of needless risk.

which doesn't do anything exciting.

Excitement is what overnights are for .. not aeroplanes .. unless you are in the experimental flight test game .. and then you spend a LOT of effort trying to avoid unexpected excitement .. and never without a means of stepping outside.

Relating that to the C150/152 - the original topic of conversation - I used find it was an excellent trainer for stalls. I could predictably arrange quite benign stalls and then increase the 'sharpness' (not a good term but it'll suffice) just by changing flap, power &/or pitch/roll attitude - all while confining pitch & roll to within normal flight limits. I found it was quite able to demonstrate what would happen if incorrect control inputs were used.

No strange techniques I think, just taking advantage of the aircraft's benign straight & steady stall behaviour power off & clean then gradually applying flap or angle of bank or power + plus a bit of judicious choice about what direction to turn with power applied. Compare a straight & steady stall/power off compared to one in a climbing right turn at 15 or 20 deg AoB, for example.

FWIW, the original 150, from 1959-63, was about 1,000 lbs empty, with 1500 gross. Adding the rear window in 1964 added 100 lbs to empty and gross, which didn't change with the new shark tail in 1966. It also got about 10-12 mph slower with the back window. Going from 100 hp Continental in the 150 to 115 hp in the 152 was needed for the extra weight of engine and airframe. It gained higher TBO engine, and higher fuel consumption, at no real increase in performance. I never noticed the 152 was wider.

If you're a big student, get a small instructor. It's a better chance she'll be easier on the eyes, too.

GB

Maybe we don't need a new thread .. this looks like it might be cranking up nicely ..

.. then increase the 'sharpness' (not a good term but it'll suffice) just by changing flap, power &/or pitch/roll attitude - all while confining pitch & roll to within normal flight limits.

.. that's fine .. but it's not what the certification test program was required to do .. or did. ie you (and the very great majority of well-intentioned instructors) are venturing into experimental test flying territory .. but without an anti-spin chute or personal parachute.

Try that with a less benign Type and you might find yourself in an inverted spin in a few blinks of the eye .. just as a for instance ...

C152 preferred trainer. Why? Heavy big people!
 

I can see why the C152 a good basic machine, very forgiving and tolerent.

When I was training for my PPL aroung 8 years ago, using grass runways during the winter when they are boggy/wet such as Sywell, my instructor was around 200 lbs and I am tall and also around 200 lbs. To fit I could have my shoulder behind his to fit then throw the seat cushion in the back and close doors. Plus full fuel we just made sure we did not stop, just keep it rolling and she would always get off and climb at about 300 ft/min. 700 meter runway no problem at near sea level (sub 500 ft) and cold! Stalls etc apeared to go to plan. Well over weight. In flight test for Weight and Balance check. I suddenly became a 10 stone (140) weakling. otherwise could not carry more than a gallon or two.

The Aerobat version to practice aeros was always advised to never have mre than about 40% fuel to keep it safe. It did what was asked of it.

Reminds me of driving original Minis

Now I have a C172 Rhiems Rocket, A bit more comfort and go!

Still dream of owning a C150 Aerobat after the economy recovers.

I hated the 152...I flew it for 1 hour in PPL training...it feels every bump...it wassssssssssssssssss like I had to be temperment with it...Plus the OFT planes broke down all the time...

Indeed - and there are a few instances of instructors making aeroplanes less safe than flight test departments made sure that they are. Offering a few instances:


- Accelerated stall entry (say, 4kn/s) rather than the 1kn/s used in certification, to get a "proper" pitch break at the stall, which was never called for in the certification programme.

- Teaching low speed recoveries in aircraft with a low thrustline, which START with full throttle: thus pushing the nose up and creating yaw when the aircraft is already spin-prone by the incipient stall.

- Adding another 12 knots (I kid you not) onto the taught approach speed compared to the POH, thus completely invalidating the landing distance figures. (Amongst other likely effects.)


I'm not sure which is worst, experienced pilots such as this playing test pilot without the proper training and backup in how to do so, or doing it with a student on board.

G