Another private pilot and a hated 150

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Holtzy3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
570
Location
Mesa, AZ
Guys! After being on this forum for 3(? Maybe 4) years, I can finally say I'm a private pilot. After 7 discontinuances for weather and mechanical issues I finally finished it. The VOR almost went out(stopped working and had to replace fuse mid flight) which almost made me land and try an 8th time but I can finally say I did it. Now time to build/buy something fun... Like a lancair (jk I would kill myself in one of those :p)
 

Wayne

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
470
Location
Chicago, IL
Fantastic achievement Holtzy!! - i just got mine recently and felt the same way. Nice work, and welcome aboard as a pilot in that same "eclectic" group.
 

flyvulcan

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
525
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Well done Holtzy! Welcome into the fold. As you say, now have a close look at what project you might want to start and how to achieve that goal.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,789
Location
CT, USA
Contratulations! But don't say "hated"; the 150 isn't the most exciting plane but it's really a much nicer flying plane than, say, a 172 or a Cherokee.

Dana
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
I've been told that a PPL is a license to learn. Read Sagittarius Rising by Cecil Lewis; there's a scene in there when even after he is a combat veteran he's flying along one day and he gets into a mock dogfight with another pilot who turns out to be an old friend from flight school days and the other pilot wins (he has a better airplane, too...). They get on the ground and the other pilot says, "Still learning how to fly, Lewis?" :D

Congrats Holtzy!
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,895
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Congratulations.

After flying many hours in tailwheel aerobatic airplanes, I did something that I thought that I never would do; I purchased an A152.

Had a ball with it. I got a letter from a stranger one day that said "I want to buy your airplane .."


BJC

PS. I'm fairly certain that the STC for heavier engines for the A152 as well as the A150 removes the aerobatic category rating.
 

DangerZone

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,183
Location
Zagreb HR
Congratulations.

After flying many hours in tailwheel aerobatic airplanes, I did something that I thought that I never would do; I purchased an A152.

Had a ball with it. I got a letter from a stranger one day that said "I want to buy your airplane .."


BJC

PS. I'm fairly certain that the STC for heavier engines for the A152 as well as the A150 removes the aerobatic category rating.
The 150 Aerobat came with different engines depending on when and where they were produced. Some models made in France had a Rolls Royce copy of the Continental O-200 with 125HP, others had a Continental O-240 with 130HP and there are some rare with the 150HP Lycoming O-320. Most of them are factory built with the heavier engine, there was no need for aerobatic category removal. The standard Reims installed 130HP continental O-240 with the oil&fuel inverted system weighs about the same as the O-320 Lycoming so there were also those owners who installed the Lyco O-320 instead of the Conti O-240 without losing the aerobatic cathegory.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,895
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
The 150 Aerobat came with different engines depending on when and where they were produced. Some models made in France had a Rolls Royce copy of the Continental O-200 with 125HP, others had a Continental O-240 with 130HP and there are some rare with the 150HP Lycoming O-320. Most of them are factory built with the heavier engine, there was no need for aerobatic category removal. The standard Reims installed 130HP continental O-240 with the oil&fuel inverted system weighs about the same as the O-320 Lycoming so there were also those owners who installed the Lyco O-320 instead of the Conti O-240 without losing the aerobatic cathegory.
Thanks for the info on European Aerobats.

My experience is with USA Aerobats, and my comment specifically referred to the STC'ed (i.e., USA) Aerobats with heavier engines.

Like the USA Aerobats, the FRA150L has no inverted fuel or oil system. Just read the manual here http://www.takeflightaviation.co.uk/documents/aerobat150.pdf

I would be interested in obtaining an STC for the heavier Lycoming engine that does not surrender the aerobatic rating. Can you direct me to the European version that you allude to? Or were they from the factory that way?

Thanks,


BJC
 

Monty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,294
Location
Fayetteville, AR / USA
Congrats,

the 152 isn't that bad, especially the ones with manual flaps. The 120-140-150 is a fun classic plane. The 150 flies like a fighter compared to a 172-182-210 which become more truck like as the number gets bigger...
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,895
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Then do the tailwheel conversion...

Dana
+1

Saw an A150 with an IO-320 (160 HP) and C140 gear leg TW conversion. I wanted it! It needs the extra fuel tanks to have any useful range, though.

The 152 TW conversions that use the tubular gear legs give up too much takeoff and landing performance to be useful.


BJC
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,895
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Congrats,

the 152 isn't that bad, especially the ones with manual flaps. The 120-140-150 is a fun classic plane. The 150 flies like a fighter compared to a 172-182-210 which become more truck like as the number gets bigger...
I'm pretty sure that the 152's all had 24 volt electric flaps. :depressed

Manual would have been an improvement, as would have a 12 volt system.

People tend to look down on the 150's and 152's, but they are good, fun airplanes. And they can be purchased and flown for 600 to 700 hours for the purchase price of a new LSA.


BJC
 

Monty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,294
Location
Fayetteville, AR / USA
I'm pretty sure that the 152's all had 24 volt electric flaps. :depressed

Manual would have been an improvement, as would have a 12 volt system.

People tend to look down on the 150's and 152's, but they are good, fun airplanes. And they can be purchased and flown for 600 to 700 hours for the purchase price of a new LSA.


BJC
You are right, it was a 150 that I used to fly with the manual flaps, I checked my logbook. I really don't like electric flaps.

If you learn to fly a 150 at all edges of the envelope, you will be a better pilot than 99.99%. The 150 can teach a lot, especially if it has instruments. They are still a very economical and capable trainer.

Just needs a tailwheel and more power!
 
Last edited:

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,026
Location
USA.
The Cessna 150 will do more than most pilots are capable of. As usual the older 150's fly far better than the newer ones. Same for the Cessna 172's, C-182's, C-310's. The old straight tail 172's are a far better flying airplanes than the latter models.

Dan R.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,026
Location
USA.
1965 was the last model yr of the C-150 with manual flaps. Electric flaps was considered a refinement. Such is progress.....
At one time my daughter had a 1965 C-150 and I had a 1966 C-150. I liked the 1965 better for several reasons. The best flying C-150 that I have flown is a 1959 and a 1962. My daughter used to have a 1948 Cessna 140 with the C-0-200 engine and it was a good flying airplane.
Dan

Dan
 
Top