Discussion in 'General Experimental Aviation Questions' started by Scarecrow56, Sep 1, 2018.

1. Sep 2, 2018

### BJC

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 7, 2013
Messages:
8,901
5,750
Location:
97FL, Florida, USA
A 150 or 160 HP 152 would be a fun airplane, but I would want the extended range fuel tanks.

All of the STCs for installing an 0-320 or O-360 in an A150 or A152 that I have researched limit operations to normal category only, i.e., they lose their aerobatic category certification. The non-aerobats are required to be be placarded against spins. I have talked to several owners of 150 HP A150’s who did not realize that their airplanes were no longer certified for aerobatics. The 152 tailwheel conversion has a longer takeoff roll thsn a tri-gear, and roughly the same landing distance.

They are tough little airplanes, though, and a good value for someone who wants to fly a typr-certificated airplane.

BJC

Edit: If anyone knows of an STC for the 150/160 or 180 HP engine that retains the aerobatic certification, please identify it.

2. Sep 2, 2018

### Pops

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 1, 2013
Messages:
6,683
5,572
Location:
USA.
I used to own a 1966 C-150 with the long range fuel tanks of 42 gal, also the heavy duty nose gear with the low profile 600X6 nose wheel. The nose gear scissors is in front of the strut instead of the rear. Would made a good candidate for the Lyc- 320 conversion. I owned it 2 different times. It was a good C-150.

3. Sep 2, 2018

### Pops

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 1, 2013
Messages:
6,683
5,572
Location:
USA.
Maybe there was a method to his madness. To teach me a lesson about the weather. He was a U.S. Marine aviator that flew some of our first jet fighters in the 1950's. Flew for a living all of his life, 135 owner and operator from his own airport, FAA flight Examiner in fixed wing Aircraft and Rotocraft. Ran the largest flight school in the state. IF you think you are good, flying with him will humble you. Never heard anyone say other wise. I have flown with him a lot.
He is now 87 years old and hung his spurs up a couple years ago .
Remember this was a long time ago, things were a lot different then than they are now.
Just a quick off topic story-- He was flying machinery parts to a coal mine to the southern part of the state in a helicopter. Weather in the mountains got very bad and he saw a small clearing in the trees on top of a mountain peak. Landed and got out and to have something to do, started chasing a groundhog. Fell and broke his leg very badly. Crawled back to the helicopter and radioed for help. What he didn't know is he landed on top of a mountain peak the had been strip mined all the way around with a 120' rock high wall. No way to get to him except to lower someone down to him from another helicopter and lift him out and another pilot in to get the copter out. All of this had to wait until the weather got better latter in the day.

Joe Fisher likes this.
4. Sep 2, 2018

### Daleandee

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 11, 2015
Messages:
824
496
Location:
SC
Perhaps there was! I rather prefer a CFI that gets me out of my comfort zone and makes me work a bit to increase my skill set. Seems that is how we learn how to handle some adverse scenarios while having someone in the airplane to guide us and catch the mistakes before we screw up too badly.

When I went to get my tail wheel endorsement the weather was not what I thought it should be but my instructor thought otherwise. Quick story here:

http://websites.expercraft.com/daleandee/?q=training

Dale
N319WF

Pops likes this.
5. Sep 3, 2018

### fmartin_gila

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 15, 2013
Messages:
69
10
Location:
Mandurriao, Iloilo City, Philippines
Took my flight training at the airport in Flagstaff, Arizona (elevation 7000 Ft) many years ago. Density Altitude was a hard rule and has never left me, is always in the thought process. Remain in ground effect as long as possible to build up airspeed to use as tradeoff for altitude is a very usefull technique to learn.

Fred

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
6. Sep 3, 2018

### Vigilant1

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 24, 2011
Messages:
3,558
1,535
Location:
US
Your point is a valid one. There may be, however some differences in terminology in different places. In the US, Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) >is< a firm number and it is set by the aircraft manufacturer. It doesn't change due to DA, etc. Conditions may make it impossible to make a safe takeoff/climbout at an aircraft's designated MTOW, and in those cases we'd need to reduce weight (or don't attempt to take off), but the MTOW doesn't change. For a "stock" Cessna 152, the MTOW is 1670 lbs.

Last edited: Sep 3, 2018
Topaz likes this.
7. Sep 3, 2018

### Riggerrob

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 9, 2014
Messages:
1,126
309
Location:
Folks, please remember that the last Cessna 150 was manufactured in 1977 and the last 152 left the factory in 1985, that makes them 41 and 33 years old.
Yes those trainers were engineered with huge fatigue margins, but consider that most of those trainers suffered at the hands of clumsy student pilots for most of their careers, so by now, most of those fatigue margins have been “spent.”
Please do not abuse 40 year old airplanes the way you can abuse new airplanes.

Voidhawk9 likes this.
8. Sep 3, 2018

### TFF

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 28, 2010
Messages:
11,139
3,017
Location:
Memphis, TN
I would trust a 150 over most new airplanes. That is the problem with the industry. There are no new airplanes like the 150. It's ready for combat and everything else is ballerinas.

Pops, BJC and Twodeaddogs like this.
9. Sep 3, 2018

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 18, 2009
Messages:
815
229
Location:
Dunlavin, County Wicklow,Ireland
When new 172s cost stellar money, there's no prospect of the 150 coming back, which is why you are seeing them on for sale with huge hours on the airframe for little more than the value of the engine. Same with PA 28s. Schools and clubs still use them and still want them. The only downside is the cost of keeping them operating as a certified aircraft, far too expensive. I have friends at a club here that has two Tecnams; lovely aircraft to fly but a pain to keep serviceable.

10. Sep 3, 2018

### Tiger Tim

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 26, 2013
Messages:
2,776
1,541
Location:
Thunder Bay
Scarecrow56, I hope you saw this because it's the answer you're looking for.

It's been a while but I seem to remember doing training flights in 152s on about half tanks, which you measure with a dip stick in the fuel tanks on your pre-flight inspection and add fuel as required to get to the quantity you want for that particular flight.

11. Sep 3, 2018

### Pops

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Jan 1, 2013
Messages:
6,683
5,572
Location:
USA.
And the C-150 has more capability than a lot of pilots.
I had never flown a C-150 until the FAA started having Bi-Annual Flight Reviews, and I don't remember the year. So the first time I flew a C-150 was to take a flight review. It was old 505 at Mallory Airport near KCRW, WV. Typical WV airport, one way in and one way out against the side of a hill with a bend big enough where you can't see the other end of the runway, and is up hill a little.
After that I owned the same 1966 C-150 two times, never flew a C-152.

12. Sep 3, 2018

### Dan Thomas

Joined:
Sep 18, 2008
Messages:
4,714
1,946
This applies to an awful lot of GA airplanes. The production lines were busy in the '50s and '60s and '70s, so there are many 40-, 50- and 60-year-old airplanes out there. As a mechanic (recently retired) I frequently ran into people who had bought one of these airplanes and was now shocked that their $25K machines were found to need extensive repairs. "Recent Annual, all ADs complied with" is a popular selling feature, but it means nothing if the previous owner has been cheaping out on maintenance for years. Some owners seek out the cheapest shop or mechanic they can find, and some of those guys will sign off just about anything just to keep the customer coming back. It's sad. Corrosion. Cracks in common places. Seized control cable pulleys, frayed cables, systems way out of rig. Rotted-out exhaust systems. Rubber hoses hardened and ready to fail. Expensive parts worn out. One must always keep in mind that many airplanes are for sale because the owners can no long afford them, after years of the skinniest maintenance possible. Suppose you bought a 1970 Chevy that had sat outside most of its life, had been driven hard for the first ten years, and had minimal maintenance for the last ten or 15 years. What would you expect to find? And would parts be readily available and cheap? When folks asked me about buying an airplane I would tell them to spend half of their money on the airplane, save the other half for the inevitable repairs, and get a thorough prebuy inspection to make sure you don't end up with something that ends up being way beyond economical repair. Topaz, markaeric and akwrencher like this. 13. Sep 3, 2018 ### BBerson ### BBerson #### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter Joined: Dec 16, 2007 Messages: 11,424 Likes Received: 2,096 Location: Port Townsend WA C-162 are advertised in Trade-A-Plane for$49k now.

14. Sep 3, 2018

### Dan Thomas

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Sep 18, 2008
Messages:
4,714
1,946
If I wanted to buy an affordabe two-seat airplane, it wouldn't be a 150. It would be a Champ 7EC or 7ECA. We had, in the flight school, a 1956 Champ 7EC for a few years. It had been upgraded to the O-200 from the C-90. We also had a couple of 150s, 1969 and 1971 if I remember right. That Champ ran circles around the 150s. Took off shorter, climbed faster and cruised faster. Didn't glide as far. Useful load was a big bigger. Biggest things with Champs are the fabric and the wooden wing spars. There's an AD on those spars that HAS to be done properly to be safe. Some have been converted to metal spars. The Champ 7ECA has the Lycoming O-235, 115 hp, better all around.

I also flew a C-90 powered Aircoupe, the final iteration of the Ercoupe. That C-90 performed better than the O-200. The power-to-weight ratio of the Aircoupe was the same as the 150, but the Aircoupe had way better performance. There is a strong demand for C-90s for just that reason. The O-200 generates its hp by running the redline higher, but propellers lose efficiency as they're spun faster. That said, the 150 will perform in cruise a lot better if you just run the RPM up like the POH says.

Tiger Tim and Pops like this.
15. Sep 3, 2018

### BJC

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 7, 2013
Messages:
8,901
5,750
Location:
97FL, Florida, USA
If you gave me one, I would part it out. It was a huge “Oops” by Cessna.

BJC

16. Sep 3, 2018

### BJC

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 7, 2013
Messages:
8,901
5,750
Location:
97FL, Florida, USA
The 152 redline is set at 1550 RPM. It uses a McCauley (Cessna) propeller that now has a recurring AD. An STC is available for a Sensenich propeller and different spinner. The STC officially requires a 1550 RPM redline, but the exact propeller and engine combination are Type-Certificated in other airplanes with a redline of 2800 RPM. Should one accidentally fail to throttle to the STC limitation, one would notice a significant difference in performance.

BJC

17. Sep 3, 2018

### BJC

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 7, 2013
Messages:
8,901
5,750
Location:
97FL, Florida, USA
My A152 was a 1978 model, built in 1977. I looked at it very closely over a three day annual done by an IA as part of a pre-buy. All looked sound, except for the paint job and the interior; it had spent its entire life tied down outside in Texas. Flew it to about 4,500 feet, pushed to the limit of -3 g, pulled to the limit of +6 g, dove to the redline 163 knots, IIRC, and decided that it would stay in one piece for my fun flying. A friend had a C150 that Joe described; a real POS that had been abused by multiple owners who bought pencil-whipped annuals. I would not fly his airplane. But there are some good opportunities out there, especially in the 150s, which generally have fewer training hours than the 152s.
Agree. Still, I will be very surprised if many of the current crop of ASTM certified LSAs come close to the Cessna’s longevity.

BJC

18. Sep 3, 2018

### Turd Ferguson

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Mar 14, 2008
Messages:
4,555
1,555
Location:
Upper midwest in a house
If the plane had been subjected to a continuous 3g load for at least 1/2 of those 41 yrs, I might be concerned about fatigue. The reality is most of those planes have spent 40 and 32 yrs (respectively) parked on a ramp or in a hangar.

There is no reason why they can't be flown another 40 yrs up to the design limits.

BJC likes this.
19. Sep 3, 2018

### BBerson

#### Well-Known MemberHBA Supporter

Joined:
Dec 16, 2007
Messages:
11,424
2,096
Location:
Port Townsend WA
I would look at it for LSA training. With the future LSA gross weight increase it might be perfect for the LSA training.
And some 300 pounds lighter than a C-150, so should climb well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162_Skycatcher
Cessna just couldn't cut the build hours to be competitive with innovations like blind rivets and pre-painted skin.

20. Sep 3, 2018

Joined:
Mar 14, 2008
Messages:
4,555