Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cessna 150

@Mooney_Driver you called sir? :)

When I got my PPL there was an instructor who owned a LR C-150 and was from Trinidad and Tobago. He had flown it from the Caribbean to Western Canada, although not quite non-stop.

I think it had an ADF and was used for some IF instruction. It must have had a special routine to avoid being overfilled to stay within max, using its own dip sticks.

I do admire the nostalgia for the C150, but am with @Snoopy, perhaps a good proposition as a flight school earner, but not quite De Havilland control harmony.

Please don’t translate nostalgia into wanting to buy one. The indestructible land-o-matic spring steel main landing gear eventually cracks the non indestructible rear bulkhead, after decades of ab initio students doing their best to throw the aircraft to the runway.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

I rented a C152 at Fairbanks Alaska, and after my checkout had to do a W&B before flying. I checked, and it had wingtip tanks. Empty of course. But useful for solo flying with fuel lacking or very expensive at many fields.
( Very expensive remote Alaska airfield Avgas < UK airport.)

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

There’s indeed a further Long Range C150 in Europe. It’s based in Poland and I flew it few years ago around Mazury Lakes…
If I am not mistaken it is registered as SP-CBE

Italy

RobertL18C wrote:

Please don’t translate nostalgia into wanting to buy one.

LOL, well, again it is “mission” which makes all the difference.

There is nothing wrong if you take a well cared for and inspected C150 for the said “air hiking” purposes or simply as a device which makes 100$ hamburgers 50$ hamburgers. What you say about flight school planes is generally valid for quite a few ex flight school planes. I’d trust a Cessna more than certain PA28 in that regard.

But the main thing is, C150’s are so severely weight restricted that many of us simply can’t use them after a certain age. If I were to go for a “simple” plane, my choice would most probably be the PA28-140 for that reason. While they are a tad more expensive to use, they are still very economical airplanes.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

But the main thing is, C150’s are so severely weight restricted that many of us simply can’t use them after a certain age.

If you feel that way, that’s fine, but it’s not the fault of the airplane, it would be unrealistic expectations of the plane.

The 150 does what is says on the box. It has a small capability at a surprisingly wide range flying abilities, from reliable trainer, economical first airplane, Quasi rugged STOL off airport airplane, modest floatplane, can be equipped with skis, and basic aerobatic, all of which I have flown. And, in mine, I flew my wife, a little baggage and two Brompton Bicycles from Toronto the Bahamas for a week, within the W&B. I do understand that not every pilot would like all of these capabilities in one type of plane, but you can’t be critical of the limitations of a very versatile plane which can do what a lot of people need from it.

And, the 150/152 are one of the types which have not had/do not have any expensive structural AD’s or inspections.

Last Edited by Pilot_DAR at 12 Jan 14:28
Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada

Pilot_DAR wrote:

If you feel that way, that’s fine, but it’s not the fault of the airplane, it would be unrealistic expectations of the plane.

Absolutely. I did not mean to criticize this, it is simply something I noticed not only for myself but for others as well. I do know some folks who had C150ties all their lifes. They are also very nice for people who e.g. do precision flying competitions.

As for the capabilities of the C150 you are preaching to the choir. I think the story of it and the reason why it still retains a comparatively huge value.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Pilot_DAR wrote:

And, the 150/152 are one of the types which have not had/do not have any expensive structural AD’d or inspection.

The wing strut attach point AD does apply though, right? (I understand that the inspection is not overly expensive; it’s when the result is bad that it gets expensive).

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Pilot_DAR wrote:

And, the 150/152 are one of the types which have not had/do not have any expensive structural AD’s or inspections.

It may a be a UK bias but most engineers prefer the build of the PA28 despite the inspections. I know a shop that looks after its 152 fleet well, and they are leased to various schools. They operate a good quality maintenance program, rather than the typical 152 school operator, which like the NY Port Authority operate it on a fix it when it breaks. The amount of preventive maintenance the airframe needs to maintain a good standard is quite impressive. Now a 150/152 in a nice Arizona location might fare better than in the Atlantic Isles.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

Now a 150/152 in a nice Arizona location might fare better than in the Atlantic Isles.

Or one built in Reims with full corrosion protection. IMHO, those are the best Cessnas available anyway.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Or one built in Reims with full corrosion protection

I used to think so too, until I saw a disassembled Reims 172 in Germany a few years ago. Yes, the inside of the fuselage was primed end to end – nice. But it appears that the priming was done after assembly, so the mating areas were bare when the bulkheads were removed – hardly effective for corrosion protection! The Wichita built airplanes which were built as floatplanes were correctly primed before assembly, though it was a purchased option. In hindsight, it would be worth it for longevity, whether you put it on floats or not!

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top