The C152 is easy to fly but you would never use it to go somewhere
Never? The C150 I flew years ago has probably flown in every US state by now, and was used by one long term owner primarily to tour around the western US. It’s also been based in the northeast, the south west and Florida, and was one time flown from New York to California in 3-1/2 days. It’s got enough baggage area and given a slim companion and patience will carry two people around while they watch the world go by and meet people along the way. This a different but entirely pleasant way to go somewhere.
A colleague flew his C-150 from Yorkshire to St Petersburg and back.
Of course. In my early flying days, I knew a guy who flew a UL from Shoreham EGKA to Kathmandu VNKT. He “lived” in “my” hangar. He even wrote it up, IIRC.
JoeMama_the_Pilot wrote:
In a world where costs increase on a yearly basis, you’d think GA would be more oriented towards operational efficiency but everywhere i go its full of C152s.
Well, it’s pretty easy, zillions of C150s and the latter 152s were produced, in different countries. A kind of Volkswagen Beetle. And since so many were produced, many do and will continue to survive…
The pros and cons of the type have already been mentioned in previous posts, so here’s my personal experience on type: made my first bounces on the Piper J3C and L-4, and on these everything has to be spot on for a non-kangaroo return to Terra Firma. I reckon those make far better stick and rudder pilots than the C150/2 which are really forgiving aircraft, and on which I took my PPL checkride (HB-CCL was my victim 04/09/1980…).
I hadn’t flown a C152 since then, but a couple of years ago I was “forced” into renting one. Well, age sure helps in forgetting bad experiences… long had I forgotten the lack of performance, the mushy flight controls, the narrow confines of the cockpit, the flimsy yoke, the pure plastic paneling, and above all the appalling visibility. OTOH, same as on other Cessnas, the flaps do shine in their operation and effectiveness.
As far as travelling with a C150/2, as nicely pointed out by @Mooney_Driver, one can go great distance with one, as was also demonstrated by Hans Schneider who kinda went around the world with one and published his story in a book (published in 1996 German only) called Der Weg ist das Ziel : mit der Cessna durch Amerika – Asien – Australien.
Overall there are many other 2 seaters that can be bought for 60k or less that are newer, have modern avionics, have better performance and are easy to maintain.
Care to link to a few examples for sale?
I’m puzzled by the negative description of visibility in a C152…. They called it Omni Vision for a reason 
and while my current plane has a bubble canopy the visibility out of all but the earliest fast back C150s is fine by comparison, much better than many other planes like e.g. a Mooney. Many people like the shade of the high wing and are freaked out by having nothing above them. Like many things with Cessna they just got it right for the market, not too much, not too little.
Also as time goes on I’m finding I prefer flying lower and slower, and that many planes with higher performance (and what you can do with them) are just boring. Even in a 152 you still get there faster than a car, the tactile experience is better and the freedom of a simultaneously robust and low cost aircraft is appreciated. The exception to this would be the benefit of climb rate, you can’t have enough and the little Cessnas don’t have so much.
@Silvaire in most high wing Cessnas (the Mixmaster benefits from the forward cabin being well ahead of the wing leading edge), there is a need to raise the wing to check for traffic, before banking to turn. Most hardbitten club FI’s have this down to a well ingrained muscle reflex.
I’ve flown in more high wing types and low wing types than I could count since the 70s. Visibility in all of them is compromised by something or other and the wing position is not something I feel a great deal of excitement about. The Cardinal is maybe the best of the Cessnas in this regard.
What I like in a plane is quality/durability, being fun to fly and also cheap to buy… because I like sole ownership but at this stage prefer to spend most of my money to make more money. The C152 hits about 50% of that spectrum, and that’s pretty good.
This French BEA report is relatively inconclusive on high wing mid air collisions.
Peter wrote:
The C152 is easy to fly but you would never use it to go somewhere
Oh, I wouldn’t say that!
That’s my 150 on the apron in Freeport, Bahamas, only 1400 nm from home. I took my wife, and two Brompton folding bikes, on which we rode around the island for three days. Not my farthest trip in my 150, but one of the more fun ones!
