There's been some rather heated type comparisons on this site, but I have to admire the gumption of sticking up for the lowly cessna trainer. It's hard to imagine that any of us haven't flown one at some time or another.

I have a lot of affection for the old 150/152. I trained in the sparrowhawk with a 125hp engine, and it did just fine. I don't like the electric flaps or the ridiculous appendage hanging off the bottom of the cowling, but if kept light they're a very capable little plane.

Now I don't believe some of the numbers I've seen attributed to them, but in the right hands and with the right planning, I bet you could take one into almost every airstrip in Idaho. It would be sort of fun to strip one down to the bare equipment minimums and put puffy tires on it (you could use the AK Bushwheels tailwheel up front), then see where it would take you. With the 125hp engine I bet some people would be surprised.

I recall hearing that there has never been an inflight airframe failure of a 150/152, though I can't say for sure that is true. All in all, for a one-person airplane I think you could do a lot worse.

Wouldn't the 120 / 140 with an 0-235 be as good? You wouldn't have that nasty appendage either.

I've been flying my Cessna 150C for about 6 years now. Mines pretty light at under 1,000lbs dry empty weight. It's a C model, the last model to have the straight tail and no rear window.

Light it'll take off and climb pretty well, getting up near gross (only 1500lbs for this model) is a different matter. Solo with half tanks, I can consistenly be off the ground in under 450ft from a grass strip. But thats running in ground effect for a bit before climbing. Typically I use a bit more runway so I can climb immediately. But with 6.00x6 main tires, if the grass gets long, or things are a bit soft or rough the take-off length goes up fast.

I'm assuming my VSI isn't accurate, since it regularly pegs at 2,000fpm sustained. I've going to check the climb with a stop watch next time I fly.

The cockpit is a bit cramped for guys my size (6' and 215lbs), but at least solo it's not bad. And there's plenty of headroom, even with a helmet. Though my right knee tends to ach a bit after long flights.

Flying: In the air is where I most love my little Buck fifty. The controls are light and responsive. It's just a joy to fling around in the mountains spotting for wildlife, or just cruising down a river at 500ft. Stalls are moderate, theres a definite break, but it's not severe. The flaps are huge and work awsome! 10 degrees makes a noticiable difference in take-off runs. And 40 brings you down like a parachute, add a rudder to the floor slip on top of that and I come down like an elevator! (yes, that's an approved manuver in my 150). And of course, since it's light and low powered it'll land much shorter than it can take off. It does seem to be a bit cleaner than other aircraft I've flow, I have to really be precise on my approch speed or I'll float or flop, even with full flaps. Not really a big deal though since it needs so much more runway for take-off anyway. Cruise is decent, I get an honest 100mph for 5.2 gph at 5,000ft, range is decent also.

I was worried that the 150 would lose value, or lose support once the new LSP's got into production too. But since the larger Cessna's don't seem to have suffered that when the new ones started coming out, I'm not sure now.

As far as Bush mods go, Airglas makes a large nose fork that is STC'ed for most trigear cessna's, including the 150 and 152, that allows up to 8.50's on all three wheels. There's a couple STC's for larger engines, but they limit the useful load to the point that it becomes a solo plane. VG's are reported to impove low speed handling, but no real reduction in stall speeds from what I've seen. I decided some time back that if I need a more bush capable plane, I'll sell the 150 and buy one. Looks like I'd be money ahead that way. And it's such a nice flying little plane now I'd hate to lose that by trying to turn it into something it's not. That said, most of the places I fly have gravel runways, they're just nice, smooth, long gravel runways.

All in all, I'd say my 150 is an all round good plane. Doesn't do anything spectacular, but it's fun to fly. And heck, isn't that why we fly?

Phil

Good memories. I'd love to fly it again. But, I do enjoy the taildragging now.

There is something to be said for a plane that you can afford to fly as opposed to one you can just afford to make payments on.

I have a few hours in 150/152. In 1991 went up to Paine to pick up a 152 for the flight school at RBG. Had a Horton STOL kit on it, and with that it would get off the ground quickly and fly real slow. I'm not a big fan of electric flaps. I would always choose to fly the early model 150 at the school that still had the manual flaps.

I really like the models with the straight tail, and think they would be the cats a**

Still there are a few 120/140s out there..reasonable. One of those with the O-200? Could be a good deal.

See ya, Bub

Skylane wrote:Still there are a few 120/140s out there..reasonable. One of those with the O-200? Could be a good deal.
See ya, Bub

I'm asking because I'm searching for a 120 / 140. An O-200 is a modern C-90 isn't it? There isn't any performance gain is there? I was under the impression that the first jump in performance was the O-235? That's the 152 engine, I think.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:I've don't know the validity of it, but I've heard that the straight tail 150s work good converted to taildraggers, but that the newer tapered tail doesn't have much authority when the tail is down and develops a scary lack of authority during transition from tail down to tail flying. Is there still an STC available for the TD conversion?

Yes, the tail wheel conversion STC's are still available. And I'd heard the same thing about the swept tail conversions from a 170 owner who ferried one to Alaska.

The converion on an old straight back one like mine consists of riveting in a 120/140 gear box and legs. But it doesn't save any weight since you have to leave the original gear box in, apparently it's part of the structure. Plus, last I looked it's about an $8,000+ conversion. So why bother?

Phil

a64pilot, the first Cessna 140's had the C-85 (85 HP) motors. I've never flown a 140 with a C-90, but I've heard a lot of people talk fondly about that motor and some say is as good or better than a O-200 at 100 hp. The reason is it puts out 90 hp somewhere around a low 2450 rpm?? while the O-200 is a 2750 rpm motor. So to answer your question a C-90 or a O-200 is an improvement over the 85 HP original.

I have flown a Cessna 140 with a O-235 Lycoming and I really liked the power, but IMHO is a little nose heavy. This is probably because I was already use to a very lite 140.

I keep telling myself I need to sell something off, but I just can't bring myself around to parting with the C-140. It's a hoot to fly and I never get bored with taking it up.

Roger

Wouldn't the 120 / 140 with an 0-235 be as good? You wouldn't have that nasty appendage either.

To my way of thinking a 120/140 is a hell of a lot better in every regard ...I'm just giving a little root for the underdog of underdogs and the pilots brave enough to fly them.

I have mentioned this before, but I have the C-85 in my Luscombe and I love it. It does have the O-200 crank and pistons which is supposed to make it a 106hp...according to the guy who developed the STC. If I were rebuilding a C-85 I would go the STC route again for sure. I would imagine a 140 would benefit from the STC.

Bye the way, the Luscombe 8E had a advertising slogan "The 140 Eater"

And to add to the real topic of discussion, I have 3 hours exactly in a 152 and it was a real learning experience. It was an odd feeling during roll out when the nose dropped instead of the tail...on the first landing I though we were in for a ride. I sure was a fun experience.

Jon

Bye the way, the Luscombe 8E had a advertising slogan "The 140 Eater"

I know a man who does tail wheel instruction at moderate to high density altitudes, and he sold his 85hp 140 to buy an 85hp Luscombe (maybe a taylorcraft...not sure...it has sticks and the neatest door handles I've ever seen). His take on it was that the 140 was faster, but the Luscombe (taylorcraft?) climbs a lot better.

I obviously don't know ship about either of them, but that's his take.

ravi,

What prop do you run? I think you mentioned you had an engine upgrade but i'd still like to know.

I run a 1A90 7151 but I'd like a 1B90 7148, i"m just a little worried I might over rev the engine. Is there a difference between the 1A90 and the 1b90? I've heard the square tips are better.

The 140 eater comment was just to stir the pot. I'd fly with a 140 any day!! I'd fly with anybody...I've never flown with another plane before...heck I've never even flown with another pilot except my Dad or Grandpa, instructor not included.

Jon

ravi wrote:Now I don't believe some of the numbers I've seen attributed to them, ...

My POH says mine will do 120. I think my POH is broken. I'm lucky, so far, if I can get 90 out of my 150G. More flight testing at various altitudes needed.

It's a nice honest plane, especially for a light and small pilot like myself. I haven't done much in the way of backcountry yet. A bit anemic at altitude, particularly if hot, even with one person and half tanks as I discovered at Crescent lake recently.

Affordable. Parts are readily available and most mechanics know how to work on one. Insurance is cheap, particularly compared to the stunted wheel craft most folks here find so enjoyable to fly. I will have to try flying one sometime.

Good for one person and gear, or two on a day trip for many places. I think the max demonstrated crosswind is 13 knots.

As far as In Flight Breakup, according to Bill Clark's "Used Airplane Guide", the accident rate was listed as 0.02, the lowest of all his listed aircraft. I'm assuming, at least, one broke up. This is based on an NTSB study completed in the late 70's.

If I thought I'd continue with a "one person and gear load" flying contraption, I'd look seriously at the Tcraft for backcountry ops.

Craig
BCP Poser

I have several hundred hours in 150's. A great plane. Faster than any car or even a speeding locomotive. Plenty of lift, it has the same sized wing as a 170-2 and 180-2&5. Power... 100 HP!!! Plenty for what it was designed to do. It will handle a good load, it will carry two adults and 120 pounds of baggage or one small adult or or two kids in the back. Many trips with my wife and two girls, later used to take three daughters, all very legal and with the FBO's chief pilot's approval. Truth is that it would do 99% of the missions I fly... and probably most of us!

All the Taylorcraft's I've been around will out perform any Cessna 120/140 when equal engines installed. A 85 hp to 100 hp Taylorcraft is a screamer. I had a friend that had a C-85 equipped Taylorcraft and he flew it daily out of a 900 ft strip in the local mountains at around 4,000 msl during the heat of the summer.

I don't know much about Luscombe's, but I imagine one with a C-85 would also make that particular plane also quite capable.

Roger

This is Emma:



Emma taught me how to fly floats. Emma will likely be here this weekend.

Hi 6EA,

That picture wouldn't have been taken outside of Angels Camp, off Highway 4 by any chance?

CAVU

All the Taylorcraft's I've been around will out perform any Cessna 120/140 when equal engines installed. A 85 hp to 100 hp Taylorcraft is a screamer. I had a friend that had a C-85 equipped Taylorcraft and he flew it daily out of a 900 ft strip in the local mountains at around 4,000 msl during the heat of the summer.

I don't know much about Luscombe's, but I imagine one with a C-85 would also make that particular plane also quite capable.

I met a guy named Jason at the first SC. Johnson Creek flyin that was flying a Taylorcraft, I think it had a C85 in it and I was really impressed with how fast it got off the ground there. Of course there were plenty of SuperCubs there that would get off the ground quicker, but that's a given. The T-cart was just light weight and a lot of wing though, it hopped right off the ground and was cruising right along at about 100mph on the way back to Washington. For a plane that usually costs less than $20K and cruises that fast on 5gph I thought it was pretty cool.

ravi,

What prop do you run? I think you mentioned you had an engine upgrade but i'd still like to know.

I run a 1A90 7151 but I'd like a 1B90 7148, i"m just a little worried I might over rev the engine. Is there a difference between the 1A90 and the 1b90? I've heard the square tips are better.

The 140 eater comment was just to stir the pot. I'd fly with a 140 any day!! I'd fly with anybody...I've never flown with another plane before...heck I've never even flown with another pilot except my Dad or Grandpa, instructor not included.

Jon

I know a man who does tail wheel instruction at moderate to high density altitudes, and he sold his 85hp 140 to buy an 85hp Luscombe (maybe a taylorcraft...not sure...it has sticks and the neatest door handles I've ever seen). His take on it was that the 140 was faster, but the Luscombe (taylorcraft?) climbs a lot better.

I obviously don't know ship about either of them, but that's his take.

To my way of thinking a 120/140 is a hell of a lot better in every regard ...I'm just giving a little root for the underdog of underdogs and the pilots brave enough to fly them.

a64pilot, the first Cessna 140's had the C-85 (85 HP) motors. I've never flown a 140 with a C-90, but I've heard a lot of people talk fondly about that motor and some say is as good or better than a O-200 at 100 hp. The reason is it puts out 90 hp somewhere around a low 2450 rpm?? while the O-200 is a 2750 rpm motor. So to answer your question a C-90 or a O-200 is an improvement over the 85 HP original.

I have flown a Cessna 140 with a O-235 Lycoming and I really liked the power, but IMHO is a little nose heavy. This is probably because I was already use to a very lite 140.

I keep telling myself I need to sell something off, but I just can't bring myself around to parting with the C-140. It's a hoot to fly and I never get bored with taking it up.

Roger

I'm asking because I'm searching for a 120 / 140. An O-200 is a modern C-90 isn't it? There isn't any performance gain is there? I was under the impression that the first jump in performance was the O-235? That's the 152 engine, I think.[/quote]

Ever notice that we can't stay on subject?

Ever notice that ravi can't use the quote function?