Anyone ever flown or own a "sparrow hawk" 152? From what I have read around the internet and regarding the STC, they seem to be making power the 0-235 engine is designed for at 125hp as opposed to the lower stock specs at 100hp. Figure some STOL mods plus a climb prop and it looks like a middle of the road, affordable to operate off field aircraft.

I have an opportunity to purchase one with the conversion but I am not sold on the (assumed by me, )inflated asking price solely on the conversion. It is a very nice stock example, new paint, interior, glass, plus the conversion. Looked it up and the conversion costs much less than I had expected.

For anyone who has flown one, does 25 hp make a huge difference? I would assume it would be at least noticeable. Would this disqualify the plane from a mogas STC?

It's only 10hp increase. Noticeably better performance than stock 115hp O-235 but they don't seem to survive a training environment as well. The -L2C is pretty well bulletproof and deserves it's 2400 hour TBO, but from my experience with a number of these, the Sparrowhawk conversion really stretches the reliability of the case and top end for high utilisation and especially training. For someone with a modicum of engine handling ability, it should be just fine

The new prop probably makes more difference than the additional 10 hp. The standard McCauley is just awful. I'm sure some will disagree but I find a 150 much nicer to fly and generally better performer than a 152. 152 is still a nice handling machine though.. But I digress... If you like it buy it!

I have flown my friends Sparrowhawk 152. Nice plane but I wouldn't want one. Can't run mogas and his requires finewire plugs to avoid fouling. Finicky engine.

I believe the "sparrowhawk conversion" for the C152 basically consists of high-compression pistons for the O-235-L2C (?) and a different (sensenich?) prop. I have about 50 hours in a C152 and a few hundred in a stock C150J, and except for the lesser power I preferred the 150. I don't care for the 30 degrees of flaps on the 152 vs the 150's 40, nor for the C152's tubular gear instead of the earlier (pre-1971) leaf-spring gear. You will also be limited to 100LL with the higher-compression pistons (no mogas).
Instead of a sparrowhawk, I would shop around for a c150 with a 150-horse Lycoming engine. They're available in the mid-twenties, and are good performers that can be run on mogas. Warning- check the empty vs gross weight before buying-- the pre-1964 150's have a lower gross weight that (unlike the D & later models) does not get increased as part of the engine upgrade. Also check the CG- the bigger engine is heavier and depending on what was done to address that, sometimes the CG is out of whack.

I also prefer a 150 to the 152. I had a '69 150 that I did my trainig in. With the 40 degrees of flap, VGs, and a time out engine (flew on conditions), I could do everything that the flight schools 152s could do, except was a bit slower. I could land slower/shorter, and climb with them. The seats seem to be a bit higher offering better visibility, and there seemed to be more room in the leg amd yoke department. Even the instructors prefered to fly in the 150.
I second hotrods suggestion on finding a 150/150. Great engine, good performance, mogas.

Thank you all for your thoughts on this. I have essentially ruled out this specific bird solely due to the fact the guy won't budge on his price! After running the numbers it looks like I could get a different plane and do the conversion myself for around the same price if not a little cheaper. A 150/150 is definitely a viable option if I could ever find one for sale! They don't last very long on the market if they even make it there from what I have seen.

It seems that most people I have talked with prefer the 150's vs 152, which works great for me because they are slightly cheaper to buy . Regarding props, I believe a climb prop would almost be required with a somewhat anemic aircraft like the 150 for any sort of mountain or BC flying. I am also taking into account that we are surrounded by 6-8k peaks and have relatively hot and dry summers (obviously when most of the flying gets done around here). Most of our off airport strips are over 3000 feet so not much shortfield work to worry about right now. How much of a hit do you think one would take in cruise speed with a climb prop? How much of an improvement could be expected in the climb rate? This is assuming a stock 150.

Also from what I have read, VG's seem to make a huge improvement in quite a few areas. My buddy years ago said it was the best bang for the buck he ever did to his old 150. Any thoughts on this as well?

I have flown a Cessna 150's out of short strips in Western Montana and Idaho for a long time. It is a great performer when flown light,(by yourself) early in the morning when it's cooler, and with half tanks. If you deviate from these rules, everything changes very quickly. It does well on the standard pitch propeller. It can be operated in the Montana/ Idaho backcountry safely, if always following the above rules.

I had a Cessna 150G when younger. I flew it everywhere I wanted to go, with no Stol kit, stock propeller. I now do the same type flying in a friends Cessna 150D. It does have a Stol kit and the manual flaps. It is awesome! I enjoy the extra safety margin as I'm older now with a Stol kit:) A poor man's bushplane! It makes me feel rich, no pun intended. You have to learn to manage the power you have available and you can do so safely. If it's all that's available on your budget, it's fine.

The best thing you could do for a Cessna 150 is take it to Willie Stene in Polson, Montana and have him put a Sportsman Stol kit on it. This goes for the 172's, 182's etc. The Cessna 150 is a great fun responsive airplane that will teach you a lot, until you can upgrade to something better. 1200' grass strips are no problem, but you always, always, always be aware of density altitude, and fly light. Fly light, fly tight.

The home strip in Pinesdale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLOEDRtP6jM
The Selway in a Cessna 150: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF36wlKKJGo

Makes me want to go fly.

Richard

Richpenny is correct about watching density altitude and flying light. I have operated all day long on pipelines at high density altitude in the stock C-172. This requires knowledge of how to make use of natural energy: ground effect, gravity, thermals, oregraphic (ridge) lift, and even mountain wave like the glider guys. Send me your email address and I will send you 92 pages of notes on this kind of stuff. To fly safely in the mountains, except early in the day in the valleys, you need to know some of this kind of stuff.

Jim Dulin
[email protected]

Jim

Regarding the 92 pages of notes. Is that in your book or is that in addition to the book?
Always trying to learn faster than I forget. It's a battle

Thanks

Dave

Thanks to everyone! The search continues... Will keep you all posted.

I think the biggest benefit to the Sparrowhawk conversion is that at the density altitudes we have here (Fort Collins, Greeley, etc., 6000' to 7000' in the summer), it's a lot like flying a 150/152 at closer to sea level. I learned in 150s in Anchorage (150' to 200' MSL), and the first time I flew the Sparrowhawk out of Fort Collins, its performance was a lot like I remembered the 150s had in Anchorage. It was a pleasant airplane to fly, with reasonable performance. Last I heard, it was down in South America somewhere.

Cary