Jaerl wrote:Thanks, don't worry about me avoiding the women folk. Now that I owe 4.5 million they avoid me!

I just want you all to know that it's not the womens theirselfs that I have the problem with. It's just their predilection for wasting all that money on rent and groceries that I find so discouraging.

EZFlap wrote: ......Taking out the right side yoke and pedals will save you another five pounds.

4.5 pounds at 14" arm, to be exact-- I did it to mine. Besides the weight benefit, it eliminates the ever-present C150 problem of right-seaters tangling up their knees in the yoke & their toes in the rudder pedals.

EZFlap wrote: Stock engine 150 in SLC set up for back country flying? Might as well take out the right seat and put it up on eBay right now.....

Might as well just smash it up now & save yourself some time. Don't mean to be harsh, but my first airplane was a stock J model with a 48" pitch prop & it was pretty gutless. A fun-to-fly airplane & good time builder, it taught me a lot, but I figured I was doing well even solo to get off much before the thousand foot marker on my paved sea-level runway. If that level of performance fits your type of back country, have at it-- just be careful.

Littlecub wrote:Not that the idea to remove the passenger door and rudder pedals isn't valid, Flap, but most of us should look in a full length mirror to see most of the superfluous weight that our small aircraft carry. (This is NOT aimed at Jerry. This is aimed at the majority of US BCPers)

You guys missed my point... probably because I was being a bit less sarcastic and obnoxious than usual. I was saying to take out the right seat and cover over the door opening because that way you won't even try to put a passenger in it... even my single digit IQ tells me a 100HP 150 being flown in and out of demanding strips at those DA's and terrain is more than likely a single place airplane. Certainly if my corpulent ass was in the left seat.

I wonder just how light you can get a stocker 150 if you strip it bare bones. Eleven hundred... a grand? I know that stripping it is how they got the performance numbers for the brochure in the first place (I have a fond memory of the 1976 150 Commuter II sales brochure at my first flight school... 124 miles an hour cruise speed and 128 or 130 maximum speed. The instructors would laugh their asses off when I asked why the school airplanes only went 98 miles an hour).

I think you might be able to "tune up" and smooth out and lighten up and "massage" a 150 into a better performer without bending the rules TOO bad. The French built airplanes had the O-240 engine of 130HP... probably should be on the same type certificate, eh? Jerry you might want to look for a runout O-240 someplace... it would be a fairly easy one-shot field approval if it's already approved in the frog version. A tailwheel conversion (no I won't have one to sell) would get rid of 25 to 40 pounds and get the prop further off the ground. The VG's and droop tips would really help. Maybe "repairing" the exhaust system with enthusiastic malice would help. Plenty of interesting ideas to discuss, all perfectly sparkling white legal of course, if anyone's interested.

I do understand I'm not flying a Supercub but Hotrod, that sounds just wrong. The 150 I just sold was a J model pitched at 48 and over TBO. I would go over to U77 and practice short takeoffs and landings. I weigh 250 lbs and the airport is 4500'. With half fuel I could take off and land on a cool summer evening before end of the first turnoff. That's 615' and the takeoffs were from a dead stop. My plane would always beat the POH figures except in cruise where it was a real Turtle. Google U77 and you'll see what I am talking about.

When I was selling it one guy asked if it would go higher that 8000 ft. He told me the one he just looked at wouldn't get him and the owner over 7200' when they went for a test ride. The guy I just sold my 175 to told me his friend was selling an old fastback 150 and it wouldn't go over 7500'. Might be the same plane but that's really strange too. Maybe I just had a really good one but I had been over 10,000 in mine but never really tried to see how high it would go. Yea, it takes a while to get there but at 5 gph what can you expect. Must be the MMO and auto fuel?

Bill, Ill check out a O-240, sounds like a good idea especially if you don't need to be restricted by the experimental restrictions. Do you know if they use the same motor mount?

First plane on the right is a straight tail C150, right?

At Johnson Creek, Idaho. And if I remember right, the guy flew in from Columbia, CA.

Jaerl wrote:I do understand I'm not flying a Supercub but Hotrod, that sounds just wrong. The 150 I just sold was a J model pitched at 48 and over TBO. I would go over to U77 and practice short takeoffs and landings. I weigh 250 lbs and the airport is 4500'. With half fuel I could take off and land on a cool summer evening before end of the first turnoff. That's 615' and the takeoffs were from a dead stop. .......

My stock 150 was a long time ago, maybe I'm remembering wrong.The performance you cite would be phenominal IMHO with a stock C150, esp with a 48 pitch prop. Maybe it was tweaked flatter?
The main thing is that you'll be flying. No offense to anyone, but IMHO a C150 is a world of improvement over the Ercoupe I think you mentioned before.
I think the D & E models are good ones- you've got the 1600# gross but still have the advantage of manual flaps & the square tail. Have fun wityh that one.

That picture looks almost exactly like the one I am buying except a lot nicer. Mine also has little numbers in case my friend does something stupid in it. Hotrod, I totally agree on the Ercoupe, They are cool little planes but a 150 is a lot more useable. This one I'm getting has a prop pitched at 50 and just rebuilt. I'll try that for a while and see what it does. The Type certificate shows the static runup limits but I haven't seen a prop less than 48. My last one would run right to the maximum RPM on the static and maybe a hundred more on a good day.

My old 150 was 1109 lbs empty and it had carpet and everything in it. Even pulling panels and carpet I doubt you could loose 25lbs off the plane. The one I'm getting is pretty basic and without even a transponder. Has more aluminum showing and less plastic trim. Hopefully it's a little lighter. When I first looked for a plane I had to have a transponder. Now I really couldn't care less for this plane. I went into Class B once in my old 150 and it was funny having people flag you in and chock your wheels.

Jaerl wrote:I know everyone likes the old straight tail Cessnas for crosswinds and I've heard the straight tails have more rudder authority. I was just looking on the Data sheet for Cessna 150's and the straight tails only deflect 16 degrees where the slant tails go 23 degrees. Is a straight tail really better?

Absolutely Straight tail for me> I have both 56 & 67 182 and 210 ! -Straight have better CONTROL -- Take a carpenters square and hold it up to "relative wind" coming thru",Now tilt the whole thing forward at 37 degrees and nose would have to be at that angle to have rudder hinge line perpendicular to relative wind . Cessna started putting on "slant tail" in early 60's in response to the fins on cars. Straight tail has some tilt like 3-5 degrees --Wing on standard Cessna product (150-210 ) stalls at about 13-15 degrees nose up. "SLANT TAIL Cessna's" have a bigger angle disadvantage of less rudder CONTROL at lower air speeds > Rudder on "slant tail " wallows at low speed partially because of wing/flaps ahead in airflow and then the axis at the rudder line.See U-tube 182 STOL for example .

What about a O-235 or O-290? Do they use the same case? I was just thinking the 235's came in the 152's so they might be a easy conversion, especially if a 152 motor mount would bolt right on to the 150's. I looked for an O-240 but they are pretty scarce and everything I saw was in Europe. A "tweeked" O-235 might be a real easy conversion.