From the Cockpit — Cessna 150 and 152

New Engine, New Name

With the lessening availability of 80/87 octane fuel around the world, Cessna, like most other light aircraft manufacturers, in the mid 1970s looked to upgrading its products to use the more readily obtainable 100 octane low lead Avgas. Thus revised, the Cessna 150 emerged as the 152 in 1977, with a 110hp (82kW) Lycoming O-235-L (later 108hp [81kW] O-235-N) engine, more efficient ‘gullwing’ propeller, redesigned fuel system, 28 volt (instead of 12 volt) electrical system, a redesigned engine cowling, flap movement limited to 30 (rather than 40) degrees and an increase in maximum takeoff weight to 757kg (1670lb). An Aerobat version (Model A152) was also introduced and the type was built in France by Reims Aviation as the Models F152 and FA152. As a result of the worsening sales situation affecting all manufacturers in the 1980s, production of the 152 was suspended late in 1985 after 7449 had been built, including 589 in France. This brought total Cessna 150/152 production to 31,289 over a 27 year period. Annual deliveries for the 150 and 152 (including by Reims Aviation) were: 1958 — 122; 1959 — 648; 1960 — 354; 1961 — 344; 1962 — 331; 1963 – 472; 1964 ~ 804; 1965 — 1637; 1966 – 3187, 1967 — 2264; 1968 — 2159; 1969 — 1850; 1970 — 1001; 1972 — 1270; 1973 — 1674; 1974 — 1222; 1975 — 1401; 1976 — 1528; 1977 — 2078 (including 1541 Model 152s); 1978 — 2032; 1979 — 1410; 1980 — 1029; 1981 — 718; 1982 — 317; 1983 — 255; 1984 — 108; 1985 — 116.

Flying And Buying

The first thing that strikes you upon entering a 150 or 152 is the tight confines of its cabin, something which means that it helps if you’re on friendly terms with the person sitting next to you as anyone of only slightly larger than average stature (whatever that is) will be literally rubbing shoulders with his or her companion. Even 150s from the ‘G’ onwards with the widened cabin are a couple of centimetres narrower than a Piper Cherokee. This writer, who is quite tall, simply cannot fly a 150 properly as knees foul the control column, elbows are jammed against the sidewalls, and so on! All that put aside, the 150’s handling has been described as flying like a miniature Skyhawk, which means it’s stable, predictable and safe at low speeds. Like the Skyhawk, it requires a high degree of hamfistedness to get into serious trouble. The flaps are very effective and provoke hefty pitch up when deployed and the low wing loading means the aircraft jumps about quite substantially in all but the lightest air disturbance. The 150 and 152 were intended as trainers, the aircraft’s almost boring handling characteristics bringing up the old debate about what makes a good trainer. Should a trainer have completely benign handling so the student’s risks are minimised, or should it be easy to fly adequately and a bit more difficult to fly well? The 150 and 152 are firmly in the first category, so decide for yourself. With only 100, 108 or 110hp (75, 81 or 82kW), the 150 and 152 are certainly not rocket ships, especially on a hot day, so their usefulness for serious cross country touring is compromised. Flight plan for no more than 100kt (185km/h) for most circumstances and down to as little as 85kt (157km/h) if you’re after economy and have plenty of time on your hands. The lack of power severely limits the Aerobat’s capabilities — “it grudgingly complies” with commands to loop, according to one writer and the rate of roll is modest. A Pitts it ain’t, although the scarce 130hp (97kW) Reims FRA150 model is somewhat more lively. A problem with the 152 created by its switch to 100LL fuel deserves mention. Cessna was much less successful in making this change than other manufacturers and the problems encountered by the 172 in this regard were discussed in the August 1996 From the Cockpit. While the 152’s troubles weren’t quite so bad, they were sufficient with the original high compression O-235-L2C to cause constant problems with lead fouling of the spark plugs. The slightly less powerful O-235-N2C with lower compression was substituted in 1983 to help deal with that, although by then production was in decline with the result that the vast majority of 152s were built with the earlier engine.

How Much?

The following prices reflect a selection of 150s and 152s offered for sale in Australia during the preparation of this article. The fact that the aircraft was built primarily as a trainer means that many will have accumulated many hours of ‘circuit bashing’ by well meaning but generally inept students in the first few hours of their flying careers. There won’t be too many around which haven’t been subject to this, although it doesn’t necessarily mean a bad aeroplane, just one which requires a very close look at its history. Because of this, prices can be quite modest and the aeroplane certainly can offer good value for money if you just want a runabout for local flights. If you’ve got touring in mind, I’d have thought that spending the extra on a faster and more comfortable four seater would be the way to go. The performance tables accompanying this article show some very long range figures for aircraft with optional fuel tanks. That’s all very well, but filling them will mean much reduced payload and who but a raving masochist would want to spend eight or so hours in a 150 anyway? The following prices are in Australian dollars (rounded to the nearest $1000), higher prices generally reflect lower hours and/or plenty of engine and propeller time remaining before overhaul, and a single price means that only one aircraft was noted for sale. The low price of $25,000 noted for the 152 refers to an aircraft with virtually no engine and propeller hours remaining and is not typical. 150F — $34,000; 150G — $21-32,000; 150H — $19-27,000; 150L — $27-29,000; A150L — $32,000; FRA150L — $70,000; 150M — $29-38,000; A150M — $39,000; 152 — $25-55,000. Next month: Beech Bonanza 33 and 36.