A Funky C150

By 1963, having sold 3000 little square-tailed 150s, Cessna wanted to improve its baby bird.

So, for its 1964 model, out went the beer-can rear fuselage, to be replaced by a slim afterbody with ‘Omni-Vision’ wrap-around rear windows, widened doors and 50 per cent bigger baggage area. Into here you could fit a folding ‘family seat’ (provided its occupants weighed less than 31kg). The ‘Para-Lift’ flaps got an electric motor replacing the manual lever, and standard equipment now included a stall warner and twin landing lights.

In 1965 the 150 got a modern ‘Flight/ Sweep’ fin, new wingtips and a proper pointed spinner, and its ‘Land-O-Matic’ gear got Cleveland wheels and brakes instead of the miserable old Goodyears. As always, there were new colours and interior decor. Amazingly, despite these improvements, and thanks to increased production efficiencies (and Cessna marketers’ cunning, for it was said they sold 150s below cost, to hook long-term customers) the 1966 model’s price dropped by 10 per cent to US$6995. By 1963, having sold 3000 little squaretailed 150s, Cessna wanted to improve their baby bird.

Cessna 150Fs came in three different versions.

The Patroller was a single-seat observation ship, with bigger tanks and transparent doors. The Trainer was. . . well, what do you think? And the top-of-the-line Commuter was the perfect first step to personal aircraft ownership.

Not only did it have a vacuum system with gyro instruments (an innovation!) but also the bench front seat was split into two adjust-able ones. Spats (wheelpants) came standard, as did a heated pitot and rotating beacon.

Joe Platt is cautious. A lifelong professional airman, he wanted the right aeroplane, and eventually found this lovely, low-hours, good condition, 1966 Commuter with a recently overhauled engine which had predominantly lived in Texas (a mostly dry state). As you see, N6483F still sports its original pale blue and red colours, with matching pastel blue upholstery, and while no longer quite immaculate, both interior and exterior are in remarkable condition for its age. Joe paid US$20,500 for her.

The airframe will be familiar to 152 pilots, so they can skip the next bit. For you others, when observed from behind, as two people get into a 150, its fuselage precisely encloses them, with wings sprouting from their shoulders and a tail for the controls.

Put an engine in their laps, and you have the 150, the perfect minimum aeroplane.

The preflight is conventional for a tin trike but, being lower than a 172, a 150 is easier to inspect. The only Cessna-specific item is the stall warner that, unlike other makes, works through a 20 cent-sized hole in the left leading edge. The best way to check this is to lay a hankie over it, then suck to hear the horn.

The 150’s flap tracks can be problem areas, for both they and their rollers wear. Sometimes they jam, and just occasionally the cables break, which might lead to asymmetric flap in flight, so this area deserves attention.

The nosewheel torque links and steering rods can become loose and cause nosewheel shimmy. The steering rods have internal springs which are easily broken if you turn too tightly (and they cost US$200 apiece – ask me how I know this). The upper cowling is simply removed by unscrewing a dozen fasteners, but there is also a nice, big oil filler panel, through which you can not only inspect the accessories and check the dipstick, but actually top-up the sump without a funnel. In here is also a knob for the remote gascolator drain (which spills fuel all over your shoes until you learn to stand out of the way!). Checking the fuel drains is important, because these early 150s have sumps around their filler caps. When it rains, they fill with water that percolates through the cork cap seals into the tank. The G model had this depression removed.

Like all good aeroplanes, the 150 has two doors, and entry is straightforward – hop up using the handy gear-leg step, pop your bum on the seat and swing your legs in. There is plenty of room for a couple, and there was quite enough for Joe and myself, although the cockpit can be tight for two big men (and you’ll need to check the weight-and-balance).

Pull your seat forward and make sure it’s locked (a potential killer).

Looking around, the cockpit is surprisingly bright thanks to that big rear window, although Spunky has a classic looking black panel (that nasty, brittle, easily cracked Royalite plastic trim, so familiar in our tired Cessnas, came the following year). All the usual instruments are present, but not quite laid out in the modern ‘standard six’ format, and the radio stack is in the middle, with engine and system gauges over on the right. Along the top are the cableoperated starter toggle (the later electric relay starter, with its nasty, unreliable, expensive-torepair clutch also came the following year), the rotary mag switch and the original pull-knob master switch. Either side of the throttle at the bottom are the confusingly similar red carb heat and mixture knobs. Put an engine in their laps, and you have the 150, the perfect minimum aeroplane.

Other knobs and switches occupy a vertical row beside the radio stack, including the park brake plunger. Like many Cessna owners, Joe prefers not to use his, relying on the footbrakes, because the mechanical latches sometimes pop off unexpectedly, or refuse todisengage, leading to some undignified scrambling under the panel to free them.

At the bottom on the right is the very ordinary looking flap switch, spring-loaded to both up and down and snapping back to the central off position when you let go (next year this was modified to stay latched in the up position). The flap indicator is well away from it, above the left door, and runs rearwards for full deflection (‘ergonomics’ were only invented in the 1970s).

Starting is nice and easy: Pull out the master knob, squirt the primer, set the throttle and pull the starter (hard, but gently, don’t jerk it). As the reliable little Continental bursts into life, check oil pressure (it might take a few seconds to rise) then remember to switch on the alternator field (easily forgotten in these days of split master switches). Joe’s alternator replaces the original generator, giving more amps at lower revs for less weight (another innovation that came with the G model).

Lift your toes off the brakes and you are away. The 150 is easily manoeuvred on the ground, although wingtip clearance can be tricky to judge, your eyes being so close to the wing’s under-surface – checking your shadow helps. Power and pre-takeoff checks are entirely conventional, as is the takeoff itself, with gentle acceleration. Novices might notice the need for some right rudder; otherwise committing aviation in a 150 is simplicity itself.

Cessna claimed a 224 metre takeoff roll for a new 150F, and 422 metres to clear 50ft trees. Well, perhaps. . . when they were new, off a hard runway, and flown by a test pilot. Mike Arman’s invaluable book: Owning, Buying or Flying the Cessna 150/152 says, “Cessna 150s will not leap tall buildings at a single bound, they need a running start, sometimes quite a long one. ” Just how extended is the takeoff run depends on temperature, altitude and surface, but mostly on weight.

83Foxtrot tips the scales at a normal 498kg. Its 725kg maximum weight allows 227kg for fuel and occupants. Full tanks (98 litres) weighs 72kg, leaving 156kg for people (which, coincidentally, was precisely our combined mass) so there is clearly not much to spare – goodness knows how you could squeeze in the two kids and two suitcases seen in contemporary Cessna adverts! Our takeoffs consistently used 350 metres to unstick on a cool, calm day, and perhaps 600 or 700 metres to clear the trees. . . and Spunky has new cylinders.

Being used to bigger aeroplanes, Joe was concerned about Spunky’s performance, so we compared it to a club 150.

To his delight, Joe’s flew several knots faster at full throttle, and climbed noticeably better. We timed its climb at 550 ft/min from 400 to 1400ft at 63kt, against Cessna’s published 670ft/min at sea level. One reason for the shortfall may be a horsepower robbing enginetiming change implemented by AD some years back, following cylinder cracking problems, although a more likely explanation is Cessna’s over enthusiasm in the bad old days when performance figures were sales driven.

At altitude, the Cessna 150’s nice handling is immediately noticeable, it being much more nimble than a 172, and with lighter controls. Its best roll rate is about 60 degrees per second, with just a little rudder needed to balance turns (particularly a right climbing turn). Stalls are similarly benign. Cessna quoted a clean stall of 39kt, and 34kt with full flap.

We got 38kt and 31kt respectively, and the wings stayed level every time except when I let the slip ball wander off to oneside, when an abrupt 20-degree left wing-drop reminded me to stay in balance.

At 1500ft we buzzed along at just under 90kt with 2450rpm (70 per cent power) – again a bit less than Cessna’s promised 97kt, but pretty good on 21 litres per hour.

This may not be supersonic, but I’ll bet Concordes cost rather more than A$50 per hour for fuel. The 87 litre (useable) tanks gave us a theoretical four-hour endurance, but three hours or 300 still-air miles are safer numbers. Again, Cessna quoted an optimistic 417nm range at 75 per cent power, and 486 nm at 50 per cent (2200rpm).

Cessnas glide pretty well, so the book said we should cover 9. 5 miles in still air from 6000ft, gliding at 56kt, which, if my maths are correct, equates to 684ft/min. Timing the descent from 2500 to 1500ft in one minute 35 seconds gave a 630ft/min sink rate. I wondered if switching off the ignition would increase this, as it often does. Ensuring we were over the airfield, we climbed back up and, not surprisingly, the initial descent was steeper, but when the prop gently windmilled to a stop (thanks to the high compression of those new cylinders) we finally took 1:56 to lose 1000ft in serene silence. That is 517ft/min, which is very good – almost contemporary training glider standard.

Lastly, we wanted to check a simulated fullflap go-around. Cessna 150 flaps are superbly draggy, and great for getting into tight fields, but hearsay suggested 100hp would not overcome the drag of full flaps. But the handbook said at 45kt we could climb with them at 40° up to 2500ft. We proved Cessna right, demonstrating a slight but definite climb. Selecting flaps up, they retracted in 4. 5 seconds, which would be handy if we were faced with the real thing, but there was tremendous sink as they passed 20°.

Now we were ready to come down into the circuit. The only need for caution is that the O-200 can generate plenty of carburettor ice, easily countered by selecting carby heat whenever you are below cruise power.

In 1966 there was no POH, just a slim Owner’s Guide. This says “Normal landings are made power off ”, quoting a full-flap approach speed of 57 to 61kt, with a short-field speed of 54kt. The power-off, full-flap glide is pretty steep, so we cautiously made our first approach at 65kt. A long float convinced us to take turns reducing this. Sure enough, with practice a careful flare after a 50kt approach led to a short hold-off and a nice, nose-high touchdown at minimum speed.

We could even approach at 47 or 48kt if we were accurate with our flare height. Lowering the nose and braking gently (but without retracting the flaps as Cessna suggested) gave a brief roll of 250 metres, and we could have improved that with practice.

We even made a couple of go-arounds.

Cessna said ‘select flap 20 immediately’, but it was quite possible to maintain height with full power and full flap while concentrating on keeping straight. You can see the flap indicator running in the corner of your eye, but it was hard to read the precise setting, so we resorted to milking them up in one-second bursts until well above the ground, when we could retract them fully.

It was a long time since I last flew a 150.

I had forgotten what thoroughly super aeroplanes they are. I greatly enjoyed my reacquaintance, and would like to thank Joe for letting me sample Spunky, his new passion.

CESSNA 150F

Powerplant
One normally aspirated,
four-cylinder horizontallyopposed
Continental
O-200-A, producing
100hp (75kW) at
2750rpm. TBO 1800
hrs. Propeller: 1.75m
diameter, McCauley
two-bladed, all-metal,
fixed-pitch prop.
Performance
(Manufacturer’s quoted)
Vne (SL) 140kt
Max speed (SL) 108kt
75% cruise 106kt
SL takeoff dist 422m
SL landing dist 205m
SL landing run 328m
SL climb rate 670ft/min
Service ceiling 12,650ft
Max range (no reserve)
486nm
Max endurance (no
reserve) 5.7hr
Weights
Equipped empty 498kg
Max takeoff 725kg
Standard fuel 98 lit
Dimensions
Wing span 10.0m
Wing area 14.6m2
Length 7.01m
Height 2.63m
Manufacturer
Cessna Aircraft Company,
Wichita, Kansas, USA, in
1966
Website
www.cessna150-52club.com