Since there have been some general subjects raised, I thought I might add my 2 cents worth (if its worth that much).
I learned to fly in a high time but well maintained later 150 and a refurbished 152 aerobat. Generally, I liked the atmosphere of the 150 better because, though it was a very plain and basic plane, it was nice. The 152, though it had a nice paint job and better radios, it was kind of scruffy. The main color scheme was red, but the seats were blue, as an example. It also did not have a panel mounted intercom. A niggle, but one that niggled at me.
In the type of flying I do, I have come to love the simpler, more plain, "feel" of the 150. I miss the climb rate of the 152 (Sensenich prop), but I love the plain panel and simplicity of my '69 150.
One strange phenomenon ... up to the day we purchased Juliet I struggled with landings. Greasers were rare for me, and though my landings were "safe and accurate" (as stated by my instructor) they were rarely pretty. That difficulty disappeared with Juliet. I don't know why, but so far, EVERY landing in Juliet has been a greaser.
I think I would love to have a 152, equipped with the Sensenich, but the simple panel of my 150. It is a plain black panel, without the hideous "wood grain" lower section. Avionics include a Val 760 radio, a basic transponder and an intercom. Oh, yeah, and it has a Narco VOR, which works fine (many don't) but I rarely use it. The Val may someday get changed for a true flip-flop.
I could easily live with an even simpler panel. I rarely use the AI or the DI. My main tools are the ASI, Altimeter and VSI. Most of my navigation is by looking at the sectional and looking at the ground. Here in Puget Sound country terrain features are so distinctive, its pretty easy to figure out where you are, where you want to go, and how to get there. Maybe someday I will do some cross-country flying outside the Puget Sound area, but there is still so much to see here.
I dunno, maybe the next airplane will be a cub ...
Reg
