| | Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,657 Member/2500+posts | | Member/2500+posts Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,657 | Bingo! That's a plan, and I can tell you from experience, it works. Good luck with your search, and if you have any technical questions, I am sure that the folks here will give you more information than you can imagine. 
Pat
Never run out of altitude, airspeed, and ideas at the same time.
| | | | | Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 263 Likes: 1 Member/250+posts | | Member/250+posts Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 263 Likes: 1 | Another great response from the club.
I was in the same spot you were in Billy...everyone was telling me to buy anything other than a 150.
Their response wasn't based upon the "mission" of the aircraft, but on the economics of a 150 - a engine timed out 150 isn't worth very much...a timed out 172 is.
That made a lot of sense to me...but in the end, the initial capital cost premium of the 172 wasn't worth it once I factored in my mission of put-putting around. (Thanks Lionel!)
Oh ya...this club helped make my decision as well. I figured a new owner of an old airplane (1959) was going to need a lot of help (in more ways than one!)
1959 150
| | | | | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,627 Member/2500+posts | | Member/2500+posts Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,627 | Oh ya...this club helped make my decision as well. I figured a new owner of an old airplane (1959) was going to need a lot of help . . . That's an excellent, excellent point Rob. | | | | | Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,054 Likes: 99 Member/5000+posts! | | Member/5000+posts! Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,054 Likes: 99 | Some instructors in my neck of the woods are refusing to instruct in 150s and 152s. Too small.
Of course, there are plenty of instructors who will still instruct in 'em.
At today's prices, renting a 172 can be downright expensive, especially a fancy new one. $125 per hour and more wet.
Last edited by Mark_vanWyk; 09/27/07 09:39 PM.
| | | | | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 Member/15,000 posts | | Member/15,000 posts Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 | I suspect most of those instructors whom refuse to instruct in 150's and 152's have never flown a 150 or 152!  The majority of young instructors nowadays trained in plastic pigs!  | | | | | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,969 Member/10,000+ posts! | | Member/10,000+ posts! Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,969 | Thanks all, Patrick you hit the nail on the head.. The way I see it. Owning the 150-152 will be exactly what I want. And if I ever need to on occasion, I'll just rent the 172. Here we have owned a 150 for almost eight years now. And maybe only once or twice in that entire time have we desired a back seat. When we were looking to upgrade from our 100HP 150, I naturally started eyeing the older, square tailed, 172's. But, numerous people pointed out that we would not be gaining any real significant performance going that route. The Lycoming equipped 172's definitely had a better reputation. But there was no way we could even think about affording one of them. Now, I would have considered a 170B. I would have sacrified some performance for just the looks of a 170. What a sexy looking airplane!! Unfortunately, just too pricey!!  | | | | | Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,054 Likes: 99 Member/5000+posts! | | Member/5000+posts! Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,054 Likes: 99 | I suspect most of those instructors whom refuse to instruct in 150's and 152's have never flown a 150 or 152! The majority of young instructors nowadays trained in plastic pigs! Actually, one of the instructors is a fat guy (and getting fatter all the time), and another one is an older guy with bad knees who says the cramped legroom hurts too much since he needs to keep his feet off of the pedals. They both have MANY hours instructing in C150/152's. The old guy does make an exeption for me, and still agrees to go up for biannuals and such. Let's face it. 150s/152's are a bit challenged in the interior space and power departments with two grown guys. A 172 is a lot more roomy, comfortable and has more power. | | | | | Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 68 Member | | Member Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 68 | Fat..hey, I resemble that!!! I suspect most of those instructors whom refuse to instruct in 150's and 152's have never flown a 150 or 152! The majority of young instructors nowadays trained in plastic pigs! Actually, one of the instructors is a fat guy (and getting fatter all the time), and another one is an older guy with bad knees who says the cramped legroom hurts too much since he needs to keep his feet off of the pedals. They both have MANY hours instructing in C150/152's. The old guy does make an exeption for me, and still agrees to go up for biannuals and such. Let's face it. 150s/152's are a bit challenged in the interior space and power departments with two grown guys. A 172 is a lot more roomy, comfortable and has more power. | | | | | Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 Member/15,000 posts | | Member/15,000 posts Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 18,962 Likes: 3 | Those crybabies!  I'm 58, I have a bad back (very bad back), bad knees (recommended I have total knee replacement surgery), stand 6' tall (when I can stand up straight) and weigh 250 lbs! I logged 50 hours cross-country (coast to coast) in a 152 last year! Not once did I wish I were in a "roomy and comfortable" Cessna 172!  WIMPS! (just kidding) | | | | | Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,657 Member/2500+posts | | Member/2500+posts Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,657 | My solution: My IFR instructor is 23, about 120-140 pounds, and she is cute! She had never flown a 150 before taking me on, but I thikn she likes taken my plane out for the lessons. And, the next lesson, we are going to include chandelles and lazy eights, just because we can do them in a 150. Who said more horsepower is always better?
Pat
Never run out of altitude, airspeed, and ideas at the same time.
| | |
|
|
