Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 87
Ron Offline
Member
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 87
Quote
All my pilot buddies seem to think that a 150 or 152 is a waste of good money, but as I expect to be doing the majority of my flying alone, it seems that one of these birds will allow me to affordably build time and pursue an instrument rating.

Since most of my flying time is alone I think the extra 3 to 4 gal per hr fuel
that a 172 uses over my 152 sparrowhawk is a wast of good $$$
With fuel prices approaching $3.00/gal thats $9.00/hr x 100 hr/yr = 1 annual inspection !

And my cruise speed is not much lower than a 172 either (100kts)

Ron

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 400
R
Member/250+posts
Member/250+posts
R Offline
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 400
New member, what I did originally ws think I wanted to get a 182, then thought it over and said a 172 would fit the bill, then thinking somemore over the cost of the plane and average maint. cost, yes I work on them also, I came out that for 90% of the time I would be flying by myself, so I have decided to get either a 150 or 152,leaning towards 152, went out and flw one of the clubs 152s this afternoon and had a great time. So when I get ready to transfer back to the states I will buy my plane. As for my family we will rent a bigger plane.


Richard McCullough
N8508B
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 14
N
Member
Member
N Offline
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 14
Many thanks to Jeff, Carl, Ron and Richard... your sound advice is very much appreciated!

I feel right at home already with this group, and I hope to get to know you better with time. One of my favorite sayings is that "Common sense isn't very common!"... but you guys all take a very realistic approach to this situation. Yes, I probably could afford a larger airplane, but I'd also be putting myself in the situation I've seen other folks in... sitting in a lawn chair beside their airplane on a beautiful Sunday afternoon instead of FLYING!

I'm sure my "friends" mean well enough, but to a degree I'm sure that Jeff's comment about "snobbery" is somewhat true. Most everyone wants a P-51 (I got a ride in a dual stick P-51 last year and got to fly for about 15 minutes), but the $1.5 million or so is not only slightly out of my budget, but it simply doesn't make much sense in the real world. Getting an "education" at a reasonable cost as Jeff stated is my primary goal at the moment. If I need a bigger airplane one or two weekends a year then I'll simply rent one.

Thanks for your help, and please don't get bothered by my incessant yearning to know and understand more. I look forward to the day when my knowledge base has grown to where I can help someone with a question.

If there are any opinions about the performance differences between stock, Sparrowhawk and Sporthawks and their associated maintenance and operating costs I'm all ears.

Thanks again. I should get my "official" user ID tomorrow and I'll have a name (John) instead of "New Member 7."


Temporary Account. Please do not use for email or private messages.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,873
Likes: 3
R
Member/2500+posts
Member/2500+posts
R Offline
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,873
Likes: 3
Unfortunately, the 150-152 is a Rodney Dangerfield of GA. When we pull up to the fuel pump next to Mooney/Bonanza/Cirrus, there's definately a sense of being a member of a lower caste of aviators. If you care a lot about esteem from other pilots, it's probably better to buy something more impressive. On the other hand, your non aviator aquaintances will likely think you've won the lottery if they hear you own your own airplane. It's all a question of perspective.

Most of us who own 150-152's could care a hoot about the esteem from either camp, we're just so damn happy to have the freedom of access to our very own airplane. For us, the 150-152 makes more sense economically than most other airplanes.

If you have more to spend, a Skyhawk, Cardinal, Cherokee, or Gruman Tiger are all fine choices, and will offer both more speed and utility in varying degrees, at the cost of 2 to 3 150-152's each. If you can afford more than that I'd personally pick a nice RV6, but plan on spending $100+K.(What was that about the lottery again?)

The best way to narrow your choices down on type/model of airplane is to define your mission first. Jeff Davis wrote and excellent article on this topic The Art of Aircraft Acquisition in the May/June 2001 newsletter

What are you going to be using the airplane for primarily? Of course you'll be using it in different ways on different days, but what kind of flying are you needing to satisfy "primarily"?

If you really expect to fly alone most of the time, a 150-152 will nicely fit the bill. Since you want to train for your IFR ticket, a post 1966 model will be better for the larger panel, and of course you'll look for an airplane with desirable IFR avionics. (This can be costly)

Lastly, do you expect to fly mostly local flights or lots of cross country?

If you fly solo, gross weight and climb performance are not likely to be a problem unless you fly from a high density altitude airport.

For long cross country trips, the low cruise speed can wear you down. Faster speeds cost big bucks though. Faster airplanes cost a lot more, and 150-152 speed upgrades are not very sensible from a cost/performance perspective.

If we can assume for the purposes of discussion that you will be flying lots of cross country, and the majority of your flights will be 3 hours flying time or less, here's some scoop on the mods:

The SparrowHawk is desirable, but only 5%-7% faster. It's advantage is stock weight, and little increase in fuel consumption, so long range tanks are not required.

Airplanes with 150HP or higher Lycomings will impress you, but longer range than stock tanks are pretty important, or you'll reduce your flight time to a couple hours.

If you fly mostly solo in a 150HP 150-152, I'd seriously consider having the prop repitched for faster cruise, These airplanes climb like you wouldn't believe (1,500 fpm is common) You can give up a little of that climb for faster cruise and still outclimb a 100HP airplane. If you go faster, the next issue becomes manuvering speed, that extra speed won't do you much good if you can't fly in the yellow arc because of rough air. In that case a 150HP Aerobat is the ticket.

No matter which 150-152 you buy, as long as it's sound mechanically, you'll likely get your money's worth, even if you ultimately trade up to a larger or faster airplane. A 150-152 is the best way to get started in airplane ownership. After a couple of years of owning a 150-152 it will be very obvious whether airplane ownership is for you, and whether or not "upgrading" is neccessary.

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 607
Member/500+posts
Member/500+posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 607
Until you've actually owned an airplane, you can't even imagine what it is really like.

A 150/152 is a great "first airplane".

Go in with the attitude: [color:"red"] "I'll try this out for a year or two and see how it goes." [/color]

Without a doubt, you will learn about owning and learn about yourself.

While most guys like owning-- some don't. You may decide that owning is a complete hassle.

Your life might change and you might decide that you can't afford to own an airplane. That happens a LOT.

You may decide that the airplane is pretty nice, and would
be perfect with this or that upgrade.

Or, you may decide (as I did) that a 150/152 won't do what
you need it to do.


Stephen A. Mayotte

1978 Cessna R182 N7333Y
Boire Field
Nashua, NH
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 34
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 34
Thanks again for all the information and advice... just a quick note to say I'm soaking it all up and I now have an identity! New_member7 is officially John Turnage. See you at the airport.


John Turnage
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 34
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 34
Gentlemen...

One more piece of the puzzle to deal with. I'm making inquiries into every possible resource, and a representative from an aircraft manufacturer has flat out told me (via email, I've never met the guy) that I won't be happy using a 150/152 as an instrument platform due to it's lighter weight and wing loading. He also brought up the small useful load as well. I understand all of these items and they all make sense (I know a 172 is heavier and more stable), however; there are a lot of sweet IFR 150/152s out there, so that indicates someone is happy with them. Also, we're back to the price issue, and a very nice IFR 150 is still many thousands less than an average VFR 172, and that translates into flying time! Help guys... what's the real deal on using a 150/152 as an IFR trainer?


John Turnage
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 184
E
Member/100+posts
Member/100+posts
E Offline
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 184
John,
I presume the representative from the aircraft company had a product he thought was superior to the 150/152??

I did my instrument training in a 172. It's a nice stable platform - and a Cherokee would be about as stable. There's no doubt that these are more stable for instrument training than a 150/152, but the little one can be used. You will have to make some adjustments - they are more bouncy than a 4 seater. On the other hand, we can get slower, so there's more time after you hit the IAF to get it all lined up before you get to the runway.

There's good arguments for just about any plane for your training. If you're going to be flying a 150/152 IFR, then go ahead and learn how.
Ed

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,968
J
Member/2500+posts
Member/2500+posts
J Offline
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,968
This debate has waxed on for years on this forum. The general consensu is that as an IFR trainer...if you can do IFR in a 150/152 you can do so in about anything. As a cross-country hard IFR bird...you will be asking for a major workout. However, if you are looking for a way to deal with the occassional low overcast or fog, or short distance IFR trips, many successfully do so regularly in a 150/152.

Bottom line, I still think that you need to look at your overall mission and how important this piece is compared to the rest. Maybe you would be happier with a Cherokee or early 172, but you just need to dig a tad deeper for acquisition costs.

Maybe you should look at the Cardinal too (177). The 68 models with 150hp engine are underpowered as a 4 place but make a great 2 plus 2 airplane and can be had in the high 30's to low 40's. They are a subperb instrument platform due to their stability. (check out the classifieds for Cessna 177 then find the 1968 models with O-320 engine.

Good Luck

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 53
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 53
John,

I too am in the market for an IFR bird and have decided to go the 172 route. I did part of my training for my instrument ticket in a 152. I would not really rate it that much less stable than a 172 for instrument work - neither of them is really much fun to hand fly precisely in turbulent conditions. I don't know where you are in NC but one thing to definitely be picky about is the radios. I fly near/in the CLT class B area and I can tell you it is absolutely no fun tooling around with radios or a transponder that are broken, intermittent, have knobs you have to jiggle, bad displays, etc., and it will not make you popular with ATC, either (hey guys, remember your renting days?) If you plan on doing a lot of single pilot IFR, I would definitely look for a plane with two comm radios, both with flip-flops. Also, an ADF is a virtual necessity in some places because it is used for the IAF for a ton of approaches. Get a set of NC/SC approach plates and look them over hard before you settle on a radio stack.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0