Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Plane questions - again

Well, I had a look at to 150s yesterday. I have some questions on one of them, but they were both nice looking birds.

Cessna A I have already talked about. It had the hail dings. I had a good chance to look at them yesterday, and I would ssy that they are minor blemishes on an otherwise clean airframe. I liked dealing with the owner, nice down to earth kinda guy. And he took me up for a test flight and I loved it. (The test flight revealed the only major fault in this 1965 wonder - no intercom )

Cessna B is a 1969 150 Commuter. It hasn't flown for a year and its annual is up this week. It's also clean, good glass, and the wheel pants are in good shape.

There are two problems that I have seen with Cessna B. First, there is some hanger rash on the rudder. Specifically, it looks like the rudder struck something when it was being placed into the hanger. There is a small crumple, about three inches long on one side, and about two inches long on the other side. Other than that, it is clean.

The second problem is that there appears to be hail dimples on the elevators (I couldn't see any on the ailarons).

There were some other things that needed to be addressed on Cessna B, but none of them looked like they were airworthiness issues. In fact, of the two, it looks to be in better shape. My question is if the damage I have seen should be a matter of concern? Will these surfaces need to be replaced?

Thanks guys.

If the only fault with Cessna A ('65 model) is the lack of an intercom, well I wouldn't let that hold you back. There are a number of inexpensive portable intercoms that can be easily plugged in and provide what you need.

The '69 model does have the advantage of the bigger doors - both the cutout and the width across the seats. However, your concern is the rudder damage and hail dimples on the elevator. My first guess based upon such limited information? All the tail-feathers were damaged, and the elevators are replacements from a hail-damaged plane in a salvage yard, whereas the rudder was deemed 'good enough' and left as is. But more importantly, what does the owner (or logbook) say?

"B" hasn't flown in a year! It's doubtful the engine was properly preserved for long term storage. This allows cylinder walls and other iron alloy components to corrode, and this does remove useful life from any engine, even if "freshly" overhauled a year ago. The affects can be minimized with proper preventative maintenance before the first start-up, but can't be eliminated. Be aware that it is likely this engine would soon need the cylinders pulled and honed, and rings replaced (or a top overhaul with replacement jugs, about $4,000 worth). If it has chrome cylinders (orange band at the base of all 4 cylinders), corrosion is much less of a factor, but still factors in on other internal components, such as camshaft and gear trains.

Portable intercoms aren't that expensive. Installing a built in intercom isn't that much more expensive, in the long run.

"B" is the newer airplane, but "A" is flown more regularly (apparently) and will likely give you better service.

"A" has minor hail damage that does not affect the airplanes performance or enjoyment. Can you live with that, or is it obvious enough that you'll find yourself pointing it out and appologizing for it whenever you show the plane?

I've owned a 152 (similar in size to the 69 model) and currently own a 65 model. If you're thinking you'll want to do any instrument training in your own plane, you might want to consider the 69 over the 65. Entry into the earlier model is slightly more difficult due to the cutout of the door frame. Also, the 69 doors seal and lock better than the 65. There are numerous reports of the doors cracking at the lower aft edge of the 65 model window cutouts. The baggage space is considerably smaller on the 65.

I love the manual flaps on the 65. The handle gets in the way a little if you're up doing pattern work, but I'd rather have that problem (not a problem really) than have to worry about the electric flap motor and all the associated monkey motion related to the indication. I also really like the flat steel gear versus the tubular steel gear. The latter may be more aesthetically pleasing, and your landings may feel more firm, but the wheel wobble on the ground is minimal if non-existent on the 65.

You mention some very good points on both planes. If the only thing you don't like on airplane A is the lack of intercom, I'd just plan on putting one in. You have the advantage of getting to select the kind of intercom you want. It'll cost a little bit, but in the end, it'll be some of the best money you spend.

On airplane B, the 69, you mention a rudder ding and hail damage on the elevator. If they are airworthy in their current conditions, other than cosmetics, I could live with it. You'll have the standard "T" instrument configuration (very easy to configure for IFR), the wider cabin, the larger doors, and larger baggage area. Aside from cost, and you've given us no indication one way or the other, you're only taking about a 4 year difference, but what a dramatic change in style. They both have their advantages, but what you've told us makes me think one doesn't have a clear cut advantage over the other. You'll have to level your own goals and aspirations for the planes against what they each are individually and arrive at your own personal decision. (I know you've already thought about this long before you started looking, I'm just running my mouth.)

Does the 65 still have a generator? Does the 69 have an alternator? How about the starter? Pull handle on the 65 or key start? Does either one have an established oil analysis program?

What about corrosion? If you're really interested in both, you could have a prebuy done on both. If you really wanted to nail anything, you could work with a mechanic YOU trust and come up with a list of 15-20 things that you want specifically inspected to compare the two. That would define the scope of the inspection and keep your costs down. Then you could really compare apples to apples. I'd recommend a detailed visual inspection of the landing gear torque box areas or both, but particularly the 65 model.

When I bought mine, (65), I knew I wouldn't have a lot of time for the pre-buy. So, I made a list of the items I wanted to see with my own two eyes. I figured if I missed anything else, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to fix. With the help of my buying buddy, we hit everything on the list, with the exception of cutting the oil filter.

It's really nice to have a disinterested, objective buying buddy. If you don't already have one, you could probably come up with one...

Good luck with your decision, and remember, you could choose airplane A, airplane B, or neither A nor B.

Whatever your decision, it'll be a mighty long walk to Clinton without a plane. Just kidding.

Good luck.

I am leaning towards Cessna B. The reasons are that it is closer to what I learned to fly on (a 152), I can convert it to IFR for training, it looks like a better cross country machine, and it is a little roomier. And another big advantage is that it has all of the cold weather goodies (Tannis heater, baffles for the cooling inlets, and other stuff) that I have been looking for.

Carl, I am aware that there are concerns with the engine. It was last overhauled in 1981, so I would not be surprised to find that it needs an overhaul in three to five years anyway. If the seller accepts my offer, I am going to see what needs to be done to it before I send it to my FBO for the annual.

I do think the hail damage and hanger rash are mustly superficial. I don't see any major damage or problems that make me uncomfortable with the purchase.

By the way, I mentioned the intercom on Cessna A only to show that the largest problem was something that was quite trivial. I realized that I may have been interpreted as whining about this "little" problem.

Either plane looks like a good deal. We'll see how things develop.