All I can do, is take in what I've heard, and kind of super-impose my, C172 vs PA28 experience,, so I'm barely semi-qualified to offer 150/152 opinions.. 

The primary difference, technically, between high/low-wing airplanes, is where the CoG sits, relative to the center of lift. And that's all it is; a difference.. neither being inherently better than the other.


To me, the more important difference is the wing dihedral (or lack of it). I've found that Warrior is much easier to manage during a cross-wind approach and landing, than a Skyhawk... and conversely, a Skyhawk is more manageable during a cross-wind takeoff.

Another characteristic of the Tomahawk (and other, "Hershey-Bar winged Pipers), that makes them good trainers (and I'll assume it's a constant-chord thing, more than a low-wing thing), is that there's a dramatic loss of lift below approach-speed. They force a new pilot to be more precise.. whereas a C172's loss of lift relative to airspeed feels more linear.

Another thing, that I've noticed.. and this probably IS a high/low-wing, ground-effect thing.. A C172 will let you get away with passing over the numbers too fast. 10 extra knots of airspeed are easy to get rid of, in a C172... but a PA28 will turn that 10 knots into a LOT runway use.

So.. IMHO... a Tomahawk is probably a "better" trainer than a 152... And a Warrior is probably a "better" trainer than a Skyhawk.. if for no other reason than they demand more precision on the student's part. Of course there's always the argument that a trainer SHOULD be more forgiving..

ShaneG wrote on Oct 29^th, 2009 at 8:03am:


That's the, CoG/Center-of-lift, thing. When you roll into a bank in Warrior, the "axis" goes right through you butt 

You're butt is like a pendulum, in a Cessna..

Hagar wrote on Oct 29^th, 2009 at 6:01am:
Just 'Googled' it and he's correct  .

Hagar wrote on Oct 29^th, 2009 at 10:23am:
No that important.  Wikepedia says RR started with their version of the C90 then the O200 and what must have been about the O295 (130HP).  Love this ode to the Piper low-wing - what a club to fly  .  That thing had such a built in aft CG, you could put only 18 gallons in a 25 gallon tank if you were practising certain maneuvers.  The original Piper test pilot had it sand-bagged for passenger weight, tried a spin which went unrecoverably flat, because of the CG, and had to jump.  My own little funny was my long time ago CFI ride, in a 140, with an FAA guy.  He told me "you're supposed to show me spin recoveries, both directions but there's no way you're gonna spin me in that thing.  If you're willing, I'll watch you from the ground."  So there I was, all alone - demonstrating the world's tightest spirals - thing wouldn't stay stalled  .

Hagar wrote on Oct 29^th, 2009 at 6:01am:


An excellent point about trainers that make you work a little- over here, the Jenny was a beloved trainer because of that need to fly it constantly, and certainly difficult to fly with panache, yet it was basically well-behaved, and nice and slow. I guess the same can be said of the Cub, although it's probably a lot easier to fly than  a Jenny, Moth, or similar.

The 150/152 is more typical of the post-WWII concept of making a trainer that also would suit as a first airplane, even for instrument flying, so it was made to be less work in general to fly, stable in hands-off flight, and more prone to recover from an upset without control input (given enough altitude, LOL). It became a marketing trend, and thus the standard.
The nosewheel is another part of that- somewhere along the line it was decided that the C-140 just wouldn't cut it in the new marketplace without the "safety" of a nosewheel (the first 150 was nothing more than a 140A with a nosewheel). I guess the statistics prove that's "safer", but it does take some of the challenges away, and I agree that challenges build airmanship.

But the 150 does take a little more work than a 172: more pronounced yaw effect at high power/low airspeed/high A of A, fairly high sink rate with the power out (enough so that you can't "Chop and drop" a 150 the same way as with a 172), and generally not as stable in rough air as a 172, even though it is a good hands-off flyer. 
And the somewhat weaker overall performance forces a student to think more about go-arounds, short and rough-field ops, engine-out landings,and clearing high terrain. Flying is 90% mental, so this is another good thing.

So it's not a truly great primary trainer like the Moth, Jenny, etc., but it's good enough to have earned its success as a trainer. Compared only to its big cousin the 172, it's definitely superior. 172s are fine as trainers, but usually more forgiving than 150s... but faster and heavier, with more room to load passengers and baggage, and thus potentially quite a handful if the basics are forgotten.

  I think that pilots who learn in them exclusively will be more likely to learn some hard lessons later. 

beaky wrote on Oct 30^th, 2009 at 9:39am:

I would agree with that. For what it's worth I think learning on a high-wing Cessna is fine if you intend flying high-wing Cessnas when you get your PPL. If you intend going on to another type then consider something else.

olderndirt wrote on Oct 30^th, 2009 at 11:22am:

I can see those ads for the first Cessnas with tricycle “Land-O-Matic” landing gear now. "So easy to land you just drive it onto the ground."

beaky wrote on Oct 31^st, 2009 at 12:04am:

I could have worded that better. I've always preferred the low-wing trainers but my bias (& I'll admit it's a bias) is against high-wing light aircraft with nose-wheel undercarriages. The popular trend of retro-fitting these types to a taildragger configuration with the kits that Paul mentioned shows that at least some people agree with me. This is perhaps more common with Pipers than Cessnas in this part of the world at the moment. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find a Piper Tri-Pacer or Colt fitted with a nose-wheel nowadays.

I suspect the popularity of the Cessna 150/152 trainers is mainly due to cost. They appear to be considerably cheaper to purchase & operate than comparable low-wing trainers.

Think I owe you an apology Paul. Despite what it says in that article the Reims Cessna F150s I've checked out on the CAA database have the Continental O-200-A. It doesn't specify if these are the Rolls-Royce variant. I suspect most of the engines have been replaced at least once during the life of these aircraft. Rolls-Royce no longer support their Continental engines which makes genuine RR spares difficult to get hold of & no doubt expensive. This makes me wonder how many of those Reims Cessnas are still fitted with their original Rolls-Royce Continentals.

I've seen some Jodels (which originally had the Rolls-Royce Continental O-200-A) fitted with modern Jabiru engines. They look rather odd but appear to perform well enough.