Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
Cessna 152 FSX add on available free (Read 7536 times)
Oct 23rd, 2009 at 9:08am

topcatin   Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!

Posts: 10
*****
 
For all those who are new to flight simulation in general and have Microsoft FSX, here is the Cessna 152 add on available for free at:
http://www.fsinsider.com/news/Pages/FreeGiftfromFSInsider.aspx

 
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - Oct 23rd, 2009 at 7:55pm

tcco94   Offline
Colonel
Go Avs!
Bay Area, California

Gender: male
Posts: 4241
*****
 
Why is this in flight school? Huh

Grin
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - Oct 24th, 2009 at 12:27am

BFMF   Offline
Colonel
Pacific Northwest

Gender: male
Posts: 19820
*****
 
It was posted in the FSX board too. Not sure why. It's been out quite a while. Should be added to the FSX aircraft list though....
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Oct 24th, 2009 at 9:55am

Fozzer   Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861
*****
 
tcco94 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 7:55pm:
Why is this in flight school? Huh

Grin


I suppose the reason is, that Folks new to Flight Simulation should be encouraged to perfect their necessary skills in the the Cessna 152 Trainer, in the Flight School,  before moving on to more complex aircraft... Smiley...!

Paul.

 

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Oct 24th, 2009 at 7:17pm

flaminghotsauce   Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 181
*****
 
I find this 152 particularly sensitive to control inputs. I'm not sure that it's at all realistic as I've not flown a 152 in real life. I have flown a 172, and I find the "feel" of the FSX 172 is quite good. I'm not big on editing aircraft (maybe the designers wanted it to feel this way?), but I think this one needs some configuration work.

I suppose if one gets good at smooth control in the twitchy 152, it would be real easy to fly a 172.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Oct 25th, 2009 at 1:09pm

Fozzer   Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861
*****
 
flaminghotsauce wrote on Oct 24th, 2009 at 7:17pm:
I find this 152 particularly sensitive to control inputs. I'm not sure that it's at all realistic as I've not flown a 152 in real life. I have flown a 172, and I find the "feel" of the FSX 172 is quite good. I'm not big on editing aircraft (maybe the designers wanted it to feel this way?), but I think this one needs some configuration work.

I suppose if one gets good at smooth control in the twitchy 152, it would be real easy to fly a 172.


The Cessna 150/152 is a lighter, and better balanced Aircraft (in my opinion), than the Cessna 172, which is more sluggish due to its extra weight, and the larger engine tends to make it slightly nose-heavy.

The little Cessna is a sprightly machine, a joy to fly, and very forgiving, which makes it an excellent Trainer!

...and cheaper to replace...if you seriously bend it..!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004... Cool...!

My Favourite C150 for FS 2004....C150_v2....>>> http://www.flightsim.com/file.php?cm=SEARCH1&fsec=0&fname=C150_V2.ZIP
 

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Oct 26th, 2009 at 9:50am

topcatin   Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!

Posts: 10
*****
 
The reason I started this thread is, 152 is a good plane to start off before getting on the 172. I remember starting off the very first flying lesson on FSX with a small plane..not sure what it is ..it has 1 seat..anyways after this there was no 152 in between before going to 172 etc..and flying the 172 for the first time is hard for beginners. Yes the 152 is somewhat sensitive but still easier to handle than the 172 for people who start the flight-sim. Will post this in the download section too.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Oct 27th, 2009 at 9:39pm

olderndirt   Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender: male
Posts: 3574
*****
 
The 150/152 series, like their predecessors the 120/140, are designed to suffer a student pilot's ham-handedness with aerodynamic aplomb.  One has to be fairly emphatic to disturb it from its natural inclination to return to straight and level flight.  Believe they may have a Lyc in them now but the old Continental O-200 was a fine little engine.  With the old 40 degree flaps and some timely power management, they'd land impressively short.  So much so that a lot of folks have moved the main gear forward, installed an O-320 and hung the nosewheel where it belongs - under the elevators   Smiley.
 

... 

                            
THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

                                                            
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Oct 28th, 2009 at 5:41am

Fozzer   Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861
*****
 
olderndirt wrote on Oct 27th, 2009 at 9:39pm:
The 150/152 series, like their predecessors the 120/140, are designed to suffer a student pilot's ham-handedness with aerodynamic aplomb.  One has to be fairly emphatic to disturb it from its natural inclination to return to straight and level flight.  Believe they may have a Lyc in them now but the old Continental O-200 was a fine little engine.  With the old 40 degree flaps and some timely power management, they'd land impressively short.  So much so that a lot of folks have moved the main gear forward, installed an O-320 and hung the nosewheel where it belongs - under the elevators   Smiley.


Pilots who I have spoken to, speak with much affection for the Cessna 150 fitted with the Rolls Royce Continental Engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_O-200

They claim it is assembled with greater care then its Lycoming equivalent, leading to reliability?

The Rolls Royce Continental O-200engine fitted to a C150 can always be recognised by the small Union Flag placed on the Engine Side Cowling...Wink...!

Our local Aero Club has a few visitors C150/152's converted to Tail Draggers....and very smart they look too!... Smiley...!

Paul.
 

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - Oct 28th, 2009 at 10:26am

olderndirt   Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender: male
Posts: 3574
*****
 
Fozzer wrote on Oct 28th, 2009 at 5:41am:
Pilots who I have spoken to, speak with much affection for the Cessna 150 fitted with the Rolls Royce Continental Engine.
No argument there. Rolls Royce is a 'jewel in the crown'.  Even back in the 'Merlin' days, when Packard was licensed to build it for the P51, the Rolls Merlin was the 'Holy Grail'.

 

... 

                            
THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

                                                            
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Oct 28th, 2009 at 11:57am

Brett_Henderson   Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender: male
Posts: 3593
*****
 
I have no opinion on the 150/152, because I can't  FIT  into one..  Cheesy

Now.. a Piper Tomahawk is a similar airplane, as far as weight, power and a trainer designation goes. Plus it accomodates 6+ footers easily  Smiley  And the bubble-like cockpit/canopy makes for much better visibility.

They are extremely fun to fly, and demand a little more discipline, on the part of a student pilot .. Cool
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - Oct 28th, 2009 at 1:29pm

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Brett_Henderson wrote on Oct 28th, 2009 at 11:57am:
Now.. a Piper Tomahawk is a similar airplane, as far as weight, power and a trainer designation goes. Plus it accomodates 6+ footers easily  Smiley  And the bubble-like cockpit/canopy makes for much better visibility.

They are extremely fun to fly, and demand a little more discipline, on the part of a student pilot .. Cool

That's what makes a good trainer. IMHO
I can't comment on the Cessna trainers as I've never even sat in one but I was never keen on high-wing types for training purposes. A matter of opinion I suppose.

As for the Rolls-Royce Continental engine fitted to the Reims F150, if I remember correctly RR were persuaded by the British government to manufacture Continental engines under licence as there were no British-made engines available for the range of aircraft manufactured by the newly formed Beagle company. Rolls-Royce reluctantly agreed to do it providing they could modify the engines.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - Oct 28th, 2009 at 9:15pm

DaveSims   Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender: male
Posts: 2453
*****
 
I miss flying the old 1973 150 I learned to fly in.  It had the 40 degree flap setting.  With 40 degrees of flaps, it was like you were just hanging in the wind, plus you could turn short final high and perform very steep power off landings.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 12:18am

beaky   Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender: male
Posts: 14187
*****
 
My first mount for lessons was a very nice 70s-vintage 150, with a rear-view mirror on the glareshield and a fuel selector handle that was hard to find in the carpeting under the seats...how I loved that plane. Kept me honest, but gave me time to learn the motions. Grin
Even with a little more hp (like the 152) or a jewel-like engine (like the RR powerplants), it's still just an excellent trainer.
 

...
IP Logged
 
Reply #14 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 6:01am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
beaky wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 12:18am:
My first mount for lessons was a very nice 70s-vintage 150, with a rear-view mirror on the glareshield and a fuel selector handle that was hard to find in the carpeting under the seats...how I loved that plane. Kept me honest, but gave me time to learn the motions. Grin
Even with a little more hp (like the 152) or a jewel-like engine (like the RR powerplants), it's still just an excellent trainer.

I realise that I must be wrong as the Cessna trainers are popular with flying clubs & schools all over the world. This would obviously depend on one's own experience. I've been interested in training since starting my first job with the flying club in 1960. The basic trainers in common use at the time were mainly ex-RAF types, the Tiger Moth & Miles Magister being most popular. The DHC Chipmunk was in service with the RAF from 1946 until 1996. These are all tandem cockpit taildraggers & not a high-winger among them. Things have changed a bit with civil flying training since then but the RAF still uses low-wing basic trainers today.

I've always believed that a good trainer is easy to fly but difficult to fly well. That's the reason for the Tiger Moth being regarded by many as the finest basic trainer ever built.

I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240-A piston engine of 130 hp which is more powerful than the 100 hp Continental O-200-A fitted to US-built aircraft.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #15 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 7:48am

Brett_Henderson   Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender: male
Posts: 3593
*****
 
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..  Cheesy

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..
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #16 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 8:03am

ShaneG   Offline
Colonel
I turned into a Martian!

Posts: 10000
*****
 
Now that I've been in both Over & Under wing configs, I think I prefer the under wing. It feels like your riding on the air, as opposed to the Cessna I was in felt like we were hanging from it.  Hard to explain the feeling it put in my gut, but it was different.

Flying the Warrior felt like guiding a boat with an extra dimension of travel involved. I never got to fly the Cessna, just got to ride in it.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #17 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 8:15am

Brett_Henderson   Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender: male
Posts: 3593
*****
 
ShaneG wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 8:03am:
Now that I've been in both Over & Under wing configs, I think I prefer the under wing. It feels like your riding on the air, as opposed to the Cessna I was in felt like we were hanging from it.  Hard to explain the feeling it put in my gut, but it was different.

Flying the Warrior felt like guiding a boat with an extra dimension of travel involved. I never got to fly the Cessna, just got to ride in it.


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

You're butt is like a pendulum, in a Cessna..
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #18 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 8:51am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Brett_Henderson wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 7:48am:
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..  Cheesy

I respect your opinion Brett as both you & Sean have far more experience than most people on this forum. This might be a little off-topic but it's turning into an interesting discussion.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 8:15am:
ShaneG wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 8:03am:
Now that I've been in both Over & Under wing configs, I think I prefer the under wing. It feels like your riding on the air, as opposed to the Cessna I was in felt like we were hanging from it.  Hard to explain the feeling it put in my gut, but it was different.

Flying the Warrior felt like guiding a boat with an extra dimension of travel involved. I never got to fly the Cessna, just got to ride in it.


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

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

This is my main objection to high-wing aircraft as trainers. They're considered more inherently stable which in itself might be a good or a bad thing depending on your point of view. The fact that this is a pendulum stability makes it more difficult to transfer to a different type.

I've flown several different types of aircraft over the last few years & the one I had most problems with was a Piper J3 Cub. With no artificial horizon I was continually looking at my wing-tips to make sure they were level.* This might have been partly due to the fact I've lost my hand/foot coordination after many years of using R/C transmitters & gaming joysticks. However, I had no problems at all with the Extra 300 which is anything but inherently stable. The only instruments I had in the front cockpit of the Extra were an altimeter & RPM indicator.

Oddly enough I did all my gliding training in high-wing gliders which I found easy enough to fly.

*PS. On thinking about it the Cub might be easier to fly from the rear seat as you would have more points of reference with the horizon.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #19 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 10:12am

olderndirt   Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender: male
Posts: 3574
*****
 
Hagar wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 6:01am:
I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240-A piston engine of 130 hp which is more powerful than the 100 hp Continental O-200-A fitted to US-built aircraft.
Just 'Googled' it and he's correct  Smiley.
 

... 

                            
THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

                                                            
IP Logged
 
Reply #20 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 10:23am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
olderndirt wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 10:12am:
Hagar wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 6:01am:
I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240-A piston engine of 130 hp which is more powerful than the 100 hp Continental O-200-A fitted to US-built aircraft.
Just 'Googled' it and he's correct  Smiley.

That would depend on which source you believe. Wink
http://www.howitflies.com/Cessna-150
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #21 - Oct 29th, 2009 at 5:23pm

olderndirt   Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender: male
Posts: 3574
*****
 
Hagar wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 10:23am:
]
That would depend on which source you believe. Wink
http://www.howitflies.com/Cessna-150
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  Smiley.  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  Smiley.
 

... 

                            
THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

                                                            
IP Logged
 
Reply #22 - Oct 30th, 2009 at 7:49am

Fozzer   Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861
*****
 
Hagar wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 10:23am:
olderndirt wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 10:12am:
Hagar wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 6:01am:
I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240-A piston engine of 130 hp which is more powerful than the 100 hp Continental O-200-A fitted to US-built aircraft.
Just 'Googled' it and he's correct  Smiley.

That would depend on which source you believe. Wink
http://www.howitflies.com/Cessna-150


...I'll tell you what...

My little flight-sim, "Cessna 150 Aerobat", (c150_v2) is an amazingly speedy little machine, which, when properly trimmed and loaded with my light weight, limited fuel, and a slight tail wind, can cruise comfortably at 120-130 knots, with a max speed of 140 knots in a dive to the runway...and a joy to "fly"!
It certainly beats my (heavier) Cessna 172 for cruise air speed and maneuverability....and a bit of "fun"!... Smiley...!

I regularly spot them, (C150/152), flying,  (flitting about!), over my house, and they always surprise me by their "speediness"...and they are obviously having lots of fun in the process!....Grin...!

I rather like the high-winged Aircraft for their uninterrupted view of the ground below when pottering around (as I do)....
...but the Wing(s) can get in the way during a turn (bank) to Base/Final, which then requires some dexterous use of the Ailerons to level the Craft temporally, to view the position of Runway!... Grin...!

But I must admit I do feel very comfortable, and safe, hanging "under" those Umbrella-like high Wings... Kiss...!

Flying a Cessna 150/152 Trainer successfully is like the joy of passing the Driving Test on your first Motor Car!......trust me!... Grin...!

Paul...G-BPLF...on a Cessna 150 Aerobat....and a Wing and a Prayer!... Grin...!
 

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.
IP Logged
 
Reply #23 - Oct 30th, 2009 at 9:39am

beaky   Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender: male
Posts: 14187
*****
 
Hagar wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 6:01am:
beaky wrote on Oct 29th, 2009 at 12:18am:
My first mount for lessons was a very nice 70s-vintage 150, with a rear-view mirror on the glareshield and a fuel selector handle that was hard to find in the carpeting under the seats...how I loved that plane. Kept me honest, but gave me time to learn the motions. Grin
Even with a little more hp (like the 152) or a jewel-like engine (like the RR powerplants), it's still just an excellent trainer.

I realise that I must be wrong as the Cessna trainers are popular with flying clubs & schools all over the world. This would obviously depend on one's own experience. I've been interested in training since starting my first job with the flying club in 1960. The basic trainers in common use at the time were mainly ex-RAF types, the Tiger Moth & Miles Magister being most popular. The DHC Chipmunk was in service with the RAF from 1946 until 1996. These are all tandem cockpit taildraggers & not a high-winger among them. Things have changed a bit with civil flying training since then but the RAF still uses low-wing basic trainers today.

I've always believed that a good trainer is easy to fly but difficult to fly well. That's the reason for the Tiger Moth being regarded by many as the finest basic trainer ever built.

I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240-A piston engine of 130 hp which is more powerful than the 100 hp Continental O-200-A fitted to US-built aircraft.


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.  Undecided
 

...
IP Logged
 
Reply #24 - Oct 30th, 2009 at 11:22am

olderndirt   Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender: male
Posts: 3574
*****
 
Back in the fifties, some 'Mad Avenue' types advising the light plane industry, ran this up their flag pole to see if anybody'd salute.  Let's replace the stick with a yoke or wheel and move the tailwheel to the front - making it easier to steer on the ground.  If their idea was attracting would-be pilots, they more than succeeded - FLYING IS JUST LIKE DRIVING A CAR.  Proud as I am of my tailwheel credentials, I must admit a nosewheel takeoff or landing accomplishes pretty much the same thing, often with less loss of dignity  Smiley
Fozzer.  Your little Aerobat should have skylights overhead.  In a turn, look out through one of these - should be able to see what's coming up.
 

... 

                            
THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

                                                            
IP Logged
 
Reply #25 - Oct 30th, 2009 at 1:19pm

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
beaky wrote on Oct 30th, 2009 at 9:39am:
I think that pilots who learn in them exclusively will be more likely to learn some hard lessons later.  Undecided

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 30th, 2009 at 11:22am:
Back in the fifties, some 'Mad Avenue' types advising the light plane industry, ran this up their flag pole to see if anybody'd salute.  Let's replace the stick with a yoke or wheel and move the tailwheel to the front - making it easier to steer on the ground.  If their idea was attracting would-be pilots, they more than succeeded - FLYING IS JUST LIKE DRIVING A CAR.

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." Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: Oct 30th, 2009 at 3:21pm by Hagar »  

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #26 - Oct 31st, 2009 at 12:04am

beaky   Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender: male
Posts: 14187
*****
 
Hagar wrote on Oct 30th, 2009 at 1:19pm:
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.


Whoa, now! I was only talking about 172s...and I'll forget the 150, but a 140- or better yet, a 120- now that's a very good primary trainer. Despite being a high-wing Cessna. Grin
Pretty easy to handle, but very intolerant of real incompetence. It will bounce like crazy, needs smart rudder work to turn properly, it will spin with enthusiasm, and it will go over onto its nose if you disrespect it on the ground.
A lot of people did their PP training and checkrides in 2-seat Cessnas in the last 60-plus years, and they still do.  I would be inclined take them more seriously as pilots than anyone who started out in a 172, or even a 150.

Quote:
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." Roll Eyes


Yup... and so many "nosedraggers" have been driven into the ground...  Roll Eyes   Cheesy
 

...
IP Logged
 
Reply #27 - Oct 31st, 2009 at 4:05am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
beaky wrote on Oct 31st, 2009 at 12:04am:
Hagar wrote on Oct 30th, 2009 at 1:19pm:
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.


Whoa, now! I was only talking about 172s...and I'll forget the 150, but a 140- or better yet, a 120- now that's a very good primary trainer. Despite being a high-wing Cessna. Grin
Pretty easy to handle, but very intolerant of real incompetence. It will bounce like crazy, needs smart rudder work to turn properly, it will spin with enthusiasm, and it will go over onto its nose if you disrespect it on the ground.

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.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #28 - Oct 31st, 2009 at 5:26am

Fozzer   Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861
*****
 
Thanks for the link, Doug!...>>> http://www.howitflies.com/Cessna-150

The history of the Cessna 150.

...(and others)...

Saved it in my; "Useful stuff to know about" Folder...Wink... Wink...!

Paul... Smiley...!

P.S.  ...this a fascinating, and informative little thread!... Smiley...!
 

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.
IP Logged
 
Reply #29 - Oct 31st, 2009 at 5:44am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
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.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #30 - Oct 31st, 2009 at 6:16am

Fozzer   Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861
*****
 
It looks as though Teledyne Continental Motors are running into bad times at present with the economic depression...>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledyne_Continental_Motors

Lay-offs and short-time working, end of 2009-2010!

I wonder what major differences there are, between the Teledyne Continental and Avco/Textron Lycoming motors, for similar engine sizes, for replacement purposes?

I suppose there could now be a Lycoming Motor hiding under the bonnet of the C150 sporting the "RR" insignia on the outside!... Shocked...(must have a peek at the Rocker-box covers!)...Wink... Grin...!

I wonder if the original Teledyne Continental Radial engine is still available, and being fitted as replacement, when required, on the Boeing Stearman?

Paul... Smiley...!

The Lycoming O- 235 (100-135 HP) engines are fitted to the Cessna 152.....>>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-235

 

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.
IP Logged
 
Reply #31 - Oct 31st, 2009 at 6:34am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Fozzer wrote on Oct 31st, 2009 at 6:16am:
I suppose there could now be a Lycoming Motor hiding under the bonnet of the C150 sporting the "RR" insignia on the outside!... Shocked...(must have a peek at the Rocker-box covers!)...Wink... Grin...!

I would think it's more likely to be the original US-manufactured Continental. There should still be plenty of these engines & parts available even if the company is going through hard times at the moment. They're fully interchangeable with the RR variant which would avoid certification problems with engines from a different manufacturer.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #32 - Oct 31st, 2009 at 9:40am

Brett_Henderson   Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender: male
Posts: 3593
*****
 
Let's not forget this little beauty..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Skipper

It's got the interior space and pilot visibility of the Tomahawk.. and is probably the "funnest" airplane to just go punch holes in the sky..
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #33 - Oct 31st, 2009 at 11:28am

olderndirt   Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender: male
Posts: 3574
*****
 
Fozzer wrote on Oct 31st, 2009 at 6:16am:
The Lycoming O- 235 (100-135 HP) engines are fitted to the Cessna 152.....>>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-235

My little Clipper (PA16) had an O235C1 108HP - what a jewel.  On my recent Alaska jaunt I spotted my old C140 -N76136 - new paint and a Lyc O290 (125HP) - quite a change from a C85.  Probably be fun  Cheesy.
« Last Edit: Nov 1st, 2009 at 10:24am by olderndirt »  

... 

                            
THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

                                                            
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print