C150 or C152

ahmad

ahmad

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
427
Location
S Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
Midwest Aviator
Looking at a couple of planes for time building. I am at 350 hrs trying to get to 1200+ hrs. Local airport C172 rents for $150/Hr. I am going to fly a ton to get those hours as soon as I can.

So,

The C150 (N5523G)is 1969 model with just shy of 1100 SMOH. So, 700 hrs left before an overhaul is needed?!? VFR but has two nice radios and in somewhat decent shape. Will need a transponder and ADSB compliant. Asking price is 30K. I think I can get it for 25K.

The C152(N4590P) is a 1980 with 900 hrs SMOH. So, 1500 Hrs before an overhaul is needed?!? Again basic VFR but in decent shape. Has pretty much everything I need except really old radios and no GPS. I would need to spend a little on it to get it to my liking. Perhaps 5K? Asking price is 55K. I am thinking I might get it for 50k.


My CFI is pointing me more towards the C152 but again this will be mostly for my time building.

Need your opinions please
 
No mention of how old the engines are which would play far more into determining value than hours. There are no significant differences in the function of the two. 152 has more power but more weight. Personally I would choose the cheaper of the two provided it is in good shape and spend the savings on training and gas.
 
It seems like the 150 is fairly priced while the 152 is overpriced. You are correct on the TBO times.

The Continental engine in the 150 is more susceptible to stuck exhaust valves due to the high lead levels in 100LL. The Lycoming in the 152 may have better longevity hour-wise but not age wise and long periods of disuse is harder on it.

The extra 10hp of the 152 is quite noticable when hot/high/short runway but not much difference at low DA.
 
Hi.
More information needed, Total hrs., Age of engine, History... for a better feedback, but by what is posted the 152 would be a better choice in my opinion. I can give you many reasons why standard / stock 150 is not a good trainer but if you do not have a choice 150 would do it.
 
fyi there are two parts to TBO, year and hours. Quoting one without the other is pointless and in reality the year is far more important than the hours. So much so that If you flew a new lycoming 2399 hours in 2 years and 11 months it would still be under warranty. 2399 in over 3 years would not be. If the continental is flown 40 hours or more per month you can extend the TBO to 2000 hours. Probably irrelevant on these planes but that's how much the manufacturers fear age vs use.
 
TBO is meaningless for your purposes. These are both mid-time engines and either one could go another 2000 hours or crap out tomorrow. You just never know. Unless one engine just looks like it's in better overall condition or has recently overhauled accessories (mags, starter, etc.) they are effectively equal in value.

I bought a 152 as my first plane for the same purpose and it worked out great. Having said that, if I could have gotten a 150 for half the price, I sure as hell would have done that instead.

C.
 
How long - if at all - has any of them been sitting / not flying? A higher time engine that's been flown regularly is better IMHO than a lower time engine in a plane that has only seen 20 hours a year.

IF all things are equal, I'd get the 150 and add a GNX 375. You'd get the ADSB transponder which you are going to need anyway, and as bonus become IFR capable. That will help a lot getting your hours, as you can fly IMC. Should also be a bonus when it comes time to sell.

Of course, the cheapest way to fly is to become a CFI and let others pay for the plane hours.
 
Last edited:
You can buy a lot of av gas with the difference in price of the 152 over the 150. I have a 150 do a deep dive on the logs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
Gilbert Buettner said:
I fly both models every week. I'd buy the 150 in a heartbeat. And yes, TBO is meaningless for a personal owner... fly it until it starts to tell you it's time for the overhaul.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say it’s meaningless. It is a pricing tool. A 600 hour engine that is 10 years old has much more value than a 600 hour engine that is 15 years old within reason. Obviously if one has been in Florida and the other Nevada that’s a different situation. After 12 years they are both core value engines.
 
I would want an aircraft that has been flown regularly, and with ADSB, a localizer. Old equipment is fine, some works, but ideally something ready to fly. Getting a mechanic to do work is like pulling teeth, and it’s time consuming with considerable delays. Also if a 20k GPS is installed it probably only adds half the cost (10k) to the value of the airplane so it’s in your interest to pay the price up front for what you need vs later adding it.

You also have high aspirations to get almost 1000 hours, once you put 100-200 hours on the airplane it starts to show wear and needs maintenance quickly. Just so you know.

TBO isn’t guaranteed, I have talked to some FBO’s who will put 3000 hours on an engine, actually a lot of people who fly regularly will go well above the TBO. But it also depends on your mechanic, they may be more and less conservative than the next guy.
 
Just for time building, go with the cheaper one, hence the 150. TBO hours don't mean anything for your purpose. You don't have to overhaul at TBO. Our local flight school has a Cessna 172 with 4,000 SMOH and they keep it flying on condition. No issues at all. Sure, you change things here and there, but no overhaul needed. When I wanted to finish up my PPL, I bought a Cessna 150 with an engine above TBO for $20k. Flew it for like 50 hours in six months, got my ticket in it and then sold for $26k. The next owner, whom I'm still in contact with bought to start his training from scratch. He flew it about 100 hours in a year, got his license in it and now is building time towards a professional aviation career. The plane and engine needed nothing.
 
Based on what you have said, I would go with the C150. As others have mentioned, you can put the $25K saved towards fuel and that will get you almost to your goal of 1,200 hours. I also would never advocate purchasing an aircraft unless you have the funds available to overhaul the engine the day after you buy it. Here again, the $25K would probably cover an overhaul in today's market? That said, there's more to it than just looking at TSMOH. What's the TT on the airframe? How many times have the engines been overhauled? Any damage history? Are all AD's complied with? @Bell206 always advocates discussing a potential purchase with your A&P or shop and I think that's excellent advice. If you don't have a relationship with an A&P or shop in would be really beneficial to start one before you purchase an aircraft and need maintenance.
 
Thank you all very much for the insight.
The C150 is getting a pre buy inspection today or tomorrow. It has been flying regularly. The current owner and his 2 siblings have put about 600 hrs on it since they bought it recently. I flew it around the pattern couple of days ago. it flies nice though it took a bit to get to pattern altitude with 2 adults but it was 95 degrees outside.

I am going to look at the 152 next week.

More info to come.

p.s the 150 has two nice radios already and I do plan on putting the GNX375 on it as well.
 
Besides “time building,” either one of those two airplanes can teach you a lot about flying. Like a lot of others here, I vote for the 150.
 
Bought the C150 today. Needs about $1000 worth of repairs according to my mechanic. Paid 30k for it. Going to put the GNX375 on it. Will have 700 hrs before the overhaul is due. A bit nervous but I think I made the right choice. I am beyond humbled to be able to own a freaking airplane.
 
CONGRATS!! Nice deal!
 
Congrats on the purchase. In the grand scheme of buying an airplane, $1,000 of catch-up maintenance is nothing. With a bit of luck and a cooperative mechanic, you may go well past TBO.

C.
 
Grum.Man said:
A 600 hour engine that is 10 years old has much more value than a 600 hour engine that is 15 years old within reason.
Click to expand...
"Much" more value might be overstating it... 5 years is pretty small all things considered. An average of 60 hours/year vs 40 hours/year will really result in a pretty negligibly different engine condition.
 
ahmad said:
Bought the C150 today. Needs about $1000 worth of repairs according to my mechanic. Paid 30k for it. Going to put the GNX375 on it. Will have 700 hrs before the overhaul is due. A bit nervous but I think I made the right choice. I am beyond humbled to be able to own a freaking airplane.
Click to expand...
Congratulations!!

It’s a big step and commitment, but look at it this way: you can always sell it and not take too much of a loss if you have to do it quickly.

As for the TBO, it doesn’t have to be overhauled then, it can go many many hours beyond if it was and remains well taken care of.

So how ‘bout a few pics, since we “helped” buy it, lol!?!

And now you can join us for the monthly’ish Midwest POA lunches…that I can never get to.
 
I will take pictures tomorrow and post them. The attachment is a list of things they found that needs to be taken care of.

Thanks to you all for the help.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230828_145906_Acrobat for Samsung.jpg
    Screenshot_20230828_145906_Acrobat for Samsung.jpg
    705.7 KB · Views: 97
ahmad said:
I will take pictures tomorrow and post them. The attachment is a list of things they found that needs to be taken care of.

Thanks to you all for the help.
Click to expand...
Are you doing them all or the red? If red only, it’s definitely skipping a few items … like an AD and that’d be an issue. Congrats on the plane. You can save money vs renting but please don‘t be overly thrifty. This bird needs some TLC and if you give it that, it will take care of you.
 
masloki said:
Are you doing them all or the red? If red only, it’s definitely skipping a few items … like an AD and that’d be an issue. Congrats on the plane. You can save money vs renting but please don‘t be overly thrifty. This bird needs some TLC and if you give it that, it will take care of you.
Click to expand...

Doing it all for sure. It does need some good TLC for sure. I am planning on putting 850 hrs on it by Christmas of 2024.
 
The ad for rudder stops can be complied with a placard that prohibits spins. It's about $2000 to remove the spin restriction parts and labor. If you do this, make sure they use the latest revision, there have been 4 that I remember. The right tire wear is normal if they made mostly left turns on ground. Corrosion needs to be stopped asap. Pull through rivets too. Sorry don't remember rest of list. Spruce and Macfarlane have better prices than Cessna.
 
dmspilot said:
The extra 10hp of the 152 is quite noticable when hot/high/short runway but not much difference at low DA.
Click to expand...
It's been 35 years since I've flown either one, but I don't remember any performance from the extra HP. As I recall (could be misremembering), the extra HP comes at a higher RPM, which made it less efficient at low speed climb distance... which was why they reduced the flap travel from 40° to 20°, in order to achieve the required full flap rate of climb in a go-around.

I always preferred the 150, though that was partly because they were older and worn in, with less friction in the controls. Of course they're all old now.

With 100LL you're probably going to want to run TCP in the gas, and agressively lean, especially on the ground.
ahmad said:
I am planning on putting 850 hrs on it by Christmas of 2024.
Click to expand...
That's pretty ambitious.
 
The O-200 will seldom go the full TBO without valve work. The Lycoming usually will.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
"Much" more value might be overstating it... 5 years is pretty small all things considered. An average of 60 hours/year vs 40 hours/year will really result in a pretty negligibly different engine condition.
Click to expand...
Well one is within TBO one is not. A lot of corrosion can happen in 5 years. Granted it also depends on how the hours are spread out. All else being equal I would pay several thousand more for the one with a 10 year old 600 hour engine.
 
Dana said:
It's been 35 years since I've flown either one, but I don't remember any performance from the extra HP. As I recall (could be misremembering), the extra HP comes at a higher RPM, which made it less efficient at low speed climb distance... which was why they reduced the flap travel from 40° to 20°, in order to achieve the required full flap rate of climb in a go-around.

I always preferred the 150, though that was partly because they were older and worn in, with less friction in the controls. Of course they're all old now.

With 100LL you're probably going to want to run TCP in the gas, and agressively lean, especially on the ground.

That's pretty ambitious.
Click to expand...
I put 800 hours on my 150 in a year so it’s doable. I was doing oil changes every 2-3 weeks.
 
Grum.Man said:
Well one is within TBO one is not. A lot of corrosion can happen in 5 years. Granted it also depends on how the hours are spread out. All else being equal I would pay several thousand more for the one with a 10 year old 600 hour engine.
Click to expand...
Who tells the engine to begin corroding after TBO? Would you pay significantly more for a plane with a 11 year SMOH vs a 13 year SMOH?
 
Congratulations, Ahmad! Based on my experience, I agree with Dana. Use TCP if you run 100LL. If you can, use mogas. No ethanol though.
 
You can oil mist, pickle, use storage rated oil in the engine to allow it to sit for long periods of time. Age may or may not be an issue, but I would guess less people prep a plane for storage than do.
 
Dana said:
It's been 35 years since I've flown either one, but I don't remember any performance from the extra HP. As I recall (could be misremembering), the extra HP comes at a higher RPM, which made it less efficient at low speed climb distance... which was why they reduced the flap travel from 40° to 20°, in order to achieve the required full flap rate of climb in a go-around.
Click to expand...
Nope, just the opposite is true (you might be thinking of the 160hp/180hp 172R/S). The 152 makes more HP and it does so at a lower RPM. I flew them both side by side for many years. The extra HP is not noticeable when light or at low DA. But is very noticeable when heavy or high DA. The Flaps were restricted to comply with FAR 23. The 150 was certified under CAR rules.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Who tells the engine to begin corroding after TBO? Would you pay significantly more for a plane with a 11 year SMOH vs a 13 year SMOH?
Click to expand...
More yes, significant probably not. It’s not just about TBO, it’s about idle time. 5 more years of idle time is a lot. 2 more is a lot too but a little less of a gamble than 5. At 12 years or 1800/2000 hours the engine is worth core value. At 11 years slightly more and on and on. Same reason you don’t pay the same for a car a mode year older than another or with more miles.
 
There were significant changes made throughout the time 150s were manufactured while few changes were made by the time the 152 came out. What year-model 150 is yours? I owned a 150 '76 M for a good number of years. The M model was manufactured for three years, 75-77 before the 152 came out in late 77. Each year from 75 to 77 there were some significant changes but not enough to call for a new model designation. The O200 is notorious for carb ice, stuck valves, and cylinders that will probably not make TBO without a top overhaul. My 150 confirmed all three. Still, for the price differential, I would take the 150 all day.
 
I think you can't generalize engines and their ability to make it to or beyond TBO, even in the O200, as there are too many variables such as how often it's being flown, the area, storage when not flown (lot of people advertise "always hangared" but not all hangars are equal e.g. heated vs. unheated and how much moisture gets in). From my experience with these smaller engines, I had a Cessna 150, flew it beyond TBO and the current owner is still flying it. No issues. It must have somewhere north of 2,200 hours SMO by now. The plane was always flown a lot though and when not flown, it was stored in a modern, climate controlled hangar and lived in a very low humidity part of the country, far from any oceans or large bodies of water. Not a lot of things rust here. On the other hand, I had an Ercoupe with C-85 engine. Stuck valve well before TBO, f'ed up the entire engine which prompted a complete rebuilt. That plane sat for months on end with the previous owner, in a tent hangar that leaked so much water, it would have made no difference to keep it outside and it was half a mile from the Pacific coast so lots of salty moisture in the air.

@ahmad Congrats on your purchase. This is great. Don't worry so much about engine and TBO. You did your due diligence and bought it so it's yours now. Fly it the right way and deal with the engine when you have to cross that bridge. Until then, just enjoy it and most of all be proud of just having purchased your first plane! Not many people will ever be able to say "Oh, by the way, I just bought an airplane." It seems so normal to us here because as pilots we just happen to know a lot of other pilots and aircraft owners but in the grand scheme of things, we're a rather unique (slightly weird) bunch of people ;-)
 
Thank you all. Transaction is complete. I'm beyond grateful and humbled to be owning my own airplane. It feels so monumental to me as I navigate this new journey and pursuing my crazy dreams.

The mechanic is given the green light to fix everything and installing the GNX375.
 
Last edited:
Here are the pics.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230829_083017_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20230829_083017_Gallery.jpg
    956.8 KB · Views: 119
  • Screenshot_20230829_083013_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20230829_083013_Gallery.jpg
    947.4 KB · Views: 119
  • Screenshot_20230829_083009_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20230829_083009_Gallery.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 115
  • Screenshot_20230829_083005_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20230829_083005_Gallery.jpg
    688.3 KB · Views: 120
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top