6'3" and 240lbs in a cessna 150

C

CraigSA

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 19, 2024
Messages
28
Location
Tucson
Display Name
BoerPilot
Home Airfield
KRYN
I've searched and read up a lot and it seems like I am at the limit for fitting in the C150L. I will try to get to sit in one this weekend.

I’m a low-time student pilot with about 50 hours under my belt and the checkride planned for mid August. I'll mostly be flying around Southern Arizona. I’m pretty tall—6’3”—and I’m looking at the Cessna 150L as a possible plane for me and maybe my son (he’s interested in getting his pilot’s license). Not likley to do much more than a 3 hours cross county from our base.

All of my flying to date has been done in a Piper Warrior.

The low cost of getting into the C150 is attractive with the low insurance and maintenance. I'm looking at it as a flying long term project upgrade that we would be unlikely to sell once we buy it.

Any advice or pointers on this set up?
 
Find a way to do your three hour x/c with your son aboard before you buy.

How old and how big/tall is your son? His weight, too?

-Skip
 
I'm 6'4" and 270ish. I'm okay in the PA28s. The 172 is tight bordering on uncomfortable. I've not been in a 150, but they make the 172 look big. I get the budget...have you thought about a Champ or a (Tri) Pacer?
 
A friend had a Cessna 150J and it was a really fun airplane. It was, as they say in the real estate market, a bit cozy inside.

On a warm day with a fair load of fuel & bodies the climb rate was less than stellar. They old saying seems to apply, fill the seats or the tanks but you can't do both ... ;)
 
Southern Arizona = Hot and high density altitude... I don't know if I would want a Cessna 150 at your measurements in your climate. I had one, much further up north (in Canada). I'm only 6 feet and 190 lbs. It was a great solo plane for me but even with my wife (who's tiny) and our dog (who was a puppy at the time), it was snug. As the dog grew, we hit weight limits quickly. A Cherokee with the 160 HP engine can be bought for not much more than the Cessna 150 with a bit of luck. Maintenance and insurance won't be a whole lot different but you'd have a lot more space and weight flexibility. Don't get me started on low wing vs. high wing but that's another thing to keep in mind ;) When I sold the Cessna 150 and bought the Cherokee (for literally $3,000 more than what I sold the 150 for), the Cherokee felt like an airliner to me.
 
Last edited:
Had a few hours in 150/152's when getting my ticket. At 6' and wearing a size 52 jacket, my instructor and I had to offset seats and contort ourselves just to get the doors closed. I had to sit further back than I preferred and he had to sit forward just so we were both facing the windshield rather than the door posts.
Southern Arizona in any heat and you will be out of performance before you get off the ground...
 
likely too small, but go find one and fly it!
A 152 wroks well for short XCs for my GF and me (I'm 5'9, 150#). Flew one RT to paso robles for a quick overnight 6/18-19.

The weight/balance isuses aren't any better in a skipper, but it has the same O-235 engine and significantly more interior space than a 152.
 
Well now you have a reason to lose some weight, drop 30-40 lbs and you’ll be good to go. Plus the hourly fuel consumption is pretty low too. You’ll save some money there.
 
Price doesn’t matter if it doesn’t fit the mission. You’re gonna quickly wish you had something more capable than a 150.
 
I've got over 2000 hours in 150s. I'm 5'8" and 180 pounds. The stock 150 is a decent single place for cross country. It's marginal for 2 people for short flights. At your size, look for a different airplane. Most of my 150 time has been in a 180 hp 150 used for towing gliders. I always thought the 150 would have been much better with a 150 hp powerplant. The 100 hp 150 is way underpowered. I've owned a stock 150 and have several hundred hours in it. You'd be much better off in a 172 or any four place Piper or Grumman.
 
Witmo said:
I've got over 2000 hours in 150s. I'm 5'8" and 180 pounds. The stock 150 is a decent single place for cross country. It's marginal for 2 people for short flights. At your size, look for a different airplane. Most of my 150 time has been in a 180 hp 150 used for towing gliders. I always thought the 150 would have been much better with a 150 hp powerplant. The 100 hp 150 is way underpowered. I've owned a stock 150 and have several hundred hours in it. You'd be much better off in a 172 or any four place Piper or Grumman.
Click to expand...
Thank you - that is very helpful.
 
CraigSA said:
I've searched and read up a lot and it seems like I am at the limit for fitting in the C150L. I will try to get to sit in one this weekend.

I’m a low-time student pilot with about 50 hours under my belt and the checkride planned for mid August. I'll mostly be flying around Southern Arizona. I’m pretty tall—6’3”—and I’m looking at the Cessna 150L as a possible plane for me and maybe my son (he’s interested in getting his pilot’s license). Not likley to do much more than a 3 hours cross county from our base.

All of my flying to date has been done in a Piper Warrior.

The low cost of getting into the C150 is attractive with the low insurance and maintenance. I'm looking at it as a flying long term project upgrade that we would be unlikely to sell once we buy it.

Any advice or pointers on this set up?
Click to expand...
Unlike some others, I wouldn't rule it out on size alone.

I'm 6'0 and 250lbs with fairly big shoulders -- and flew with my brother of equal size in a Remos LSA, which at least felt smaller than the 150. I did this a number of times.
Was it cramped? Absolutely. Would I want to fly for 4 hours straight in it? Probably not. But flying is flying and it's super fun and you get used to it pretty quickly.

Performance is the bigger question IMHO. I would not want to be doing a climb-out in a 150 at/near max gross on a warm day in AZ.

Given that it's your forever aircraft, not something you plan to flip, I'd shop around for a more capable 160-200 HP airplane. The incremental cost is not that much higher and it will expand a lot of your capabilities (and comfort).
 
Trained in a C-152 Sparrowhawk here in El Paso ... fuel burn was higher than listed. My instructor was 6'2" about 205 and I was 6'0" 180 ... W&B allowed 14-16 gallons MAX for take off ... not sure how you would plan a 3 hour launch without a fuel stop. Solo I could take on max fuel ... you're going to "need a bigger boat" ... er ... plane for 3 hour endurance;)
 
Jim K said:
I'm 6'4" and 270ish. I'm okay in the PA28s. The 172 is tight bordering on uncomfortable. I've not been in a 150, but they make the 172 look big. I get the budget...have you thought about a Champ or a (Tri) Pacer?
Click to expand...

As someone with the same dimensions in the same planes I have the opposite experience. :lol:

I'm a tall torso person so maybe that's why. The PA-28 is comfortable but it's more snug than the 172 for me.
 
I own a 150 ,it’s not a great climber ,in high density situations. You can fly with the windows open for the feeling of more room. I’m 5’10 and 190 lbs.
 
My father was 6'2" and 190 lbs. He was very comfortable in a Skylane. I realize that's a big step up, budget wise, but I suspect the OP is going to be dissatisfied with anything less.
 
Jim K said:
I'm 6'4" and 270ish. I'm okay in the PA28s. The 172 is tight bordering on uncomfortable. I've not been in a 150, but they make the 172 look big. I get the budget...have you thought about a Champ or a (Tri) Pacer?
Click to expand...
Cabin width of a Warrior vs a 172 is 2in difference. (42 vs 40 in). A 152 is 39. The main difference is the 172 has seat rails (one person can slide back offsetting the should space... a 152 you basically sit on the floor. There is an STC for a 'bubble' (observation?) window on a 152 but it won't do much for shoulder space.

At 270 you don't have much room for gas, add in another carbon based life form and you're going to have the range of a rock skipping across a lake.

Thank the maker that my wife is a tiny little petite woman.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
One thing I liked about the 150 was how big it is compared to the Cessna 120 that my brother and I took from Detroit to Fairbanks and back.
Click to expand...
A Cessna 120, two people, DTW to FAI... how on earth did y'all even manage that?!? There's no room for bags, not enough fuel in the tanks for some of the longer legs... daaaamn.

I just returned from a 12 day Texas-Alaska adventure in my RV-8; it was easy in this ship, but, I took out my back seat to strap in an 8 gal aux fuel tank plus to stash all my stuff... I can't even imagine doing it with 2 peeps in a C-120!
 
CraigSA said:
The low cost of getting into the C150 is attractive with the low insurance and maintenance. I'm looking at it as a flying long term project upgrade that we would be unlikely to sell once we buy it.

Any advice or pointers on this set up?
Click to expand...
If you're going to be in the game for a while, the slightly lower acquisition cost of a 2 seater is down in the noise compared to the TCO. Get a 4 seater.

You won't fit in a 150 anyway. I have a 140. At 5'7" 155, I'm around the median 1950 man that it was designed for. It's great for flying solo. My 12yo son is alarmingly close to my height and weight and it's already getting cozy when we fly together.
 
Probably best to be patient and rent for a while. And then build a RV9! That’s the dream…
 
A few seconds with Google comes up with a 478 pound useful load. Full fuel (26 gallons) leaves you at best, 322 pounds. OP is 240, so 82 pounds left.

And a 150 a max gross is NOT happy when hot and high.

And that is assuming a light -150.
 
jbDC9 said:
A Cessna 120, two people, DTW to FAI... how on earth did y'all even manage that?!? There's no room for bags, not enough fuel in the tanks for some of the longer legs... daaaamn.

I just returned from a 12 day Texas-Alaska adventure in my RV-8; it was easy in this ship, but, I took out my back seat to strap in an 8 gal aux fuel tank plus to stash all my stuff... I can't even imagine doing it with 2 peeps in a C-120!
Click to expand...
 
Get a Cessna 170, it is everything the 150 isn’t. Better seats, more room, more hp, better climb rate. All while being economical.

They are priced lower than the 172, and are much more fun to taxi, takeoff, and land. Look great on the ramp too.

At 6’2”, i am super comfy with legroom behind my seat for pax.

Do it.

IMG_6962.jpegIMG_6468.jpegIMG_6467.jpeg

IMG_6326.jpeg
 
texasclouds said:
Get a Cessna 170, it is everything the 150 isn’t. Better seats, more room, more hp, better climb rate. All while being economical.

They are priced lower than the 172, and are much more fun to taxi, takeoff, and land. Look great on the ramp too.

At 6’2”, i am super comfy with legroom behind my seat for pax.

Do it.

View attachment 142538View attachment 142539View attachment 142540

View attachment 142541
Click to expand...

Only thing is, the front wheel is on the wrong side of the plane. :happydance:

Now, let the hate posts begin haha.
 
I’m 6’2” and did all my private training in a 150/152. Back then I was 180. I don’t remember the cabin height being a problem. But useful load was always part of the equation.
 
I have 4.1 hours in my log book for a 150. Back 25 years ago when I was a student pilot. That number never went up for a very simple reason. Leg room. Or, lack thereof. I was 6' 2" at the time (a bit shorter now) and when I ran the pilot's seat all the way back my knees were still in the bottom of the panel when I went for the brakes. You will not be happy with a 150.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top