Cessna 150 Aerobat

Nit picking, but all Aerobats were Cessna 152's, not 150's.

The interior pic did not seem to show the door jettison D rings, which are installed on each side door pillar.

Mighty pretty plane, though. I have flown aerobatic in one, and liked it. That one had no seat upholstery, I sat on the parachute, and it also padded the back. Not very comfortable. This plane is nicer.

Priced to make a profit!
 
geezer said:
Nit picking, but all Aerobats were Cessna 152's, not 150's.

The interior pic did not seem to show the door jettison D rings, which are installed on each side door pillar.

Mighty pretty plane, though. I have flown aerobatic in one, and liked it. That one had no seat upholstery, I sat on the parachute, and it also padded the back. Not very comfortable. This plane is nicer.

Priced to make a profit!
Click to expand...
Aerobats were available in both 150 and 152 models. I fly a 1973 A-150L with an O-360 (STC) and tow gliders with it.
 
hard pass. Much better acro options for less money, even trikes (acro tends to be dominated by tail draggers, so I know the frustration of finding acro trikes). I used to own a non-acro 150, it -- not today ! :D
 
Aerobat or not, I can't justify $90k for a 150. I have flown a 152 Aerobat in the past and it was mildly fun to fly, but nothing to write home about imho.
 
geezer said:
Nit picking, but all Aerobats were Cessna 152's, not 150's.

The interior pic did not seem to show the door jettison D rings, which are installed on each side door pillar.

Mighty pretty plane, though. I have flown aerobatic in one, and liked it. That one had no seat upholstery, I sat on the parachute, and it also padded the back. Not very comfortable. This plane is nicer.

Priced to make a profit!
Click to expand...
Okay so what is the proper name for the 150 Aerobat?
 
geezer said:
Nit picking, but all Aerobats were Cessna 152's, not 150's.

The interior pic did not seem to show the door jettison D rings, which are installed on each side door pillar.

Mighty pretty plane, though. I have flown aerobatic in one, and liked it. That one had no seat upholstery, I sat on the parachute, and it also padded the back. Not very comfortable. This plane is nicer.

Priced to make a profit!
Click to expand...
The factory Cessna POH in the ad clearly says 1977 Cessna 150 Aerobat.
 
Nice plane, but I can't ever see owning one as there are so many better choices for acro.

Great plane for a flight school that already uses 150s and wants to add upset training, though.
 
As others have said, for that money you can buy a really nice Citabria and they are just better airplanes all around. The aerobat doesn't handle any different than a standard 150 and I can't imagine that aerobatics in it would be all that fun. For that price you could buy a decent standard 150 AND a decent ECA. That is nice Decathlon or 7KCAB money and they have inverted fuel and oil systems so you can do proper aerobatics.
 
Time to eat humble pie.

I thought that the change from no rear window to the newer airframe with a window defined the change from 150 to 152. Obviously wrong.

All the 150's that I have flown were without rear windows, all the 152's were with. And all the Aerobats that I sat in or flew were 152's.

I also have revived the memory of a failure to get a log book entry for that aerobatic flight. I was having so much fun, that the instructor ran past the end of the hour because "students are always late". I was cash in hand. His next student was early, waiting at the gas pump, and made a big deal of it. I exited the plane, gave him the parachute, he climbed in, the gas boy put gas in, and away they went.

I took the Hobbs numbers in, and paid for the flight, and had no log book entry! Since this flight was not from my home airport, and the aerobatic instructor was part time and lived even farther away, getting together with him just faded away.
 
After you get over the novelty of those first few loops and aileron rolls, you're not gonna care much about continuing to do acro in an Aerobat and you might as well have a regular 150/152 for much less money.
 
geezer said:
I thought that the change from no rear window to the newer airframe with a window defined the change from 150 to 152.
Click to expand...
Rear window came with the 1964 150D. Important safety feature - you need it to see where you're going in a headwind.

The new 152 was more-or-less an evolutionary change for the 1978 model year - switch to Lyc O-235, gross weight up to 1670 lb, flaps limited to 30° - otherwise same as the '77 150M.

5EB3B68D-C96B-48E9-BD89-94702DCE4889.jpeg
 
Pilawt said:
Rear window came with the 1964 150D. Important safety feature - you need it to see where you're going in a headwind.

The new 152 was more-or-less an evolutionary change for the 1978 model year - switch to Lyc O-235, gross weight up to 1670 lb, flaps limited to 30° - otherwise same as the '77 150M.
Click to expand...
Also changed to 28V electrical system.
 
RoscoeT said:
After you get over the novelty of those first few loops and aileron rolls, you're not gonna care much about continuing to do acro in an Aerobat and you might as well have a regular 150/152 for much less money.
Click to expand...
A regular 150 in decent hands will do the same maneuver as long as nobody sees you. ;)
 
Grum.Man said:
A regular 150 in decent hands will do the same maneuver as long as nobody sees you. ;)
Click to expand...
Sure, but those who already know this and who would be safe doing it will not be interested in the first place.
 
I would personally prefer an Aerobat over a Citabria if I did not have a hangar available. Ask Catherine Cavagnaro in Sewanee, Tennessee, whether or not Aerobats can do aerobatics . :) A super Decathlon would be better, but each of us has to pay our money and make our choice.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Does the Aerobat differ structurally from the regular 152?
Click to expand...
Per Cessna aerodynamicist and test pilot Bill Robinson:

-- Beefed up wings, struts (wider chord), and empennage structure to withstand the 6 g's positive and 3 g's negative required in the aerobatic category and the higher 193-mph red line speed;
-- Large military-type seat belt and shoulder harness system along with removable seat cushions to accommodate either seat pack or back pack parachutes;
-- Overhead skylights standard;
-- Jettisonable cabin doors
 
I got to thinking, how do 150/152 Aerobats pull negative G's with carbureted engines?
 
Sac Arrow said:
I got to thinking, how do 150/152 Aerobats pull negative G's with carbureted engines?
Click to expand...
They don't. No inverted oil system either. So you're really limited in the acro that you can do. No legit negative g manuevers - so no slow rolls, no proper Imelmanns, etc. You can "cheat" a lot of those and have them kinda look right and functionally work out, but that makes for terrible acro training, which is what most folks would want to do in an aerobat. A Citabria (7KCAB) or Decathlon (8KCAB) has fuel injection and an inverted oil system (good for 20-30 seconds anyway), so they make for far better choices.
 
geezer said:
Nit picking, but all Aerobats were Cessna 152's, not 150's.

The interior pic did not seem to show the door jettison D rings, which are installed on each side door pillar.

Mighty pretty plane, though. I have flown aerobatic in one, and liked it. That one had no seat upholstery, I sat on the parachute, and it also padded the back. Not very comfortable. This plane is nicer.

Priced to make a profit!
Click to expand...
I think I see a D-ring on the door post...
 

Attachments

  • SmartSelect_20251120_210223_Chrome.jpg
    SmartSelect_20251120_210223_Chrome.jpg
    129.4 KB · Views: 19
TonyG said:
They don't. No inverted oil system either. So you're really limited in the acro that you can do. No legit negative g manuevers - so no slow rolls...
Click to expand...
Not really true. I've been to contests where Aerobats flew Primary and did pretty good rolls. All rolls in competition must be on a linear trajectory (aka "slow" rolls w/ negative G) to score well. As long as you don't mind the engine quitting for a couple seconds, dumping a little oil, and spraying a little fuel out of the vents, they can do "slow" rolls just fine as long as the pilot is capable, as was the case with what I saw. Engine stoppage doesn't hurt anything. The prop keeps windmilling with plenty of speed. Engine resumes the moment you regain positive G. That being said, I'd certainly not recommend an Aerobat to anyone who has true interest in aerobatics. Most people do what I described here just for occasional ****s and giggles. Everyone on the ground loves to watch this sort of thing mix it up with the usual Pitts' and Extras. The pilots had just as much fun.
 
Last edited:
texasclouds said:
Looks real nice, but I would personally look at a Decathlon instead.
Click to expand...
I own a Cessna 152 Aerobat as well as a Super Decathlon. I have much time instructing aerobatics in both (plus the 150 Aerobat and Std Decathlon).
I certainly much prefer the Super D but the Cessna is a great basic aerobatic trainer.
The Decathlon costs a lot more to own and operate so I when I retire I'll be keeping the Cessna.
 

Attachments

  • HEZ071124a.jpg
    HEZ071124a.jpg
    376 KB · Views: 12
francisco collazos said:
what is the benefit to 28v vs 12v system?
Click to expand...
Less current draw, more efficient, can handle bigger loads - for example if you upgrade the panel.
Of course you lose compatibility with car accessories, like battery chargers or jump starters.
 
honest little airplane that’ll teach you a lot if you listen to it. Super forgiving, but it’ll also rat you out if your feet are lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top