Cleared to solo C152. Can I fly 150?

Meanee

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
521
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Display Name

Display name:
Meanee
So,

Looks like my favorite, and least reserved aircraft at my FBO is getting popular. All times when I can fly it are reserved. My CFI signed off on C152. So, I was wondering if with that signature, I can fly C150. I know there are some subtle differences (engine power, maybe speeds). Any resident CFIs here can clue me in if I am legal to fly C150? I will discuss it with my CFI, but I would like some input before I do.

Thanks.
 
So,

Looks like my favorite, and least reserved aircraft at my FBO is getting popular. All times when I can fly it are reserved. My CFI signed off on C152. So, I was wondering if with that signature, I can fly C150. I know there are some subtle differences (engine power, maybe speeds). Any resident CFIs here can clue me in if I am legal to fly C150? I will discuss it with my CFI, but I would like some input before I do.

Thanks.

Normally, you could...But I think solo signoff is model specific...what does your endorsement say?
 
If you can actually tell the difference between the two, please let us know.
 
C150 is a different type and will require an additional endorsement if you are a student pilot
 
The C150 has the Continental. The 152 has the Lycoming. The Continental's carburetor ices up much more easily than the Lycoming's, and if the student is not trained to recognize the risk conditions and operational symptoms of carb ice, and how to handle it, it will bite him seriously.

And carb ice is not just a winter problem. I've had ice on nice summer mornings.

Dan
 
Can you? Almost certainly yes. The two planes fly pretty much the same, and despite some minor differences in the Lycoming versus Continental engines, in most conditions those differences are largely insignificant.

Would it be legal? Absolutely certainly no. The C-152 and C-150 are different models as that term applies in 14 CFR 61.87(n):
(n) Limitations on student pilots operating an aircraft in solo flight. A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless that student pilot has received:
(1) An endorsement from an authorized instructor on his or her student pilot certificate for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown; and
(2) An endorsement in the student's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown by an authorized instructor, who gave the training within the 90 days preceding the date of the flight.
Since you are "signed off" only for the C-152, that's the end of that.

That said, having flown with you and signed you off for solo in a C-152, it would be legal for your instructor to sign you off for the C-150 without actually flying with you in a C-150, since the 150 and 152 are very similar, and 61.87 says:
(c) Pre-solo flight training. Prior to conducting a solo flight, a student pilot must have:
(1) Received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures of this section that are appropriate to the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and
(2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of aircraft to be flown.
Since you've obviously received training in the 152 in all the maneuvers appropriate to the 152, and since there really aren't any maneuvers you can do in a 150 that you can't in a 152, your instructor could sign you off for solo in a C-150 based on the flight training s/he gave you in a C-152 without ever actually giving you flight training in a C-150. That would require additional endorsements on the back of your Student Pilot certificate and in your logbook. In addition, 61.87(b)(1)(iii) would also require an additional written test on the "Flight characteristics and operational limitations" of the C-150, at least as they differ from the C-152, e.g., fuel capacity and engine limitations on those two are different.

Now, would your instructor be amenable to that? I doubt it. Given my responsibility and liability for your safety, I would want to fly at least a couple of times around the pattern with you, especially to be sure you understand what happens when you select 40 flaps on final -- the difference in drag from 30 flaps is impressive. In addition, the flight school may have insurance rules prohibiting solo flight without an actual checkout flight in make/model. But you can certainly ask.
 
Last edited:
The C150 has the Continental. The 152 has the Lycoming. The Continental's carburetor ices up much more easily than the Lycoming's, and if the student is not trained to recognize the risk conditions and operational symptoms of carb ice, and how to handle it, it will bite him seriously.
If the student is not already "trained to recognize the risk conditions and operational symptoms of carb ice, and how to handle it," then the student should not have been signed off to solo a C-152 or any other carbureted airplane in the first place.
 
Thanks for the input. I thought that no, I cannot fly C150 without specific endorsement, but was not 100% sure, since they are very similar.

And I am aware of carb ice, how to recognize and handle it. While I am fortunate enough not to experience it, I do believe I am prepared to handle it. I was not, however, aware that Continental engines ice up more easy than Lycoming.
 
I was not, however, aware that Continental engines ice up more easy than Lycoming.
That's one reason the FAA requires that make/model-specific written test -- to ensure that your instructor gives you the necessary "differences" training on "flight characteristics and operational limitations" at least on the ground for "similar" make/model aircraft like the 150/152. Before giving that solo endorsement for the 150, your instructor should discuss with you the differences in the induction system and carburetor mounting between the two, and how that affects susceptibility to carb icing.
 
Is the flap setting on the C-152 limited to 30 degrees, as opposed to 40 on the C-150? That's a big difference if you're not used to 40 degree flaps.

It's only been 25 years since I flew either one, so maybe I'm just confused.
 
So, armed with all this knowledge, called CFI and confirmed what most people here said. The C150 will require a separate signoff. So I might as well just book an early time slot on the good old 152
 
I bet you've experienced minor carb ice and you don't even know it. Check the RPM before you pull carb heat during run-up. If, after you turn off carb heat, the rpm is higher (usually its very subtle) you had some ice in there.

I trained in a 152 and still fly one somewhat regularly, its pretty common for me to pick up some carb ice during taxi on humid summer mornings.
 
If the student is not already "trained to recognize the risk conditions and operational symptoms of carb ice, and how to handle it," then the student should not have been signed off to solo a C-152 or any other carbureted airplane in the first place.

Then why is the accident database so full of "suspected carburetor ice" entries?

In an ideal world, pilot training would cover it adequately. As a former flight instructor and now looking after seven training aircraft, I can tell you that it does not sink in easily. Most students these days have no frame of reference for mechanical or electrical understanding, and are lacking in Physics concepts. Carb ice bites way too many pilots these days. We read repeatedly of the "engine losing power" and carb heat isn't applied, or if it is, the engine runs even rougher so they turn it off. What's that, if it isn't poor training?

Dan
 
Then why is the accident database so full of "suspected carburetor ice" entries?
Because the fact that someone is trained to do something right doesn't guarantee they will do it right when the situation actually arises. If that were not true, the accident files would be way thinner than they actually are.
 
Is the flap setting on the C-152 limited to 30 degrees, as opposed to 40 on the C-150? That's a big difference if you're not used to 40 degree flaps.
Yes, and true. Hence, my caution about signing off a 152-qualified Student Pilot in a "similar" 150 without at least a few trips around the pattern including full-flap landings, full-flap slips, and a go-around or two from full flaps on short final.
It's only been 25 years since I flew either one, so maybe I'm just confused.
No, you are not confused.;)
 
If you had 1700, pulled the carb heat and saw the RPM fall, waited some, then pushed it in and saw 1750, you had ice.

That's true, but he only said "if it is higher after you turn it if". It is always going to go up when you turn it off. The part about "higher than before you turned it on in the first place" wasn't there, leading to ambiguity.
 
Check the RPM before you pull carb heat during run-up. If, after you turn off carb heat, the rpm is higher (usually its very subtle) you had some ice in there.

Maybe I was a bit ambiguous in my language... To clarify "check rpm before you pull carb heat during run up" means to note the rpm before you pull carb heat. After you turn off the carb heat, if the rpm was higher than what you originally noted, you had carb ice.
 
Maybe I was a bit ambiguous in my language... To clarify "check rpm before you pull carb heat during run up" means to note the rpm before you pull carb heat. After you turn off the carb heat, if the rpm was higher than what you originally noted, you had carb ice.

Thanks for the clarification. :)
 
Maybe I was a bit ambiguous in my language... To clarify "check rpm before you pull carb heat during run up" means to note the rpm before you pull carb heat. After you turn off the carb heat, if the rpm was higher than what you originally noted, you had carb ice.

There's one other scenario that can cause a higher RPM after the heat is turned off, but it makes a small change, the heat has to be on for a while, and the fuel temperature needs to be on the cool side: Pulling carb heat warms the carburetor body, including the float bowl. If the heat is aggressive enough and is on long enough, the fuel in the bowl will warm up and its density will decrease. Turning the heat off results in a slightly leaner mixture than before heat was applied, due to the lower fuel density, and a small RPM rise may be noticeable.

One of our aircraft once had a burp at night. They'd been cruising, leaned out pretty good, and pulled the carb heat for a minute or so. When they closed it, the engine started acting up. The fuel density had decreased just enough that the engine wasn't getting enough of it, but once cooler fuel arrived in the bowl it was OK. Once, in 19 years, not a real problem.

Dan
 
Another question for ya. The plane I reserved (the usual C152 that I use) had problems starting. Fouled plugs. That was cleared up but the FBO is also replacing a carb. And it appears that I may be the first person to fly with new carb. What (other than normal flight) can be expected with it?
 
Another question for ya. The plane I reserved (the usual C152 that I use) had problems starting. Fouled plugs. That was cleared up but the FBO is also replacing a carb. And it appears that I may be the first person to fly with new carb. What (other than normal flight) can be expected with it?

An person experienced with the airplane should fly it first. Depending on who built/rebuilt the carb, it might have some problems. We've had several carbs in recent years with some dangerous defects. Brand-new carbs, too. One was missing the accelerator pump check valve spring so that the engine was sucking extra fuel past the check and it ran roughly in climb. Another was leaking fuel past the carb body/bowl gasket. A third dribbled fuel like crazy and flooded the cylinders feeding off the bottom of the plenum, and its replacement had a problem with the mixture control valve.

Aircraft quality. Right.

The 152 has the Lyc O-235, which has a reputation for hard starting anyway. And seeing that most problems are electrical, I would have chased the mags and had a look inside them. Weak spark makes things tough. Watch for excessive mag drops with that engine.

More aircraft quality, that. Slick has had their difficulties, too.
Dan
 
Last edited:
I am sure that they will test the aircraft and everything, but I will ask them if it was tested before I get into it.

Previously, during runup, I did not notice any out of the ordinary issues, other than I had to have carb heat on for quite some time (about a minute) to see a drop in RPM. Mag check was ok, typically 75-100rpm drop.

Maybe it's worth doing runup more than once with new carb and spark plugs?
 
Another question for ya. The plane I reserved (the usual C152 that I use) had problems starting. Fouled plugs. That was cleared up but the FBO is also replacing a carb. And it appears that I may be the first person to fly with new carb. What (other than normal flight) can be expected with it?
I'm with Dan -- if it were my flight school, I'd at least have one of my instructors go once around the pattern with it before issuing it to a solo Student Pilot. Other than that, you shouldn't expect anything other than normal flight, but it's the unexpected which is the reason I'd have someone more experienced be the first to fly it.

That said, there's no reason to expect that doing the run-up checks more than once will find anything that doing them once will find. Just do them slowly and carefully, and if anything isn't exactly right, take it back to the shop.
 
Hrm, I get why they changed the carb but in my time as a flight school mechanic most fouled plugs are operator error. Our 98 172 is the worst, and MUST be leaned for taxi in the summer.

(but the old 152 we had years ago was bad too)
 
(but the old 152 we had years ago was bad too)

The 152 has the O-235, famous for fouling plugs. It's much better if you use REM37BY plugs instead of the 38s or 40s. 37s have the extended electrodes that are really resistant to fouling. Legal for the 235, too.

REM37BY.jpg


Dan
 
My CFI actually trained me to lean the mixture for ground ops, and before shutting engine down, lean and run it for few seconds on high RPM. He does it to his own plane and I do this on the C152 that I rent. But, it's a rental, and nobody knows how other people are treating it.
 
My CFI actually trained me to lean the mixture for ground ops, and before shutting engine down, lean and run it for few seconds on high RPM. He does it to his own plane and I do this on the C152 that I rent. But, it's a rental, and nobody knows how other people are treating it.
Your CFI must be reading and heeding the Service Letters Lycoming puts out, including this one.
 
Would it be legal? Absolutely certainly no. The C-152 and C-150 are different models as that term applies in 14 CFR 61.87(n):
(n) Limitations on student pilots operating an aircraft in solo flight. A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless that student pilot has received:
(1) An endorsement from an authorized instructor on his or her student pilot certificate for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown; and
(2) An endorsement in the student's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown by an authorized instructor, who gave the training within the 90 days preceding the date of the flight.
Since you are "signed off" only for the C-152, that's the end of that.
The irony of that is, a student who is signed off in "C-172" could legally fly both a 1956 square-tail 172 with a Continental O-300, AND a new 172R with an injected Lycoming IO-360. The differences between those two are much greater than those between any 150 and 152. But that's the FAR, and that's the Cessna model number system, so that's the way it is.

(But if I ran the flight school, a student who soloed in the old 172 would certainly have to be checked out in the new Skyhawk, or vice versa, even if the FAR didn't expressly require it.)
 
The irony of that is, a student who is signed off in "C-172" could legally fly both a 1956 square-tail 172 with a Continental O-300, AND a new 172R with an injected Lycoming IO-360. The differences between those two are much greater than those between any 150 and 152. But that's the FAR, and that's the Cessna model number system, so that's the way it is.
I've often thought the same myself.

(But if I ran the flight school, a student who soloed in the old 172 would certainly have to be checked out in the new Skyhawk, or vice versa, even if the FAR didn't expressly require it.)
Your insurer might well require it even if the FAA didn't.
 
a student who is signed off in "C-172" could legally fly both a 1956 square-tail 172 with a Continental O-300, AND a new 172R with an injected Lycoming IO-360. The differences between those two are much greater than those between any 150 and 152. But that's the FAR, and that's the Cessna model number system, so that's the way it is.
You raise an interesting point. However, a student trained in an earlier model 172 with no logged training in a late model, and had an accident/incident would still be viewed by the FAA as having insufficient training in the make/model/series.

No additional certificate or logbook endorsement would be required, but if at least one flight of training were not conducted and logged, you can bet the FAA would find cause for a violation in lack of training.
 
You raise an interesting point. However, a student trained in an earlier model 172 with no logged training in a late model, and had an accident/incident would still be viewed by the FAA as having insufficient training in the make/model/series.
Where do you see anything in Part 61 about a requirement for training in "series," or any accident report in which the NTSB made mention of that.

No additional certificate or logbook endorsement would be required, but if at least one flight of training were not conducted and logged, you can bet the FAA would find cause for a violation in lack of training.
Can you point to any enforcement action in which this was the cause, and tell us what regulation was cited?
 
Back
Top