First time flying a 150

I thought this was going to quickly turn into a 150 bash session and it's kinda cool to read so many other people have enjoyed them as much as I have. They're small, they're slow, they're cheap...but man are they fun.
 
The 150 or 140 as opposed to a larger plane remind me of a time in the past. When I was in my twenties I rode dirt bikes quite alot. I raced off road cross country and motocross. I was usually on a 250 or a 360. I remember how much fun it was to occasionally get on my wifes really lightweight, but powerful 125. It was light and agile and I could throw it around like there was nothing there.

That's how I feel about the 140/150. They are so light and responsive that you can make them quickly and easily go where you want. The penalty, of course, is their extreme movement in rough air. It's good training to fly one in rough air though.

My $0.02,
Doc
 
Gerhardt said:
I thought this was going to quickly turn into a 150 bash session and it's kinda cool to read so many other people have enjoyed them as much as I have. They're small, they're slow, they're cheap...but man are they fun.
Click to expand...
I have had the 150 which was the first airplane I flew as the picture in my profile for a while.

profilepic253_4.gif
 
Everskyward said:
I learned in a 150 (at sea level) and taught in a 152 (in Colorado). I think they are good airplanes to learn in but a challenge at higher DAs.
Click to expand...

Mari,

When I was a Leadville one time I saw a C-172 flying nearby when I landed. The 172 landed, and I got to speak with the female instructor a bit. I forget her name, but she was really nice. I asked her if the 172 had the 180 HP conversions, expecting to hear "of course!". She told me it was the standard 150 HP Skyhawk. I was amazed. So, it can be done, and I think it makes you a better pilot, so you teaching in a 152 probably had the same feeling. Nice job!
 
I owned a C-172 for three years and now have a C-150 that I have had for five years. The 150 is slow, but it is way more fun to fly than a 172. A lot cheaper too. Then again, I am 5'9" and 175 lbs. so the room is not that big an issue.
 
Gerhardt said:
I thought this was going to quickly turn into a 150 bash session and it's kinda cool to read so many other people have enjoyed them as much as I have. They're small, they're slow, they're cheap...but man are they fun.
Click to expand...

I flew it last night for a night flight and dare I say - I already know I will miss the little plane after I get checked out on Saturday in the 172. I think when possible I will cram people into the 152 for rides. It is just so fun for me to fly and the more I fly that plane the more it just feels natural.
 
GCA319 said:
The one I fly has a very sensitive ELT that I once set off after a "firm" landing...at night. Crawing back there at 3:00 am to turn it off was lots of fun...:mad2:
Click to expand...

We were all once taught as students, to check 121.5 after getting to the chocks. Just in case our worse landing of the day set off the ELT. :goofy::rofl:
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I flew it last night for a night flight and dare I say - I already know I will miss the little plane after I get checked out on Saturday in the 172. I think when possible I will cram people into the 152 for rides. It is just so fun for me to fly and the more I fly that plane the more it just feels natural.
Click to expand...


Be careful the first time you fly the spaceship that is a Cessna 172.


It's so fast it can get ahead of you really quickly :rofl:
 
DavidWhite said:
Be careful the first time you fly the spaceship that is a Cessna 172.


It's so fast it can get ahead of you really quickly :rofl:
Click to expand...

First time? I've flown that plane at least 4-6 times, including on a night cross country. I will be OK David.
 
I took the 150 around the pattern last night to make sure it was running properly before a lesson tomorrow. I had forgotten how much fun it can be. Very light on the controls and a blast to land.
 
While the 150 is fun, it isn't efficient. When Cessna put the back window in it in around 1965 or '66, the sharp drop behind the cabin made more drag and slowed the airplane down and probably hurt the climb rate, too. Old straight-tail 150s cruised faster. We gave up on 150s years ago, for two reasons:

1. The t/o and climb at our summertime DA was really rotten, and a student spent all his time climbing. Three circuits an hour, maybe, instead of six in a 172. Might get one spin in a hour's practice, as it would take too long to climb back up for another. Pushing on the ceiling or blowing on the windshield did nothing to help, either:)
Students spent more money learning to fly because of it.

2. The O-200 has a history of exhaust valve troubles, and we were forever taking cylinders off to fix them. The 150s ended up costing us a much per hour to operate as the 172s.

We also had an O-200-powered Champ 7EC. Exactly the same engine. It carried about the same load. It took off shorter, climbed faster, and cruised faster than the 150s. Much more fun, and the students learned to use their feet. They loved it. But, being a taildragger, it was only for real pilots...

Dan
 
Dan,

My 140 is somewhere between the 150 and Champ. My first 7 hours were in a Champ and I loved it. Also, I went away from it with automatic feet.

My 140 climbs out between 500 and 700 FPM at max gross, determined by DA. I get in MANY more circuits than three in an hour. Even though it's been a challenge, I love being a tailwheel pilot.

In spite of the 150's shortcomings that you correctly point out, I really like flying one even though I haven't climbed into one since April.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top