PPL on Cessna-172. Flying on Cessna-150 now?

Gino Shtirlits

Gino Shtirlits

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
61
Display Name
Shtirlits
Home Airfield
47N
I have got PPL learning on Cessna-172. May I fly Cessna-150 now?
 
Yes. But, as @luvflyin says, a check out with an instructor is a good idea. Why?

When I came back to flying and started my LSA project plane I flew the 172 initially. After having flown several LSAs I found the 172 heavy and not as responsive as the LSAs. So I switched to a 150 to “get back in the saddle.” It is much more like my LSA than than the 172. Lighter on the controls, more responsive, and, frankly, more fun. It’s also much more like an LSA on the ground, where you really have to pay attention to the effects of wind and the positions of your flight controls on taxi.

As AFAIK, the reason that the 150 fell out of favor as the primary trainer in America is that Americans just became too beefy and we began to exceed the weight limits of the 150, particularly with an instructor aboard.

Frankly, the 150 is a blast to fly. Think Miata rather than sedan.

Also, check your insurance. Most will require a bit of dual time in a new model.
 
If you are renting the 150, chances are you will need (and should want) a checkout with a CFI for insurance purposes. The 150 has a lot less power, so the pilot needs to anticipate things earlier. We regard it as a better trainer because it teaches skills you may not need in a 172.
 
The 150 is underpowered, so don't expect 172 performance out of it. It can land short, but it takes plenty of runway on takeoff. It has 40° of flaps, and if you forget to retract them on takeoff after the T&G, you won't climb well at all. If the flaps refuse to retract it's usually the travel limit microswitches full of oil or grease from improper maintenance. Too many mechanics don't follow the service manuals. On a hot day you could be headed for a crash.

It's less forgiving than the 172, and will spin readily if you get into a cross-controlled skid and too slow.
 
Gino Shtirlits said:
I have got PPL learning on Cessna-172. May I fly Cessna-150 now?
Click to expand...
Though not legally required (unless an endorsement is needed), an instructor checkout is highly recommended for insurance and safety, and to familiarise yourself with Aircraft Flight Manual/Pilot’s Operating Handbook
 
Dan Thomas said:
The 150 is underpowered, so don't expect 172 performance out of it. It can land short, but it takes plenty of runway on takeoff. It has 40° of flaps, and if you forget to retract them on takeoff after the T&G, you won't climb well at all. If the flaps refuse to retract it's usually the travel limit microswitches full of oil or grease from improper maintenance. Too many mechanics don't follow the service manuals. On a hot day you could be headed for a crash.

It's less forgiving than the 172, and will spin readily if you get into a cross-controlled skid and too slow.
Click to expand...
It is not strictly true that the 150 is underpowered. looking at the numbers a 150 at gross weight will take off shorter and climb steeper than the 172 at gross weight under the same conditions. It is just that the 172 has the option of not flying at or near gross weight and improving the performance.
True the 172 will be 10-15mph faster than the 150

** I was comparing 1975 models of each
 
As far as the FAA goes your PPL single engine land allows you to fly any single engine piston land aircraft under 12,500lbs assuming it doesn't require any additional endorsements such as complex or HP. Your PPL training really ought to have covered this at some point but I understand that some people get lost in the myriad of regs.

That said, insurance companies often have other requirements for coverage and a CFI checkout in an unfamiliar aircraft is always a good idea especially if you're relatively new.
 
brcase said:
It is not strictly true that the 150 is underpowered. looking at the numbers a 150 at gross weight will take off shorter and climb steeper than the 172 at gross weight under the same conditions. It is just that the 172 has the option of not flying at or near gross weight and improving the performance.
True the 172 will be 10-15mph faster than the 150

** I was comparing 1975 models of each
Click to expand...
The Cessna 150 is subject to AD 96-12-06 which requires changes to the engine timing...I've heard this decreases HP noticeably.

Performance is surprisingly poor at high DA.

It's true though that the 150 is nearly always operated near MGW while the 172 rarely is. Book numbers may be similar between the 150 and 172, but in real life, the C150 is underpowered, and a lack of skill or experience can bite you more readily.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
I'm becoming increasingly disturbed by the amount of people that don't stop and research something for themselves. LMGTFY is almost a constant irritation now.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there have been regs that I read right from the FAR/AIM and interpreted wrong. There are certainly things I forgot or should have known over the years but didn't. This seems pretty basic but I'd rather foster a culture of people being comfortable asking instead of assuming and potentially getting in trouble.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I'm becoming increasingly disturbed by the amount of people that don't stop and research something for themselves. LMGTFY is almost a constant irritation now.
Click to expand...
I think this is unnecessarily harsh. OP got a lot of good information from the group far beyond the actual regulations. You should learn to read between the lines. Another way to look at your complaint: perhaps this is the wrong group for you, considering over-exacting standards. Certainly rigid for a CFI, a field where knowledge sharing & education is the point of the endeavor.
 
rhkennerly said:
I think this is unnecessarily harsh. OP got a lot of good information from the group far beyond the actual regulations. You should learn to read between the lines. Another way to look at your complaint: perhaps this is the wrong group for you, considering over-exacting standards. Certainly rigid for a CFI, a field where knowledge sharing & education is the point of the endeavor.
Click to expand...
I'm not backing down from that opinion. As pilots we're responsible to know, understand, and apply the regulations, and 91.103 makes us responsible to gather information before each flight. Anyone who thinks that thinking other pilots should have a bare minimum of knowledge and capability of how to research basic queries is "rigid" is a source of amusement.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I'm not backing down from that opinion. As pilots we're responsible to know, understand, and apply the regulations, and 91.103 makes us responsible to gather information before each flight. Anyone who thinks that thinking other pilots should have a bare minimum of knowledge and capability of how to research basic queries is "rigid" is a source
Click to expand...

RyanShort1 said:
subtext is important in a group. Op wouldn’t be the first of us to ask a leading question to generate a bit of discussion.
Click to expand...
 
I do the flight review in a rental 172 ,however I own and fly a 150 very comfortable in either. The 150 can be weight restricted.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I'm becoming increasingly disturbed by the amount of people that don't stop and research something for themselves. LMGTFY is almost a constant irritation now.
Click to expand...
I had to google (actually DuckDuckGo) LMGTFY, but I like to DIY if possible.
 
I too consider this question from the OP to be disturbing. Further, it's a symptom of a pilot who doesn't care to perform the diligence themselves for safe flight by preparation. It borders on trollism.

I go back to the weeks after the ink on my PPL dried, and having various questions about my limits. It would set off in me a hunt for the AIM or other avenues to find those answers myself, even though there was a CFI within a few feet from me, or avail by phone at almost any time. What would my CFI have said if I called him on a Monday night after getting my PPL and asking something like this?
 
And the 150 is significantly less "returns to trimmed airspeed" in approach config. You have to keep an eye on the ASI as it's easy to get slow. E.g. you can more easily (inadvertently) fly it "against" trim" than a 172.
 
brcase said:
It is not strictly true that the 150 is underpowered. looking at the numbers a 150 at gross weight will take off shorter and climb steeper than the 172 at gross weight under the same conditions. It is just that the 172 has the option of not flying at or near gross weight and improving the performance.
True the 172 will be 10-15mph faster than the 150
Click to expand...

dmspilot said:
The Cessna 150 is subject to AD 96-12-06 which requires changes to the engine timing...I've heard this decreases HP noticeably.

Performance is surprisingly poor at high DA.

It's true though that the 150 is nearly always operated near MGW while the 172 rarely is. Book numbers may be similar between the 150 and 172, but in real life, the C150 is underpowered, and a lack of skill or experience can bite you more readily.
Click to expand...
Yes I thought about complicating my post with that detail referring to that AD if it applies. Quite a few 150's have been upgraded so that the AD doesn't apply to them.
But is a detail that is good to know if it applies to the 150 you are flying or not.

Brian
 
Yes, that AD is now 30 years old. If the cylinders are the same ones that was on it in 96 thats a miracle.
 
The 150 IS underpowered. A propeller maker in France told us homebuilders that he used 85 HP as the basis for making props for the O-200. That engine is the last iteration of the A-65/75/C85/C90 series. Continental took the C-90 and jacked up the redline to get another ten HP out of it and called it the O-200, but most of that disappears in drag on the blades of the faster propeller. We had two 150s in the flight school, and I did some work on an Alon Aircoupe that had a C-90 in it. I flew them all; I was an instructor AND a mechanic. The power-to-weight ratio was the same on the 150s and the Aircoupe (last version of the Ercoupe). That Aircoupe could fly circles around the 150s. Took off shorter, climbed faster, cruised faster. That C-90 pulled way better on takeoff than the O-200s in the 150s.

Add to that the drag of the 150's fuselage. That sharp drop Cessna made for the back window is a bad deal, and the inboard ends of the flaps, when up, generate tip vortices that add more drag. They're not against the fuselage sides as with the 172/182 and so on.
 
brcase said:
Yes I thought about complicating my post with that detail referring to that AD if it applies. Quite a few 150's have been upgraded so that the AD doesn't apply to them.
But is a detail that is good to know if it applies to the 150 you are flying or not.

Brian
Click to expand...
There should have been a POH revision as part of that AD. The performance numbers suffered some.
 
There was no poh amendment that I'm aware of for the decrease in hp.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The 150 IS underpowered. A propeller maker in France told us homebuilders that he used 85 HP as the basis for making props for the O-200. That engine is the last iteration of the A-65/75/C85/C90 series. Continental took the C-90 and jacked up the redline to get another ten HP out of it and called it the O-200, but most of that disappears in drag on the blades of the faster propeller. We had two 150s in the flight school, and I did some work on an Alon Aircoupe that had a C-90 in it. I flew them all; I was an instructor AND a mechanic. The power-to-weight ratio was the same on the 150s and the Aircoupe (last version of the Ercoupe). That Aircoupe could fly circles around the 150s. Took off shorter, climbed faster, cruised faster. That C-90 pulled way better on takeoff than the O-200s in the 150s.

Add to that the drag of the 150's fuselage. That sharp drop Cessna made for the back window is a bad deal, and the inboard ends of the flaps, when up, generate tip vortices that add more drag. They're not against the fuselage sides as with the 172/182 and so on.
Click to expand...
Good knowledge base on the diff in the engines. There's a bit more to it as well. The C85 and C90 are somewhat different engines, but the C90 and the O-200 are nearly identical. They are also on the same TCDS. The C90 is actually a 95HP engine for five min on takeoff. The other thing that makes a fairly big diff is the C150 weird prop limitation to 69 inches. The C90/95 will swing up to a 71 inch prop and those two inches make a significant difference in takeoff thrust in my experience. I suspect the limitations on the C150 prop was due to the added RPM to make the 100HP.

I find the C90/95 with a bigger prop to be superior to the O-200 in performance.
 
Technically, you can fly any single engine aircraft under 12,500 pounds that does not require a type rating. With that said, with any new model of aircraft you fly, you should fly with either a CFI who knows the plane and can show you the differences from what you’re used to flying. Each plane has its own quirks and behaviors. Make sure you understand those and know the aircraft’s limitations, and don’t fly the plane by yourself until you are fully comfortable with that specific aircraft. A 150 is a fun airplane. Enjoy it, but know it well.
 
I just read the POH and administered a self-checkout. Too heavy to take an adult human CFI along with me. It's a docile trainer, don't overthink it.
 
I did all my PPL training in 152's (and a little time in 150's). Almost immediately transitioned to 172's and other more high-performance crafts, but continued flying 150's and 152's for a while. It was a no brainer transition back and forth...I was current and competent
slowly transitioned away from the little 2-seaters and did more flying in larger aircraft
then a few years later I rented a 152 for a local flight. The schools rules if I recall correctly was that a checkout wasn't required since I had a lot of time in type and had been training for commercial and actively flying their 172's,172 RG's, and 182.
It was a breezy spring day as I recall and it scared me. That little thing was being pushed around all over the place when trying to land compared with the slightly heavier Cessnas

yeah, get a check-out!
 
IMHO - not prudent to assume you can fly a new to you plane just because it's somewhat similar your usual type. There is always something different. Flap switch, position or momentary? Fuel selector? How does it feel in a cross wind? What does it feel like/look like when it stalls? How quickly does it climb, descend, etc.?

At the min you need a check out with someone who has C 150 time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top