Tell my why I shouldn't just buy a 150?

psween

psween

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
142
Location
7MN3
Display Name
Display name:
psween
I posted a few months ago about looking for a low cost 4 seater in the Cherokee/172/Cheetah range, and while I still think that would be a good fit for most of my needs (wants), it looks like I'd have to save up for at least another year to afford one. My airplane fund and cash flow right now would allow me to get into a mid time, minimal IFR 150, which would allow me to build hours, work on my IFR rating, and eventually serve as a trainer for my kids (oldest is 13 now). I'd eventually like to get the CPL and CFI as well, so this could be a lower cost way to get there sooner rather than later. Looks like direct operating costs in the $30-40 range, with insurance and engine/maint. reserves bumping that up to around $60/hr. I can't rent for that, so tell me why I shouldn't go this way? Or if it's a great strategy, you can tell me that too, I like praise :)

Patrick
 
Because you could get a C120/140 for about the same price.


I'm bough my Stinson to build hours, I was going to get my CPL with it and sell it for the same, if not a hair more then I bought it for, after I got my CPL. Ended up keeping it for about 5-6 years as I really enjoyed it, only sold it to get my float plane.

If you got the cash to pull it off, it's the best way to get a CPL, just make sure you're in the plane right and don't be in a rush to buy
 
Can you, an instructor, and full fuel all fit in that 150 at the same time?

Can it climb at 500 FPM like that? Up to what altitude?

These are all relevant for your instrument rating.
 
psween said:
I posted a few months ago about looking for a low cost 4 seater in the Cherokee/172/Cheetah range, and while I still think that would be a good fit for most of my needs (wants), it looks like I'd have to save up for at least another year to afford one. My airplane fund and cash flow right now would allow me to get into a mid time, minimal IFR 150, which would allow me to build hours, work on my IFR rating, and eventually serve as a trainer for my kids (oldest is 13 now). I'd eventually like to get the CPL and CFI as well, so this could be a lower cost way to get there sooner rather than later. Looks like direct operating costs in the $30-40 range, with insurance and engine/maint. reserves bumping that up to around $60/hr. I can't rent for that, so tell me why I shouldn't go this way? Or if it's a great strategy, you can tell me that too, I like praise :)

Patrick
Click to expand...

No discouraging words here...go for it. I did a lot of IFR instruction in 150/152 without any payload problems. Climbing at 500fpm is far from impossible, considering that just about everything can be taught below 5000agl. When it comes time for cross-country adventures, choose your MEAs wisely and don't carry any more fuel than necessary to meet the regulations.

Bob Gardner
 
Last edited:
Full fuel????

Why on earth would you need full fuel?

You really want to sit in a 2 seat plane that long..? F' that noise!

A 150 and required normal mission fuel you'll be just fine.

I rarely top the tanks in anything I fly, once the OP gets into the industry as a professional pilot he won't be topping tanks, fuel for the mission plus FAR reserves, leave the plane fueled to your normal mission, 9.99 times out of 10 that ain't topped off.
 
I don't have a lot of time in one, but the one I did fly was ok with me and the instructor I'd likely be hiring for the instrument stuff. I'm about 190, he's about 170, so with full fuel we are only about 20 lbs. under gross. I wouldn't say it was sprightly, but I remember climb of around 550-600 fpm in the one we were in. We didn't take it up too far, since it was training in the flat lands with the ground at about 1300' MSL. Wasn't uncomfortably tight across the shoulders either, as we're both relatively narrow. My partially educated guess is that yes, it could do the climb as needed for reasonable cross countries and approaches to different places, as long as I keep living in the low flat part of the country. Certainly not a real IFR plane, or much use for more than training and burger runs, but I could be in it this summer, instead of a year or two from now. I'm hopefully looking at a candidate next week, and if it checks out I'm about ready to jump in. Just like to hear things I may not have considered.

Patrick
 
If instruction received and given is your mission you'd not find a better ship for it. Doesn't hurt that its also the most inexpensive of the certificated singles to fly and maintain. But heaven help you if you want to go anywhere. First headwind and you'll be passed by trucks on the freeway.
 
James331 said:
Full fuel????

Why on earth would you need full fuel?

You really want to sit in a 2 seat plane that long..? F' that noise!

A 150 and required normal mission fuel you'll be just fine.

I rarely top the tanks in anything I fly, once the OP gets into the industry as a professional pilot he won't be topping tanks, fuel for the mission plus FAR reserves, leave the plane fueled to your normal mission, 9.99 times out of 10 that ain't topped off.
Click to expand...

Instrument lessons really suck without at least 2.5 hours of fuel in the aircraft. 3 is better. Remember, 45 minutes reserve is required for IFR. And that's from the alternate in addition to the destination.

Even on the cross country, estimate a ~hour flight to first landing, 45 minutes reserve, and another 30-60 minutes to the alternate. You don't want it too close or it isn't a good alternate; it will have the same weather. On a run of the mill lesson, you'll lose a lot of time if you have a fuel stop in the middle.

Remember, you aren't going to get that magic 6 GPH if you're climbing and descending all the time, especially below 3000 where you keep it rich.
 
psween said:
I don't have a lot of time in one, but the one I did fly was ok with me and the instructor I'd likely be hiring for the instrument stuff. I'm about 190, he's about 170, so with full fuel we are only about 20 lbs. under gross. I wouldn't say it was sprightly, but I remember climb of around 550-600 fpm in the one we were in. We didn't take it up too far, since it was training in the flat lands with the ground at about 1300' MSL. Wasn't uncomfortably tight across the shoulders either, as we're both relatively narrow. My partially educated guess is that yes, it could do the climb as needed for reasonable cross countries and approaches to different places, as long as I keep living in the low flat part of the country. Certainly not a real IFR plane, or much use for more than training and burger runs, but I could be in it this summer, instead of a year or two from now. I'm hopefully looking at a candidate next week, and if it checks out I'm about ready to jump in. Just like to hear things I may not have considered.

Patrick
Click to expand...

Sounds like it may work. The remaining variable is, can you climb at 500 FPM up to typical IFR altitudes in your area. Around me, that means 5000 or 6000 (even 7000 for a few directions), but your terrain may be different.

Cessna book numbers seem to be pretty good, but check the assumptions. No way you're going to climb at 90 in a 150. It's kinda silly in a 172. It's really stupid in a Warrior, even though that's what the POH tables presume, and if you do that, it can only make it up to 4000 on a standard day at 500 FPM. If you do it less stupidly (Vy, corrected for weight), you can get it to 7000 or 8000.
 
2.5 is more then fine, also if you're running full rich below 3k you're doing it wrong.

Average mission profile for a training IFR flight 2.5 I more then fine, and 2.5hrs fuel in a 108hp plane ain't that much fuel.

108hp / 2 = 54lbs a hour at 100%, aka 9gph at 100%

5.85GPH at 70%

Figure 6.5GPH average, 16.3 gal for 2.5hrs, 97lbs of fuel

Also as a working pilot, if you're.. plus sized, better get a plastic suit and go in a cabbage and protein shake diet, your first few jobs are going to look at your weight when they consider hiring you.
 
Last edited:
C150 holds 26 gallons, if memory serves. It won't burn 10 gph on a bad day, more like 5. More than enough duration for lesson. Where I am you can do plenty of IFR in altitudes easily reached by a 150. Did I mention there are STCs for auto gas, if you can buy it sans booze (worst use of booze EVER).
 
Exactly, just over half tanks is more then enough.
 
150 is a solid airplane for all sorts of things. It's a bad trainer here due to density altitude concerns, but it's been teaching people the world over for decades.

A friend of mine owns both a 150 and a 182. The 150 he teaches in and his kid teaches in. The 182 is the traveling airplane. He lives at a much lower MSL.
 
MAKG1 said:
Instrument lessons really suck without at least 2.5 hours of fuel in the aircraft. 3 is better. Remember, 45 minutes reserve is required for IFR. And that's from the alternate in addition to the destination.

Even on the cross country, estimate a ~hour flight to first landing, 45 minutes reserve, and another 30-60 minutes to the alternate. You don't want it too close or it isn't a good alternate; it will have the same weather. On a run of the mill lesson, you'll lose a lot of time if you have a fuel stop in the middle.

Remember, you aren't going to get that magic 6 GPH if you're climbing and descending all the time, especially below 3000 where you keep it rich.
Click to expand...

My experience as a CFI/CFII is that any lesson approaching 90 minutes (except for xc) is too long. Information starts bouncing off the student's head. It's not a fuel question.

Bob
 
MAKG1 said:
Instrument lessons really suck without at least 2.5 hours of fuel in the aircraft. 3 is better. Remember, 45 minutes reserve is required for IFR. And that's from the alternate in addition to the destination.
Click to expand...

Out of the 40.3 hrs I spent to get my IR, 3 were on a flight plan, and that was because we sought out a day with IMC. The great majority of instrument instruction is done in VMC and without a need to carry that kind of fuel.

Remember, you aren't going to get that magic 6 GPH if you're climbing and descending all the time, especially below 3000 where you keep it rich.
Click to expand...

Right, 1/2 the time you are descending at minimal power settings.
 
Go for it, unless you decide to go 120/140. Then you can add tailwheel to the mix.
 
I just sold my 150 a couple of days ago, because I felt it WOULD NOT make a good IFR trainer for me (plus I really needed a 4 place), even though this 150 was IFR certified...the best I saw solo was 500 fpm to about 2000 feet MSL, and only in cold air, with a nearly brand new engine. That was with a cruise prop, so I'd at least make sure the 150 you consider has a climb prop (48), not cruise (50).
 
I have quite a few hours in 150/152s and personally would choose a Tomahawk if I was going to buy an inexpensive 2-seat trainer.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Go for it, unless you decide to go 120/140. Then you can add tailwheel to the mix.
Click to expand...
120 worked for me (VFR), but a big roomy 152 with the big O-235 has it's advantages if you can handle all the power (Over 100 hp).
 
Last edited:
Google "IFR in a Modest Airplane" by Rick Durden. I have owned an IFR C-150 for about 9 years now. If flying cross country, you have to be careful about fuel planning. You can go out and practice all you want fairly inexpensively, though. Try visiting the Cessna 150-152 Club website. Quite a few people there fly their 150/152's IFR. Some are well equipped, but you probably won't but them for under $20 thousand. Bob Gardner should be listened to.
 
D150/152 great airplanes for training. Could be used for cross country,if speed doesn't matter. As a personal airplane ,doesn't meet most missions.
 
You're good to go, IMHO, training IR in a 150.

One knock on the 150 is the wretched visibility, maybe the worst in the generally poor high-wing Cessna stable. Like looking at the world from inside a cave mouth.

Otherwise, it's as good as any other two place trainer - not as roomy as a Tomahawk, not as likely to kill you as a AA1. . .
 
 
I have been very tempted by the Texas taildraggers. Opinions seem to be split on whether they are a good idea. You have lots of TW experience, how have they behaved in your hands?
 
I'd get a real taildragger not a trike made into a taildragger. There are only a few planes which can pull that off, such as some PA22s, the old cessna 182s made into 180s, ones which were originally taildraggers and turned to trikes
 
Is that largely due to rudder authority (or lack of) on the converted types? Or something more related to structural integrity?
 
Check the weight and balance before you travel to look at a 150. Mine is about 25 lbs heavier than the numbers you listed. Every bit counts! I have the mid range prop and a new engine and get pretty close to book numbers. Plan 85kts/6 gph, land with planned fuel. We get 3-400 fpm climb at 75-80kts and on cold days you can get 6-700 at vy/gross weight. Check out the cessna 150-152 facebook page too.
 
weilke said:
I have been very tempted by the Texas taildraggers. Opinions seem to be split on whether they are a good idea. You have lots of TW experience, how have they behaved in your hands?
Click to expand...
That's one bird I haven't flown, but I knew an instructor in Llano that like his. I think a lot depends on the quality of the conversion. It shouldn't be significantly worse than a 140A.
 
Mike5250 said:
Check the weight and balance before you travel to look at a 150. Mine is about 25 lbs heavier than the numbers you listed. Every bit counts! I have the mid range prop and a new engine and get pretty close to book numbers. Plan 85kts/6 gph, land with planned fuel. We get 3-400 fpm climb at 75-80kts and on cold days you can get 6-700 at vy/gross weight. Check out the cessna 150-152 facebook page too.
Click to expand...
Checking actual, current weight and balance on ANY potential purchase is a must, and if the buyer tells me to go look it up in the TCDS or online or something like that, the plane moves significantly down the list of aircraft I'm interested in. The plane I bought recently was over 100 lbs lighter than another 120 I was looking at.
 
I wouldn't move the plane down my list, I'd just move the starting price down
 
THIS is why you don't want a 150.

pip-cherokee140.jpg
 
I'm guessing you meant to post a piper PA12 or something? We all know no one buys a trike on purpose
 
Here ya go,

.watermarked_e6cf448b70bffb85cfeb62b1652f2f3f.jpg


PIPER PA12 • $28,000 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • Piper PA-12 1947 N78459. Total time 3935.0. Lycoming 0-235-C2C. SMOH 22.0 1997yr. Auto Gas Stc. Narco Mark 12D radio. Narco AT50A Transponder. 50 amp alternator. Scott 3200 tail wheel. Cleveland 30-60 dual piston brake calipers and rotors. 6.00 x 6.0 main tires. Whelen wing tip strobes and nav lights. Wing leading edge landing lights. Univair sealed struts and large forks. Stoddard fuel tanks 46 gal capacity. Annual July 2015: G-35 battery, bungee cords, brake diaphragms, ft and rear seat slings, baggage compartment canvas. located in WI. 608-434-2438 or 608-434-2806. • Contact Frank Buelow, Owner - located La Valle, WI USA • Telephone: 608-434-2438 . • Posted March 10, 2016 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertise
Click to expand...
 
James331 said:
I'd get a real taildragger not a trike made into a taildragger. There are only a few planes which can pull that off, such as some PA22s, the old cessna 182s made into 180s, ones which were originally taildraggers and turned to trikes
Click to expand...

The 150 actually is a tailwheel that was turned into a trike, so is the Piper Tri-Pacer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top