turning a 150 cessna into a single seater

I might have been a little rough I guess..
It's not like he was joking around about taking cash for instruction or anything and deserved it. ;)
The cost of getting such an interior approved would probably be very very enlightening... to the OP - go for it, but only if you do a "build thread" here. I bet it would be pretty fun to watch.
 
If I was going to go through that much hassle, I'd put a stick in the floor instead of yokes :)
 
has anyone ever taken out the 2 seats and the dual controls in the front of a cessna 150 to make it a single seater
The right side yoke is optional equipment. Can be removed and wt. & bal. amended. Same for rudder pedals. In the '80's I remember a pipeline surveillance company that had some 150's with only 1 seat. There was a shelf where the right set should that was used as a writing desk. Yoke was also removed. No hitchhikers allowed.
 
You guys can be some real Debbie downers sometimes. I probably doesn’t make any sense, but would you listen to people like you crap all over it if you had an idea?
The older and more experienced guys among us recognize expensive and frustrating ideas when we see them. Newbies often have no idea at all how restrictive the regulations can be and can get themselves deep into a hopeless and bankrupting project. Why else would the E-AB category be as big as it is now?
 
The older and more experienced guys among us recognize expensive and frustrating ideas when we see them. Newbies often have no idea at all how restrictive the regulations can be and can get themselves deep into a hopeless and bankrupting project. Why else would the E-AB category be as big as it is now?
So what’s it to you if somebody spends a lot of money in something you think is silly and pointless? I’m not saying don’t provide the warnings, but making the judgment for someone else that they shouldn’t do something like this is a bit far.
 
How about a bubble door on the left side? Viola - more elbow and knee room!
 
Got a reference for that ?
The early production models came in 3 or 4 basic configurations. The Trainer version had the optional dual controls installed at the factory. The Commuter(?) version did not. There were several other Cessna models that had a similar option. They were all factory options so it would only show up in a equipment list.
 
The early production models came in 3 or 4 basic configurations. The Trainer version had the optional dual controls installed at the factory. The Commuter(?) version did not. There were several other Cessna models that had a similar option. They were all factory options so it would only show up in a equipment list.
so what you are saying is "it's serial number specific" ? and the blanket statement is wrong.
 
so what you are saying is "it's serial number specific" ? and the blanket statement is wrong.
It was more production line specific and the dual controls were removed/installed as it was manufactured based on customer order. And any factory options installed on the production line were only recorded in the equipment list. There is no other requirement at that time. Look in most older 150 MM in the flight control section and there usually is a note indicating changes whether dual controls installed or not.
 
The early production models came in 3 or 4 basic configurations. The Trainer version had the optional dual controls installed at the factory. The Commuter(?) version did not. There were several other Cessna models that had a similar option. They were all factory options so it would only show up in a equipment list.
For the 150 (at least during the 1960s), there was the base model (“Standard”), and two option packages, “Trainer” and “Commuter”. Dual controls were included in the “Trainer” and “Commuter” packages, and optional on the base model.
 
Anyone making guesses, know which model the OP is working with?
 
And thanks for reference.
 
The question is why go to all that work just to fly a 150?

Doing it to a 2 seat experimental would be a LOT easier from a paperwork standpoint. There was a guy at my home field, he was quite large and for all intents and purposes his Avid Flyer was a single seat airplane. Supposedly he'd flown with his wife in it at one point; I can't imagine how unless she was really really tiny.
 
Here's a POH for a '77 150. Section 6 is weight and balance and equipment list, and page 6-17 shows the dual controls as a standard item, the same status as the towbar. The airplane comes with standard items. If the dual controls were required they would be designated R, required, same as the seat and seat belts.

It's common practice for some commercial operators to remove the copilot's control wheel and shaft and rudder pedals.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=..._150_POH.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1-2JNbrSWM45n3tyqIyHiB
 
Yes, it shows the pilot seat as R, but the right seat - often called co-pilot- but I never felt like a C150 needed a "co-pilot:, and that seat it "O", optional, I saw one long ago that had the right seat and control wheel out, the pilot said he put his left foot on the left pedal and his right foot on the right side right rudder pedal, he was a very large guy
 
I'm a lot closer to 200 than 300, and I pretty much make a 152 a single seater. If the OP wants to go E-AB, he should just look for a used tandem RV.
 
You guys can be some real Debbie downers sometimes. I probably doesn’t make any sense, but would you listen to people like you crap all over it if you had an idea?

You're right, but the OP didn't give a lot of information in his first post. If he'd said something like< 'I'm a gentleman of size, and I'm trying to think of a low cost way to get into airplane ownership. I see that I can get an old Cessna 150 cheaply, how practical/possible would it be to convert it into a single seater?" Now I'm going to try to answer that for him.

From your opening post, I'm guessing you're not currently a pilot, or if you are, you're not familiar with the rules that govern aircraft. From most of our standpoints, there are two types of aircraft, those that are factory built, and have been issued a certification stating that they meet all the requirements for a light airplane. The other type is Experimental Amateur Built, which are not certificated by the FAA. The Cessna 150 falls under the certificated type. For certificated aircraft, anything other than minor modifications must be done using a Supplemental Type Certificate, or STC. I would consider moving the controls to be a major modification, and that would fall under an STC. Most STCs are created by for profit businesses that intend to sell modifications. I'll give you an example: Here's a Cessna 180:

1956-cessna-180-with-only-10-hours-since-new-for-sale-2016-02-28-1-1024x768.jpg


It has two doors that hinge from the front. They would be very difficult to get open in flight. However, the 180 is a popular parachute jumping airplane for smaller drop zones. However, as is, it is useless as a jump plane. There have been a couple of companies that have created a top opening door that can be opened in flight:

260577_2224753095811_6269774_n.jpg


That picture above is actually a Cessna 182, but the door is similar. Anyway, that's what an STC is for, to legally modify a certificated aircraft. That's what you'd need to make the changes to a 150.

Take a look at the 150's panel:

Cessna-152-Interior-Inflight-Pilot-Training.jpg



If you wanted to turn this into a single seater, the first thing that is going to have to go is the entire panel, since you need to put one of the yokes right on the edge of the radio stack. Then you'd have to remove that center console, redo the support for the yokes to put one in the middle. You'd have to move the engine controls, and it looks like the trim wheel will have to be moved too. You'd have to remove the two outer rudder pedals, and then switch the rudder controls, nosegear steering, and toe brakes. Then you'd have to build an all new instrument panel, and also mounts for a center seat.

Once you figured out all that, you'd have to be able to demonstrate to the FAA that all this was done within appropriate engineering standards for a certificated light plane. You'd have to refigure the weight and balance, and possibly have to demonstrate that the aircraft is safe to fly with the revised W&B. Then, after you got all that done, you'd have a modified 150 that is likely yours forever, and isn't a really good airplane for someone your size, especially flying from a short field.

You asked it you could take the C-150 experimental. The answer is essentially no. The only experimental usage that gives you the ability to use the airplane similarly to a certificated one is amateur built, and you can't take a certificated airplane and put it into the E-AB category.

There are better choices. You may want to try some of the tandem E-AB airplanes on for size. If you don't fit in them, how about a Breezy, or better yet, a Super Breezy:


In your original post you said something about cheap flying. In aviation, when the word "cheap" is used in the same sentence as "airplane", it's almost always prefaced by the word "not". You're a big guy and you want to get off the ground quick. That's going to require some power, and that's not going to come cheap.
 
You guys can be some real Debbie downers sometimes. I probably doesn’t make any sense, but would you listen to people like you crap all over it if you had an idea?

More like Sensible Sams, Realist Roberts, Educated Eddies, etc.
 
What’s all this talk of paperwork? Government shutdowns means no paperwork necessary! Grab a hacksaw and a welder and have a ball!
 
Not having dual controls doesn't make it a single seat aircraft. A 150 will always be a 2-PCLM (well there is a seaplane version as well... 2-PCLSM)
 
You guys can be some real Debbie downers sometimes. I probably doesn’t make any sense, but would you listen to people like you crap all over it if you had an idea?
If it were a dumb idea, I'd expect people to tell me so. ESPECIALLY here.

Turning a 150 into a single seat airplane doesn't make any sense at all if you don't already own the 150, and if your objective is to get more room. Just fly without a passenger. Relocating the controls for centerline seating is beyond impractical. There are tons of airplanes out there that are far more suited for a single wide pilot. Why try to hammer a square peg through a round hole, when there are plenty of round pegs that will work just fine?
 
If it were a dumb idea, I'd expect people to tell me so. ESPECIALLY here.

Turning a 150 into a single seat airplane doesn't make any sense at all if you don't already own the 150, and if your objective is to get more room. Just fly without a passenger. Relocating the controls for centerline seating is beyond impractical. There are tons of airplanes out there that are far more suited for a single wide pilot. Why try to hammer a square peg through a round hole, when there are plenty of round pegs that will work just fine?
It’s not a dumb idea. It might be a lot harder than he realized, or more expensive, and telling him those things is fine. Saying it’s a dumb idea is exactly what I object to. Just because it’s not worth it to you, doesn’t mean it’s a dumb idea.
 
I knew a very large guy that owned a 150, and he called it his single seat airplane. Not sure how he flew it, but based on his size it had to be mostly in the middle. Maybe pushing on the leftmost and rightmost rudder pedals, and using whatever yoke was most comfortable?
Instead of a 150, get a 120/140 with a bench seat. Makes it more comfortable to sit in the middle. But, of course, a 120 isn't as big an roomy as a 150.
 
It’s not a dumb idea. It might be a lot harder than he realized, or more expensive, and telling him those things is fine. Saying it’s a dumb idea is exactly what I object to. Just because it’s not worth it to you, doesn’t mean it’s a dumb idea.
I guess we have differing thresholds for what constitutes a dumb idea. An idea that is completely impractical (or impossible) that you come up with because you don't know any better... dumb idea. Not the same as a stupid idea, which is one you have when you SHOULD know better.
 
I guess we have differing thresholds for what constitutes a dumb idea. An idea that is completely impractical (or impossible) that you come up with because you don't know any better... dumb idea. Not the same as a stupid idea, which is one you have when you SHOULD know better.
Like, for example, taking a bunch of bicycle parts and building a machine that can fly under its own power? What a completely expensive and insane waste of time and money. Dumb idea. For 99.99999% of Americans in 1903 it was a dumb idea.
 
Like, for example, taking a bunch of bicycle parts and building a machine that can fly under its own power? What a completely expensive and insane waste of time and money. Dumb idea. For 99.99999% of Americans in 1903 it was a dumb idea.

The airplane wasn't really an invention by one or two people. It had been tried many times, with various unfortunate endings, but there was plenty of evidence that flight was possible with the right design and some lightweight power. It was only a matter of time before someone achieved it, and the Wrights knew that. They knew what they were risking and went ahead with it anyway. And it wasn't illegal in any way and nobody was going to come along and kill their project after they'd spent a raft of time and money on it.

I bet plenty of other wrench-benders would have loved a chance to do the same thing at the time, if they'd had the resources the Wrights did.

The isssue these days is about the newbies who aren't aware of the terrific restrictions on aviation. They either go ahead and get in way over their heads with something that will never fly (or fly safely and legally), or they come here and ask about their idea. The smart ones ask first.

I met a guy who had built his own design. Not even a pilot. No inspections or registration. I looked at it and warned him to take it apart before it killed him. It was horrific. It stalled at about 200' in the circuit and crashed but he didn't die. Learning the hard way is no fun at all.
 
The airplane wasn't really an invention by one or two people. It had been tried many times, with various unfortunate endings, but there was plenty of evidence that flight was possible with the right design and some lightweight power. It was only a matter of time before someone achieved it, and the Wrights knew that. They knew what they were risking and went ahead with it anyway. And it wasn't illegal in any way and nobody was going to come along and kill their project after they'd spent a raft of time and money on it.

I bet plenty of other wrench-benders would have loved a chance to do the same thing at the time, if they'd had the resources the Wrights did.

The isssue these days is about the newbies who aren't aware of the terrific restrictions on aviation. They either go ahead and get in way over their heads with something that will never fly (or fly safely and legally), or they come here and ask about their idea. The smart ones ask first.

I met a guy who had built his own design. Not even a pilot. No inspections or registration. I looked at it and warned him to take it apart before it killed him. It was horrific. It stalled at about 200' in the circuit and crashed but he didn't die. Learning the hard way is no fun at all.
Turning a 150 into a single seater does not fit into your last example at all. Totally different subject.

And I've said, explaining the legal and technical challenges I have no issue with at all.

But if the guy wants to do something completely different and spend a crapload of money and frustration to get what he wants, I say go for it. You're nuts, but go for it.

Every one of us that own a personal airplane are nuts. It's a dumb idea if ever there was one.
 
Every one of us that own a personal airplane are nuts. It's a dumb idea if ever there was one.

Check out some of the "hobbies" on YouTube. Banger racing. Hill climbs. Monster truck stuff. Mud bogs. Some really expensive and/or dangerous sport, there. Fun to watch, but I see no point in them. Flying offers a unique challenge that isn't quite so destructive. And you can actually go places with it.
 
Back
Top