Jump to content

Cessna 150 <----would you?


Guest drizzt1978

Recommended Posts

Guest ozzie

I remember my first takeoff in one. after the quick acceleration of the thrusters i kept asking the instructor if this was normal at least 3 times during the take off run (limp)

 

during a touch and go i accidently left the carb heat on and barely made it over he trees at camden. instructor did not pick up on it until i assumed that this was causing the poor climb and i went for the knob.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest drizzt1978
There's a very nice 150 for sale up this way. About a 10 inside and out with all the mods and ads up to date. He was asking 32k last time I spoke with him. Last time I saw him take off, I didn't think the 5000' strip was going to be long enough though!!. Maybe he needs a 912s in it.

Hmm I suppose that's another question, I do like the way the jab I'm training in takes off and lands with out much stress!!! (much being theoperative word) Perhaps flying characteristics are the next thing to consider!!

 

I also like the waqy the jab glides along with no power?

 

:rotary:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH I would buy a tomohawk before a c150. Seem to be a lot friendlier on take off and landing. and I assume they will fit in the new MTOW.

 

Saying that though I'll be saving my pennies for a cirrus srs...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C-150.to buy?

 

I personally wouldn't, but that is me NOW. A good condition one would be ideal for certain work. Anyone contremplating getting one should have it thoroughly inspected by a competant person. That applies to ALL aeroplanes, or regret at your own cost, and in your own time. If you are contemplating fitting a 140 HP motor forget it as I have flown one. Prop clearance is a problem, and you need bigger tanks. They are a bit squeezy and don't get off the ground very quickly, otherwise thet are a tough and reliable aeroplane. Nev.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mike_perth

Shags - I agree I prefer the layout of the Tomahawk to the 150 and apparantly the reason the limit went from 750kg to 760 was to accomodate the Tomahawk - I'm doing my ppl in a Tomahawk right now and I really have a soft spot for them - went and sat in and taxi'd a warrior the other day and I must say it was nice to get back in the Tomahawk - even if they are sometimes called the Traumahawk!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest drizzt1978
Or Tommarock !!

No it is TrumaHawk???

 

And Here is why..

 

Courtesy of Wikipedia..

 

"The Piper Tomahawk has a one-third lower accident rate per flying hour than the comparable Cessna 150/152 series of two-place benchmark trainers. However, the Tomahawk has a higher rate of fatal spin accidents per flying hour. The NTSB estimated that the Tomahawk's stall/spin accident rate was three to five times that of the Cessna 150/152."

 

Not to mention they twist when you stall them...

 

Also!!!

 

Read This Artcle in the link supplied.

 

The controversial and unpredictable stall/spin characteristics of the Piper Tomahawk are finally going to be fully tested by the FAA - 20 years after the agency certified the airplane.

 

http://www.landings.com/_landings/ganflyer/jul25-1997/New-Tomahawk-Tests.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cloudsuck

While I'm not into Cessnas as such, I think that a good old 150 / 152 would be a good cheap reliable commute. There is an instructor on our field who has a very tidy Cessna 150 Texas Taildragger with a new 150hp Lycon. It looks and sounds really neat. If you just want to fly and don't need the sporty feel, a Cessna would be fine.

 

But for me..... one day I'll have a RV-6 with numbers on the side.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the money and have not consider the legalities of it but I have the want to have a 150 Aero and squeeze and Jab 6 into it...

 

I figure that would be a fun machine. Correct prop to avoid VNE and woosh....

 

ST off not landing.....

 

Jim

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful! Them fightin' words you're using there!Find me a single engine Private NVFR fatality in Australia in recent times that doesn't involve bad weather, pilot incapacitation or downright stupidity and we'll talk turkey.

Yeah,good call Brent.I do know of a Mooney in NVFR that suffered vacuum pump failure and all on board were killed.I can't say which category this falls into but it could have been the downright stupidity section.If more attention was payed,it may have been prevented.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mike_perth

Ive got a camera I use to record my flying lessons and soon I am about to do incipient spins in the Traumahawk and I am seriously considering turning it around to film the tail in a stall because seriously the tail wobble really isnt that bad - my instructor reckons not as bad as a Diamond or Jab but this is coming from a guy who hates plastic planes so maybe a touch bias

 

Ive seen it during a stall with pretty sever wing drop and the tail woblle is noticable but id think no more than what any vertical surface back there in the distubed airflow from the stalled wing would do

 

I still like em anyway - Ill never forget my first solo in the Tomahawk!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ozzie

I know they are pretty rare in this country but has anyone any experience with a Beechcraft Skipper?? They seem similar in design to the hatchet

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest brentc
Yeah,good call Brent.I do know of a Mooney in NVFR that suffered vacuum pump failure and all on board were killed.I can't say which category this falls into but it could have been the downright stupidity section.If more attention was payed,it may have been prevented.

If I'm not mistaken I think I discounted that one in any of my rationalising because a vacuum failure does not usually constitute loss of control as NVFR is still VFR and if they were clear of cloud which is a requirement they would still be VFR. Add to that that with appropriate training for the NVFR rating they should still have been able to fly on a limited panel. You get what I mean - even if this crash didn't happen, a vacuum failure 'shouldn't' end in a fatality.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest drizzt1978
Yea, there's a handfull of skippa's at camden now..cheers

Do you think the stall speed it to high for RA AUS?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pedrok

The skippers woud be VH-LFS and LFT, Liverpool Flying School's (moved from Hoxton)

 

Stall speed: 49 kt clean, 47 kt with full flaps

 

I did my GFPT training in them. Heaps of room inside with the bubble cockpit, comfy and very forgiving. I did a TIF in a C152 and then a skipper, after getting into the skipper there was no way I was going back to the cramped 152.

 

I really liked them - good training aircraft - but I dont think enough to cruise around the country in

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have a problem with a C150 or C152, especially an aerobat. Or a Tomahawk perhaps, but I think rather have an aerobat. Of course the best of all of similar weight GA two seat trainers would have to be the Victa Airtourer! Way ahead of its time with a centre stick, canopy, fixed seats, fun and easy to fly, and aerobatic. The stall speed might be a bit high though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...