They left out the most important point, the O-235 Lycoming in the 152 instead of the Continental in the 150. The Lycoming makes carb heat almost a non-issue even though Cessna did not take the time to rewrite the 152 POH.
The purpose of the 152 was to dumb the 150 down in flight handling characteristics to be more similar to the 172. I take the crisp light feel of the 150 every time.
Why no comparison numbers on fuel burn? Why no comparison numbers on overhaul costs of the two engines? But then, why would anyone want anything Cessna?
Well gotta tell yea I owned a C150 and it bough me endless hours of pure flying pleasure. I flew it out and off a 2000 foot grass strip which actually even added more to the pure fun and pleasure. Would I buy another one....you bet !!
I got most of my private pilot certification time in a 150, and later instructed in the 152. As I recall the 150 had more elevator authority, and would stall much more sharply, even power-off. An uncoordinated stall in the 150 could produce a startling roll/spin entry, and I suspect that Cessna decided this was too alarming for the average student. I suppose this could also present real danger for someone who failed to recognize an imminent stall at low altitude. The 152 just nods and porpoises a bit with full up elevator as it rapidly descends in a power-off stall. I think power-on stalls in the 152 are sharper than power-off because the elevator is more effective with the fan blowing.
I wonder if Aviat will restore your own aircraft instead of you having to buy one of theres... My dream is to by a used C150 or 152, have it converted to a Sparrowhawk, (with a 150hp engine), and then have Aviat do a restoration to the rest of the aircraft.
Stephen Rumer They look small but are very ‘roomey’ inside. I’m 6”3 and the worst part is getting in and out ; other than that it should be fine for you.
Humm....I would have also like to have seen useful load added to the contest. In the future, don't put out such cutsie videos. They're not informative at all.
embarrassingly bad. there's a reason why I dropped my aopa membership, wasting members money on stupid crap like this, instead of working tirelessly to reduce the cost of aviation for the non-RICH. support EAA instead.
I can't believe the APOA spent money to produce this video.
They left out the most important point, the O-235 Lycoming in the 152 instead of the Continental in the 150. The Lycoming makes carb heat almost a non-issue even though Cessna did not take the time to rewrite the 152 POH.
I was expecting a proper comparison, this video is just annoying..
efox2001 yeah the whole Bruce buffer announcer thing was totally obnoxious : (
150 should have been able to get down and stopped at least a few feet shorter than the 152..
How do you think they should be compared?
The purpose of the 152 was to dumb the 150 down in flight handling characteristics to be more similar to the 172. I take the crisp light feel of the 150 every time.
It comes down to 24v vs 12v and some other improvements that the 152 design has.. I like them both.
Why no comparison numbers on fuel burn? Why no comparison numbers on overhaul costs of the two engines? But then, why would anyone want anything Cessna?
Well gotta tell yea I owned a C150 and it bough me endless hours of pure flying pleasure. I flew it out and off a 2000 foot grass strip which actually even added more to the pure fun and pleasure. Would I buy another one....you bet !!
Awesome! But should it be a surprise that the 152 is better since it is a later model?
I got most of my private pilot certification time in a 150, and later instructed in the 152. As I recall the 150 had more elevator authority, and would stall much more sharply, even power-off. An uncoordinated stall in the 150 could produce a startling roll/spin entry, and I suspect that Cessna decided this was too alarming for the average student. I suppose this could also present real danger for someone who failed to recognize an imminent stall at low altitude. The 152 just nods and porpoises a bit with full up elevator as it rapidly descends in a power-off stall. I think power-on stalls in the 152 are sharper than power-off because the elevator is more effective with the fan blowing.
Is cabin width the same?
I would have liked to see take off and landing distances at same gross weight.
I liked the video, it was fun. Just to balance of the views of the "critical" people
I wonder if Aviat will restore your own aircraft instead of you having to buy one of theres... My dream is to by a used C150 or 152, have it converted to a Sparrowhawk, (with a 150hp engine), and then have Aviat do a restoration to the rest of the aircraft.
The only thing more annoying than the sound of that bell was the sound of the announcer.
Which is best for aerobatics ?
C152 Aerobat
152 is 2" longer, and has a 10 more horses.
More cowbell.
You have watched too much Fightclub ... or whatever...
If only I could fit in those planes.... 6'3" syndrome:(
Stephen Rumer They look small but are very ‘roomey’ inside. I’m 6”3 and the worst part is getting in and out ; other than that it should be fine for you.
@@alanpartridge3972 I'm 6'3" and I have over 2000 hours in the right seat of the 152, maybe 70 in the 150. Snug, but not unbearable.
@@islander4986 Why the Right Seat ? Are you Left-Handed (like my youngest Grandson)?
@@quidestnunc9238 Flight instructors sit on the right. I learned to fly in the 150, taught in the 152.
@@islander4986 Got it.
Humm....I would have also like to have seen useful load added to the contest. In the future, don't put out such cutsie videos. They're not informative at all.
So unprofessional narrator
embarrassingly bad. there's a reason why I dropped my aopa membership, wasting members money on stupid crap like this, instead of working tirelessly to reduce the cost of aviation for the non-RICH. support EAA instead.