c-152 rudder???

[houstondan]

i really need to start this by saying i know absolutely nothing new or
bad about any aircraft. i'm sure not trying to start any rumors. in
fact, this may be something that y'all have already chewed on but...

the outfit i rent from is just down the taxiway from "air aces" at
houston-hooks where they've had a horrible time with wings coming off
airplanes lately.

in talking about that, one of the people at my base....not at "aces"...
told me they have been hearing about faa looking into a structural
problem with c-152 rudders. since they've got several and since i'm
almost certainly going to be buying one in the next few months we're
kinda curious about what might be going on.

anybody???


dan

[Dave S]

houstondan wrote:
> i really need to start this by saying i know absolutely nothing new or
> bad about any aircraft. i'm sure not trying to start any rumors. in
> fact, this may be something that y'all have already chewed on but...
>
> the outfit i rent from is just down the taxiway from "air aces" at
> houston-hooks where they've had a horrible time with wings coming off
> airplanes lately.
>
> in talking about that, one of the people at my base....not at "aces"...
> told me they have been hearing about faa looking into a structural
> problem with c-152 rudders. since they've got several and since i'm
> almost certainly going to be buying one in the next few months we're
> kinda curious about what might be going on.
>
> anybody???
>
>
> dan
>
A non-scientific review of NTSB records for a few years done moments ago
by me looking for C152 AND "rudder" shows no cases of rudder failure or
cracking of the rudder structure/attach points in any of the accident
synopses.

One overriding theme, however, appears to be inadequate use of rudder to
keep from running off the runway.

Maybe theres a problem, but its not being manifested by accidents.

On a side note... why do you WANT to buy a C152?

Dave

[houstondan]

the c-152 seems like a pretty sensible way to get into my first
airplane. the way i see the g.a. business overall, especially with the
feds helping so many people decide that commercial flight just ain't
worth the trouble, a good condition c-152 should at least hold it's
value (adjusted for engine-time) and may actually appreciate in the
future. there's parts & mechanics everywhere you land . i'm just
getting started thinking about buying so my mind isn't anywhere near
made up but that's what seems to be the best idea at the moment.

i'm certainly open for suggestions. probably months away but certainly
not a year.

dan

[Dave S]

houstondan wrote:

> the c-152 seems like a pretty sensible way to get into my first
> airplane. the way i see the g.a. business overall, especially with the
> feds helping so many people decide that commercial flight just ain't
> worth the trouble, a good condition c-152 should at least hold it's
> value (adjusted for engine-time) and may actually appreciate in the
> future. there's parts & mechanics everywhere you land . i'm just
> getting started thinking about buying so my mind isn't anywhere near
> made up but that's what seems to be the best idea at the moment.
>
> i'm certainly open for suggestions. probably months away but certainly
> not a year.
>
> dan
>

My suggestion is get your ticket in the flight school's aircraft, then
buy something that will suit your mission. From a payload, speed and
range standpoint, unless you are into sightseeing alone or with a small
friend.. the aircraft (150/152) comes up short in my book.

Granted.. its a fine plane. I learned in one. I still rent and fly one
on occasion (airwork, short hop, etc).. but when I want to travel,
things like a Grumman, a 172, a 177, a Mooney or a Cherokee spring to
mind. And thats the impression I am getting from you, with your
reference to commercial flight - you intend to travel.

Granted this is just my opinion. I'm not even an owner. At the moment I
am involved with building a velocity (experimental Canard), but before,
when I was looking for my own aircraft, I was tending towards 4 seats,
retractable gear and up to 200 hp... Figure our what you want to do with
aircraft ownership, then get something that will fill that need best
(but within your means).

Dave

[The Rebel]

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> the c-152 seems like a pretty sensible way to get into my first
> airplane. the way i see the g.a. business overall, especially with the
> feds helping so many people decide that commercial flight just ain't
> worth the trouble, a good condition c-152 should at least hold it's
> value (adjusted for engine-time) and may actually appreciate in the
> future. there's parts & mechanics everywhere you land . i'm just
> getting started thinking about buying so my mind isn't anywhere near
> made up but that's what seems to be the best idea at the moment.
>
> i'm certainly open for suggestions. probably months away but certainly
> not a year.
>
> dan
>

There's not a thing wrong with a C-152; if you are going to be flying alone
or with an occasional passenger, it's the perfect plane for you. It's
almost idiotproof, has very gentle stall characteristics, sips fuel at a
modest 8-9 gph, is a proven design and can be bought for a song in
comparison to other aircraft.

I hope to purchase a C-150 in 2006 because that's all the airplane that I
need - anything more is a waste of money in my opinion.

--
www.geocities.com/ralphsnart2004/index.html

[Ron Natalie]

Dave S wrote:

> A non-scientific review of NTSB records for a few years done moments ago
> by me looking for C152 AND "rudder" shows no cases of rudder failure or
> cracking of the rudder structure/attach points in any of the accident
> synopses.
Doubt that even if the rudder fell off a 152 it would cause an accident.
Most 152 pilots don't do anything with those pedals other than taxi.

[Jay Honeck]

> I hope to purchase a C-150 in 2006 because that's all the airplane that I
> need - anything more is a waste of money in my opinion.

And so it begins.

I bought a Warrior in '98, thinking "I'll never need another plane" -- then
my little kids became big kids.

My advice: Buy the biggest, fastest plane you can afford -- cuz you WILL
want/need something bigger/faster than a 150 in a surprisingly short
timeframe. Selling and buying an airplane is such a gigantic PIA that you
really want to reduce the number of times you do it as much as possible.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

Dan,

A C-152 is a great choice. A friend of mine bought one a couple of years ago
and has put several hundred hours on it. Let's face, not everyone needs to
be fast or needs the extra room. I fly alone or with a 6 year-old. My
two-seater works just fine, and 110 mph is fast enough for me. I also get to
fly about 150 hours a year without breaking the bank. As to weight, not
everyone is fat. Buying the C-152 will get you in the air at a reasonable
cost and will be a good incentive to keep using your tread mill.

If you're family decides that they like traveling by air, then you can
upgrade. Another friend bought a PA-28 after earning his PPL and his family
has never been in it. He hates the airplane and wishes he could opt out into
something that more fun to fly. Buy what you can afford to fly often!

Good luck,
Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> the c-152 seems like a pretty sensible way to get into my first
> airplane. the way i see the g.a. business overall, especially with the
> feds helping so many people decide that commercial flight just ain't
> worth the trouble, a good condition c-152 should at least hold it's
> value (adjusted for engine-time) and may actually appreciate in the
> future. there's parts & mechanics everywhere you land . i'm just
> getting started thinking about buying so my mind isn't anywhere near
> made up but that's what seems to be the best idea at the moment.
>
> i'm certainly open for suggestions. probably months away but certainly
> not a year.
>
> dan
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Another friend bought a PA-28 after earning his PPL and his family has
> never been in it.

That says more about your friend's marriage than about his choice of
airplane, Deb.

Sadly, it doesn't seem to be uncommon at the airport.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

The Rebel wrote:
>
> ..... sips fuel at a modest 8-9 gph, .....

If your 152 is burning this much gas, either someone stuck an O-320 in it or you
need to learn what that red knob is for.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:49:38 GMT, "The Rebel"
> wrote:

>
>
>"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> the c-152 seems like a pretty sensible way to get into my first
>> airplane. the way i see the g.a. business overall, especially with the
>> feds helping so many people decide that commercial flight just ain't
>> worth the trouble, a good condition c-152 should at least hold it's
>> value (adjusted for engine-time) and may actually appreciate in the
>> future. there's parts & mechanics everywhere you land . i'm just
>> getting started thinking about buying so my mind isn't anywhere near
>> made up but that's what seems to be the best idea at the moment.
>>
>> i'm certainly open for suggestions. probably months away but certainly
>> not a year.
>>
>> dan
>>
>
>There's not a thing wrong with a C-152; if you are going to be flying alone
>or with an occasional passenger, it's the perfect plane for you. It's
>almost idiotproof, has very gentle stall characteristics, sips fuel at a
>modest 8-9 gph, is a proven design and can be bought for a song in
>comparison to other aircraft.
>
>I hope to purchase a C-150 in 2006 because that's all the airplane that I
>need - anything more is a waste of money in my opinion.
>
>--
>www.geocities.com/ralphsnart2004/index.html
>
>
The plane that flys the most by far at our local airport is a 150
owned by a retired guy

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QxBvd.191887$V41.53370@attbi_s52...
>
> My advice: Buy the biggest, fastest plane you can afford -- cuz you WILL
> want/need something bigger/faster than a 150 in a surprisingly short
> timeframe.

Well, a few year back I bought a Baron 58 and wound up trading down to a
B36TC because it didn't make sense running all that hardware for two or
three people at most. :~(


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Darrel Toepfer]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> The Rebel wrote:
>
>>..... sips fuel at a modest 8-9 gph, .....
>
> If your 152 is burning this much gas, either someone stuck an O-320 in it or you
> need to learn what that red knob is for.

In our C152 (which BTW is faster than our 172) I planned 7 but averaged
5 gph...

I think the original concern regards tail corrosion/cracks on
C150/1502's, I don't think the FAA has formerly released an AD but its
an advised inspection during an annual/service inspection. If the plane
has always been hangered its of less of a factor than if its always
outside in the weather. This came about after several 150's lost their
tails in flight or cracked brackets and corroded parts where found (4 in
the 1970s, 6 in the 1980s, and 12 in the 1990s)...

http://avweb.com/newswire/9_41b/briefs/185836-1.html
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030924_acs.html

AD's:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/CurrentADFRMakeModel!OpenView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=104.5#104.5
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/CurrentADFRMakeModel!OpenView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=104.18#104.18

I was recently at OMNI near Baton Rouge and there was a C150 for $12k
there...

[Richard Russell]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:09:20 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Another friend bought a PA-28 after earning his PPL and his family has
>> never been in it.
>
>That says more about your friend's marriage than about his choice of
>airplane, Deb.
>
>Sadly, it doesn't seem to be uncommon at the airport.

Geez, Jay. I looked hard for a smiley and couldn't find it. While it
"could" say something about the marriage, that is certainly not a
given. A right-seat (or left-seat) wife is not a prerequisite to a
good marraige. I was married for 28 years before I learned how to
fly. My wife is very apprehensive about it, although she is gettting
more and more tolerant as time goes by. We now take short flights for
lunch and that sort of a thing. The fact that most of my flights are
solo says nothing about my marriage. If anything, my wife should be
commended for putting up with such an expensive activity that she
derives so little pleasure from. You have an ideal situation but give
the guy a break.
Rich Russell

[xyzzy]

Richard Russell wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:09:20 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Another friend bought a PA-28 after earning his PPL and his family has
>>>never been in it.
>>
>>That says more about your friend's marriage than about his choice of
>>airplane, Deb.
>>
>>Sadly, it doesn't seem to be uncommon at the airport.
>
>
> Geez, Jay. I looked hard for a smiley and couldn't find it. While it
> "could" say something about the marriage, that is certainly not a
> given. A right-seat (or left-seat) wife is not a prerequisite to a
> good marraige. I was married for 28 years before I learned how to
> fly. My wife is very apprehensive about it, although she is gettting
> more and more tolerant as time goes by. We now take short flights for
> lunch and that sort of a thing. The fact that most of my flights are
> solo says nothing about my marriage. If anything, my wife should be
> commended for putting up with such an expensive activity that she
> derives so little pleasure from. You have an ideal situation but give
> the guy a break.

very well put.

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

Jay,

His marriage is great! However, he has a school teacher wife and two small
kids. They just haven't developed a love for flight. He actually bought the
PA-28-180 because his dad was large. His dad flew with him one day, liked it
and has never returned. He would like to go to fly-ins with us, do
flour-bombing and spot landings at one of the private fly-ins we attend. His
needs are simple.

I think he's working toward a Citbatria. It will fit his flying mission
better.

That said, we all know you fly with your whole family. Go for it! I think
it's grand.

Since we have inherited a new child along with two grandkids, my husband may
have to speed up his work on the C-195!

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:kuCvd.498151$wV.177403@attbi_s54...
>> Another friend bought a PA-28 after earning his PPL and his family has
>> never been in it.
>
> That says more about your friend's marriage than about his choice of
> airplane, Deb.
>
> Sadly, it doesn't seem to be uncommon at the airport.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Nick Funk]

Your forgeting one important use of the rudder.
SPINS!
Makes flying a little more fun.



Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dave S wrote:
>
>> A non-scientific review of NTSB records for a few years done moments
>> ago by me looking for C152 AND "rudder" shows no cases of rudder
>> failure or cracking of the rudder structure/attach points in any of
>> the accident synopses.
>
> Doubt that even if the rudder fell off a 152 it would cause an accident.
> Most 152 pilots don't do anything with those pedals other than taxi.

[Michael]

>This came about after several 150's lost their tails in flight
No C-150's EVER lost their tails in flight.

Michael

[houstondan]

you're right about not using the rudder much. i did all my training in
a 172 and didn't fly a 152 till after i got my ppl. suprised the heck
out of me that the poor little gerbil engine couldn't muster enough
turque to pull it to the left on take-off. but it did get the job done
and, solo, it runs about the same speed as the 172s, maybe 5k slower
and probably a good 2 g.p.h. gas saving.

it managed to lift me and my instructor (400lbs of meat) plus full gas.
i mean, it didn't jump into the air but it did clear the trees.

eventually.

naturally, we headed for the oddball airport (weiser) for my first 152
landing. prevailing wind here is from the southish and it was
prevailing at 15kt that day. the runway at weiser is 9-27. nailed
it.. one wheeling with all the rudder the bird had but it worked.

some people i know call the 152 "kitish" but i think of it as
"responsive". but not so responsive i'd try putting down with that much
crosswind solo at half tanks. well...maybe i would. i need more hours
in the type.

thanks for those tail crack/inspection links. that's exactly what i was
looking for. great!

considering that i've done cross countries in volkswagon bugs and
motorcycles over the years, the 152 seems pretty comfy. but i'm still
open for suggestions. thanks for all the help.

dan

[Roy Smith]

If I unwound the multi-level quoting right, Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Doubt that even if the rudder fell off a 152 it would cause an accident.
>> Most 152 pilots don't do anything with those pedals other than taxi.

I assume you're joking when you say that. My guess is that if a 152
lost its rudder, it would be completely uncontrollable. Having a
rudder and not using it is a whole different ball game from having it
fall off. Even if it's just hanging on the back of the plane unloved
and unused, it's contributing to lateral stability.

[DaveSproul]

>No C-150's EVER lost their tails in flight.

That's what I thought, too. There's certainly some concern for those rudder
components, but they're being scrutinized, as they should be.

I, too, hope to buy a 152 some day soon. I want it to be an A152 so that I can
do legal loops and spins just for the fun of it whenever I get the urge. I also
think high wing planes have lots going for them in safety (spin
characteristics) and convenience (door access, view, sun protection, rain
protection, etc.) I haven't even gotten into the nostalgia aspect. I have so
many years spent riding in Cessnas that owning one seems like the only loyal
thing I could do.

Dave Sproul, Bethesda, MD

[Dave Stadt]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> If I unwound the multi-level quoting right, Ron Natalie wrote:
> >> Doubt that even if the rudder fell off a 152 it would cause an
accident.
> >> Most 152 pilots don't do anything with those pedals other than taxi.
>
> I assume you're joking when you say that. My guess is that if a 152
> lost its rudder, it would be completely uncontrollable. Having a
> rudder and not using it is a whole different ball game from having it
> fall off. Even if it's just hanging on the back of the plane unloved
> and unused, it's contributing to lateral stability.


If you lost the vertical fin and the rudder you might have trouble. The
loss of the rudder alone probably wouldn't make things deadly.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Michael wrote:

> No C-150's EVER lost their tails in flight.

Thanks for the clarification...

[Ron Natalie]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> The Rebel wrote:
>
>>..... sips fuel at a modest 8-9 gph, .....
>
>
> If your 152 is burning this much gas, either someone stuck an O-320 in it or you
> need to learn what that red knob is for.
>
Yah, should burn 6 or better. It only burns like 10 with everything
firewalled.

[Ron Natalie]

Nick Funk wrote:
> Your forgeting one important use of the rudder.
> SPINS!
> Makes flying a little more fun.
>
>
Yah, as I said most 152 pilots don't touch them. These guys think
they've spun it if one wing gets a foot lower than the other on their
stall recovery.

-Ron
(I have spun a 152, my crazy roommate flight instructor decided we should
do that on my second lesson).

[Ron Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:
> If I unwound the multi-level quoting right, Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>>>Doubt that even if the rudder fell off a 152 it would cause an accident.
>>>Most 152 pilots don't do anything with those pedals other than taxi.
>
>
> I assume you're joking when you say that. My guess is that if a 152
> lost its rudder, it would be completely uncontrollable. Having a
> rudder and not using it is a whole different ball game from having it
> fall off. Even if it's just hanging on the back of the plane unloved
> and unused, it's contributing to lateral stability.
>
There's plenty of verticle stab left even if the rudder would fall off.
What I'd be more concerned with is it only falling partially off and putting
me into hell of a slip.

[Jay Honeck]

>> Geez, Jay. I looked hard for a smiley and couldn't find it. While it
>> "could" say something about the marriage, that is certainly not a
>> given. A right-seat (or left-seat) wife is not a prerequisite to a
>> good marraige. I was married for 28 years before I learned how to
>> fly. My wife is very apprehensive about it, although she is gettting
>> more and more tolerant as time goes by. We now take short flights for
>> lunch and that sort of a thing. The fact that most of my flights are
>> solo says nothing about my marriage. If anything, my wife should be
>> commended for putting up with such an expensive activity that she
>> derives so little pleasure from. You have an ideal situation but give
>> the guy a break.
>
> very well put.

I didn't say that every guy whose wife won't fly with him has a bad
marriage. Here's the way I was reading the story:

1. Poor schmuck buys a 4-seat plane -- 2 more seats than he really wants --
with the intention that his family will accompany him on flying trips.

2. After buying the plane, his family (wife, whatever) refuses to fly with
him, and he's left owning a 4-seat plane that he "hates"...

Sounds to me like he/she skipped the part that goes: "Hey honey -- if I
learn to fly and buy this here airplane, would you fly with me?"

Now, maybe I'm reading more into the story than I should, but don't you
think at the very LEAST this would indicate an incredible lack of
communication between the husband and wife?

Communication is "Step 1.0" in the flying/marriage equation. If he didn't
even do that much, he's either incredibly dense, or there's a problem with
the marriage.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Since we have inherited a new child along with two grandkids, my husband
> may have to speed up his work on the C-195!

Now THAT is a cool traveling machine. The grandkids will be going in
*style*!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Now, maybe I'm reading more into the story than I should, but don't you
> think at the very LEAST this would indicate an incredible lack of
> communication between the husband and wife?

Never mind. Deb's later post clarified this guy's reason for buying a
4-seater.

I wonder why his Dad never flew with him again?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"