Difference between C150 and 152

[DeltaDeltaDelta]

What are the differences between these two? Overall, the seem much the same,
though every 152 I saw has a "newer" look i.e. looks younger and cleaner.

Triple Delta

[C J Campbell]

"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message
...
> What are the differences between these two? Overall, the seem much the
same,
> though every 152 I saw has a "newer" look i.e. looks younger and cleaner.
>
> Triple Delta

The 150 has a 100 hp Continental engine. The 152 has a 108 (1983 - 1985
models) or 110 hp (1978 - 1982 models) Lycoming. The 152 also has a longer
TBO (2400 hours instead of 1800), a 28 volt electrical system, a one-piece
cowling, a different propeller, an oil cooler that was standard, and fuel
tanks that held less unusable fuel. The 152 can only extend its flaps to 30
degrees. The 152 also has a higher gross weight but 150s usually have a
higher useful load (the 1964-1967 models had a useful load of 630 pounds --
at least 90 pounds more than any other model/year -- if you could get the
doors shut you could cram two 200 plus pound people in there and still have
full fuel). Later models of the 152 have a split cowl nose piece that can be
removed without taking off the propeller.

There are several other minor differences. Later models of the 150 and all
the 152s have a cabin that is one inch wider than the earlier ones. Later
models of the 152 also have better brakes.

[John Galban]

"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message >...
> What are the differences between these two? Overall, the seem much the same,
> though every 152 I saw has a "newer" look i.e. looks younger and cleaner.
>

They are basically the same plane. The 150 has a 100 hp Continental
O-200 engine and the 152 has a 108-112 hp Lycoming O-235. The 152
began production after production of the 150 completed. That might
explain why they generally look newer.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message
...
>
> What are the differences between these two?
>

Not enough to warrant a new model number. The 1978 152 should have been the
150N. Well, that's not true either, because the 1959 150 should have been
the 142.

[Teacherjh]

>>
152 should have been the 150N
<<

I wish they'd use new numbers more often rather than letters. We already have
the 172 R, the 172 G, the 172 RG, the 172 N, and so forth, with the letters
seemingly arbitrary (or at least overlapping in meaning)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[John Bishop]

We also have in Europe the 152 "Reims Rocket" built at the Reims factory in
France. Can't remember the exact spec as it's too many years ago when I
learnt in one, but I think it has a 130hp engine built by Rolls Royce.

John

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message
>...
> > What are the differences between these two? Overall, the seem much the
same,
> > though every 152 I saw has a "newer" look i.e. looks younger and
cleaner.
> >
>
> They are basically the same plane. The 150 has a 100 hp Continental
> O-200 engine and the 152 has a 108-112 hp Lycoming O-235. The 152
> began production after production of the 150 completed. That might
> explain why they generally look newer.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[C J Campbell]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> 152 should have been the 150N
> <<
>
> I wish they'd use new numbers more often rather than letters. We already
have
> the 172 R, the 172 G, the 172 RG, the 172 N, and so forth, with the
letters
> seemingly arbitrary (or at least overlapping in meaning)
>

Most airplane designate variants of the basic type by using a letter. Thus
Cessna introduced the 172, then the 172A, the B, etc. Planes that had two
letter designations, such as the RG and the XP, were special types of their
own. Thus the RG had retractable gear. It was not in production long enough
for there to be a 172RGA.

The 150 and 152 each had their own type certificate, whereas almost all the
172s have the same type certificate, the 172RG and 172XP being notable
exceptions -- they share the type certificate with the 175.

It is a lot less expensive to certify an airplane as a variant of an
existing type than it is to certify it as a whole new type. In fact,
certifying a new type has become so expensive that it has threatened to
bankrupt every manufacturer that has tried it. Cirrus managed to survive
(barely), but almost all the other manufacturers of new types have either
had at least one bankruptcy or they had to seek financing on terms that
amounted to selling and giving up control of the company at a steep
discount.

[C J Campbell]

"John Bishop" > wrote in message
...
> We also have in Europe the 152 "Reims Rocket" built at the Reims factory
in
> France. Can't remember the exact spec as it's too many years ago when I
> learnt in one, but I think it has a 130hp engine built by Rolls Royce.
>

Reims built a variant of the Cessna 172 designated the F 172 Skyhawk/100 and
Skyhawk/100 II, which used a 145 hp Rolls Royce engine from 1963 until 1971.
Beginning in 1971 the F 172 got a 160 hp Lycoming. From 1967 to 1977 Reims
produced the FR 172 "Reims Rocket" which had a 210 hp Continental engine.
This was replaced in 1977 with the FR 172 XP which had a 195 hp Continental
engine.

No variant of the 150/152 was called a Reims Rocket, but Reims did produce
both types using the same engines as were installed in the United States.

[Dave Stadt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Bishop" > wrote in message
> ...
> > We also have in Europe the 152 "Reims Rocket" built at the Reims factory
> in
> > France. Can't remember the exact spec as it's too many years ago when I
> > learnt in one, but I think it has a 130hp engine built by Rolls Royce.
> >
>
> Reims built a variant of the Cessna 172 designated the F 172 Skyhawk/100
and
> Skyhawk/100 II, which used a 145 hp Rolls Royce engine from 1963 until
1971.
> Beginning in 1971 the F 172 got a 160 hp Lycoming. From 1967 to 1977 Reims
> produced the FR 172 "Reims Rocket" which had a 210 hp Continental engine.
> This was replaced in 1977 with the FR 172 XP which had a 195 hp
Continental
> engine.
>
> No variant of the 150/152 was called a Reims Rocket, but Reims did produce
> both types using the same engines as were installed in the United States.
>

Reims did produce an Aerobat with more HP than its US cousin. Made it a
much better aerobatic platform.

[C J Campbell]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Bishop" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > We also have in Europe the 152 "Reims Rocket" built at the Reims
factory
> > in
> > > France. Can't remember the exact spec as it's too many years ago when
I
> > > learnt in one, but I think it has a 130hp engine built by Rolls Royce.
> > >
> >
> > Reims built a variant of the Cessna 172 designated the F 172 Skyhawk/100
> and
> > Skyhawk/100 II, which used a 145 hp Rolls Royce engine from 1963 until
> 1971.
> > Beginning in 1971 the F 172 got a 160 hp Lycoming. From 1967 to 1977
Reims
> > produced the FR 172 "Reims Rocket" which had a 210 hp Continental
engine.
> > This was replaced in 1977 with the FR 172 XP which had a 195 hp
> Continental
> > engine.
> >
> > No variant of the 150/152 was called a Reims Rocket, but Reims did
produce
> > both types using the same engines as were installed in the United
States.
> >
>
> Reims did produce an Aerobat with more HP than its US cousin. Made it a
> much better aerobatic platform.

Near as I can tell all the Reims Aerobats had Continental O-200 engines
built under license by Rolls Royce, developing the same 100 hp that the
O-200 had in the United States. Some Reims Aerobats appear to have a Rolls
Royce Continental O-240 engine with 130 hp, but I can't tell if Reims built
it that way or if it was an aftermarket mod. In fact, I could only find
reference to three such aircraft. Two were in the UK accident database and
one was for sale with a 'factory new' engine.

Searching back issues of Jane's from the 1970's produced nothing (except, of
course, the 172 Reims Rocket).

[Dan Thomas]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>
> > 152 should have been the 150N
> > <<
> >
> > I wish they'd use new numbers more often rather than letters. We already
> have
> > the 172 R, the 172 G, the 172 RG, the 172 N, and so forth, with the
> letters
> > seemingly arbitrary (or at least overlapping in meaning)
> >
>
> Most airplane designate variants of the basic type by using a letter. Thus
> Cessna introduced the 172, then the 172A, the B, etc. Planes that had two
> letter designations, such as the RG and the XP, were special types of their
> own. Thus the RG had retractable gear. It was not in production long enough
> for there to be a 172RGA.
>
> The 150 and 152 each had their own type certificate, whereas almost all the
> 172s have the same type certificate, the 172RG and 172XP being notable
> exceptions -- they share the type certificate with the 175.

The 172 letter suffixes indicate some design changes. There is
literally nothing in common between the original 172 and the 172N or
P, to say nothing of the most recent models. I can't list them all,
but there have been engine changes, wing changes, flap system changes,
panel changes, tail, window, gear, wheel and brake, propeller, and V
speed changes. It's a wonder the FAA let Cessna get away with such
radical evolutionary changes without a recertification. In Canada, the
government has instituted a law covering significant changes and the
recertification of such.
As for the 152, there are many differences between it and the 150.
An Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide I have here says that the
24-volt system was troublesome. I have found that the 24-volt battery
costs three or four times the price of the 12-volt battery, too. The
152's "gull-wing" propeller has an AD against it forcing removal every
1000 hours (I think) to conduct NDI on it to find cracks in the blade
roots.

Dan

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Thomas wrote:
>
> It's a wonder the FAA let Cessna get away with such
> radical evolutionary changes without a recertification.

The FAA has not done so. Every change has had to be certified individually at
the time it was made. This spreads out the recertification costs.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[DeltaDeltaDelta]

At my local airfield, there's an ordinary 150M with a Rolls-Royce engine. As
far as i have been told, it's the standard, O-200 100HP Lycoming, just
licence built. Though my flying club has a Rocket with a Continental IO-360
and three-bladed constant speed prop, though all other Reims-built 172s are
with ordinary O-360s and two-blade fixed props

Triple Delta

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dan Thomas wrote:
> >
> > It's a wonder the FAA let Cessna get away with such
> > radical evolutionary changes without a recertification.
>
> The FAA has not done so. Every change has had to be certified individually
at
> the time it was made. This spreads out the recertification costs.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Rob Perkins]

(Dan Thomas) wrote:

> The 172 letter suffixes indicate some design changes. There is
>literally nothing in common between the original 172 and the 172N or
>P, to say nothing of the most recent models.

Um...

The wings are still "up there", aren't they?

:-)

Rob

[Dan Thomas]

Rob Perkins > wrote in message >...
> (Dan Thomas) wrote:
>
> > The 172 letter suffixes indicate some design changes. There is
> >literally nothing in common between the original 172 and the 172N or
> >P, to say nothing of the most recent models.
>
> Um...
>
> The wings are still "up there", aren't they?
>
> :-)
>
> Rob


Still on top, so it still looks like a 172, but so did the
Rockwell Lark and Darter Commanders. They tried to look like 172s, and
could fool the average airplane watcher, but they sure didn't have
anything in common with any 172.

Dan

[Dave Stadt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "John Bishop" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > We also have in Europe the 152 "Reims Rocket" built at the Reims
> factory
> > > in
> > > > France. Can't remember the exact spec as it's too many years ago
when
> I
> > > > learnt in one, but I think it has a 130hp engine built by Rolls
Royce.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reims built a variant of the Cessna 172 designated the F 172
Skyhawk/100
> > and
> > > Skyhawk/100 II, which used a 145 hp Rolls Royce engine from 1963 until
> > 1971.
> > > Beginning in 1971 the F 172 got a 160 hp Lycoming. From 1967 to 1977
> Reims
> > > produced the FR 172 "Reims Rocket" which had a 210 hp Continental
> engine.
> > > This was replaced in 1977 with the FR 172 XP which had a 195 hp
> > Continental
> > > engine.
> > >
> > > No variant of the 150/152 was called a Reims Rocket, but Reims did
> produce
> > > both types using the same engines as were installed in the United
> States.
> > >
> >
> > Reims did produce an Aerobat with more HP than its US cousin. Made it a
> > much better aerobatic platform.
>
> Near as I can tell all the Reims Aerobats had Continental O-200 engines
> built under license by Rolls Royce, developing the same 100 hp that the
> O-200 had in the United States. Some Reims Aerobats appear to have a Rolls
> Royce Continental O-240 engine with 130 hp, but I can't tell if Reims
built
> it that way or if it was an aftermarket mod. In fact, I could only find
> reference to three such aircraft. Two were in the UK accident database and
> one was for sale with a 'factory new' engine.
>
> Searching back issues of Jane's from the 1970's produced nothing (except,
of
> course, the 172 Reims Rocket).
>

91 - 130HP (O-240) Cessna FRA150Ls were built between 1972 and 1974 by
Reims.

[Dave Stadt]

I have a Cessna120 with a RR built O-200. FAA says they are the same as a
Continental O-200. All parts are interchangeable. Only difference is the RR
built parts part numbers end in RR..

"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message
...
> At my local airfield, there's an ordinary 150M with a Rolls-Royce engine.
As
> far as i have been told, it's the standard, O-200 100HP Lycoming, just
> licence built. Though my flying club has a Rocket with a Continental
IO-360
> and three-bladed constant speed prop, though all other Reims-built 172s
are
> with ordinary O-360s and two-blade fixed props
>
> Triple Delta
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Dan Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > It's a wonder the FAA let Cessna get away with such
> > > radical evolutionary changes without a recertification.
> >
> > The FAA has not done so. Every change has had to be certified
individually
> at
> > the time it was made. This spreads out the recertification costs.
> >
> > George Patterson
> > Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
> would
> > not yield to the tongue.
>
>

[[email protected]]

Speed/performance is nearly identical between the 150 and 152.
I have a 76 150M and it will keep up with any 152.
Due to a major difference in the induction systems, the 150 is much
more susceptible to CARB ICE. I've picked up carb ice three times
in the last year and a half, since I've owned this airplane. Twice,
I was flying alongside a 152 which did not get carb ice.
I now know why and so will you if you own a 150.

Basically, the carb on the O-200 absorbs less engine heat compared to
the Lycoming. On the O-200 the carb is mounted further away from
the engine and oil pan. On the Lycoming the carb is mounted TO the
oil pan which transfers heat into the carburetor. .so it won't ice up
as easy.

Everyone flying behind an O-200 or O-300 should be especially vigilant
about preventing carb ice and know how to react quickly when it comes.
Living here in AZ I never experienced carb ice in the 152/172 trainers
I used to fly, though I know it can happen. Now, with the 150 I'm
becoming a carb ice "expert". It's not "bad" if you pay attention to
temp/dewpoints, descents, etc., etc., but it is a bigger hazard with
the 150 as compared to the otherwise nearly identical 152.

-Eric

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wish they'd use new numbers more often rather than letters.
> We already have the 172 R, the 172 G, the 172 RG, the
> 172 N, and so forth, with the letters seemingly arbitrary (or
> at least overlapping in meaning)
>

Well, they did name them differently. The 172G, 172N, and 172R are
Skyhawks, the 172RG is a Cutlass.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> The 150 and 152 each had their own type certificate, whereas almost
> all the 172s have the same type certificate, the 172RG and 172XP
> being notable exceptions -- they share the type certificate with the 175.
>

The 150 and 152 shared the same type certificate, ATC 3A19.

The 172, 172RG, and T-41A were ATC 3A12. The P172D (Powermatic), R172K
(Hawk XP), T-41B thru T-41C, and 175 were ATC 3A17.

[Newps]

> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I wish they'd use new numbers more often rather than letters.
>>We already have the 172 R, the 172 G, the 172 RG, the
>>172 N, and so forth, with the letters seemingly arbitrary (or
>>at least overlapping in meaning)


They did. They went in the order of the alphabet. In the late 70's or
early 80's the 172 also got the name Cutlass. The 172RG was also named
the Cutlass RG

[John Bishop]

Thank for the info guys, I do remember it was 130hp. It was the plane the
club used for aeros and I did spin awareness in it. Wasn't part of the ppl
training, but my instructor like to teach it.

John

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "John Bishop" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > We also have in Europe the 152 "Reims Rocket" built at the Reims
> > factory
> > > > in
> > > > > France. Can't remember the exact spec as it's too many years ago
> when
> > I
> > > > > learnt in one, but I think it has a 130hp engine built by Rolls
> Royce.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reims built a variant of the Cessna 172 designated the F 172
> Skyhawk/100
> > > and
> > > > Skyhawk/100 II, which used a 145 hp Rolls Royce engine from 1963
until
> > > 1971.
> > > > Beginning in 1971 the F 172 got a 160 hp Lycoming. From 1967 to 1977
> > Reims
> > > > produced the FR 172 "Reims Rocket" which had a 210 hp Continental
> > engine.
> > > > This was replaced in 1977 with the FR 172 XP which had a 195 hp
> > > Continental
> > > > engine.
> > > >
> > > > No variant of the 150/152 was called a Reims Rocket, but Reims did
> > produce
> > > > both types using the same engines as were installed in the United
> > States.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reims did produce an Aerobat with more HP than its US cousin. Made it
a
> > > much better aerobatic platform.
> >
> > Near as I can tell all the Reims Aerobats had Continental O-200 engines
> > built under license by Rolls Royce, developing the same 100 hp that the
> > O-200 had in the United States. Some Reims Aerobats appear to have a
Rolls
> > Royce Continental O-240 engine with 130 hp, but I can't tell if Reims
> built
> > it that way or if it was an aftermarket mod. In fact, I could only find
> > reference to three such aircraft. Two were in the UK accident database
and
> > one was for sale with a 'factory new' engine.
> >
> > Searching back issues of Jane's from the 1970's produced nothing
(except,
> of
> > course, the 172 Reims Rocket).
> >
>
> 91 - 130HP (O-240) Cessna FRA150Ls were built between 1972 and 1974 by
> Reims.
>
>
>

[Paul Sengupta]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Some Reims Aerobats appear to have a Rolls
> Royce Continental O-240 engine with 130 hp, but I can't tell if Reims
built
> it that way or if it was an aftermarket mod. In fact, I could only find
> reference to three such aircraft. Two were in the UK accident database and
> one was for sale with a 'factory new' engine.

G-BCKU is one of them. You could only see sky on a Vx climbout.

It should be in the accident database twice, once when (this isn't
the official story) an instructor was blatting around low level and
hit a wire...cracked the screen and cut into the wing. He, as the
story goes, landed at a small strip (with student on board),
unwrapped the wire from around the wing, slung it under a hedge,
then flew back to base. This was when it was at Perth, and a friend of
mine was the ops guy. He told me about it and told me the reg. I said
I'd flown that plane.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X29E258D7

From Perth it came to us at Cardiff. It was during this time I flew
it. It was also during this time that someone managed to twist the
wing doing unauthorised aeros. It just came back from a £15K
rebuild when someone crashed it. Second entry in the accident
database.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O58E348D7

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Some Reims Aerobats appear to have a Rolls
> > Royce Continental O-240 engine with 130 hp

> G-BCKU is one of them.

Looks like it's owned by Stapleford Flying Club now.
http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aircraft_register/ginfo/search.asp
Stick G-BCKU in there. There's a nice photo.

http://www.flysfc.com
Seems like they do aero lessons in it.
Flights - Aerobatic - Aerobatic Cessna.

Did well in this - beginners level:
http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/results/2003/golding_barratt_trophy.htm
(as an aside, I see the second place was an Extra 300L!)

As if by coincidence, Stapleford was where I did my trial lesson
when I was in university, a few moons ago.

Paul