kontiki wrote:

Yup. Besides... who needs STOL with a Cessna 150????


Any 150 would benefit from STOL. The 150s we used to run ate up
so much runway on takeoff that a STOL kit would have been a good idea.
Our airport is at 3000' ASL, and on a warm day the performance was
dismal. That, added to the fact that they cost almost as much to run as
a 172, made us finally get rid of them. They weren't the best deal for
the student, as he would spend most of his time climbing: fewer
circuits per hour, fewer spins or stalls. The really old straight-tail
150s were lighter, better streamlined, and had better performance. We
used to joke that the 150 was a good taxi trainer.
I briefly had the use of a 1967 Aircoupe (the final version of
the Ercoupe), and with its 90-hp engine it outperformed the 150 in just
about every way. Shorter takeoff, faster climb, faster cruise. Slips
were lousy (it had rudder pedals but ineffective rudders) and it wasn't
very comfortable, but it used that 90 hp much more efficiently than the
150 uses its 100 horses.
The 150's Continental had more valve problems than our Lycs
ever did. The engine has an optimistic 1800 hour TBO. It leaks oil more
often. I often wonder if the 100-hp rating is honest. If it has a
Marvel Schebler carb (most do), the carb spider has to be properly and
flexibly and fussily mounted with the Lock-O-Seal washers that so few
people know about, or it'll run like a toilet when vibration shakes
fuel out of the bowl vent into the carb throat. The engine wouldn't
tolerate agressive (or clumsy) leaning as well as the Lyc.

Dan