Difference between C150 and 152

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

"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.

"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)

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)

"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.

"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.

"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).

"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.

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)

"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.