Cessna 150 Price Outlook

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
If Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft reach their full potential, then
we
should have reasonably priced aircraft with the payload of the 150/152 and
the
speed (forgive the misuse of the word) and range of the 172.

For a flyable aircraft, new, roughly 1/3rd the cost of a new aircraft from
Cessna or Piper.

That is certainly not a given; since I think that the gross weight limit
is
about 250 to 350 pounds lower than it should be, and that the average LSA
will
frequently operate over gross.

Actually, that's not quite true. It would be true if we were talking about
existing certified aircraft. A Cessna 150 weighs 1600 lbs. I am disappointed
that LSA does not cover the Cessna 150 or Piper Tomahawk. However, for
homebuilt planes, the weight is okay. My only disappointment there was the
Murphy Rebel which is too heavy; the Murphy Maverick fits because it was
designed for the overseas microlight market. Almost all of the aircraft from
Fisher fit the category although they perform more like a Piper Cub than a
172. There are aircraft from Capella, Rans, and Zenith that fit the class.

It should also be noted that even EAA only recommended an increase to 1300
lbs even and that was only to allow additional (heavier) engines. As it
currently stands, the primary engines would be either Rotax or Jabiru
(perhaps Hirth). With an additional 78 lbs, Suburu conversions, Continental
O-200s and Lycoming 235's as well as the smallest Franklin are usable.

As far as the weight being a problem, again a Cessna 150 at 1600 lbs only
has a 600lb payload. A Zenith 601 at 1200lbs has the same 600lb payload. My
feeling was that they should have put in a waver for certified aircraft to
allow light trainers to exceed the weight limit. However, it won't be a
problem for homebuilts.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:40:23 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

As far as the weight being a problem, again a Cessna 150 at 1600 lbs only
has a 600lb payload. A Zenith 601 at 1200lbs has the same 600lb payload. My
feeling was that they should have put in a waver for certified aircraft to
allow light trainers to exceed the weight limit. However, it won't be a
problem for homebuilts.

Quoting the FAA's page on LSA...

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter
or powered-lift, that is limited to:

1. A maximum takeoff weight of 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) or, for lighter-than-air aircraft, a maximum gross weight of 660 pounds (300 kilograms);
2. A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of 115 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions;
3. A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of 115 knots CAS for a glider;
4. A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of 39 knots CAS;
5. A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of 44 knots CAS;
6. A maximum seating capacity of two persons, including the pilot;
7. A single, non-turbine engine, if powered;
8. A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller, if powered;
9. A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane;
10. A non-pressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin; and
11. Fixed landing gear, or for seaplanes, repositionable landing gear.


The planes you mentioned have a higher gross weight than 1,232 lbs and
exceed the VNE as well. If you look at it as I am, the limitations will
be so severe that you will fly single seat as you would have to fly an
ultralight otherwise. Take 2 190 lbs adults, that 380 lbs, subtracted
from 1,232 gives 852 lbs for the aircraft and fuel. Assume 26 gal of fuel,
subtract 156 lbs from 852 giving 696 lbs for you plane. That doesn't give
you a whole lot of plane. My numbers are derived from the newer 190 lb
average weight now, 26 gallons of fuel being what the 150 has and usually
the smaller amount in certified aircraft. The 1,232 lb gross weight from
the NPRM from the FAA's website. The rest being basic math. You'll
notice on line 1 from their site there is the word "or" before the 660 lbs
gross weight, so it does not apply to planes, those being limited to 1,232
lbs total.

The only thing I see that could change this would be how maximum takeoff
weight is interpreted. If it means the weight of the plane and
passengers, then this new rule will not hurt any existing aircraft, be it
a 150 or a Cub, they all have more capability than the limitations listed
above which came from the FAA's page on the nprm for the sport pilot.

Anybody who thinks a 150 will drop in value has their head in the clouds
because PP's will continue to fly it over the lower performing category
until such time as they can't.

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
The planes you mentioned have a higher gross weight than 1,232 lbs and
exceed the VNE as well.

You are mistaken. These aircraft fit the Light Sport classification in all
respects.

Rans Cyotee II - 540lb useful load
Avid Aircraft Mark IV - 540lb useful load
Zenith Zodiac 601 - 542lb useful load
Fisher Dakota Hawk - 550lb useful load
Sonex ltd. Sonex - 550lb useful load
Aerocomp Merlin - 600lb useful load
Capella XLS - 600lb useful load
CGS Hawk Arrow 2 - 600lb useful load
Skystar Kitfox Classic 4 - 650lb useful load

Take 2 190 lbs adults, that 380 lbs, subtracted
from 1,232 gives 852 lbs for the aircraft and fuel. Assume 26 gal of
fuel,
subtract 156 lbs from 852 giving 696 lbs for you plane.

A 1969 Cessna 150 has a useful load of only 540 lbs.
It has 22.5 gallons of fuel and a no reserve endurance of 4.1 hours.
This gives a fuel burn of 5.5 gal/hr.
The extra 3.5 gallons is unusable and makes up 21 lbs of the empty weight.

A Zenith Zodiac has a very similar useful load of 542 lbs. Let's compare.

2 x 190 = 380 lbs. (for occupants)
22.5 x 6 = 135 lbs. (for fuel)
380 + 135 = 515 lbs.
540 - 515 = 25 lbs. (remaining)
For the Cessna 150, full fuel would leave only 25 lbs for baggage.

Now for the Zodiac. First we need to figure how much fuel we need to match.
The Rotax 100HP 912S engine only burns 4.9 gal/hr @ 75 HP.
4.1 hours endurance x 4.9 gal/hr = 20.1 gallons
20.1 x 6 = 120.6 lbs. Let's round up to 121 lbs.
380 + 121 = 501 lbs.
542 - 501 = 41 lbs. (remaining)

Compared to a Cessna 150, Zodiac:
Has 16 more lbs. for baggage.
Cruises 17 mph faster.
Climbs 310 fpm faster.
Has a wider cockpit.
And is stressed to +/- 6.4 Gee's

You can buy a Zodiac ready-to-fly today for $42,500 plus shipping.
If Light Sport becomes law, this aircraft would be legal to fly already
assembled.
If a Cessna 150 is adequate then a Zodiac is more than adequate.
This will change the value of a Cessna 150.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 07:12:06 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

You can buy a Zodiac ready-to-fly today for $42,500 plus shipping.
If Light Sport becomes law, this aircraft would be legal to fly already
assembled.
If a Cessna 150 is adequate then a Zodiac is more than adequate.
This will change the value of a Cessna 150.

Have you flown the Zenith? I have, it's a nice plane, and definitely
beats the 150 in most every area you can compare. But, you should also be
aware that the specs that Zenith claim for the plane are optimistic. In
reality they rarely meet them, that includes weight and most definitely
speeds. The weight could be done by excluding much of the typical
avionics, but if you equip it like a 150 using certified engines it will
not meet the weight specs. The one I flew didn't. I suspect it will be
like ultralights, people will ignore a few lbs here and there, plus how
many times will it really be checked after the fact?

However, the price you quote is twice that of a typical 150, and the one I
flew was only 10 mph faster than my 150, $20,000 more didn't buy much speed
in this case. 117 mph was the best it could do that day. This was the
factory demo plane if you want to know. There will be no effect on value
because it will be just like the Piper vs Cessna vs whatever that we have
right now. A lot of pilots fly planes based on what they can afford and
those planes you mentioned cost more than a 150. Why would a 150 drop in
price because a newer more expensive plane is introduced? That idea is
silly, did all GA planes drop in value when Cessna introduced it's new
jet? It's faster and more capable, yet the fleet seems to retain it's
value. Did Cessna's drop in value when Mooney introduced a newer faster
version? That's not how the market works. It works by supply and demand,
and the 150's target audience will not change. People said the same thing
about the recreational certificate, not many took them up on it. Same
thing will happen here. You will only see those who can no longer pass a
medical using it. I just hope they have enough sense to no longer fly
when it's not sensible to do so.

So, in essence you posted a list of planes very similar in performance to
a 150 costing twice as much and think they will drive the price of a 150
down. I wish it would, but I don't think it will because I don't think
people will flock to the new license. It will be a trickle at best.

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message

aware that the specs that Zenith claim for the plane are optimistic. In
reality they rarely meet them, that includes weight and most definitely
speeds. The weight could be done by excluding much of the typical
avionics, but if you equip it like a 150 using certified engines it will
not meet the weight specs. The one I flew didn't. I suspect it will be

Your argument now has come full circle. The standard engine for the Zodiac
is the Rotax 912S; an O-200 Continental would weigh about 70lbs more. This
was what I already mentioned in my first post about the EAA wanting a full
1,300 lbs gross weight to allow more engines. As it now stands, a Zodiac
will meet the 1232 lb requirement only by using a Rotax. If the gross weight
were increased to 1300 lbs, you could use a Jabiru 3300, Continental O-200,
a Lycoming 235, or Franklin 4A-235 and still meet the weight requirement.

However, the price you quote is twice that of a typical 150, and the one I

No. You cannot buy a new C 150 for anywhere near that price. It is
ridiculous to compare a 25 year old aircraft with one that is brand new. If
you actually add up mainenance costs and avionics upgrade cost, your cheap
150 costs more than a Zodiac, not less.

BTW, was the factory plane you flew in an HD, HDS, or XL model? My guess is
that it was an HD. The HD uses the 80 HP Rotax 912 and easily meets the
weight requirement, however it doesn't fly as fast as the HDS. It wouldn't
surprise me a bit if a stock 601 HD with 80 HP would not be faster than a C
150 with 100 HP. A stock 601 HD would easily meet all reqirements for Light
Sport except I believe the stall speed is a couple of mph too high at gross
weight. The HDS flies faster with its shorter wing and higher wing loading
but wouldn't be close to the stall requirement. The XL is a heavier version,
designed for 100 HP, with more wing area and designed for Light Sport.

Brent Rehmel wrote:

No. You cannot buy a new C 150 for anywhere near that price.

You can't buy a new 150 at all - they haven't been made for decades.

It is
ridiculous to compare a 25 year old aircraft with one that is brand new.

Then why are you doing so?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

Actually, I'll have to agree with you that Light Sport will not change the
value of a $20,000 Cessna 150. A two seat trainer would need a value of
$35,000 or more to be affected.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:56:47 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

No. You cannot buy a new C 150 for anywhere near that price. It is
ridiculous to compare a 25 year old aircraft with one that is brand new. If

You can find C150's all the time for 15K - 18K. And they'll be airworthy
to boot. It's not ridiculous to compare the two. What major design
difference is there now between a metal Zenith vs a 25 year old design?
Look closely, you'll find many older designs that are better than the
Zenith, and some of the others you mentioned. Not one of them us cutting
edge, all they are is just new paint and metal. The Tiger is more
revolutionary than the designs you mentioned, as is the Mooney and many
others. You must keep in mind that old does not mean bad, I'd rather fly
in a T210 than the Zenith in IFR conditions, it's a better plane in every
single respect you can list. You also listed planes using tube and
fabric, that is very old technology, and yet you belive those are superior
to the newer laminar flow wings found on some of the 25 year old certified
aircraft. Again, newer does not mean better. We have not come full
circle, just branched off is all.

you actually add up mainenance costs and avionics upgrade cost, your cheap
150 costs more than a Zodiac, not less.

Not hardly, my maintenance is very low. My A&P allows me to assist in
things if I choose to, and since the plane is built already I don't need
to pay them to install stuff. But in any event, unless you build the
plane, you can't work on it without somebody else willing to sign off on
things, ala the conditional inspection. I don't know if the new planes
will be the same in terms of working on them as current ones are. I don't
know where you get your figures from, but you can buy an IFR certified
C150 for $25K pretty easy, why would I want to upgrade that? None of your
planes used a Garmin 430 or better, or the newer UPS moving map stuff.
Don't give me the avionics upgrade hassle, I could imagine every plane out
there needing it. I've seen people buy a plane with a 430 in the panel
and want to upgrade it. There's always something better no matter what
you buy.

BTW, was the factory plane you flew in an HD, HDS, or XL model? My guess is

It was the 601XL and had the Lycoming o-235 in it. It most definitly did
not meet the sport pilot requirements at the time.

surprise me a bit if a stock 601 HD with 80 HP would not be faster than a C
150 with 100 HP. A stock 601 HD would easily meet all reqirements for Light

If you don't believe me, then look at the matronics list and you'll notice
lots of people who've complained that their planes come no where near the
specs Zenith claimed for them.

but wouldn't be close to the stall requirement. The XL is a heavier version,
designed for 100 HP, with more wing area and designed for Light Sport.

They claim that now, but I doubt it since the plane existed before the
proposal, at least I didn't hear of this NPRM until well after the 601xl
debut and shortly after that their adds appeared touting the facts you
quote now. In fact, the planes specs changed after that as well as the
engine. I liked the o-235, very nice combination in my opinion.

I will tell you this, the Zenith 601XL I flew was more stable than my 150,
10 mph faster in cruise, and probably 2400 fpm faster in climb. I have to
guess there since the prototype didn't have a VSI in it, so it was seat of
the pants stuff. It's stall was benign, easier than the Cessna 150,
similar I think to a C172 in characteristics. The stick was pretty easy
to get used to, and the only reason I'm not building one now is because at
the time they didn't have the manuals for it in print, and in the past
Zenith has abandoned a design that was started but never finished. The
Gemini for example. They also dropped the aerobatic plane they had, so I
was reluctant to plop down money. There was no clock in the plane, I
didn't have a watch, so I had no way to do accurate timings for VSI.

I am now gearing up to build the Wag Aero Sportsman 2+2 because my mission
profile does not work well with a 2 seater, and I wanted something more
capable than my 150, closer to a 172. But I didn't want a certified
aircraft. My only requirement is that I fly behind a certified AC engine,
no Rotax's or auto conversions. I don't trust them. I don't like Rotax
in a plane, and I figure if the Katana dropped them in favor of something
else then that proves my point. I don't like their TBO, which is not
mandatory for part 91 flying.

I've always heard it's great to fly an experimental, but to fly an
experimental with an experimental engine is much more work and more
dangerous.

So for me, it's Continental or Lycoming, or none at all.

Now if you want to compare the XL to the HD, or HDS, it goes like this.
The HDS is the most stable due to the higher wing loading, then HD, then
XL. All are fine flying aircraft.

I live but 20 minutes by air from Mexico and so I've been there many times
and am very familar with their planes. The 4 place design of theirs is
nice, but it's cramped in terms of where to put the feet. I like it
however, but have never flown it.

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
I live but 20 minutes by air from Mexico and so I've been there many times
and am very familar with their planes. The 4 place design of theirs is
nice, but it's cramped in terms of where to put the feet. I like it
however, but have never flown it.

Are you referring to the 640? It's cramped? Might as well ask another
question while I'm at it. The 44 inch wide cockpit for the Zodiac seems a
bit narrow to me, although I've even heard people say that the C 150's 39.5
inch cockpit was wide. How do you have room for your arms with 44 inches?

Brent Rehmel wrote:

This will change the value of a Cessna 150.

I doubt it. It doesn't appreciably outperform a 150 and it costs over twice as
much.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens