Cessna 150 vs 152

From what I've read on this NG, the Lycoming engine is a better choice in
terms of hours to Major Overhaul. A Continental engine with Millenium
cylinders makes the engine less likely to fail. All things equal, including
the price, what is considered a better buy, the 150 or 152? Presume they're
one model year apart and equally equipped.

Advice and opinions, please.

Marty

"Marty from Sunny Florida" wrote in message
...
From what I've read on this NG, the Lycoming engine is a better choice in
terms of hours to Major Overhaul. A Continental engine with Millenium
cylinders makes the engine less likely to fail. All things equal,
including
the price, what is considered a better buy, the 150 or 152? Presume
they're
one model year apart and equally equipped.

Advice and opinions, please.

Marty

For the same money? 152, of course. That 115 HP Lycoming has a lot of
oomph by comparison. 150's are underpowered. Still a great machine,
though, if you weigh 150 and she weighs 100.

Doesn't it really boil down to engine dollars per hour? From what I saw
here, the Lyc gave a higher TBO but at a significantly higher engine cost
per hour than the Connie. I guess if downtime were a factor then that might
skew the engine cost per hour, but that seems to be a personal decision to
me.

--
Jim Carter
"Marty from Sunny Florida" wrote in message
...
From what I've read on this NG, the Lycoming engine is a better choice in
terms of hours to Major Overhaul. A Continental engine with Millenium
cylinders makes the engine less likely to fail. All things equal,
including
the price, what is considered a better buy, the 150 or 152? Presume
they're
one model year apart and equally equipped.

Advice and opinions, please.

Marty

When I was searching for my airplane I flew both. I liked the 152 but I
really liked the extra 10 degrees of flaps the 150 offered and the
difference in price was a few thousand dollars less for the 150 so I opted
for a late model 150 with a low time engine and the price was right.




"Marty from Sunny Florida" wrote in message
...
From what I've read on this NG, the Lycoming engine is a better choice in
terms of hours to Major Overhaul. A Continental engine with Millenium
cylinders makes the engine less likely to fail. All things equal,
including
the price, what is considered a better buy, the 150 or 152? Presume
they're
one model year apart and equally equipped.

Advice and opinions, please.

Marty

"Marty from Sunny Florida" wrote in message ...
From what I've read on this NG, the Lycoming engine is a better choice in
terms of hours to Major Overhaul. A Continental engine with Millenium
cylinders makes the engine less likely to fail. All things equal, including
the price, what is considered a better buy, the 150 or 152? Presume they're
one model year apart and equally equipped.

Advice and opinions, please.

The 152s seem to carry a premium on the price tag (5K+). They have
a longer TBO, but are also more expensive to overhaul. If I were
looking for a personal aircraft, I wouldn't pay the premium for the
152. It really doesn't have any significant improvements over the
150. One thing, though. The 150's O-200 is more susceptible to carb
icing. It's not really a huge safety issue if you know what to expect
and take corrective action. After 50 hrs. or so it becomes second
nature to hit the carb heat at the first hint of roughness. Problem
solved.

This is, of course, a theoretical discussion. The chances that
you'll find a 150 and a 152 in exactly the same condition and equipped
exactly alike are slim. In real life, you should by the one that is
in the best condition and equipped the way you want. If you are in
the market for a two seat Cessna, don't limit yourself to one model or
another. Just get the best plane for your money.

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

In your scenario, a 152 one year newer than a 150, same equipment, same price,
the 150 will be in better condition and/or have lower total hours than the 152.
152s just command a premium price. So take your choice. Pay more and get a
"better" engine or pay less and use the money to overhaul the O-200 sooner than
the O-235. By the way, neither engine is likely to make it to TBO given the low
hours that most owners actually fly. Engines that sit just don't usually make
it to TBO.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft Musketeer

Marty from Sunny Florida wrote:

From what I've read on this NG, the Lycoming engine is a better choice in
terms of hours to Major Overhaul. A Continental engine with Millenium
cylinders makes the engine less likely to fail. All things equal, including
the price, what is considered a better buy, the 150 or 152? Presume they're
one model year apart and equally equipped.

Advice and opinions, please.

Marty

Marty from Sunny Florida wrote:

All things equal, including
the price, what is considered a better buy, the 150 or 152?

It is highly unlikely that you will ever find a case in which a 150 and a 152 of
equal quality are offered at the same price; the 152 will always be higher.

That said, I would probably opt for the 150. With an autofuel STC, it'll be a bit
cheaper to run and it will carry about 10 more pounds (with that plane, you need all
the help you can get).

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

One thing, though. The 150's O-200 is more susceptible to carb
icing. It's not really a huge safety issue if you know what to expect
and take corrective action. After 50 hrs. or so it becomes second
nature to hit the carb heat at the first hint of roughness. Problem
solved.

This is, of course, a theoretical discussion.

Exactly. My 150 carries my 220 lb person just fine, and a smaller
person without a problem. Even in clouds or heavy haze, I've never
encountered carb ice. I still check for it, but it's not there on
this engine. Some of the Connies in the 150 tend to be ice-makers,
but apparently not mine (so far).

We chose a '67 G model because that's the first year they bowed the
doors out and gave you and inch or two extra elbow room.

Good luck.

Greg