Difference between C150 and 152

"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

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.

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.

(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

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

"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.

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.

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

"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.

"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.