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