Cessna 150 Price Outlook

"Brent Rehmel" wrote in message
news:SY9cb.563589$o%2.250672@sccrnsc02...
Are you saying that you can buy a Cessna 150 that is IFR capable with,
say,
1500 hours TBO for $25,000 - $35,000? If so, then I agree a C 150 would be
a
good deal.

A Zodiac XL ready to fly would cost about $46,000 IFR equipped.

That's more than a very solid, IFR certified late 70's Warrior with a mid
time engine currently books for, which, with newish paint, is
indistinguishable from a 2003 Warrior.

I'm glad the Zodiacs are out there (the more planes the merrier) but one has
to value "new" much more than I do to make Zodiacs look better than older
PA-28-151/161's.

-Greg

A Zodiac HD ready to fly would cost about $42,500 IFR equipped. However,
it
wouldn't be legal to fly the HD in the U.S. so the comparison has to be
for
the XL.

David Megginson wrote in message

I'd be surprised to see too many people buying a 150/2 for financial
reasons -- a Cherokee 140 costs about the same to purchase, fuel, and
maintain, but it has two more seats and flies faster. I think that
people who buy the 150/2 do it because of personal preferences for
style or handling.

Partner and I purchased a '67 150G in late June. Why?

1. It's what we're most familiar with;
2. First time ownership meant K.I.S.S.;
3. It fits our mission profile & it fits our wives' expense profile.

Best,

Greg Hopp
N4691X

Partner and I purchased a '67 150G in late June. Why?

1. It's what we're most familiar with;
2. First time ownership meant K.I.S.S.;
3. It fits our mission profile & it fits our wives' expense profile.

Best,

Greg Hopp
N4691X

AND, you'll never find a Cherokee that can legally do loops and spins like the
A150/152!

(DaveSproul) wrote in
:

AND, you'll never find a Cherokee that can legally do loops and spins
like the A150/152!

Actually, the early Cherokee 140s were certified for spins.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

Actually, the early Cherokee 140s were certified for spins.

Wow. I never knew that. What changed later? The airframes were identical for
many years, right?

"DaveSproul" wrote in message ...
Actually, the early Cherokee 140s were certified for spins.

Wow. I never knew that. What changed later? The airframes were identical for
many years, right?

All the 140's were approved in the utility category up to 1950 lb gross weight.
The 150 and the 160 were only certificated in the normal category (making
them not spinable). Might have been that the empty weights crept up so
high as to make the CG envelope of the utility category fairly unusable.
I know that my Navion has a utility envelope that's only places gross only
a couple of hundred pounds over the empty weight...I could only get in it with
minimal fuel and no passengers/baggage.

Ron Natalie wrote:
: All the 140's were approved in the utility category up to 1950 lb gross weight.
: The 150 and the 160 were only certificated in the normal category (making
: them not spinable). Might have been that the empty weights crept up so
: high as to make the CG envelope of the utility category fairly unusable.
: I know that my Navion has a utility envelope that's only places gross only
: a couple of hundred pounds over the empty weight...I could only get in it with
: minimal fuel and no passengers/baggage.

The Cherokees have a pretty wide CG envelope, but normally operate
very far forward CG. I have done the calculations and determined that
it's *impossible* to aft-load the thing and stay under the 200 lbs in the
baggage compartment (min fuel, 70 lb pilot, 200 lbs baggage and back seats
full to gross).

Funny thing about the spins is that in the 140 manual, they don't
actually say spins are approved on so many words, but rather that spins
are not approved in 'Normal' category. I remember reading somewhere that
a test pilot was killed in the Cherokee certification when a spin turned
into an unrecoverable flat spin. Probably operating in the aft CG region
outside of 'Utility.'

I can't imagine any difference between the 140s and 160/180 in
spin characteristics. Minimally different engine weight, but perhaps the
battery further back changes moment of inertia?

FWIW
-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message om...
"DaveSproul" wrote in message ...
Actually, the early Cherokee 140s were certified for spins.

Wow. I never knew that. What changed later? The airframes were identical for
many years, right?

All the 140's were approved in the utility category up to 1950 lb gross weight.
The 150 and the 160 were only certificated in the normal category (making
them not spinable). Might have been that the empty weights crept up so
high as to make the CG envelope of the utility category fairly unusable.
I know that my Navion has a utility envelope that's only places gross only
a couple of hundred pounds over the empty weight...I could only get in it with
minimal fuel and no passengers/baggage.

I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
Utility Category. Not all were. It depended on the equipment
installed. Most that were not approved had A/C and the big fresh air
fan in the tail. My '68 180D is approved for spins in the utility
category (and spins great).

The big change came in '73 when most models got a 5" stretch to the
fuselage, and longer wings and stabilator (and the resulting CG
change). The 140, which was not stretched, retained spin approval in
the Utility Category until they quit building them in '77.

The Cherokee is very sensitive to CG position. When I spin mine, I
can tell whether the CG is in the front or rear of the Utility
envelope. The spin is noticably flatter (but still quite recoverable)
when close to the back of the Utility range.

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

The spin is noticably flatter (but still quite recoverable)
when close to the back of the Utility range.

Fascinating. I'd never heard of people spinning Cherokees. I've had an
ingrained assumption (prejudice?) that low wing airplanes are much more
susceptible to unrecoverable spins than high wing. That's what always made me
feel safer in low-end Cessnas.

Maybe I was unfairly traumatized, but I saw a guy get killed when he couldn't
get his Pitts out of an inverted flat spin. I know that's a different beast
than what we've been discussing, but I'll always be hugely wary of spins.

Dave Sproul - Bethesda, MD

DaveSproul wrote:
:The spin is noticably flatter (but still quite recoverable)
:when close to the back of the Utility range.

Good to know. It's a pretty difficult beast to nail down, from
what I've seen. I happen to know that it's not legal to run mine in the
utility category anyway because of the engine upgrade, so that legally
kill the spin idea.

: Fascinating. I'd never heard of people spinning Cherokees. I've had an
: ingrained assumption (prejudice?) that low wing airplanes are much more
: susceptible to unrecoverable spins than high wing. That's what always made me
: feel safer in low-end Cessnas.

I've got a friend who used to do rolls in his Cherokee 140.
Especially entertaining because when he took his brother up and did an
aileron roll, his brother went back to his instructor and was then
informed that it was, "impossible to do a roll in a Cherokee." Right....


-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************