Cessna 152 FSX add on available free

[Brett_Henderson]

All I can do, is take in what I've heard, and kind of super-impose my, C172 vs PA28 experience,, so I'm barely semi-qualified to offer 150/152 opinions..

[ShaneG_old]

Now that I've been in both Over & Under wing configs, I think I prefer the under wing. It feels like your riding on the air, as opposed to the Cessna I was in felt like we were hanging from it.  Hard to explain the feeling it put in my gut, but it was different.

Flying the Warrior felt like guiding a boat with an extra dimension of travel involved. I never got to fly the Cessna, just got to ride in it.

[Brett_Henderson]

[quote]Now that I've been in both Over & Under wing configs, I think I prefer the under wing. It feels like your riding on the air, as opposed to the Cessna I was in felt like we were hanging from it.

[Hagar]

[quote]All I can do, is take in what I've heard, and kind of super-impose my, C172 vs PA28 experience,, so I'm barely semi-qualified to offer 150/152 opinions..

[olderndirt]

[quote]
I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with

[Hagar]

[quote][quote]
I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with

[olderndirt]

]
That would depend on which source you believe.
http://www.howitflies.com/Cessna-150

No that important.

[Fozzer]

[quote][quote][quote]
I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with

[beaky]

My first mount for lessons was a very nice 70s-vintage 150, with a rear-view mirror on the glareshield and a fuel selector handle that was hard to find in the carpeting under the seats...how I loved that plane. Kept me honest, but gave me time to learn the motions.
Even with a little more hp (like the 152) or a jewel-like engine (like the RR powerplants), it's still just an excellent trainer.

I realise that I must be wrong as the Cessna trainers are popular with flying clubs & schools all over the world. This would obviously depend on one's own experience. I've been interested in training since starting my first job with the flying club in 1960. The basic trainers in common use at the time were mainly ex-RAF types, the Tiger Moth & Miles Magister being most popular. The DHC Chipmunk was in service with the RAF from 1946 until 1996. These are all tandem cockpit taildraggers & not a high-winger among them. Things have changed a bit with civil flying training since then but the RAF still uses low-wing basic trainers today.

I've always believed that a good trainer is easy to fly but difficult to fly well. That's the reason for the Tiger Moth being regarded by many as the finest basic trainer ever built.

I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with

[olderndirt]

Back in the fifties, some 'Mad Avenue' types advising the light plane industry, ran this up their flag pole to see if anybody'd salute.

[Hagar]

[quote]I think that pilots who learn in them exclusively will be more likely to learn some hard lessons later.

[beaky]

I would agree with that. For what it's worth I think learning on a high-wing Cessna is fine if you intend flying high-wing Cessnas when you get your PPL. If you intend going on to another type then consider something else.

Whoa, now! I was only talking about 172s...and I'll forget the 150, but a 140- or better yet, a 120- now that's a very good primary trainer. Despite being a high-wing Cessna.
Pretty easy to handle, but very intolerant of real incompetence. It will bounce like crazy, needs smart rudder work to turn properly, it will spin with enthusiasm, and it will go over onto its nose if you disrespect it on the ground.
A lot of people did their PP training and checkrides in 2-seat Cessnas in the last 60-plus years, and they still do.

[Hagar]

I would agree with that. For what it's worth I think learning on a high-wing Cessna is fine if you intend flying high-wing Cessnas when you get your PPL. If you intend going on to another type then consider something else.

Whoa, now! I was only talking about 172s...and I'll forget the 150, but a 140- or better yet, a 120- now that's a very good primary trainer. Despite being a high-wing Cessna.
Pretty easy to handle, but very intolerant of real incompetence. It will bounce like crazy, needs smart rudder work to turn properly, it will spin with enthusiasm, and it will go over onto its nose if you disrespect it on the ground.

I could have worded that better. I've always preferred the low-wing trainers but my bias (& I'll admit it's a bias) is against high-wing light aircraft with nose-wheel undercarriages. The popular trend of retro-fitting these types to a taildragger configuration with the kits that Paul mentioned shows that at least some people agree with me. This is

[Fozzer]

Thanks for the link, Doug!...>>> http://www.howitflies.com/Cessna-150

The history of the Cessna 150.

...(and others)...

Saved it in my; "Useful stuff to know about" Folder...... ...!

Paul... ...!

P.S.  ...this a fascinating, and informative little thread!... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

[Hagar]

Think I owe you an apology Paul. Despite what it says in that article the Reims Cessna F150s I've checked out on the CAA database have the Continental O-200-A. It doesn't specify if these are the Rolls-Royce variant. I suspect most of the engines have been replaced at least once during the life of these aircraft. Rolls-Royce no longer support their Continental engines which makes genuine RR spares difficult to get hold of & no doubt expensive. This makes me wonder how many of those Reims Cessnas are still fitted with their original Rolls-Royce Continentals.

I've seen some Jodels (which originally had the Rolls-Royce Continental O-200-A) fitted with modern Jabiru engines. They look rather odd but appear to perform well enough.