150/152 for tall pilots?

Addicted2climbing

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
142
Display Name

Display name:
Addicted2climbing
Hello All,

I am currently training in a 172N which I enjoy, but when the time comes to own, I would like something a bit smaller with less GPH. I am actually about to start building a Bearhawk LSA, but that will take years so I figured I might buy something small to fly in the meantime. My FBO has a 1975 150M and when I sat in it, my shins hit the control panel in such a way there is no chance of my flying it. However, I am curious if I would fit in an earlier model if the panel layout is different. Or possibly if I would fit in a 152? I hear the 152 has a different layout and is a bit larger, but I have never sat in one.

I am 6'4" tall and 230lbs and my pants inseam is 35". Anyone my size flying a 150 or 152 that could chime in... Anyone have a 152 or an older model 150 in the los angeles area I could try on for size?

Best regards,

Marc
 
It's gonna be tight....

But even if it isn't, check W&B. You + instructor + reasonable fuel in a 152 is likely to be a problem.

My experience was that I had the same problem in a 152 you report in a 150. I could fly it, but hitting the brakes was painful, and there was no possibility of a kneeboard. My flight instructor was 115 lb, and we were still over gross in one of the two 152s available. I'm about the same size you are.
 
I've seen a guy fly a 152 that was tall enough to look in the tanks while flat footed for fuel. No idea how he fit but he did.
 
My buddy is your size, he's flown quite a bit with me in a 152. I wouldn't call it an ideal plane for him but I never had any issues on the controls with him in the righ seat.
 
You can buy lots of gas for the cost of the surgery.
 
I've seen a guy fly a 152 that was tall enough to look in the tanks while flat footed for fuel. No idea how he fit but he did.


I can think of a 152 owner & CFI that comes close to that description.
 
The 152 is larger than the 150 only in width. They just bowed out the doors.
 
at 6' I never felt bad about the length of a 150/152. Only the width. At that time I weighed 140 or so and I still felt crowded if the person next to me weighed more than 140. Still more comfy than any coach seat on an airliner at around 18" wide at the most. I still will fly anything I can fit into, bowed legs or not. lol

I saw a guy at a previous (unnamed) flight school get his entire private ticket without ever having closed the doors on a 150. lol
 
Last edited:
Hey Guys,

Thanks for all the advice. If I went the 150/152 route, It would be just for myself and my fiance who weighs 160lbs. If I had a choice or the money I would opt for a 170 or a straight tail 172 to fly while I build.

Marc
 
Have you considered a Piper Cherokee? They are one of the least exensive planes to own and operate. My first plane was a 1976 150M. I am 6' 2" and 190 lbs. The Cherokee has way more room than my 150 had and for very little extra fuel burn. You can also burn auto fuel in the Cherokee if desired to save some gas money. In todays depressed economy, you can find Cherokees at bargain prices. It might be worth looking into for you.
 
Have you considered a Piper Cherokee? They are one of the least exensive planes to own and operate. My first plane was a 1976 150M. I am 6' 2" and 190 lbs. The Cherokee has way more room than my 150 had and for very little extra fuel burn. You can also burn auto fuel in the Cherokee if desired to save some gas money. In todays depressed economy, you can find Cherokees at bargain prices. It might be worth looking into for you.

+1 on the Cherokee recommendation...
 
Sit in the middle of both seats...left foot pilot side left rudder / right foot co-pilot side right rudder. Problem solved.

:D
 
The 152 is larger than the 150 only in width. They just bowed out the doors.
The bowing-out of the doors happened with the 1967 C-150G. All 150s and 152s from then on had the same interior dimensions.

C-150G_cabinwidth.jpg


I believe that the seat cushions were lowered slightly sometime in the early 1970s ... otherwise, virtually no change.
 
It's gonna be tight....

But even if it isn't, check W&B. You + instructor + reasonable fuel in a 152 is likely to be a problem.

My experience was that I had the same problem in a 152 you report in a 150. I could fly it, but hitting the brakes was painful, and there was no possibility of a kneeboard. My flight instructor was 115 lb, and we were still over gross in one of the two 152s available. I'm about the same size you are.

I'm 6'2" with a 34 inch inseam. I have 4.1 hours in a 150 from years ago and that number will not go up. Same problem, my legs hit the bottom of the panel when going for the brakes. Also, W&B means it really is a single person airplane. Nope, not going to fly one again.
 
I am 6'4" and 220lb. Once IN a 150, I have no problem, but getting in and out is very difficult for me. I kind of put one leg in, then my rear end (which has to slide into the unoccupied opposite seat) before folding in the second leg. I do worry that getting out in a hurry would be problematic.

Wells
more comfy in a 177 or 210. . .
 
A 177? Low to the ground with doors that make a 1975 Buick look like a Chevette. That's a good plane for a big guy. Except perhaps for W&B; they like ballast.
 
Have you considered a Piper Cherokee? They are one of the least exensive planes to own and operate. My first plane was a 1976 150M. I am 6' 2" and 190 lbs. The Cherokee has way more room than my 150 had and for very little extra fuel burn. You can also burn auto fuel in the Cherokee if desired to save some gas money. In todays depressed economy, you can find Cherokees at bargain prices. It might be worth looking into for you.

An O-300 powered 172 with venturis is cheaper than cherokees...

No oil cooler
No oil cooler hoses
No Electric fuel pump
No vacuum pump
No engine driven mechanical fuel pump
only one fuel hose, and one oil pressure sense hose
One air/oil strut that can leak
Auto-gas STC
Bottom end of the engines run forever
Two cabin doors

Cherokee mufflers don't seem to last

The trick is find one with lower time on the engine, mags, harness and spark plugs...
 
Last edited:
A 177? Low to the ground with doors that make a 1975 Buick look like a Chevette. That's a good plane for a big guy. Except perhaps for W&B; they like ballast.


I don't consider Cessna 177, 177A or 177B to be cheap to maintain airplanes. Surely aren't going to find one in good shape for the price of a C150/152.

The 1968 177 and the 69's (I think) have one of the dumbest air intake designs EVER. There is $1000 duct that bolts to the bottom of the carburetor with a quick coupling that attaches to the airbox on the cowling. The duct is the BIGGEST chicken sh*& design I have ever seen on a cessna. They do not last.
 
Last edited:
Maybe get a field approval to move the pilot seat rails aft with a new designation of C152T - for tall.

The aft end of the seat rail abuts against a 1.5 inch step in the floor so it has nowhere further aft to go.
 
Useful load is usually about 500#... 2 hrs+ reserve is about 100 lbs. Get a lightweight CFI! I am 6'2" and my shins touch a little when taxiing.
 
There was a guy at the Sonex Workshop last weekend who is 6'7" and fit in the Sonex and other prototypes. If I hadn't been there, I would not have believed it. The cockpit is of similar size to a 150 but don't know about the upper leg dimensions for panel clearance.

Cheers
 
Contact the Cessna 150-152 club. I know they have several 6'4" pilots, and I watched one pour fuel from a 5 gal container into the wing tanks while standing flat-footed on the ground.
 
I'm 6'4" size 35-36 as well, I fit comfortably into my club's 152, but wouldn't want to take a pax along... now your fiance would probably be fine, but I don't like being that snug with my guy friends.
 
Plenty of room in a 152. I'm 6'2" and my buddy is 6'4" and we fit fine. Tight in the shoulders but that's it.
 
Plenty of room in a 152. I'm 6'2" and my buddy is 6'4" and we fit fine. Tight in the shoulders but that's it.
It depends on where your height is. I'm 6' 1", but I'm all legs and as much as I love 152s, they're uncomfortable. I was very comfortable in a Beech Skipper, surprisingly.
 
I am 6'4" tall and 230lbs and my pants inseam is 35". Anyone my size flying a 150 or 152 that could chime in... Anyone have a 152 or an older model 150 in the los angeles area I could try on for size?

Best regards,

Marc

I'm 6'3 (and I wear I36) and I did my primary training in a 152. It's a little tight but not bad once you get in it. Biggest problem is working with maps/tablet maps, there's just not much space to work with. Also you might need to shift your legs a bit if you really have to crank the ailerons.

Certainly not my first choice for a comfortable plane, but I needed hours not comfort or speed and would rather save $30 on each tick.
 
Last edited:
I'm 6'3 (and I wear I36) and I did my primary training in a 152. It's a little tight but not bad once you get in it. Biggest problem is working with maps/tablet maps, there's just not much space to work with. Also you might need to shift your legs a bit if you really have to crank the ailerons.

Certainly not my first choice for a comfortable plane, but I needed hours not comfort or speed and would rather save $30 on each tick.


The 150 that I purchased had two eye bolts directly behind the seats screwed into the floor for securing cargo. In the rearward position the seat would lean against the bolt. I removed these bolts and got the seats to slide back an extra inch or so. I am 6’3” and this made the little plane useable for me because I was hitting my leg on the yoke prior to this. I hope this helps someone. I still wouldn’t mind getting the seat to go back another inch or two if anyone has any ideas. Thanks!
 
The 152 is larger than the 150 only in width. They just bowed out the doors.
That change was made effective with the 1967 C-150G, which came out in the fall of 1966. All 150s built since, and all 152s, have identical cabin dimensions.

C-150G_cabinwidth.jpg

That said, I believe that around 1972 or 1973 the front seat cushions were made a little lower. There's no such thing as s "stock" 50-year-old airplane any more, so take one to the fitting room and see if it works for you.
 
That change was made effective with the 1967 C-150G, which came out in the fall of 1966. All 150s built since, and all 152s, have identical cabin dimensions.

View attachment 116605

That said, I believe that around 1972 or 1973 the front seat cushions were made a little lower. There's no such thing as s "stock" 50-year-old airplane any more, so take one to the fitting room and see if it works for you.

I'm pretty sure they got bowed out a second time. You are correct that later 150s and the 152 have seats closer to the floor. Something I must not have known 10 years ago :eek:
 
Sit in the middle of both seats...left foot pilot side left rudder / right foot co-pilot side right rudder. Problem solved.

:D

One of the guys who used to own the Ercoupe I used to own did that. He was so tall and big, no other way for him to fly. And he always left the sliding roof open.
 
Hello All,

I am currently training in a 172N which I enjoy, but when the time comes to own, I would like something a bit smaller with less GPH. I am actually about to start building a Bearhawk LSA, but that will take years so I figured I might buy something small to fly in the meantime. My FBO has a 1975 150M and when I sat in it, my shins hit the control panel in such a way there is no chance of my flying it. However, I am curious if I would fit in an earlier model if the panel layout is different. Or possibly if I would fit in a 152? I hear the 152 has a different layout and is a bit larger, but I have never sat in one.

I am 6'4" tall and 230lbs and my pants inseam is 35". Anyone my size flying a 150 or 152 that could chime in... Anyone have a 152 or an older model 150 in the los angeles area I could try on for size?

Best regards,

Marc

Yes and Yes I am at KCMA... shoot me a PM and we'll get you squared away.

What about a Piper Tomahawk with the 125hp? Might be a little bigger for ya?

If you have one for sale let me know, I know someone that is looking.
 
Circa 1970 Piper produced a variant of the 140 marketed as the “ Flight Liner”.

Originally the N numbers ended in FL or DL.

It was a stripped down version that offered LOWER FUEL CONSUMPTION

comparable to the Cessna 150.

There were very little actual changes to the aircraft. The goal was achieved via

revised Power Charts and a slight detent on the throttle.

“ Instructional Cruise Power” was something like 60% which brought fuel usage

near that of the 150.

Keep in mind you still had the original 150 hp and Useful Load available.

The dirty secret is this can be done with just about every aircraft by changing

operational procedures.

Why would a student want to fly at 75% when HOURS is the goal? Lean the mixture

when not in the pattern also.

Many 150’s were often over Max Gross. This required use of high power to achieve

any type of climb rate. Engines at High Power may use as much as 50 % more fuel

in this condition than at Cruise Power! That would put in near the 10 gph mark!
 
Circa 1970 Piper produced a variant of the 140 marketed as the “ Flight Liner”.

In the late 80s, I remember coming across a PA28 that was called the Cadet and a flight school/rental place in Connecticut. That was pretty much a stripped-down version for training and had a panel similar to a Tomahawk.

Sounds like Piper has come up with three different versions of this, the Flight Liner, The Cadet, and now the Pilot 100i. Somewhere in the middle, they tried to sneak in the Tomahawk. Kind of reminds me of the Cessna 152 vs. the 162 Sky Catcher. You have something that works, leave it be and run with that - but no we can't do that.

Oh well...
 
Circa 1970 Piper produced a variant of the 140 marketed as the “ Flight Liner”. [...] It was a stripped down version that offered LOWER FUEL CONSUMPTION comparable to the Cessna 150. There were very little actual changes to the aircraft. The goal was achieved via revised Power Charts and a slight detent on the throttle. “ Instructional Cruise Power” was something like 60% which brought fuel usage near that of the 150.

A little historical perspective on the Cherokee 140 ... In the early 1960s, Piper’s only two-seat trainers, the tube-and-fabric Super Cub and Colt, didn’t offer much competition to Cessna’s "modern", all-metal 150. Piper was developing a new trainer, the attractive low-wing, two-seat PA-29 Papoose, which featured a new-technology, plastic-composite construction. Before certification, however, it became painfully apparent that the plastic airframe was not ready for prime-time — or even direct sunlight — and the project was abandoned.

So to supply their dealers with a ”modern” trainer as quickly as possible, Piper in early 1964 took the existing, full four-seat Cherokee 150, moved the aft cabin bulkhead forward, removed the rear seats, baggage compartment and baggage door, moved the tachometer redline down to 2450 rpm and repitched the prop to produce only 140 hp, and called it the “Cherokee 140”. The -140 was intended for fleet sales to flight schools, unlike the Cherokee 150, which was marketed as a family airplane for private buyers, competing head-to-head against the Cessna 172. The -140’s gross weight was also initially limited to 1950 lb, so that, like the C-150, it could be operated in the utility category at full gross weight. The 140 hp limitation made it more palatable to flight school bean counters, in comparison to the Cessna 150’s frugal 100 hp. For the first-year Cherokee 140, Piper also quoted performance at an “instructional cruise” power setting of 50%. Cherokee 140 base price was $8500, only $1000 more than the smaller, lighter ‘64 Cessna 150D.

Cherokee 140 1964.jpg

A year later, Piper re-thought the Cherokee 140’s role. In 1965 power was re-upped to 150 hp (simply by re-pitching the prop and changing the redline on the tachometer back to 2700 rpm), and gross weight increased to 2150 lb (equal to the Cherokee 150). Temporary snap-in rear-seats became an option (“2+2 Cruiser”), but those filled what had been the two-seat -140’s baggage area. Beginning with the 1969 Cherokee 140B, the options list included a molded plastic rear cabin bulkhead, which formed a tiny baggage area and hat shelf behind the snap-in seats, but there was still no exterior baggage door. The -140’s snap-in rear seats offered even less legroom than did the permanent rear bench seat of the Cherokee 150/160, which itself was not spacious.

The Cherokee 150 and 160 were discontinued in 1967. The Cherokee 140 remained in production not only as Piper's trainer, but also as the entry-level four-seater in the Piper line, until the introduction of the PA-28-151 Warrior -- with the same engine as the Cherokee 140 -- in late 1973. The Cherokee 140 soldiered on until the end of 1977, when an all-new trainer, the PA-38 Tomahawk, was ready for market.

From 1971 through 1974, Piper offered a fleet-spec version of the -140, called “Flite Liner”, to its Piper Flite Center network.

Screen Shot 2023-04-17 at 6.14.39 PM.jpg

Returning to the original concept of the Cherokee 140, the Flite Liner was a two-seater with the old rear cabin bulkhead, a standardized, utilitarian equipment package including gyro panel and a basic GenAve navcom radio, and no factory options other than blue trim paint instead of red, and 360 com channels in the radio instead of the standard 100. Promotional material for the Flite Liner described an "Instructional Cruise" configuration of 60% power and 1800 lb operating weight.

Screen Shot 2023-04-17 at 6.15.32 PM.jpg

In the late 1980s, Piper did much the same thing with a stripped-down, fleet-spec trainer version of the Warrior II, called “Cadet”.

N9199Z_2841290_900514_VNY.jpg
 
P

Thanks for confirming my recall. My take is the Flight Liner was a good move by Piper.

In 1969 I saw the PA-29 Papoose at Bergstrom AFB. Two days later was my intro

to the Mooney M-10 Cadet ( Ercoupe derivative) took place in Kerrville Tx.

Both aircraft were of similar size but made little impact on the market.

I last saw the Papoose in the Piper Museum.
 
How does a person find a 10 year old thread to make their first post on?
 
I don’t believe most of what I read here. I’m only an inch or two taller than some here and can’t fit in a 172, much less a 152.

I went in a mid 70s 172 two months ago and had to tilt the seat way back to get my head in but still leaned over sideways. My feet were under the rudder pedals!

Pulled feet back from under the pedals and now my knees blocked the yoke

putting the seat all the way back helped but of course it’s not locked in place
 
Back
Top