150 and IFR

superdad

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
151
Location
Omaha, NE
Display Name

Display name:
superdad
Would you fly a 150 in IFR conditions? Reason I ask is I was thinking of changing from the 172 to the 150 because it would be much cheaper. I wouldn't mind buying a 150 in 6-9 months and wonder if they are good IFR planes?
 
Would you fly a 150 in IFR conditions? Reason I ask is I was thinking of changing from the 172 to the 150 because it would be much cheaper. I wouldn't mind buying a 150 in 6-9 months and wonder if they are good IFR planes?
Sure, I see no reason not to assuming it was properly equipped. A 150 will bounce around a little more in turbulence but if you've flown one you already know that.
 
Nothing wrong with them, other than they're smaller. You'll be a little slower, headwinds hurt more, turbulence freels a little stronger, etc. There's several IFR equipped 150s on controller.com right now.
 
I did my entire instrument rating in a IFR certified C152. Nothing beats 4 hour cross country trips entirely hand flown in the soup because you couldn't climb above the cloud layer.
 
If it's IFR certified and you are comfortable flying the gauges then it will work.
 
Would you fly a 150 in IFR conditions? Reason I ask is I was thinking of changing from the 172 to the 150 because it would be much cheaper. I wouldn't mind buying a 150 in 6-9 months and wonder if they are good IFR planes?

Personally I wouldn't consider a 150 if I was looking for a plane I intended to do serious IFR in. Get bumped around, uncomfortable to sit in, etc... I'm not a 150 fan to begin with though... Some of the lower power Cherokees will give you a bit more room, stability, and speed for not much more money.

There is no reason why you couldn't, but you'd want to make sure you are comfortable flying IFR in the thing before dropping money on one.
 
Not saying yes or no, just saying since I just saw this. Supposedly a 400 hour commercial pilot??

 
Sure, it's just like any other non FIKI single.

Just be sure the maintance and panel are up to spec, I'd have no problem flying one IMC.

Though if you're downsizing from a 172, I'd much rather look at something like a Grumman AA1, Cessna 140, 7ECA or something a little nicer for not much more $$

Grummans are nice, higher wing loading for a smoother ride, plus very easy and cheap to keep in top shape.


Not saying yes or no, just saying since I just saw this. Supposedly a 400 hour commercial pilot??



Yeah... Guessing even if she was in a FIKI turboprop with full glass, TCAS, Radar and Jesus in the right seat, she still would have managed to lawn dart it.
 
Last edited:
I did my entire instrument rating in a IFR certified C152. Nothing beats 4 hour cross country trips entirely hand flown in the soup because you couldn't climb above the cloud layer.


what's that, about 100 miles in a 152? :lol:
 
There are some limitations in a C-150 for IFR. It takes a while to get anywhere; range and IFR reserves are limited by the 22.5-gallon fuel capacity; panel space and weight considerations limit the amount of avionics and other equipment; very few 150s have autopilot; and ATC might get impatient with your rate of climb and approach speeds. If you can live with those limitations, there's no reason you couldn't fly IFR in a 150 as much as any other similarly-equipped light single.

Disclaimer: I got my instrument rating, and happily flew IFR for years thereafter, in a C-150E with a single 90-channel navcom and a marker beacon receiver; no glide slope, no ADF, no autopilot, no DME, no transponder, and decades before GPS became available. That was in Southern California where most of the IFR flying was a matter of popping up and down through thin marine overcast decks, or on cloudless but smoggy days under three mile visibility. It was a blast.

That said, you might find a more capable IFR platform in a similar price range, in something like a Cherokee 140 or Beech Musketeer Sport.
 
Would you fly a 150 in IFR conditions? Reason I ask is I was thinking of changing from the 172 to the 150 because it would be much cheaper. I wouldn't mind buying a 150 in 6-9 months and wonder if they are good IFR planes?

Yep, several times. Are they 'good' IFR plane? For Nebraska IFR, not too great really. Between Icing and Thunderstorms, you lose a lot of IFR capability, but for getting through a stable layer, they do OK, except they climb really slowly through it. In So Cal they were great because the typical IMC is a a thousand feet or so of smooth marine layer. I wouldn't want to fly it hard IFR though, just too bouncy and not enough excess horsepower.
 
I flew a IFR 152 in Indiana. Never really took it on a cross country but used it to keep current.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We owned a 150. Good trainer. Painfully slow. In the mountains around my home, quite possibly outright dangerous.
Get ready to say: Unable to climb at 500 fpm.
 
You can fly it IFR, if you make short flights,have time,don't mind the bumps. And of course the equipment . For longer cross country flights I like the 172.
 
Thanks everyone for the help, I have looked at the 140 "I did my PPL in one" I have also looked at the AA1 or a AA5 but I have never flown one and wish I knew someone around here I could take a ride in and see if I would like it.
 
Thanks everyone for the help, I have looked at the 140 "I did my PPL in one" I have also looked at the AA1 or a AA5 but I have never flown one and wish I knew someone around here I could take a ride in and see if I would like it.

Well, if you have any excuse to go to Philly, Hortman on KPNE trains in and rents both AA1 and AA5 series planes. You can get a good feel for them and training in them there.
 
I flew one in actual IFR in the San Francisco Bay Area some time ago. No autopilot, but quick control response and fun to hand fly. Also, no ILS, so a bit limited in approach conditions. Very nice for round trips between Oakland and Tahoe -- far better than driving.

One big drawback is the lack of range. What if there are no legal alternates for 300 miles? That would mean that you would not have enough fuel for even a 10 mile flight. Such conditions are common on the east coast and rare in the Bay Area. I have no idea what the climate is in Nebraska.
 
I flew one in actual IFR in the San Francisco Bay Area some time ago. No autopilot, but quick control response and fun to hand fly. Also, no ILS, so a bit limited in approach conditions. Very nice for round trips between Oakland and Tahoe -- far better than driving.

One big drawback is the lack of range. What if there are no legal alternates for 300 miles? That would mean that you would not have enough fuel for even a 10 mile flight. Such conditions are common on the east coast and rare in the Bay Area. I have no idea what the climate is in Nebraska.

Weather in Nebraska, winter is cold and mostly -10 with wind chill. Summer is HOT and humid not uncommon to get to upper 90's with 100% humidity and windy. We have a saying here in the summer. Wait 15 mins and the weather will change. Could be nice and calm and 15mins later windy. LOL

I flew a 150 a long time ago on a hot humid day. I didn't think we would make it off the runway.

I think with a AA1 or 5 the amount of plex glass above and around you I think you would bake in the heat. But not really sure because I have never been on one :) :)
 
I think with a AA1 or 5 the amount of plex glass above and around you I think you would bake in the heat. But not really sure because I have never been on one :) :)
Just open the canopy about an inch or so and it cools right down -- cooler, in fact, than in a C-150/172 in the same weather with those vents up in the corners of the windshield fully open.
 
I have flown an AA5 and a C150. You would be much happier with the AA5 if you can swing it. The canopy isn't hot and you can get a retractable sun shade for it if desired.
 
I have flown an AA5 and a C150. You would be much happier with the AA5 if you can swing it. The canopy isn't hot and you can get a retractable sun shade for it if desired.
The AA-5x's have a solid overhead on the canopy. It's the AA-1x's which have the all-clear bubble canopy and for which retractable sunshades are popular.
 
Great to know guys. I was looking to pay cash 20k but might have to save a few more bucks. :)

Can you crack open the canopy while on flight?
 
Last edited:
Great to know guys. I was looking to pay cash 20k but might have to save a few more bucks. :)

Can you crack open the canopy while on flight?

Yup, to a certain point.
 
About 11 inches open, if I remember from my Cheetah. There's a placard on the siderail marking the limit.
There is a placard with the limit mark, although it's only about 8 inches back. However, it only takes an inch to provide great ventilation. You'd usually open it further only for things like dropping flour bombs or getting the canopy Plexiglas out of the way for photography. Just beware that the airflow is OUT, not in, so any charts you leave up between the glare shield and windshield are likely to become souvenirs for someone on the ground. Also, the farther you open it, the bigger the items that can depart the aircraft -- ask my buddy Walt how his sunglasses ended up in his mom's back yard, and it wasn't from falling out of his pocket at the family barbecue. We've even picked up a coffee travel mug after the flour bombing event at the AYA convention, and no, that wasn't an intentional try for a better hit.
 
When I was training for my CFI at Santa Barbara CA in 1970, the FBO where I was training had an early AA-1 on the rental line.

One July day a young rental pilot opened the canopy all the way in flight. It came off the rails and lodged against the horizontal tail. The airplane came down into a stand of sturdy old oak trees. The cockpit structure protected the occupant well; the only injury - a broken leg - occurred when he tried to get out of the airplane and fell out of the tree.

http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat...-6e40-472a-8d0f-1b1c7be9fee3&pgno=1&pgsize=50
 
When I was training for my CFI at Santa Barbara CA in 1970, the FBO where I was training had an early AA-1 on the rental line.

One July day a young rental pilot opened the canopy all the way in flight. It came off the rails and lodged against the horizontal tail. The airplane came down into a stand of sturdy old oak trees. The cockpit structure protected the occupant well; the only injury - a broken leg - occurred when he tried to get out of the airplane and fell out of the tree.

http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat...-6e40-472a-8d0f-1b1c7be9fee3&pgno=1&pgsize=50
That shouldn't happen unless the canopy was not properly installed. The main reason for the placard is loss of performance due to dramatically increased drag with the canopy open past the mark. It can also be very hard to pull it shut against that drag with only one hand unless you used to be the cigar-smoking Governor of California. However, as long as it's not opened past that mark, the air flow over the windshield is still upwards over the canopy opening, not downwards into the opening, and there is no problem. In fact, the canopy will (if properly lubricated) try to close itself -- you may want to make a small block to lay on the rail to keep it from closing when you're ventilating.

The canopy on our Cheetah also proved invaluable the day we took our Labrador to 13,500 to get over some buildups. You know how much methane gas there is in a Labrador's gut? And what happens when it expands to nearly double its original volume? :yikes: Nice that the Grumman has such a great cabin venting system...and fortunate that only gas was emitted.
 
I flew one in actual IFR in the San Francisco Bay Area some time ago. No autopilot, but quick control response and fun to hand fly. Also, no ILS, so a bit limited in approach conditions. Very nice for round trips between Oakland and Tahoe -- far better than driving.

One big drawback is the lack of range. What if there are no legal alternates for 300 miles? That would mean that you would not have enough fuel for even a 10 mile flight. Such conditions are common on the east coast and rare in the Bay Area. I have no idea what the climate is in Nebraska.

Honestly, if there are no legal alternates within 300 miles, than I wouldn't be crazy about going in most piston singles let alone a 150. Just saying.
 
It'll climb, smart money is on avoiding icing conditions before it gets to that point.
 
Would you fly a 150 in IFR conditions? Reason I ask is I was thinking of changing from the 172 to the 150 because it would be much cheaper. I wouldn't mind buying a 150 in 6-9 months and wonder if they are good IFR planes?

Yes I would assuming the equipment were decent. The problem is most of them aren't going to really have a decent stack for IFR. Then you get into the whole problem of having to dump a bunch of money into a low valued airplane to get decent radios.

Quite frankly, if you don't have an IFR gps, it's not likely you'll file IFR enough to maintain currency as a private owner. Of course you can do IFR without it and you can maintain currency without it...My experience is just that owners tend not to remain current unless they have good equipment.
 
IFR C150 with 150 HP Lycoming and auxulary tanks are out there. Makes a little better fit for IFR.
 
…………………………..
Quite frankly, if you don't have an IFR gps, it's not likely you'll file IFR enough to maintain currency as a private owner. Of course you can do IFR without it and you can maintain currency without it...My experience is just that owners tend not to remain current unless they have good equipment.
I don't totally agree with that. I've been maintaining currency nearly continuously since I got the rating in 1988 equipped /A (Dual NavComms both w/GS, DME, ADF, Mode C transponder plus LORAN for added awareness changed to non approved GPS when they turned off the transmitters on the LORAN. Recently installed an IFR 430W mostly because of recent airspace changes (G to E) on many of my often flown routes that we flew for years with VORs & ADF beyond navaid service volumes in uncontrolled airspace.
 
I don't totally agree with that. I've been maintaining currency nearly continuously since I got the rating in 1988 equipped /A (Dual NavComms both w/GS, DME, ADF, Mode C transponder plus LORAN for added awareness changed to non approved GPS when they turned off the transmitters on the LORAN. Recently installed an IFR 430W mostly because of recent airspace changes (G to E) on many of my often flown routes that we flew for years with VORs & ADF beyond navaid service volumes in uncontrolled airspace.

You're unique, as are most members on this board who are way more proficient, start doing some instrument instruction and you'll be shocked at the absolute lack of proficiency and lack of basic knowledge of IFR operations in the ga community as a whole.

There are exceptions to every rule of course, but ime, the guys that don't have an IFR gps never ever file unless they absolutely need to and they really shouldn't because they have no clue what they're doing anymore and just rely on vectors and hope to **** radar never fails.
 
You're unique, as are most members on this board who are way more proficient, start doing some instrument instruction and you'll be shocked at the absolute lack of proficiency and lack of basic knowledge of IFR operations in the ga community as a whole.

There are exceptions to every rule of course, but ime, the guys that don't have an IFR gps never ever file unless they absolutely need to and they really shouldn't because they have no clue what they're doing anymore and just rely on vectors and hope to **** radar never fails.
You might be right, I'm not an instructor. I'm just an old rancher that got the instrument rating to use it. I'd agree tho' that you gotta' have good equipment. I'd also say that it's obvious that the FAA is pushing us ever closer to a GPS based system.
 
Jesse, to be fair, some of the worst pilots I've ever had the misfortune to ride with were flying some of the best gear available.
 
Back
Top