JB1842
En-Route
It's not the 152 itself getting thrashed. I love my 150. It's AOPA and their stupid idea more than the plane itself that is getting thrashed.
AOPA "reimagined" Cessna 150/152
- Thread starter bnt83
- Start date
It's not the 152 itself getting thrashed. I love my 150. It's AOPA and their stupid idea more than the plane itself that is getting thrashed.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Most new students are looking to an airline career. They don't care about anything except, ratings, hours, and MONEY. They will fly any POS on the field if it is cheap. Old 150's are popular and proven effective in this role. Spending a bunch of money on one means nothing to these people.
More mature students looking for entertainment flying, would be better served buying something that suits their needs for a longer term. CTLS or Cub or whatever, might as well train in it from the beginning. If I were in this camp I would rather put that $90K toward a back country Super Cub that I could sell easily down the road.
The tiny fraction of students who have the money to move into some form of traveling aircraft as soon as they get their ticket, will probably not fly a 150 even it is free. Just too small and useful challenged. They will pay for a nice 172.
I am suggesting that the market has already spoken, why fix what isn't broke?
More mature students looking for entertainment flying, would be better served buying something that suits their needs for a longer term. CTLS or Cub or whatever, might as well train in it from the beginning. If I were in this camp I would rather put that $90K toward a back country Super Cub that I could sell easily down the road.
The tiny fraction of students who have the money to move into some form of traveling aircraft as soon as they get their ticket, will probably not fly a 150 even it is free. Just too small and useful challenged. They will pay for a nice 172.
I am suggesting that the market has already spoken, why fix what isn't broke?
bnt83
Final Approach
Its a very limited $100 hamburger machine. How many members in a typical club would have to fly it solo or couldn't even get in the thing?
I rarely fly solo anymore. With me and a 38 pound wheelchair in the baggage, there is no way a 150/152 could cut it.
One of my best friends would LOVE to learn to fly. He isn't even allowed to leave the house without taking at least one of his kids. (Plus, he weighs about 225, over 6 foot tall)
Last edited:
That's the whole thing, and I'm left wondering what AOPA thought they were doing basically restoring the plane to factory 1970s spec when for the same money they could have produced a modern loaded panel trainer for <$100k that the market is looking for, actually you could do a nice refurb/update for around $80k with a full glass deck, G-500 one side, Aspen on the other. You could even load a 650 and a 430w so you could train people on both architectures, wanna specialize in IFR/box familiarity you could also get one of the new Avidyne GNS swappable radios. Now you have an excellent low cost technology and flight trainer that people will rent just so they can evaluate different panel options. You can also train them on their same equipment sets cheaper than they can in their own plane.
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
One other sub-100k S-LSA that I forgot was WAC Spirit. They are in current production in Tennessee and the newest quoted price is about $88k for a naked airplane. It has no luxuries such as parking brake and beacon light. Each group is about $1700, so I figured that by foregoing radios/GPS/etc. you can get one specced at $93k give or take.
I think it's a good airplane, but for some reason though WAC is having trouble penetrating the marketplace. Note that despite designed for 1600 lbs gross, they still offer 562 lbs useful load, typically equipped. It's a robust all-metal airplane that a lot of people clamour for at forums, but I when it comes to parting with money, they buy Aerotrek's tube-and-rag import that only offers 35 lbs advantage.
I think it's a good airplane, but for some reason though WAC is having trouble penetrating the marketplace. Note that despite designed for 1600 lbs gross, they still offer 562 lbs useful load, typically equipped. It's a robust all-metal airplane that a lot of people clamour for at forums, but I when it comes to parting with money, they buy Aerotrek's tube-and-rag import that only offers 35 lbs advantage.
us AAirways
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2012
- Messages
- 973
- Display Name
Display name:
us AAirways
Could probably fix one up the same or better yourself for less.
winrose46
Pre-takeoff checklist
I ended up purchasing a C 150 as a temporary fix to give my son and son-in-law instruction so that they could transition to my bonanza once they got their private and instrument rating. Unfortunately temporary was the operative word when Hurricane Sandy flipped N2217J on its back. In searching for a replacement I chose a C 172 because my best friend who has not flown in several years said he would "fly the C 172 in a heart beat" Unfortunately medical issues have precluded his flying and I wish I had replaced 2217J with another C 150. Photos for the reimagined Cessna are interspersed with Annabelle's (great examiner) retirement are here http://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Weddings/Retirement-Party-of-a/i-tbVgrLx . Included also are the debonair 75th plane images. While I could not afford the "remagined" Cessna I hope the program goes well.
jonnyjetprop
Cleared for Takeoff
Here's a video from Avweb where Mark Baker discusses the whys and acknowledges that this isn't the only way to inexpensive flying. Their numbers are $63 per hour all in.
http://www.avweb.com/videos/Video-AOPAs-Yellowbird-150152-Refurbs222521-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/videos/Video-AOPAs-Yellowbird-150152-Refurbs222521-1.html
bjohnsonmn
Pre-takeoff checklist
My $0.02, the folks who's opinion really matter won't comment on this thread, because they are not yet pilots.
Richman67
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 102
- Display Name
Display name:
Richman67
Hey Guys,
Before we dump all over AOPA and/or the 150/152, lets consider a few things:
1) A 150/152 is what it is. A two seat trainer or very light duty aircraft. It's not meant for serious cross country transportation, low IFR or load hauling. It's meant to take a beating from students or slow, non-hurrying, very short cross country work.
2) Sure, you can ask for it to have a glass panel, and full IFR including ADS-B FIS, moving maps and WAAS GPS, but that's not what a 150 is about. It's silly to take this position, and is just as silly as expecting to see this kind of gear in a cub.
3) Sure, you can have an IFR 150, but back in the day, they were RARE. Most 150s/152s I ever saw were VFR only (IE 1 nav/com).
4) Sure, 150s are tiny. Kinda. People are also fatter/bigger/taller. I'm 5'9" and 165 lbs. I fit just fine. Cozy with two, to be sure, but otherwise no problem. I get that people are squrimy about their personal comfort these days. Maybe we should have a little air conditioned tent surround you while you walk out to the airplane as well.
5) I get that $90k is a lot of money. It is, especially for a 150. But consider that a new 150 in 1976 was $16,745. That got you 1 nav/com, a transponder (no encoder), a set of gyro instruments, and maybe those cool fueling steps.
Plug that into the CPI Calculator, and you get $70,141, so you're not too far off. Granted, its not new, BUT, until we get rid of the obnoxious price inflation that goes into each and every aircraft screw, bolt, wire, component, assembly and fixture that goes into an airplane, that's probably as good as you're going to do.
And that gets us down to the meat of the matter. What SHOULD it cost to build a 150/2?
The design is fully vetted, and the costs completely amortized. The same goes for the engine. My guess is that the actual cost of the parts is probably no more than what your average Van's two seater kit costs to make. The construction methods are entirely conventional, fully vetted and well understood.
We could, I suppose, lay the blame on the corporate masters at Cessna, for failing to accurately price the product, but Piper doesn't have the same kind of overlords, and they haven't been any more successful at producing low-cost aircraft than Cessna.
So we can go back to blaming:
1) Product liability, same as we've done for the past 30 years
2) Onerous & rigid FAA oversight, which hasn't done anything to solve problem #1
3) The fact that people's tastes have changed, and they'd rather be killing each other virtually on Call of Duty than learning to master a technically demanding skill like flying. After all, it's hard to post a Facebook update while learning crosswind landings.
Richman
Before we dump all over AOPA and/or the 150/152, lets consider a few things:
1) A 150/152 is what it is. A two seat trainer or very light duty aircraft. It's not meant for serious cross country transportation, low IFR or load hauling. It's meant to take a beating from students or slow, non-hurrying, very short cross country work.
2) Sure, you can ask for it to have a glass panel, and full IFR including ADS-B FIS, moving maps and WAAS GPS, but that's not what a 150 is about. It's silly to take this position, and is just as silly as expecting to see this kind of gear in a cub.
3) Sure, you can have an IFR 150, but back in the day, they were RARE. Most 150s/152s I ever saw were VFR only (IE 1 nav/com).
4) Sure, 150s are tiny. Kinda. People are also fatter/bigger/taller. I'm 5'9" and 165 lbs. I fit just fine. Cozy with two, to be sure, but otherwise no problem. I get that people are squrimy about their personal comfort these days. Maybe we should have a little air conditioned tent surround you while you walk out to the airplane as well.
5) I get that $90k is a lot of money. It is, especially for a 150. But consider that a new 150 in 1976 was $16,745. That got you 1 nav/com, a transponder (no encoder), a set of gyro instruments, and maybe those cool fueling steps.
Plug that into the CPI Calculator, and you get $70,141, so you're not too far off. Granted, its not new, BUT, until we get rid of the obnoxious price inflation that goes into each and every aircraft screw, bolt, wire, component, assembly and fixture that goes into an airplane, that's probably as good as you're going to do.
And that gets us down to the meat of the matter. What SHOULD it cost to build a 150/2?
The design is fully vetted, and the costs completely amortized. The same goes for the engine. My guess is that the actual cost of the parts is probably no more than what your average Van's two seater kit costs to make. The construction methods are entirely conventional, fully vetted and well understood.
We could, I suppose, lay the blame on the corporate masters at Cessna, for failing to accurately price the product, but Piper doesn't have the same kind of overlords, and they haven't been any more successful at producing low-cost aircraft than Cessna.
So we can go back to blaming:
1) Product liability, same as we've done for the past 30 years
2) Onerous & rigid FAA oversight, which hasn't done anything to solve problem #1
3) The fact that people's tastes have changed, and they'd rather be killing each other virtually on Call of Duty than learning to master a technically demanding skill like flying. After all, it's hard to post a Facebook update while learning crosswind landings.
Richman
bnt83
Final Approach
Say you buy the $90k "Reimagined" machine. Great, we get to enjoy a low fuel burn cruising around by ourselves or with one small passenger. Our club of 8 members all get their PPL and Instrument rating. Then our members get tired and want to sell to move to a bigger airplane, but wait a sec, Bob's 1/8 share is $11k. The guys next door bought a beautiful 172 for $60k including a WAAS gps, and their new club buy-in for 1/8 share is $7.5. Bob concedes and sells his share on the Reimagined for $5k. Bob finally realizes that the Reimagined was some of the most expensive flying at 85 knots in his entire career.
Last edited:
jonnyjetprop
Cleared for Takeoff
Why can't Bob sell his share of the C-152 for $11k to someone else that values the $63 per hour, all in, operating cost. A C-172 is a great plane, but can you fly it for $63 per hour, including capital costs? I think I'm getting a deal renting a 1970's vintage C-172 for $110 per hour ($100 if you buy 10 hours at a time).
Your C-152 had everything picked thru and is very close to new. How about that C-172? Does the C-172 have a fresh engine, new interior and all of the Cessna SID's done? I'm not faulting anyone for picking one over the other. I'm just pointing out that it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Ultimately, the market will determine if remanufacturing a C-152 makes sense. You would not think of doing this to a C-172, because you start getting close to the price of a restart.
Your C-152 had everything picked thru and is very close to new. How about that C-172? Does the C-172 have a fresh engine, new interior and all of the Cessna SID's done? I'm not faulting anyone for picking one over the other. I'm just pointing out that it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Ultimately, the market will determine if remanufacturing a C-152 makes sense. You would not think of doing this to a C-172, because you start getting close to the price of a restart.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
There was a company doing this with 172s in the 80s. No idea how successful they were, Cessna wasn't making new ones. Iirc 70k was the price.
Richman67
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 102
- Display Name
Display name:
Richman67
So it comes down if you want to replace a 150, you essentially have to build a 150. Same as a Cub....only a Cub is a Cub.
There are only a certain number of airframe tweaks you can do for a certain combination of duty/load/speed/range in a particular configuration.
You could slick up the airframe. But why? It's a 150.
You could get rid of the struts. But why? It's a 150, and a center spar structure would probably be heavier.
Cessna, to it's credit, has been down this road for 30+ years. All the design tweaks that could be done probably were done at at some point, and you've reached the point of diminishing returns.
Look at the Tiger. How many iterations of the Tiger have there been AFTER Grumman got done with it? 2? 3? The ones at the end looked just like the ones at the beginning.
You could go through the entire 150 airframe, and update everything to 2014 materials (bearings, ducts, cables, lights, etc), and probably only save a few pounds at most (albiet the LED lights would probably last longer).
You could replace all of the dials with glass, but it would more expensive, and would be far less maintainable in the long run ("oooops, the LCD display for your engine instruments isn't made anymore...that'll be 6k for a new unit").
The one area I will grant you could be improved is the engine tech. Electronic ignition pays dividends on every hour of operation, and that can add up quickly. Certainly nothing wrong with the basic engine design (an O-200 lasts, comparatively speaking, forever). Improve the engine specifics and you reduce the DoC which adds way up in the life cycle.
But the real reason we're talking about any of this is that new airplanes are way too expensive, which leads to low sales, which leads to unavailability. When I learned to fly, 2000 hours was a "high time" 152, and was quickly replaced with new. People just dig newer vs older, and I think we all get that. But at some point an inflection point occurs, and it's just not worth it.
That means demand is off for one reason or another, and we can get into the whole chicken & the egg cycle of reasons for that.
So my question to the group is this: Would you pay $75k (cost of a 1976 150 corrected to 2014 dollars, plus some) for a new 152 (same options as the 1976 version...VFR, gryos, xndr & and lets say a GPS/COM).
Of course, using the same CPI increase, a 182 would be $135k, which even if it came striped with no paint, would be a screaming deal.
Richman
There are only a certain number of airframe tweaks you can do for a certain combination of duty/load/speed/range in a particular configuration.
You could slick up the airframe. But why? It's a 150.
You could get rid of the struts. But why? It's a 150, and a center spar structure would probably be heavier.
Cessna, to it's credit, has been down this road for 30+ years. All the design tweaks that could be done probably were done at at some point, and you've reached the point of diminishing returns.
Look at the Tiger. How many iterations of the Tiger have there been AFTER Grumman got done with it? 2? 3? The ones at the end looked just like the ones at the beginning.
You could go through the entire 150 airframe, and update everything to 2014 materials (bearings, ducts, cables, lights, etc), and probably only save a few pounds at most (albiet the LED lights would probably last longer).
You could replace all of the dials with glass, but it would more expensive, and would be far less maintainable in the long run ("oooops, the LCD display for your engine instruments isn't made anymore...that'll be 6k for a new unit").
The one area I will grant you could be improved is the engine tech. Electronic ignition pays dividends on every hour of operation, and that can add up quickly. Certainly nothing wrong with the basic engine design (an O-200 lasts, comparatively speaking, forever). Improve the engine specifics and you reduce the DoC which adds way up in the life cycle.
But the real reason we're talking about any of this is that new airplanes are way too expensive, which leads to low sales, which leads to unavailability. When I learned to fly, 2000 hours was a "high time" 152, and was quickly replaced with new. People just dig newer vs older, and I think we all get that. But at some point an inflection point occurs, and it's just not worth it.
That means demand is off for one reason or another, and we can get into the whole chicken & the egg cycle of reasons for that.
So my question to the group is this: Would you pay $75k (cost of a 1976 150 corrected to 2014 dollars, plus some) for a new 152 (same options as the 1976 version...VFR, gryos, xndr & and lets say a GPS/COM).
Of course, using the same CPI increase, a 182 would be $135k, which even if it came striped with no paint, would be a screaming deal.
Richman
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
The thing is that people have more expectations than they did in 1976. I learned in a 150 with only one nav com and it was fine. I didn't know any different. That was in 1977. I'm not sure how many new students would be satisfied with that now. Also, for whatever reason some older airplanes have more cachet. The 150, not so much so.
mrkbbd
Pre-takeoff checklist
The main problem I have with the re-imagined 150/2 is their hourly cost -- did anyone see the assumptions and the # of hours it requires to get it down that low. They are also withholding the bare minimum on maintenance reserve and engine (don't seem to be factoring in labor, only parts), it's legitimately 90-95 / hr in the real world placing it in the ball park of a 4-way partnership on an early Arrow