AOPA "reimagined" Cessna 150/152

bnt83

bnt83

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
9,928
Location
Lincoln NE
Display Name
Display name:
Brian
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-new-ways-to-open-doors-to-aviation?CMP=ADV:1

Why would you buy a $90k 150 or 152 when the fixed yearly costs of a $90k 172 are so close?

Hangar rent is same
Insurance will be darn close
Altimeter and transponder checks the same
150/152 = weak useful load

Not trashing 150/152, I miss my B model myself, but the $ vs usefulness logic baffles me.

They even suggest marketing towards flying clubs... Do they come with free weight watchers memberships?
 
Last edited:
I'd rather get a nice 150 from the heartland for under 20k.
 
Why would I spend $90k on a 150/152 regardless of condition when I can get a perfectly serviceable 172 or even 182 for that amount of coin? Besides, I can fit in a 172 or 182. Not enough legroom in a 150 (as I recall from my student pilot days).
 
I'd say that "re-imagined" is a pretty strong word to describe a flashy yellow paint job. Their are quite a number of 150/152's out there that have been well maintained and cared for throughout there life and there is really no justification for going through every nut and bolt on them. It kind of sounds like a banking scheme more than anything to do with the aircraft or aviation.

Perhaps I'm being too skeptical :dunno:
 
James331 said:
I'd rather get a nice 150 from the heartland for under 20k.
Click to expand...

You won't get a "Nice" one for under $20k that is being delusional. You get a ragged out POS for under $20k that you can either fly to the scrapyard, building time and ratings for a year or two then scrapping it when you hit the $7500 repair, or you can go ahead an spend the $30-$70k making it a nice plane depending on the avionics you install.
 
Henning said:
You won't get a "Nice" one for under $20k that is being delusional. You get a ragged out POS for under $20k that you can either fly to the scrapyard, building time and ratings for a year or two then scrapping it when you hit the $7500 repair, or you can go ahead an spend the $30-$70k making it a nice plane depending on the avionics you install.
Click to expand...

Your high number is still $20k less than the number they gave in the article. $20k is a LOT of fuel and $100 burgers.
 
StinkBug said:
Your high number is still $20k less than the number they gave in the article. $20k is a LOT of fuel and $100 burgers.
Click to expand...

That's because you pay for time, convenience, and somebody risking their capital on a product they may or may not make money on. If you buy the <$20k plane and redo it, you will be down for a year at least, you may even run into an airframe issue that makes the plane scrap metal. You buy the $90k one and you are getting it ready to go day one.
 
Henning said:
You won't get a "Nice" one for under $20k that is being delusional. You get a ragged out POS for under $20k that you can either fly to the scrapyard, building time and ratings for a year or two then scrapping it when you hit the $7500 repair, or you can go ahead an spend the $30-$70k making it a nice plane depending on the avionics you install.
Click to expand...


Sure you can, probably won't have glass and be WAAS, but you can get a very nice 150 with a standard six pack for 20k.

Also anyone who spends 30-70k on a 150 needs to send me their address so I can personally fly over and slap some sense into em'


Perhaps your illusion of value is why that twin if your has been for sale since, forever :wink2:


Hey, next time you're in the market for, well anything, give me a shout, from a sales point of view I like the way you think :lol:
 
People are selling a 150 with new P&I with a fresh engine for $20k? Eventually, every plane needs these things and you as the owner will have to pay for them. Now, if you are a do it yourself guy and have an agreeable IA/A&P to work with, yes, you can DIY paint and interior for around $7k using decent materials, and do the engine for about $12k. So add new glass to that when painting and you are over $40k into the plane, a lot of labor, and most likely a year of time not flying for the average working person with a social life or family. A lot of people want glass, very few people want to deal with the upgrade process for some reason. Even minimalist with a 650 you're now at $50k. Aspen $60k, G-500 $75k, now add the digital engine monitor and fuel flow and you have $80k and a ton of work plus a year's lost time on a plane you could have bought for $90k. The fact of the matter is, there are not that many people with either or both of the ability or desire to either do the work or give up the free time (and flying time) on a project like this. Most people who do will build an RV.
 
Last edited:
What these programs are good for and should be geared towards is providing flight schools with cost effective, modern panel trainers.
 
Anyone who had 90k to spend on an airplane would be a complete fool to spend it on a 152. They just are terrible airplanes for most peoples needs and buying on for that amount of money just to earn a rating or build time in ( the only two real practical uses for a 152) is pure insanity. You can get your hands on a great 4 seater airplane that can go much faster, carry more people or items for mid about half 90k. Why anyone would but a 152 for 90k is beyond me.

This article honestly reads like a joke. It says AOPA wants to lower the cost of flying, great! Later in the article it quotes the president Mark Baker who bought a Cessna 150 for 4,400 dollars--good for him, I'd run and buy a plane for 4,400 dollars today. Hold on though, I'm not running to buy Mr. Baker's plane because according to him a "reimagined" version is worth 20 TIMES that today. My god to be this stupid must be a privellage and what it takes obviously to get to the hight of general aviation. Seriously considering withdrawing my membership after this article because if they think inflating the price of something 20 times value is making things "cheaper" ummm please.
 
Last edited:
They are the best plane available if you want something to lease back to a busy flight school and make money. At $90k it's still the cheapest 'new smell' glass panel plane they're gonna get (cost not much more for an older 172), even the LSA planes with glass cost $120k. The reason they buy the LSA or G1000 172 is because these overhauls of airplanes take a year or so to do, and there is a lot of capital tied up not earning; not good. I think if they put together a refurbished 150/152 with glass for $90k, they have a viable market product.
 
Last edited:
Henning, that ain't the mission for a 150!

Why not try to certify it for a radar pod and FIKI too?

It's a basic economical VFR, light IFR trainer, don't be stupid and put glass high end avionics in a 150, if the windows are already fine don't replace them.

The idea of spending all that money on a 150 is both stupid (as no one with half a brain will pay that much for a 150 no matter how dressed up) and pointless, you don't need all that crap on the plane.

You can find low time 150s with 5-700SMOH all day long, ones with junky paint and ugly interiors but good other wise are a easy scoop for sub 20k ish. Get your auto guy (or down in Mexico) to re upholster it for 1-2k, paint for about the same and you got yourself a pretty little basic Sunday flyer or PPL trainer.

I ran a little school and I can tell you the number one wall for most schools is $$$$$. I've never had a student turn away because I didn't have a glass panel. As long as the plane is presentable and the instructors are good and THE PRICE IS RIGHT youre set.

I can rent out a 25k 150 for less then your billion dollar super 150, I'll have a higher profit margin and more people in my door.


Also just because some crap LSA sells for 120k doesn't mean jack for a C150.
 
Last edited:
They are talking about the training market, not really looking for a guy wanting a cheap way to fly. Cessna sells $300K+ 172's to flight schools for training, why wouldn't a great looking, well equipped, $90K 150 do the job cheaper? I'm not a buyer, but I don't run a flight school either.:rolleyes: This makes a lot more sense than turning a Duke or a 421 into a turbo prop. :D
 
the comments on the article seem to mirror some of the concerns here. 90K is a lot to spend on a 150/152. It looks like they were trying to find a plane with a low hourly cost to fly.

Unless I was a flight school or rich enough to keep a second plane, I'd want something bigger with better cross country capabilities in that price range.
 
How much is the hourly depreciation on the $90k?

Over how many hours? 2000 hours would be $45 just in depreciation. 4000 hours would be $22 bucks.
 
Why get a clunky Cessna at all? Tons of choices out there in LSA land that far exceed the cost and maintenance of the drag-ridden, metal and rivet slow climbers.
 
Do these people even try?

There has to be some other motive behind this because no person in their right mind would inflate a 152 to those prices and call it economical. You would have to be nuts to pay for an airplane new out of the factory.
 
James331 said:
Henning, that ain't the mission for a 150!

Why not try to certify it for a radar pod and FIKI too?

It's a basic economical VFR, light IFR trainer, don't be stupid and put glass high end avionics in a 150, if the windows are already fine don't replace them.

The idea of spending all that money on a 150 is both stupid (as no one with half a brain will pay that much for a 150 no matter how dressed up) and pointless, you don't need all that crap on the plane.

You can find low time 150s with 5-700SMOH all day long, ones with junky paint and ugly interiors but good other wise are a easy scoop for sub 20k ish. Get your auto guy (or down in Mexico) to re upholster it for 1-2k, paint for about the same and you got yourself a pretty little basic Sunday flyer or PPL trainer.

I ran a little school and I can tell you the number one wall for most schools is $$$$$. I've never had a student turn away because I didn't have a glass panel. As long as the plane is presentable and the instructors are good and THE PRICE IS RIGHT youre set.

I can rent out a 25k 150 for less then your billion dollar super 150, I'll have a higher profit margin and more people in my door.


Also just because some crap LSA sells for 120k doesn't mean jack for a C150.
Click to expand...

You have to learn how to use the radios and glass, plus it is the use because that's what customers want. People here poo poo it, but on the rental lines glass gets rented. People like modern things. I remember 20 years ago everybody complained that we couldn't get this technology in certified aircraft cockpits and that was holding back GA because people didnt want to fly with old crap. That was when the Green Mountain rig came out, it started the movement. Well, here it is and in the mean time the price of aircraft fell to the lowest prices ever and people are saying it's not worth it lol. The value,of the technology to GA has not changed a bitmbecausemthe value is not a monetary one.
 
Why buy that plane when you can get a very nice Archer or 172 equipped to the tooth for less with higher useful load and 20 knots better cruise?

Makes no logical sense to me other than keeping old birds in the air.

I think they picked the wrong airframe. They shoulda picked a 172.
 
Unit74 said:
Why buy that plane when you can get a very nice Archer or 172 equipped to the tooth for less with higher useful load and 20 knots better cruise?

Makes no logical sense to me other than keeping old birds in the air.

I think they picked the wrong airframe. They shoulda picked a 172.
Click to expand...

For a school the answer is operating cost. All in all there is nothing that is cheaper and more durable to operate that you can put on a school/rental line. However your point is correct, you can do the same thing with any plane.
 
Henning said:
You won't get a "Nice" one for under $20k that is being delusional. You get a ragged out POS for under $20k that you can either fly to the scrapyard, building time and ratings for a year or two then scrapping it when you hit the $7500 repair, or you can go ahead an spend the $30-$70k making it a nice plane depending on the avionics you install.
Click to expand...

I bought a nice C150H for 16.5k nothing wrong with it and I am the third owner of a very nice plane. It had 2300TT 800SMO and everything worked just fine. I had an A&P throw on some new tires and brakes but that was all it needed. I recently changed the VSI,Tach and Hobbs meter after a year of use. I also had an A&P clean my gasolator and put a rebuilt carb on her. So I'm into her for about 20k right now. BTW sorry about your bad luck buying a ragged out POS.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 68
Last edited:
In fairness to AOPA, it's more than an re painted 150/152. They strip it down to basic airframe, do the inspections, fix any structural issues, then hang either new or reconditioned everything on it. It's fairly easy to cost out the paint, interior, glass, engine and avionics. The wild card seems to be the the other stuff they are doing. The big question seems to be that they are butting up against the cost of a 1996-2002 restart 172.

It still doesn't answer the question of if it's the wave of the future or not. Yes, they are going for something with low operating costs and a solid airframe.

Will it work or not is up to the peanut gallery to determine. While it's not a true cross country plane, AOPA seems to be hoping that it can fill a need for the pilot who just wants to go fly around the local area.
 
Henning said:
You have to learn how to use the radios and glass, plus it is the use because that's what customers want. People here poo poo it, but on the rental lines glass gets rented. People like modern things. I remember 20 years ago everybody complained that we couldn't get this technology in certified aircraft cockpits and that was holding back GA because people didnt want to fly with old crap. That was when the Green Mountain rig came out, it started the movement. Well, here it is and in the mean time the price of aircraft fell to the lowest prices ever and people are saying it's not worth it lol. The value,of the technology to GA has not changed a bitmbecausemthe value is not a monetary one.
Click to expand...

You have wants and needs in a customer

They NEED flying to fit into their budget

They (might) WANT the "gee whiz" toys in the plane



I put my 25k 150 on the ramp next to your Six Figure 150

Mine rents out for $89hr

Yours rents out for $130hr

They are the same plane and they both count as hours just the same.

Mine gets rented WAY more then yours, I have more customers, I fit more budget profiles and I make more money.

I can't count the number of people I've talked to about flight training, the first or second question is ALWAYS about costs, glass panels don't make the conversation. :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
From an operating cost perspective, the 150/152 burns 5-6 GPH? a 172 8-9 GPH? assuming 3 GPH difference X $5.50 is $16.50 per hour more in fuel alone.:eek: Times 400 hours per year is $6,600.00 annually in fuel savings per aircraft. Upfront cost of $90K vs $200K plus for a good used 172 with glass makes a big difference in carrying costs.:dunno:
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...WK-SP/2008-CESSNA-172S-SKYHAWK-SP/1328853.htm

This is, of course, assuming folks training want glass panels and modern avionics. Looking at the market on used Cessnas, you will find the ones with G1000 bring a premium over the ones with steam gauges.
Again, I am not in the market for a 150 at any price, but for a flight school, I can see how it would be worth investigating. :wink2:
It's the same argument when people buy a 172 for $100K, you could buy a 182 for the same price, or a 310, or a Bonanza etc.
The 150 was never built for personal transportation, it was marketed that way, but it's designed for teaching people (small people) to fly cheaply. Speed is important when you are traveling, not some much when you are building hours, actually slower is probably better for student cross country flights. :D

Unit74 said:
Why buy that plane when you can get a very nice Archer or 172 equipped to the tooth for less with higher useful load and 20 knots better cruise?

Makes no logical sense to me other than keeping old birds in the air.

I think they picked the wrong airframe. They shoulda picked a 172.
Click to expand...
 
BG305 said:
I bought a nice C150H for 16.5k nothing wrong with it and I am the third owner of a very nice plane. It had 2300TT 800SMO and everything worked just fine. I had an A&P throw on some new tires and brakes but that was all it needed. I recently changed the VSI,Tach and Hobbs meter after a year of use. I also had an A&P clean my gasolator and put a rebuilt carb on her. So I'm into her for about 20k right now. BTW sorry about your bad luck buying a ragged out POS.
Click to expand...

Exactly :yesnod:

Nice looking plane BTW
 
This reminds me of the Tesla thread. People will buy things because they want them. Just because you don't want something doesn't mean others won't. We all (well most of us) spend money on things which make no financial sense. After all, this is a GA aviation forum. :D

Personally, I would not be entertained by buying an older airplane and putting in the upgrades I might want. I like buying things which are already the way I want them. But that is me. I buy new cars too.

That said, I'm not sure how this is going to go for Cessna.
 
Last edited:
I think they are looking to sell to the flight school that already has late model glass planes in the fleet. 1/2 to 1/3 the cost means they can rent it for less. It may cost more than the 20k 150 sitting next to it, but it gives the school another option.

Most on this board understand that the ragged old plane is safe and a good platform to learn. Imagine a new potential pilot that is already apprehensive about flying and taking him or her out to see the plane and it looks like it belongs in a scrap yard. Contrast that to showing them a new or a refurbished plane that looks like new.

I have no interest in one, but I am not running a flight school. If I were, I would give it serious consideration.

Jim
 
You can get a NEW Pipistrel or Flight Design MC trainer for $75k with twice the climb rate of a Cessna 172. And a 4gph mogas burn too.
 
Topper said:
I think they are looking to sell to the flight school that already has late model glass planes in the fleet. 1/2 to 1/3 the cost means they can rent it for less. It may cost more than the 20k 150 sitting next to it, but it gives the school another option.

Most on this board understand that the ragged old plane is safe and a good platform to learn. Imagine a new potential pilot that is already apprehensive about flying and taking him or her out to see the plane and it looks like it belongs in a scrap yard. Contrast that to showing them a new or a refurbished plane that looks like new.

I have no interest in one, but I am not running a flight school. If I were, I would give it serious consideration.

Jim
Click to expand...

Paint and upholstery are easy, and cheap, Most ab initio students wouldn't know the difference in new and old beyond the paint and seats.

My 1940s personal plane is quite pretty, no glass panel or nonsense, I've had people thinking it was newish just because of the wax job. Non-aviation folks are like ferrets, just make sure it sparkles in the sun and that's 95% of the "is it safe battle"

Just give it a neutral color interior and new style Cessna swoosh paint job and that's a wrap. 25k and done.
 
I have to agree with James331 here, I would NEVER spend that kind of money on a a 150 but more power to anyone who does...
 
I was told that the 150 was a stepping stone for me in aviation. I was to get into it for as little as possible and put into it as little as possible,but get the most out of it. I understood that I would not be going to far at a high rate of speed. I think it's a smart idea to learn in something not so spiffy just in case. I was even told to take her pants off until I mastered landings.
 
James331 said:
Paint and upholstery are easy, and cheap, Most ab initio students wouldn't know the difference in new and old beyond the paint and seats.

My 1940s personal plane is quite pretty, no glass panel or nonsense, I've had people thinking it was newish just because of the wax job. Non-aviation folks are like ferrets, just make sure it sparkles in the sun and that's 95% of the "is it safe battle"

Just give it a neutral color interior and new style Cessna swoosh paint job and that's a wrap. 25k and done.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but if I am a flight school I am better off with a plane that has been gone through and is reliable. Also, if the end goal of a student is to buy a glass panel plane, they may want to train in one.
 
Topper said:
Also, if the end goal of a student is to buy a glass panel plane, they may want to train in one.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but in the long run it would probably take longer and cost them more to get a rating. In my opinion, it is better to learn in a basic airplane and add all the bells and whistles later.

In my ideal world, a person would learn to fly in a Cub or Champ or something similar and add all that other garbage later. It would take less time, cost less and make a better pilot out of them. Of course, that is also my opinion.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That may be true, but in the long run it would probably take longer and cost them more to get a rating. In my opinion, it is better to learn in a basic airplane and add all the bells and whistles later.

In my ideal world, a person would learn to fly in a Cub or Champ or something similar and add all that other garbage later. It would take less time, cost less and make a better pilot out of them. Of course, that is also my opinion.
Click to expand...

I bought a yolk mount for my ipad and foreflight with a stratus. My flight school would not even let me use the foreflight. They told me they wanted me to learn to "fly" first then I could learn how to use the gadgets.
 
BG305 said:
I was told that the 150 was a stepping stone for me in aviation. I was to get into it for as little as possible and put into it as little as possible,but get the most out of it. I understood that I would not be going to far at a high rate of speed. I think it's a smart idea to learn in something not so spiffy just in case. I was even told to take her pants off until I mastered landings.
Click to expand...

Understand the difference in economics. You are operating a plane to save money, an FBO is operating a plane to make money.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That may be true, but in the long run it would probably take longer and cost them more to get a rating. In my opinion, it is better to learn in a basic airplane and add all the bells and whistles later.

In my ideal world, a person would learn to fly in a Cub or Champ or something similar and add all that other garbage later. It would take less time, cost less and make a better pilot out of them. Of course, that is also my opinion.
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it with that method is that people often learn "the bells and whistles" outside of the training environment and that leaves them less than competent at operating them. If they start day one, they have 40hrs to add and understand the features of the radio with the CFI there to assist, and they can go home and practice using it with a sim. What you end up with is it takes some extra effort, but by the time you are signed off by the DE to go forth and aviate, you are competent with equipment that can get very confusing very fast if you have to make it work under stress and you don't know how. If you have the GTN radios, this isn't quite as bad, but with the GNS series it can have you cussing.

Train like you expect to fly. If you expect to always be flying a basic VFR airplane, then train in that. If you are going to be flying glass, train in that.

I think this attitude of train as cheap and easy as possible is a very dangerous one. Train as cost effectively as you can. In my experience that means you're gonna spend more money and work a lot harder to make them count.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Train like you expect to fly. If you expect to always be flying a basic VFR airplane, then train in that. If you are going to be flying glass, train in that.
Click to expand...

I can accept that. But the student training like that has to understand that it is going to take longer to get a certificate and will necessarily cost more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top