C150 Engine Upgrade

R

RussellJ

Pre-Flight
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
64
Location
South Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
RussellJ
I’ll bet this subject has come up a ton but… Are there any engine upgrades for a Cessna 150? Sure the little O-200 is a good dependable engine but surely there’s something lighter, more powerful, more efficient, whatever out there. A friend has one that’s like 500 hours past tbo, running fine but he knows the time is coming for a new engine and he’s looking for options. He doesn’t really want the 150/150 conversion due to the additional weight. Any idea if the little O-200 from the Cessna Skycatcher can be installed on a standard 150? It’s a few pounds lighter so that’s something. Turbines are usually lighter than pistons, maybe a derated turboprop of some kind ;-)
 
Last edited:
RussellJ said:
Are there any engine upgrades for a Cessna 150?
Click to expand...
Yes, but don't know if they're still around. Del Aire(?) has/had an O-320 STC for a 150. But I doubt you'll ever recoup the costs if you sell the aircraft. I believe there may have been one or two other STCs as well but this is very dated info/memory.
 
I think I’ve seen diesel conversations for the C172 and the Piper Warrior. Anything like that for the 150?
 
Google is your friend. "Cessna 150 engine upgrade". Del-Air holds an stc to install a Lycoming o320 and increase max gross because the engine is quite a bit heavier. They may or may not be in business. I'd hazard a guess and say the upgrade probably cost more than the airframe itself. I thought someone was trying to get a rotax in a 150 but don't know if the STC is out there.

Why Cessna didnt a put a rotax in the sky catcher is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
RussellJ said:
I think I’ve seen diesel conversations for the C172 and the Piper Warrior. Anything like that for the 150?
Click to expand...
As appealing as diesel's sound, they are heavier and underpowered compared to it 100ll brethren. Even if it was an option, I don't believe it is for the 150.
 
I think there’s a type club for Cessna 150s. They would be able to tell you all about it.
 
A lighter engine on a 150 means it would be more tail-heavy, possibly limiting baggage capacity or requiring ballast on the firewall. Small, light airframes are sensitive to such changes.
 
I've got a 150hp C-150. While the climb performance is nice, it makes any longer trips more complicated due to fuel considerations. I plan for roughly 2.5 hours between fuel stops. You won't see a dramatic increase in speed, either. Having said that, I recently flew a "standard" 150 with the O200 and I will NEVER fly one again! :)
 
There has been a Rotax upgraded one in Canada I believe but don’t hold your breath for getting it here. Switching to a light weight starter and alternator makes up the majority of the difference in the new o-200’s weight. The easiest, and cheapest weight reduction is what you and a passenger add to the interior. People spend thousands to save 10 lbs. go on a diet for 2 months and save 20lbs.
 
Doesn't do anything for us here and now, but in the early 1970s, Cessna's factory in France built a very interesting version of the 150 Aerobat. It was called the FRA150, and had a Rolls-Royce Continental O-240 rated at 130 hp. Gross weight was 1650 lb. 130 hp sounds like a nice compromise for the 150 airframe, but that model was never built or certified here. That engine eventually became an orphan with unobtainable parts, and in recent years many FRA150 owners have downgraded their airplanes to the 100 hp O-200-A, as in the standard 150.
 
Dan Thomas said:
A lighter engine on a 150 means it would be more tail-heavy, possibly limiting baggage capacity or requiring ballast on the firewall. Small, light airframes are sensitive to such changes.
Click to expand...
You are going to have to change the cowl and the mount if you put in a Rotax - slide it forward a few inches in the process...
 
Former Cessna aerodynamicist and test pilot Bill Thompson was not crazy about the O-320 C-150 mod that put the battery box in the tailcone to balance out the heavier engine. After flying one he said it was "no longer a docile C-150" and cited a "noticeably flatter spin attitude" and "rather sluggish" spin recovery.
 
Pilawt said:
Former Cessna aerodynamicist and test pilot Bill Thompson was not crazy about the O-320 C-150 mod that put the battery box in the tailcone to balance out the heavier engine.
Click to expand...
Higher polar moment of inertia.
After flying one he said it was "no longer a docile C-150" and cited a "noticeably flatter spin attitude" and "rather sluggish" spin recovery.
Click to expand...
Not much of a surprise.
 
Pilawt said:
Former Cessna aerodynamicist and test pilot Bill Thompson was not crazy about the O-320 C-150 mod that put the battery box in the tailcone to balance out the heavier engine. After flying one he said it was "no longer a docile C-150" and cited a "noticeably flatter spin attitude" and "rather sluggish" spin recovery.
Click to expand...
Part of the O-320 STC requires a placard which states: "Intentional spins prohibited". Can't imagine why. :)

While working through my commercial rating, my instructor was amazed at how my 150 "drops" when chopping the throttle, setting up for power off 180s. It definitely doesn't glide like a standard 150. It's more like a 182, without being as heavy on the yoke.
 
Racerx said:
Google is your friend. "Cessna 150 engine upgrade". Del-Air holds an stc to install a Lycoming o320 and increase max gross because the engine is quite a bit heavier. They may or may not be in business. I'd hazard a guess and say the upgrade probably cost more than the airframe itself. I thought someone was trying to get a rotax in a 150 but don't know if the STC is out there.

Why Cessna didn't a put a rotax in the sky catcher is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Why Cessna wasted time, money, effort, and energy on the Skycatcher and not re-releasing a modern 152 is beyond me.

Dave Arata said:
I've always thought the Sparrowhawk conversion(125HP) made the most sense for a 150. It's pretty much the sweet spot.
Click to expand...

Lycoming 0-290 could have been the best option in my opinion, but the kids in Williamsport don't make them anymore :(
 
About 30 years ago; the folks owning Franklin offered to produce a modern 130 hp STC
package for the 150 . They needed about 100 firm orders to move forward. To my knowledge it went nowhere.

About 20 years earlier the then Franklin Folks produced a 2 cylinder 65 hp ish for
the Champion 7ACA.

The Lycoming O-290D2 ( 135 -140 hp) has a lots of fans but little parts.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Why Cessna wasted time, money, effort, and energy on the Skycatcher and not re-releasing a modern 152 is beyond me.
Lycoming 0-290 could have been the best option in my opinion, but the kids in Williamsport don't make them anymore :(
Click to expand...
The old, straight-tail, no-rear-window 150 was a better performer than the "modernized" version. Adding that sharp drop behind the cabin added a bunch of drag, and it allowed vortex formation off the inboard corners of the flaps, which are not against the fuselage as with other Cessnas. It was dumb, IMHO.

When I was an instructor I taught in several airplanes, among them a couple of 150s and a Champ 7EC. All three had the O-200-A. That Champ could run circles around the 150. I also flew an Alon Aircoupe, the last iteration of the Ercoupe, and it had the Continental C-90, which gave it the same power-to-weight ratio as the 150 with its supposed 100 HP. That Aircoupe could run circles around the 150, too. Part of the problem is that the O-200 appears to be more than a bit short of 100 HP. A French fellow that makes props for homebuilts uses 85 HP as the figure for calculating prop dimensions for the O-200.

A better engine for the 150 would be the 152's engine, the Lyc O-235. I wonder if the 152's mount would fit the 150? And then the cowl would likely have to change, too.

I don't believe the 150 is worth spending that sort of money on. Buy a Citabria instead.
 
Racerx said:
Why Cessna didnt a put a rotax in the sky catcher is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Cessna made a lot of bad decisions regarding the Skycatcher program. In this case, they wanted to appeal to FBOs who were already familiar with LyCon engines.

Ventucky Red said:
Why Cessna wasted time, money, effort, and energy on the Skycatcher and not re-releasing a modern 152 is beyond me.
Click to expand...

They wanted to jump on the LSA bandwagon, and the 152 is too heavy for LSA.
 
When learning 30 years ago I flew a 100 hp, 150 hp, and 160 hp C-150s. The best flyer was the stock one. Better balance made the controls feel better. The only thing more horsepower did was improve rate of climb. Those planes had heavier feel and more abrupt stalls. The equation is the same with other airframes. More power adds weight to the nose and changes the airplane’s flight characteristics and feel. Sometimes it’s worth it, but if you don’t need to takeoff short or climb over tall obstacles at gross? There are better investments. If you’re just itching for more plane? A different plane would be a better path.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The old, straight-tail, no-rear-window 150 was a better performer than the "modernized" version. Adding that sharp drop behind the cabin added a bunch of drag, and it allowed vortex formation off the inboard corners of the flaps, which are not against the fuselage as with other Cessnas. It was dumb, IMHO.

When I was an instructor I taught in several airplanes, among them a couple of 150s and a Champ 7EC. All three had the O-200-A. That Champ could run circles around the 150. I also flew an Alon Aircoupe, the last iteration of the Ercoupe, and it had the Continental C-90, which gave it the same power-to-weight ratio as the 150 with its supposed 100 HP. That Aircoupe could run circles around the 150, too. Part of the problem is that the O-200 appears to be more than a bit short of 100 HP. A French fellow that makes props for homebuilts uses 85 HP as the figure for calculating prop dimensions for the O-200.

A better engine for the 150 would be the 152's engine, the Lyc O-235. I wonder if the 152's mount would fit the 150? And then the cowl would likely have to change, too.

I don't believe the 150 is worth spending that sort of money on. Buy a Citabria instead.
Click to expand...
I don't think the O-235 is a good upgrade at all. For one it doesn't make that much more power while being considerably heavier. The perfect marriage would have been a Franklin or O-290 both of which sadly have no support.

In regards to the O-200 HP, idk where this all started. Maybe from people afraid to run it at the higher rpm it's designed for. I hear people saying all the time that the C85 "makes the same power". Well I've flown with enough 140's to know that even the lighter 140 with a C85 is no where near the performer my straight tail 150 was. I think it was a Corvair engine builder that did a static thrust comparison test. Even with the shorter 150 propeller with standard pitch had the same pull as a C85 with a longer prop pitched for climb. So whether or not the 0-200 makes the claimed 100 hp at 2750, idk. But it still has more power than a c85 or c85 hybrid contrary to what many say.
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
The old, straight-tail, no-rear-window 150 was a better performer than the "modernized" version. Adding that sharp drop behind the cabin added a bunch of drag, and it allowed vortex formation off the inboard corners of the flaps, which are not against the fuselage as with other Cessnas. It was dumb, IMHO.
Click to expand...
The 150D's rear window was an important safety feature. You needed it to see where you were going in a headwind.
 
I’m at 4850’msl, so converting my 150 to 150hp made it a much more fun, and safer airplane.
No longer did I have to find orographic lift in the heat of summer, to climb above the local hills, and launch on an xc.
I also added a baggage compartment fuel tank which solved the short legs issue.
The battery remained on the firewall.
There was never a reason to explore the stall/spin regime, so that was a non-issue.

I also flew a 180/150 across the country a few times: very nice rocketship.
 
Pilawt said:
Doesn't do anything for us here and now, but in the early 1970s, Cessna's factory in France built a very interesting version of the 150 Aerobat. It was called the FRA150, and had a Rolls-Royce Continental O-240 rated at 130 hp. Gross weight was 1650 lb. 130 hp sounds like a nice compromise for the 150 airframe, but that model was never built or certified here. That engine eventually became an orphan with unobtainable parts, and in recent years many FRA150 owners have downgraded their airplanes to the 100 hp O-200-A, as in the standard 150.
Click to expand...

Ive wanted to install an IO-240 from a Diamond on a 150 for a long time now. I think it would be a good match and require minimal effort to convert.
 
Bell206 said:
Yes, but don't know if they're still around. Del Aire(?) has/had an O-320 STC for a 150. But I doubt you'll ever recoup the costs if you sell the aircraft. I believe there may have been one or two other STCs as well but this is very dated info/memory.
Click to expand...

yes, they are still in business, the owner is a personal friend of mine
 
mondtster said:
Ive wanted to install an IO-240 from a Diamond on a 150 for a long time now. I think it would be a good match and require minimal effort to convert.
Click to expand...
Hi I'm new to this forum and I am across the pond too but have an FRA 150M with a 0-240 and she's doing fine. Previously I flew a 150 with the 0-200 and you certainly notice the difference. Fuel economy is less though but leaned off get about 20 litres an hour, sorry about the units. Engine spares can be a problem I believe the worst is a new crankshaft, should you need one.
 
MikeG99, would you by chance have a electronic copy of the parts manual, and maintenance manual for your FRA 150m.
 
I would consider the rotax,however I’m happy with the O 200
 
Discussing the need to add a new training plane to our club the other day. The 150? With two people of average size in 2023, fuel, on a typical Atlanta hot and humid afternoon in August, it could turn out to be a very safe plane. The reason being it's not getting off the ground. Might have a fair to good shot at taxiing around the ramp.
 
Although I don't think it would be much of an upgrade the O-200D would be an upgrade. A few pounds lighter and more HP.

As let's face it the O-200A never developed 100HP.

MT prop would be lighter, smoother and give a touch more umph to.

Anyone for the STC?
 
Bathman said:
Although I don't think it would be much of an upgrade the O-200D would be an upgrade. A few pounds lighter and more HP.

As let's face it the O-200A never developed 100HP.

MT prop would be lighter, smoother and give a touch more umph to.

Anyone for the STC?
Click to expand...
Uh no. The O-200D is pretty much orphaned right along with the skycatcher. Try to find a new cylinder for one, if you manage to do that the price will choke you.
 
RussellJ said:
I’ll bet this subject has come up a ton but… Are there any engine upgrades for a Cessna 150? Sure the little O-200 is a good dependable engine but surely there’s something lighter, more powerful, more efficient, whatever out there. A friend has one that’s like 500 hours past tbo, running fine but he knows the time is coming for a new engine and he’s looking for options. He doesn’t really want the 150/150 conversion due to the additional weight. Any idea if the little O-200 from the Cessna Skycatcher can be installed on a standard 150? It’s a few pounds lighter so that’s something. Turbines are usually lighter than pistons, maybe a derated turboprop of some kind ;-)
Click to expand...
The Cessna 150's O-200 had at one time an AD that required retarding the mag timing. I bought such a 150 and realized that because it had actual Lycoming cylinders, the mag timing could be returned to the original. it definitely made a difference, especially in climb performance. It would be worthwhile to investigate the paperwork for the plane in question. You may be able to gain some "free" horsepower.
 
The inability to buy jugs for O-200D's is an indicator of the mess continetial are in at the moment.

And the prices they are charging for O-200A parts is unbelievble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top