Flying a 152?

LoLPilot

LoLPilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
626
Location
St. Louis, MO
Display Name
Display name:
LoLPilot
So far the planes I’ve flown

Tomahawk (5 min during discovery flight a year prior to starting my ppl)

172
172RG
R182
Decathlon

I typically have lessons for my instrument rating on Tuesdays. Next Tuesday my instructor isn’t available. My flight school says if you are checked out in the 172’s they consider you good to go in the 152’s. Im thinking of renting one and going to the practice area to do airwork. My t/w instructor told me if I wanted to prep for my “performance flying” lessons to just work on some uncoordinated stalls with recovery at 1/4 turn if I wanted to do some prep work.

Anything I should be aware of with a 152?
 
They’re tight and much more sluggish than a 172, but they’re a lot of fun. Make sure you know the published v-speeds, oil and fuel levels etc.
 
Dirt simple, lighter on the controls. Not that much different handling than a 172, depending on which model.

Take about half an hour to get used to it.
 
RoscoeT said:
Much more sluggish? More like slightly less power to weight ratio two up, and significantly more nimble handling than a 172.
Click to expand...
By your definition, are you happy now?
 
Can’t adjust the seat either and you seem to sit lower to the dash. Incredibly easy to land compared to 172 but I found them uncomfortable and really slow.

My rental place has the same rule regarding 172 and 152 checkouts.
 
You may not be a huge fan if your used to the C172. I actually find it more difficult to land and it gets rocked around in the wind and bumps very easily. Just feels less stable to me. Controls are significantly lighter. Spins are much more fun though.
 
The seats adjust in the 152 I’m training in. At least back and forward if thats what you are talking about. It seems cramped but not as bad as my dad’s 150. Lol
 
Be sure to check the amount of fuel,before flying.
 
You'll have a great time. Flying solo in a 152 is fine, no abundance of power but plenty for what you want to do. Practice stalls and then a few landings. You're sure to be grinning when you shut down.
 
JonH said:
How can you say no to this?

View attachment 68408
Click to expand...

That’s a beautiful airplane!

david.h said:
You'll have a great time. Flying solo in a 152 is fine, no abundance of power but plenty for what you want to do. Practice stalls and then a few landings. You're sure to be grinning when you shut down.
Click to expand...

I have heard more than one person say they are a hoot to fly solo. I sat in one and I do fit so I think I’ll check one out and go bum around the patch. Thanks guys!
 
According to the FAA... The 150/152 makes you a better pilot, as it takes more time in the air verses the same distance as the 172 with the same flight path. :7)
 
When I was 17, I took a prospective prom date up in a 150. We flew over her house, our school etc...then I asked her to prom on the way back to the airport. She said no. I am thinking if I sprung for the 172 she might have said yes. Joke is on her now, 18 years later I own an Arrow and she is married to the guy she showed up with to prom. YMMV.
 
Jmcmanna said:
When I was 17, I took a prospective prom date up in a 150. We flew over her house, our school etc...then I asked her to prom on the way back to the airport. She said no. I am thinking if I sprung for the 172 she might have said yes. Joke is on her now, 18 years later I own an Arrow and she is married to the guy she showed up with to prom. YMMV.
Click to expand...
Mileage varies indeed.

In 1972 I borrowed my dad's C-150E to take a young lady for an airplane ride. She must have approved of it; she's still flying with me. :)

 
The vis is just as bad as 172, 182, etc. It is much more nimble than a 172, but not squirrley.
 
A shame nobody makes new ones. But then of course, today a 152 would probably cost $300,000.
 
Sundancer said:
The vis is just as bad as 172, 182, etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe even a little worse. In the 150/152 the pilot sits further back relative to the leading edge of the wing, just about at 50% chord, and wing dihedral is flatter. Coming to a 150/152 from a larger Cessna you might feel a bit like you're sitting in the back of a tunnel, but you get used to it quickly.
 
It it can fit inside the new LSA rules raising the GW to 1650lbs (not the 3600lb proposal), it would be great if someone would start making them again.

Bring back the Sparrow Hawk version.
 
NordicDave said:
It it can fit inside the new LSA rules raising the GW to 1650lbs (not the 3600lb proposal), it would be great if someone would start making them again.

Bring back the Sparrow Hawk version.
Click to expand...
Well, since a 152 max gross weight is 1670, it still would not qualify with a 1650 lb LSA gross weight.
 
RoscoeT said:
Much more sluggish? More like slightly less power to weight ratio two up, and significantly more nimble handling than a 172.
Click to expand...

Depending on models of 152 and 172 compared and fuel loads and pax on board, a 150/152 can have significantly better power to weight ratio.

For just bumming, nothing really beats the 150/152 series (in flat lands with low elevations), I really love the things, unfortunately the low end 4 seaters on the market cost about the same $$$ to keep, so there isn't a huge financial advantage to owning them IMHO. (we had a 150B for about 5 years I flew the heck out of it in windy SD and NE.)

I think the 150/152 really helps pilots get "in touch" with the winds, because they are so light, light controls and easy to maneuver.
 
Last edited:
Did my PPL in a 152, literally the go kart of the sky. Absolutely love and adore that airplane.
 
One of the more enjoyable things to do as an aviator is to step back from a HP Complex airplane to something so simple and idiot proof as a 150/152. You can really just enjoy the flight instead of worrying about switching tanks, setting power and rpm, fiddling with autopilot and all your electronics. Its fun to really horse it around, practice all kinds of crazy approaches to landing, uncoordinated stalls, accelerated stalls, things I don't enjoy as much in my airplane.
 
LoLPilot said:
So far the planes I’ve flown

Tomahawk (5 min during discovery flight a year prior to starting my ppl)

172
172RG
R182
Decathlon

I typically have lessons for my instrument rating on Tuesdays. Next Tuesday my instructor isn’t available. My flight school says if you are checked out in the 172’s they consider you good to go in the 152’s. Im thinking of renting one and going to the practice area to do airwork. My t/w instructor told me if I wanted to prep for my “performance flying” lessons to just work on some uncoordinated stalls with recovery at 1/4 turn if I wanted to do some prep work.

Anything I should be aware of with a 152?
Click to expand...
Student pilot here: our club has a 150 which is wide open on the schedule. I talked to my instructor and he said he can get me checked out on that. We did one quick flight and performed steep turns, stalls and only 2 landings. My impressions:
- Much slower climbs and cruise
- Sight picture different so I ended up flaring a little to high, but didn't bounce :)
- Much better feel for use of coordination, you have to pay more attention to that.

I'm going to do another session with just T&Gs and get checked out so I can fly that as well and not fight for the 172s that are constantly fully booked.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
You may not be a huge fan if your used to the C172. I actually find it more difficult to land and it gets rocked around in the wind and bumps very easily. Just feels less stable to me. Controls are significantly lighter. Spins are much more fun though.
Click to expand...
Also found landings to be more difficult, as you keep bouncing around as a 172 has more inertia
 
IMO the 152 is a better trainer than the 172, and I have thousands of hours in the two of them, and instructing in them. I prefer the 152 over the Beech Skipper too. When I instructed at Elgin Aero Club they had three Skipper. Roomier than a 152 but handling not as good as a 152, IMO. Never have flown a Tomahawk so cant comment on that one.
 
jspilot said:
Can’t adjust the seat either and you seem to sit lower to the dash. Incredibly easy to land compared to 172 but I found them uncomfortable and really slow.

My rental place has the same rule regarding 172 and 152 checkouts.
Click to expand...

AnthonyS1 said:
You may not be a huge fan if your used to the C172. I actually find it more difficult to land and it gets rocked around in the wind and bumps very easily. Just feels less stable to me. Controls are significantly lighter. Spins are much more fun though.
Click to expand...

I agree with the second quote. Did my primary in a 152, around 45 hours. Not that a 152 is hard to land, just affected much more by the wind, and more sensitive to control input. I find myself pulling back on it too much and ballooning my first landing after I fly the 172 for a while. The 172 just settles a lot easier in my mind.

Sight picture is different, I think someone mentioned that already. You sit up higher in the 172 versus the 152. Shouldn't take much time at all to get used to. 152 is a lot of fun, real light on the controls and a blast to fly. Now I haven't flown a Pitts or RV before though so I might not have the right definition of fun :D
 
I was surprised at how big a 152 is on the inside the first time I got in one. Baggage area looked big enough for a hot tub.

But, I guess it depends on what you are used to.
 
I "think" the 152 is a rare airplane that doesn't have an accelerator pump in the carburetor.

If you are a throttle jockey starter person, it will do you no good.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I was surprised at how big a 152 is on the inside the first time I got in one. Baggage area looked big enough for a hot tub.

But, I guess it depends on what you are used to.
Click to expand...

When I sat in one I was surprised too! I opened the door and thought “ooohhhh boy” but I got into that plane like you get into an MGB - one leg in, next leg in, slide the butt over and you’re in! I was surprised by how roomy it felt and the seating position reminded me of a little roadster.

kgruber said:
I "think" the 152 is a rare airplane that doesn't have an accelerator pump in the carburetor.

If you are a throttle jockey starter person, it will do you no good.
Click to expand...

My first instructor instilled an “do not jockey the throttle on start” mentality in me.
 
kgruber said:
I "think" the 152 is a rare airplane that doesn't have an accelerator pump in the carburetor.
Click to expand...
That only applies to the 1978 and 1979 model years -- but because of declining production each year thereafter until the 1986 shutdown, that's more than half of the 152/A152 fleet. An accelerator pump was added to the carb for the 1980 model year.
 
If anyone here has flown in a DA20, how does it compare SPACE-wise? (Obviously low wing, different configuration etc) But as far as space itself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top