Smaller more difficult?

[spiderweb]

Do any of you find the C150 harder to land than the C172 or C182? I'm asking after my experience today. I'd start by saying that I had a great time just going out and doing 10 takeoffs and landings. Still, I found that although I was refining as I went along, it was very hard to get things consistent.

For example, even though I was on airspeed and would flare slowly, I would find that the slightest "gust" (maybe 5 knots), and I'd float or even balloon a bit; something a Skylane wouldn't "notice." Heaven forbid I be 5 knots too fast--that happened on the first landing and I ballooned about five feet in the air, followed by an over-reaction with power application causing me to float for a long time. (On that landing, I'm thinking, if I don't touch down within that first third of the runway, I'm going around.)

I did try all kinds of landings (0-40 degrees), and maybe that made it more difficult. The best ones were 40 degrees, though. Come in at 65 MPH, level, power-idle, and your flare is very short and controllable.

Don't get me wrong--aside from a couple of only "acceptable" landings, I did OK and even had a couple of really nice greasers. But I just feel that it is harder with the C150, which seems to "overreact." Heavier birds like the C172 and C182 don't seem to notice gusts and updrafts, and it is harder for you to overcontrol, because forces are not light. (Control forces are light in the Zlin, but she's relatively heavy too, and with a stick and pushrods, everything is so much more precise.)

So, is this your experience?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

They're surely a bit more squirrely in winds. Try an ultralight in wind if you want to get really wierd.

Conversely, a 727 pilot I talked with considers taking that into Point Barrow (I think it is) "Bush Flying" ...and it's an arguable point.

Do any of you find the C150 harder to land than the C172 or C182? I'm asking after my experience today. I'd start by saying that I had a great time just going out and doing 10 takeoffs and landings. Still, I found that although I was refining as I went along, it was very hard to get things consistent.

For example, even though I was on airspeed and would flare slowly, I would find that the slightest "gust" (maybe 5 knots), and I'd float or even balloon a bit; something a Skylane wouldn't "notice." Heaven forbid I be 5 knots too fast--that happened on the first landing and I ballooned about five feet in the air, followed by an over-reaction with power application causing me to float for a long time. (On that landing, I'm thinking, if I don't touch down within that first third of the runway, I'm going around.)

I did try all kinds of landings (0-40 degrees), and maybe that made it more difficult. The best ones were 40 degrees, though. Come in at 65 MPH, level, power-idle, and your flare is very short and controllable.

Don't get me wrong--aside from a couple of only "acceptable" landings, I did OK and even had a couple of really nice greasers. But I just feel that it is harder with the C150, which seems to "overreact." Heavier birds like the C172 and C182 don't seem to notice gusts and updrafts, and it is harder for you to overcontrol, because forces are not light. (Control forces are light in the Zlin, but she's relatively heavy too, and with a stick and pushrods, everything is so much more precise.)

So, is this your experience?

 

[AdamZ]

Ben: I learned on an AA1-C Gruman Trainer. I always felt they were more squirley and harder to land than the larger Tiger or the PA 28s

 

[Michael]

The same could be said about high wing vs low wing, although some dont agree. I found that the low wings, when getting into ground effect, seem to straighten themselves out, and not have as much problems with wind. I would rather be in a low wing on a windy landing anyday.

 

[poadeleted3]

I agree that it's harder to get a really good landing out of the 150/152 than it is a Skyhawk or Skylane. It's light and blows around like a leaf in the wind and thermals, and the controls are so light I have to work not to overcontrol. It's a trainer... it's not supposed to give up the goodies too easily. BUT, if you work at it, you can get some really nice landings in the plane, and then you know you've really got 'em nailed!

 

[azure]

Ben,

I haven't flown a 150 in nearly 3 years now and I imagine I'd find the same thing if I went back to one now, after getting used to flying the Cardinal. My reactions and muscle memory are conditioned to the heavier stick forces and slower reactions of the heavier airplane. And I'm not sure I would WANT to fly a 150 in gusty summer winds - as a friend of mine who posts here occasionally loves to quip, it's very much a "manned kite". But it goes both ways - it's that same lightness that makes it so reactive that you can almost control it by thinking about it. I did all of my pre-solo primary training in 150s and 152s (except for 3 hours in a Cherokee) and first soloed in a 150. I found that 55 knots on short final, 40 degrees of flaps worked great, I could flare in one single motion and put it down within 50-100 feet of the numbers every time... as long as the winds were light, of course. It felt kind of like "wearing an airplane". I kinda miss that old bird... but I wouldn't want to try to do a serious cross country in him.

Liz

 

[Silicon Rallye]

I agree that it's harder to get a really good landing out of the 150/152 than it is a Skyhawk or Skylane. It's light and blows around like a leaf in the wind and thermals, and the controls are so light I have to work not to overcontrol.

Actually, those are several of the reasons why I like to fly it. It's fun for me to wear a 152 and really keeps me on my toes (in more ways than one).

I recall landing in Southern California with a 20 degree crosswind of 20G35. Needless to say, taxiing to the ramp was a challenge but, overall, it really kept my attention. It wasn't my airport of intended destination but the winds were progressively worse the closer to where I was going.

 

[spiderweb]

They're surely a bit more squirrely in winds.

"Squirrely" was the word I was looking for!

 

[spiderweb]

Ben: I learned on an AA1-C Gruman Trainer. I always felt they were more squirley and harder to land than the larger Tiger or the PA 28s

So it ain't just Cessnas!

 

[spiderweb]

The same could be said about high wing vs low wing, although some dont agree. I found that the low wings, when getting into ground effect, seem to straighten themselves out, and not have as much problems with wind. I would rather be in a low wing on a windy landing anyday.

I find no difference there. The weight difference is what I really notice. I remember purposefully going out in a C182 to practice landing in strong gusty crosswinds. There was no problem getting a very nice landing every time, but now I realize I have to give a lot of credit to the airplane!

 

[spiderweb]

I agree that it's harder to get a really good landing out of the 150/152 than it is a Skyhawk or Skylane. It's light and blows around like a leaf in the wind and thermals, and the controls are so light I have to work not to overcontrol. It's a trainer... it's not supposed to give up the goodies too easily. BUT, if you work at it, you can get some really nice landings in the plane, and then you know you've really got 'em nailed!

Good points!

 

[spiderweb]

Actually, those are several of the reasons why I like to fly it. It's fun for me to wear a 152 and really keeps me on my toes (in more ways than one).

I love the C150/2, too. Plus she's very inexpensive to fly!

 

[spiderweb]

Thanks for this. I found exactly the same thing with 40 degrees. There was no waiting, just one smooth, brief flare and landing. I had to ADD power to make the first turn off! And the other point you make about "thinking about it" is a good one. My mediocre landings mostly came from actually trying to move the yoke and pedals instead of merely "thinking" them to where they should be!

Ben,

I haven't flown a 150 in nearly 3 years now and I imagine I'd find the same thing if I went back to one now, after getting used to flying the Cardinal. My reactions and muscle memory are conditioned to the heavier stick forces and slower reactions of the heavier airplane. And I'm not sure I would WANT to fly a 150 in gusty summer winds - as a friend of mine who posts here occasionally loves to quip, it's very much a "manned kite". But it goes both ways - it's that same lightness that makes it so reactive that you can almost control it by thinking about it. I did all of my pre-solo primary training in 150s and 152s (except for 3 hours in a Cherokee) and first soloed in a 150. I found that 55 knots on short final, 40 degrees of flaps worked great, I could flare in one single motion and put it down within 50-100 feet of the numbers every time... as long as the winds were light, of course. It felt kind of like "wearing an airplane". I kinda miss that old bird... but I wouldn't want to try to do a serious cross country in him.

Liz

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

"Squirrely" was the word I was looking for!

Yeah, that's an aviation term.

I forgot to mention that at gross & even less weight, when you're gonna get slammed down in a swirling X-wind, the power just isn't usually available in C150s to blast out of or at least create a cushion of air in ground effect with a quick power burst like it is with bigger engines.

About the best I think you can do if it's already at full power and you're still gettin' body slammed down is be in a good LDG attitude so the mains take it fairly equally, with the nose not too high, and with as little torque on the airframe as can be managed.

 

[Flyboy]

I think that most any aircrafte you haven't flown in awhile will have it's foibles. Try going form 75+ hours in an Aztec to a 150. Phew!!!

I was convinced that gnat farts were affecting the thing on final.

 

[inav8r]

ITry going form 75+ hours in an Aztec to a 150. Phew!!!

I was convinced that gnat farts were affecting the thing on final.

You owe me a keyboard! Or at least I hope you offer to help me clean the soda out of the one I just ruined...

 

[Maverick]

My first 20 hours of flight training were in a Cessna 152. My flight instructor used to say "If you can land a 152 you can land anything". Yeah, they are squirrely in windy conditions. I started my flight training in May of 1984 and I flew every day in some rather windy conditions. There were a few times when it down right scared me but I'm really glad I had that experience. Boy did I ever learn cross wind landings and to this day I enjoy landing in cross winds.

When I moved up to the 172 it was a noticeable difference. When I started flying a 182 I found it to be a bit on the nose heavy side and I carried a little power on landing. I do the same in my Cardinal. Although most of my time is in various Cessna models, I have flown pipers and I have always found them to be easier to land than the Cessnas. The low wing being more in ground effect makes a definite difference in stability of the airplane as it nears touch down.

There were times during my first 20 hours flying that 152 that I had to ask myself if I really wanted to do this. In the windy conditions during that May I felt like I was getting knocked all over the sky. One evening I was talking to an old friend of mine, a former WWII fighter pilot, and I was expressing my concerns and reticence about this very light airplane. His exact words were "Don't worry about it, just strap that thing to your ass and fly, you'll do just fine". I'm not sure how much his words reassured me but then one really windy day we were at 2500 feet traveling north from Detroit City Airport heading toward a practice area. I had a death grip on the yolk and I was really really nervous. My instructor said "Ok, I have the airplane and I want to show you something" as he was about to demonstrate something. I looked over at him and he had two fingers on the yolk. At that moment I said to myself, if he can do that then damn it, so can I. I think that was the point that I got over my nervousness about the 152 but I often say that's the closest thing to a manned kite that I ever want to fly.

It's a great trainer and it's good for just flying around without a huge fuel bill but that's about it. If you have some place to go it's not all that great unless you want to spend a long time getting there.

Jeannie

 

[gismo]

I often switch between a 5100 lb MGW 520 HP twin and a 1200 lb MGW 65 HP taildragger. I don't see either one as significantly more difficult to fly, they're just different. Certainly there are conditions where I'd have a much easier time in the twin such as gusty winds or IMC for that matter (the taildragger is a bit underequipped for instrument flight), but there are also situations where the single is easier, things like short runways, MVFR, and spins come to mind here. Every aircraft has it's limits and flying challenges.

 

[kath]

I love 152's. Did all my primary training in them. I love 'em because
--I can move it around on the ramp by myself after the engine's off.
--When you're paying a 3-hr minimum to rent for an entire day, you might as well fly slow.
--The FBO at Dulles will give you a really surprised look and say "you came in a what?"

--Kath

 

[sierra]

i think the 150/152 is *the* plane for spot landings.