Whats up lately with Cessna 152s

[Jeff0500]

So after working a lot last 10 years I can afford an airplane. Last medical and biannual was about 8 years ago. Completely lost track of aviation. Got little cabin 200 miles away near a airport. I like the Skyhawk but prefer the 152. No hurry, I like to follow the freeways and wach everyone stuck in traffick, but Im VFR and want the airplane to cover some ground if I need to. Can I get an engine with fuel injection and electronic ignition in a 152? Dont know if that would increase horsepower but it would nice to have a modern powerplant in the nose. Then I can slick-up the airframe and get some more knots out of it. I like the 172 but the instrument panel sticks up too much for me being short of stature and hinders visibility, but the 150 or 152 is just my size. Wish it has a manuel flap handle like the Tomahawk. Stay tuned.

 

[agpilot34]

Dont know about injection and electronic ignition in a 152, but I know of one down in Texas that's been converted to a 160hp engine. A guy I know flies it on his pipeline patrol route. It'll sh!t and Git as far as 152's go.

 

[Jeff0500]

So I take it the piston engines are still using carbs and magnetos. Suppuse this is a question for the APs. Ill ask the APs

 

[great cornholio]

I used to tow gliders with a C-150 that had a 150 hp engine in it. When the glider wasn't being towed that thing was definately awesome to fly. I would say that something like that is exactly what you are looking for. That one had a carberator and even the fuel injected engines still use magnetos. For me I don't see where a fuel injected engine would be all that great for a C-152, but I'm no mechanic. The 150hp carberaterd engine worked awesome.

 

[eggman76]

152

How does one "slick up the airframe" in a 152?

 

[agpilot34]

I was kinda wondering that myself...

 

[jbDC9]

How does one "slick up the airframe" in a 152?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing, but really, there's not much you can do to make the 152 a better "travelling" airplane. Maybe a bigger engine, but you've still got small fuel tanks... still gonna have to be carbureted, most likely with mags, I didn't find any electronic ignition or fuel injection STCs for a 152. You can retrofit bigger fuel tanks to feed a bigger engine... but you still wouldn't get much extra out of it.

Check out the FAA's site here, www.faa.gov/aircraft and search for STCs for the 152. There's lotsa STC's out there, but for your purposes, I don't see any that'd really fit what you want. Plus, you'd spend a ton of money to gain just a few knots. It ain't worth it. Now if you could find a nice Van's (experimental) RV-9A for sale... you'd be all set!

 

[crash-proof]

I got yer 152 right here bubba...call me if you're interested!

Cessna 152

 

[Jeff0500]

How does one "slick up the airframe" in a 152?

That wasnt the best to put it, I ment reduce drag. The usual stuff, wheel farings tight and straight, lots of wax on the paint, trim tabs not countering the trim adjustment, cowling tight and sealed, I took off a prop spinner and used emory cloth to smooth the little roughness there.

 

[U of I Tweak]

I got yer 152 right here bubba...call me if you're interested!

Cessna 152

Uhhh....that's a 150....
Yeah...I'm a dork

 

[Jeff0500]

That wasnt the best to put it, I ment reduce drag. The usual stuff, wheel farings tight and straight, lots of wax on the paint, trim tabs not countering the trim adjustment, cowling tight and sealed, I took off a prop spinner and used emory cloth to smooth the little roughness there.

Om the powerplant. It wont need priming, mixture in and throttle cracked. But the girlfriend is going to be less impressed without all those life or crash embellishments. Im good with the plain jane 152 I just thought the powerplants had somrthing new.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

The early 150s with the "fastback" (no back window) had manual flaps that you moved via a lever on the floor like a Cherokee. Also had a straight tail.

Was a few knots faster than the late model airplanes plus it had that cool retro look!

 

[Jeff0500]

The early 150s with the "fastback" (no back window) had manual flaps that you moved via a lever on the floor like a Cherokee. Also had a straight tail.

Was a few knots faster than the late model airplanes plus it had that cool retro look!

I forgot the flaps on a Tomahawk are more ammenible to manual extension as opposed to to a 152. I kind of liked pulling the flaps on the Tomahawk with the lever, as much as you want now and dont have to wait. The 152 had the slide gauge on the upper left and your hoping the flaps are in syck. and then waiting like doorman for the extension. Stay tuned, and Im reading just lately glad I didnt miss it stickey.

 

[avbug]

Jeff,

The Cessna 152 hasn't seen any innovations in the last ten years largely because production ceased...the aircraft aren't being built, and there was never anything wrong with the aircraft to begin with.

Newer trainers are available on the market, and these do come with fuel injection.

Polishing the spinner and waxing the airframe won't make it go faster. Adding power won't make it go faster either...with a fixed pitch propeller, you get the same thrust out of the prop when it's turning at 2200 rpm w(h)eather it's being turned by a 100 horse motor, a 200 horse motor, or a 300 horse motor...and the aircraft goes the same speed. You'll see a difference in climb performance, but your aircraft isn't going to be pushing to faster speeds, and there's no room to carry much extra weight.

I've towed gliders and banners with 150 hp Cessna 150's; they perform well. But the performance is in the load to be carried or towed, and the rate of climb...not in forward speed.

There's little you can do to "slick up" the airframe. What would be the point of reversing trim surface direction? You want an aircraft you can trim, and that is stable in trim.

What is wrong with carburetion? What is wrong with a magneto? You can obtain auxilliary ingition support such as the LASER system, but to what end, and for what purpose? A magneto is a very simple, very reliable system that works very, very well. For the limited ranges of power settings, engine RPM, and operation, a mag is all you need. Next you'll be wanting to make the engine water cooled and computer controlled. Keep It Simple.

If you want a basic fun affordable airplane, forget the 152, and go get a Cessna 140. The airframe is pre-slicked, more fun to fly. Get one with a Continental O-200 installation. Have a ball.

As for manual flaps...the early Cessna 150's through 1958 had manual flaps. Cessna used electric flaps after that for most models. Early Cessna 150's had 40 degrees of flap, later aircraft through 152's had 30 degrees of flap. Manual flaps were available on certain models through 1965, and that was the last of the manual flaps. The Cessna 140 used manual flaps. If you go with the Cessna 120, you don't need the flaps.

It wont need priming, mixture in and throttle cracked. But the girlfriend is going to be less impressed without all those life or crash embellishments.

Life or crash embellishments? What on earth are you talking about?

I forgot the flaps on a Tomahawk are more ammenible to manual extension as opposed to to a 152.

The flaps are either manual, or they're not...what's your preoccupation with manual flaps? If you want manual flaps, get an airplane with manual flaps.

I took off a prop spinner and used emory cloth to smooth the little roughness there.

The spinner doesn't make the airplane faster; it's a cosmetic, and cooling device. Be careful removing that spinner and reinstalling it, especially if you're not qualified to do so. Did you torque the screws, use proper washers, use proper washers, maintain the fasteners in the same holes, and ensure the spinner was indexed properly? Did you use the proper material for "smoothing" that spinner? Use the wrong material and you're going to cause cracks and inflight failure...same if you're removing metal.

So I take it the piston engines are still using carbs and magnetos. Suppuse this is a question for the APs. Ill ask the APs

You take it wrong. What's the preoccupation with injection, and why don't you like mags?

Dont know if that would increase horsepower but it would nice to have a modern powerplant in the nose.

How's adding ignition to a Continental or Lycoming engine going to make it a modern engine? Horsepower sells aircraft, but it's torque that makes it go.

 

[sky37d]

Get a Maule.
They climb fast, cruise well, have manual flaps, lots of doors, and you can land it almost anywhere.

http://www.mauleairinc.com/____Our_Planes/Maule_MXT-7-180_Star_Rocket/maule_mxt-7-180_star_rocket.html

 

[gfvalvo]

Horsepower sells aircraft, but it's torque that makes it go.

At the risk of restarting and old feud, Thrust makes an airplane go. You get Thrust by coupling engine Power to the air via a propeller. Props can only do this efficiently over a relatively small range of low RPM’s. Power is proportional to the product of Thrust and RPM. Low RPM and high Power means you need high Torque.

 

[spudskier]

seriously, if you want a small aircraft, don't care about going much faster than a 152 or 172... go with an Aviat Husky http://www.aviataircraft.com/aircraft/husky.htm

Or I hear thay're starting to make new Super Cubs! The essence of flying, either one will get in and out of anywhere, and the Husky has a beefy engine (O-360 180hp constant speed) 830lbs useful load, 120kt cruise, 7.7gph and a 50(usable)gallon tank

 

[Jeff0500]

Jeff,

The Cessna 152 hasn't seen any innovations in the last ten years largely because production ceased...the aircraft aren't being built, and there was never anything wrong with the aircraft to begin with.

I wasnt taking myself seriously last nite. Thanks for taking the time to reply thgough!

 

[avbug]

At the risk of restarting and old feud, Thrust makes an airplane go. You get Thrust by coupling engine Power to the air via a propeller. Props can only do this efficiently over a relatively small range of low RPM’s. Power is proportional to the product of Thrust and RPM. Low RPM and high Power means you need high Torque.

You missed the point. Double the size of the engine turning that fixed pitch propeller at a given RPM, and the thrust produced by that prop doesn't increase, nor does the airplane go faster. Horsepower impresses the layman. Torque imparted to the propeller is a bigger concern, but nobody is impressed with torque. Hence, the salesman speaks in terms of horsepower. The customer believes that increasing horsepower makes a faster airplane, and is better.

The saying "horsepower sells airplanes, but torque makes them go," is a very old one.

A bigger engine with more horsepower has the potential to apply more torque to the prop, but in level flight when one is using a fixed pitch propeller at a given RPM, this is entirely meaningless. Excess power means more climb, but no more speed.

 

[Yankee Boy]

Time to look at the new generation of airplanes! Go to www.tecnamaircraft.com and look at light sport. The value of the Tecnam is that it can be flown without a medical, modern rotax engine with electronic ignition systems, and can be IFR certified! Why look at 50 year old technology when you can fly faster, and cheaper using auto fuel.