Talk:Cessna 152

Engine
Some newer models (1983-1985) use a 108hp Lycoming O-235-N2C (higher compression and redesigned combustion chamber) engine to reduce the lead fouling problems over the O-235-L2C.


 * That is all good info and is accurate, so I added it to the article! Ahunt 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I mispoke previously. The N2C has a lower compression ration than the L2C engine. The N2C is 8.1 to 1 compression and the L2C is 8.5 to 1. See http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Lycoming/Lyc_Cert_list.html as I believe that information is accurate.


 * That sounds good to me - I have altered the article to better reflect this. Do feel free to change the article yourself if you think anything could be better and more accurately stated! Ahunt 10:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Since when has a 152 had a cruise speed of 107 kts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.5.171 (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The 152 had a cruise speed of 107 kts (or close to it) in all model years, this information comes from the aircraft POH. Keep in mind this is TAS at optimal altitude, not IAS down low. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Number of Crew and Capacity
There have been several edits to change these numbers recently. Rather than have an WP:edit war let's discuss the issue here. User RC43 says that the Cessna 152 is a special case saying "Special cricumstances apply due to the fact that there can be two pilots on board."

Why is the Cessna 152 a special case, different from all other light aircraft? - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been following this, as well as watching edits to crew/capacity numbers generally. As for the capacity portion of things, even the template is ambiguous, saying, "The number of passengers the aircraft can carry if the plane is commercial. For general aviation aircraft, this should usually be specified x number of passengers: |capacity=88 passengers and can include crew."  The reference to whether the "plane is commercial" is problematic for me, since commercial-ness really usually relates to the operation, not the aircraft.  The general aviation side says "x number of passengers . . . and can include crew."  Given this lack of clarity, if this were a democracy, I would vote that for capacity, what's important is consistency across articles.  (If there's anything worth quibbling about in the case of the 150/152, it's whether we should say two total occupants, based on the basic certification classification of 2PCLM, or whether we should say four, based on the possibility of the installation of the baggage area child's seat.)
 * As for the crew side, the guidance is this: "The number of people required to operate the aircraft."  If one emphasizes "required," this would seem to specify a minimum, and taken in a general sense, would definitely mean one person in the case of the 152.  Again here, the particular operation could affect the interpretation; some operations in a 152 (such as--in the United States, anyway--practice instrument work, without an instructor) require two crew members.  Further, one could theorize a situation with a certificated pilot in the left seat, under the hood, a safety pilot in the right seat, and a very lightweight instructor, in the jump seat, teaching the safety pilot; would this make a crew of three?  There are so many permutations that it seems most sensible (and thus I would vote—were this a democracy) just to list the minimum.  If anything else needs to be said about the fact that it's a trainer, and has dual controls, such things can certainly appear in the body of the article. —SkipperPilot (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with what you have said here. A Cessna 206 being used in the SAR search role could have a crew of six, pilot, navigator and four spotters who take 30 minute shifts doing visual spotting. If we don't specify the minimum crew and the number of passengers then the whole number becomes worthless. Any light aircraft can have any number of crew depending on what it is being used for. Listing all the possible combinations and permutations would be trite and use a lot of space. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there doesn't seem to be any more debate on this subject, so it looks like there is no compelling reason to change what the members of Wikiprojcet Aircraft have been doing. I will change the article to reflect this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to agree with Ahunt the specification section is for general characteristics and does not really need loads of detail and permutations. The intro does say two-seat!! If you want to introduce more complex text then that should be in the body of the article under design. Although the fact that the second occupant may or may not be pilot is not really notable it only takes one to fly it at a time!!. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne: Thanks for that input, I think that really sums the whole issue all up succinctly! - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image
As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES consensus is required to changes images. User:Jason4789 seems determined to use his image in this article, even though it is virtually identical to the one already in use. I do not see any reason to include this new image, unless some special feature of it can be pointed out. - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally a change of infobox image if challenged needs a consensus so Jason4789 needs to make a case for changing it here. Again normal practice is to have a flying image in the infobox so it would probably be better to propose an image with the aircraft in the air then replace it with another ground image. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I just had a look though the commons cat to see if there was a better in-flight image we could use. There are some inflight images there, but none really show the aircraft well (mostly bottom views, as it flies overhead). The best one is this one here. What do you think? Incidentally the reason that I originally used the image I took as the infobox image was 1. There weren't any good inflight images at that time (still really aren't), 2. It is one of the very first 152s built, a 1978 model year, built in the fall of 1977, 3. It has a slightly unusual "air mail" paint scheme. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really good enough probably best to stick with the status quo for now. Must make a note to look for 152s when I next go out and about (but not my local it doesnt allow GA!) MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it isn't the best for a lead image. I'm off to the airport this morning - see if I can do better. The main challenge is that our local cheapy flying club doesn't have any 152s, still using 40-year old 150s! Might catch one by chance though. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It figures. I went to the airport and got a photo of an AN 124, nose up and loading, but rare birds like the 152 were not in evidence. I'll keep looking for a good in-flight photo. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Found G-BRNE lurking on my hard drive. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC) G-BRNE-Cessna152.jpg
 * That will do! I'll fix! - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We now seem to have a new editor and an IP both determined to replace that lead infobox image with this one (left). I reverted him twice saying, Reverted replacement of good quality image with poor quality image - aircraft was silhouetted and hard to see, but he seems determined to insert this bad image. The editor who wants to insert this needs explain why this is a better image that the one we have a consensus to use here instead. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong engine - Cessna 150
The Cessna 150 from Reims has n't been equipped with O-240, it was the same engine as Continental O-200 from USA, but licensed by Rolls Royce and called RR O-200 with exactly the same pieces and technical references. They produced 1764 machines in Reims, 336 of them as C150 Aerobat. So we can say today that nearly the half of ever produced Cessna 150 Aerobat has been fabricated in France by Reims Aviation. cosy --81.13.237.223 (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's sort this out over at Talk:Cessna 150. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reimagined
AOPA is overhauling the Cesssna 150 and 152 and selling them. I don't know if these should be in their own article or if they should listed here as a variant. The idea is to make a relatively low cost airplane, both for initial capitol investment and hourly costs, to use for use in training. The intention is to help bring down the cost of training for perspective pilots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjw1 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * These are just overhauled aircraft, not a new model or a significant modification, with say a new type of powerplant or similar and as such are just not notable. Lots of Cessna 150/152s have been overhauled by many different companies. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * AVweb's Paul Bertorelli had some things to say on the subject that bears on notability: "AOPA is touting the airplanes as “reimagined,” but they really aren’t that. They’re the same old airplanes just brought to new standards. Reimagined would be a composite two-seat trainer with no struts and a glass panel—an LSA, in other words, but a robust one." - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)