AirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4532 times:
What are your experiences with the aircraft. To save some money I maybe going down to a 152 for training is that a good idea? All I care for is the speed. Is it as fast as the 160hp 172 at least during cruise?
Stall From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 257 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4527 times:
Hello,
For initial training speed is not an issue. You will spend most of your time doing turns, slow flight, stall spin, traffic pattern and landings. Only on your cross country flights you will see a small difference between the two models but it will not be significant.
One point to think about. If you are a tall or heavy guy the 172 might be a better choice. The cockpit is larger and if your instructor is on the heavy side too weight and balance might become an issue in the 150/152.
Enjoy your time. Learning to fly is very fun and rewarding.
Cougaraviator From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 349 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4513 times:
Quote: What are your experiences with the aircraft. To save some money I maybe going down to a 152 for training is that a good idea? All I care for is the speed. Is it as fast as the 160hp 172 at least during cruise
I flew a c152 on a long cross country (for my commercial rating), and it beat me to death. In fact, I departed one airport, flew over a lake, and I got bounced around so much, I couldn't change frequencies......
I'll take a C172 anyday of the week, over a C152.....
Some people will say flying a C152 will make you a better pilot, I didnt' get that impression at all.
CV990A From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1391 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4510 times:
Quoting Stall (Reply 1): If you are a tall or heavy guy the 172 might be a better choice.
I agree- I am 6ft 5in and I have exactly 1 hour in the 152 in my log- the very first hour- after that my instructor (who was also over 6ft) and I found a 172 in which to continue.
Efohdee From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4481 times:
Also the 152 is less stable than the 172. The 152 is prone to spin more easily than the 172. 152 is too small, too cramped. Besides, the instrument setup in the 172 is more like most GA aircraft and that gives you a better scan, that will be a factor instrument training.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4461 times:
Quoting Efohdee (Reply 4): Also the 152 is less stable than the 172
I think you are referring to the 152's ride in turbulence, not its stability. Both aircraft are very stable in both the longitudinal and lateral-directional senses. The 172's ride in turbulence is much better than the 152's.
Quoting Efohdee (Reply 4): The 152 is prone to spin more easily than the 172.
Both aircraft are very docile. You'd have to be a real bonehead to spin either one unintentionally. The 172's Pilot's Manual prohibits spins, while the 152 is commonly used as a spin trainer. A 152 has to be held in a spin - if you neutralize (or let go of) the controls, it will end up recovering on its own.
Quoting Efohdee (Reply 4): Besides, the instrument setup in the 172 is more like most GA aircraft and that gives you a better scan, that will be a factor instrument training.
I've been in 152s with better instrument set ups then 172s. It all depends on the individual aircraft. A 172 is a much better IFR trainer due to its flight characteristics.
One thing I don't like about 150s and 152s is the door latch. I've had doors pop open a number of times on take-off. The 172 has a real latch, with a locking mechanism.
I learned in 150s and 152s and they were good trainers. However, for personal use, a 172 with an angle of attack indicator was an excellent aircraft. It hauled a lot, had long legs and I would have had to try real hard to kill myself.
MH017 From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 1633 posts, RR: 34 Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4459 times:
Had my training on 152's and also quite some long overland flights...have to agree: in turbulence it's VERY unstable
cockpit is cozy and the place to be, if your instructor is female (shoulder to shouder )
for costsaving reasons while doing your training, I'd suggest the 152; once you've got your PPL, upgrade to 172's for longer- or even trans-continental trips (wouldn't suggest that in a 152, due to lack of power, especially in mountaineous areas )
Fly727 From Mexico, joined Jul 2003, 1788 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4455 times:
I would recommend you to start your basic training in a C-152. It is a bit more "delicate" on its handling than its larger brother, meaning that the inputs on the controls should be somewhat more precise, but that's not a bad thing, after all that is precisely what you need -learn to be a fine, smooth pilot who can recognize the attitudes and control it over external factors-. The 152 is a winner in that field.
Also, in a 152 you will have a couple or three less knobs and buttons to push which significantly reduce your distraction. What you have installed is nothing more than what you will use. (I recall my first IFR training flights in a 172... while fighting a radial that didn't want to center I noticed myself staring -fixating is what is called- in the wrong instruments). Got my point?
Besides from being cheaper to operate, the 152 is very similar to the 172, sharing the same operational principles (so the transition between one and another is really smooth; not always the case when the relatively inexperienced pilot downgrades from the 172 to the 152).
I'd recommend you to do you private cross-countries also in the 152; after all there are no incredibly-long flights to accomplish so the speed is not a real factor AND the savings in fuel and rent will be more than appreciated by your wallet.
Now, for instruments training the 172 is the King of all Cessnas. You really need the extra cockpit-room to feel comfortable with all your whistles (kneeboard, yoke-mounted clip for your charts, chronograph and a tiny compartment you can lock with the key for your or your instuctor's Valium). It is faster, REALLY stable (once well trimmed you can forget about fighting it and concentrate on what the heck the controller means with Expect Further Clearance at :58). The 172 also handles better in turbulence, hence the reason why the 152 doesn't have cup holders.
Once you get your IFR ticket it is time to move to the next level. A retractable-gear, constant-speed propeller Cessna would perhaps be the best option so you never stop transitioning from one level to the other (just like in the airlines dude). Try to stick to Cessna if you are concerned about your learning time and money. Some pilots I know have spent an average of 4-6 hours ($$$$) just to get familiar and comfortable with the new type and realize that a C-172's flap lever is in the panel and that that parking-brake-looking-alike flap stick of Piper is gone.
Well.... enough of this. you are probably now even more confused than when this thread started, but please let me enlighten you with this little piece of wisdom my instructor once told me:
"Ramon, try to keep the blue side up"
RM
There are no stupid questions... just stupid people!
ZKEOJ From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 924 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4442 times:
I did most of my training on the C152 and C152 Aerobat. I also did some hours in the C172 and the PA Cherokee. I always loved the C152 most - it is cute and handy, and the seating position allows you a much better view, which I found was a significant advantage. At my club the C172 was only $10/hr more, so it didn't really matter too much which one we took.
The biggest difference in power I realised more on the ground than in the air: The takeoff run was great with the C172!
No matter what type you will choose, I bet you'll have a great time, and you'll love flying!
Bully707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4431 times:
The 152 is one very easy to fly plane...and I have never had a unsafe feeling when flying one...!!!
The 152 and me were already used as target-training for German Tornados...(they ask if I was willing and I of cource said yes... ) went head to head with some C160 Transalls doing low level training over DKB VOR in southern Germany ( I was "lost" at that time and entered their training area... )
Plus we had a severe bird-strike (about 5-8 sparrows comitted suicide, deciding to fly into my prop...) on climb out at STR...but that Cessna 152 never complained...!!!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4428 times:
Quoting Fly727 (Reply 7): I would recommend you to start your basic training in a C-152. It is a bit more "delicate" on its handling than its larger brother, meaning that the inputs on the controls should be somewhat more precise, but that's not a bad thing, after all that is precisely what you need -learn to be a fine, smooth pilot who can recognize the attitudes and control it over external factors-. The 152 is a winner in that field.
Also, in a 152 you will have a couple or three less knobs and buttons to push which significantly reduce your distraction. What you have installed is nothing more than what you will use. (I recall my first IFR training flights in a 172... while fighting a radial that didn't want to center I noticed myself staring -fixating is what is called- in the wrong instruments). Got my point?
Quoting Bully707 (Reply 9): The 152 is one very easy to fly plane...and I have never had a unsafe feeling when flying one...!!!
I agree, start your training in the C-152, then after you have some flying time under your belt, upgrade to the C-172. It's an easy transistion. Later go to more complicated airplanes, retracable landing gear, IFR, multi engine (C-310 is good for all three ratings), etc.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4428 times:
Quoting Stall (Reply 11): Because at my school spins were routinely performed in 172. Maybe certain specific machines with mods may not be clear to practice spins.
My manual is at work, but I distinctly remember seeing the prohibition.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 257 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 1633 posts, 
)
)
From Mexico, joined Jul 2003, 1788 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 924 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
) went head to head with some C160 Transalls doing low level training over DKB VOR in southern Germany ( I was "lost" at that time and entered their training area... 
Printer friendly format 
