Talk:Cessna 152

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cessna 152 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Aviation: Aircraft B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Max gross

Hi there! In regards to this edit, we might want to clarify what that describes. The Cessna 152s that I fly have a max gross in the POH of 1670, and a quick google search for 'Cessna 152 max gross' finds plenty of other references to 1670lb max gross as well. Is it possible that the editor making the reversion is familiar with a specific model that has the 1600 gross? If so, we might want to put in a range, eg, "1600-1670lb, depending on year". Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, there's my kneejerk not-trusting-anons-who-randomly-change-numbers-and-leave-no-edit-summary-or-citation response. It can be put back in. -Lommer | ^talk 22:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any 152 has a gross weight of 1600lbs. They are all at 1670. Some Cessna 150 models have 1600lb gross weights. Mrcfjf 14:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retractable Landing Gear?!

I would also like to see some reference to back that up. I've never, ever heard of a 152 with retractable landing gear and frankly that more or less defeats the purpose of the 152, and I'm pretty sure the structure is far too small and light for it anyway; that's why Cessna developed the Cutlass RG.

That is most certainly not true. Heck, the 152 can barely meet weight and balance empty, never mind with heavy retractible gear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up and Expansion

Since I've been called onto the carpet, I think the following things should be cleaned up or added:

Design history; what changed when and why?
Design features; what makes the 152 a nice trainer?
Greater use of charts; maybe not directly copied out of the POH, but there's gotta be something that can be uploaded to {{commons}}
Switch to use the {{airtemp}} and {{aircontent}} templates; I've already started to do this to the Cessna 150 article
Greater wikification of terms and measurements (what is a ft²)?
Fact check; "More pilots have flown Cessna 150/152s than any other single model of airplane." Can you back this statement up? Care to compare/contrast with Piper Cub or T-6 Texan for all time pilot-maker?
References in general; there has to be a number of books written about the 152
Background on the suffocation of general aviation in the 1980s, and why Cessna quit making single-engine aircraft
Information sharing with the Cessna 150 page; I was tempted to put a merge tag on the both of them, but they are truly distinct enough that they at least deserve their own page

I think that both the 150 and 152 are important aircraft because so many pilots have used them (and continue to use them) to get their licence. I also think that they deserve better articles than this. Right now, I've got more information on the Taylor E-2 than what you'll find on the 150, 152, and 172 pages combined. For a larger work in progress, take a look at ERCO Ercoupe. McNeight 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the 150/152 are important aircraft, but given the similarities and the sparsity of both articles, I'm wondering if it would be wise to merge the two articles together. Please see the talk page for the 150 for my other comments. 24.9.10.235 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

152 facts

More pilots have flown Cessna 150/152s than any other single model of airplane.
More than 75% of the 152s built are still flying, 19 years after production ceased.
Many 152s sell for 3 to 4 times their original sale price, even after inflation adjustments.
Several conversions for the 150/152 exist, including bigger engines and taildragger conversions.

Unless someone can cite a source for what appears to be marketing cruft, I'm leaving these bits in here. McNeight 07:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I just did some cleanup on this article, changing wording and correcting typos. I also removed several sections that seemed either overly specific ("the rudder trim is only adjusted yearly by a trained engineer" - this is not true for my flying club) or inappropriate for this article (talking at length about the use of flaps should be in the flaps_(aircraft) article. CecilPL 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the citiation tag

Removed tag for 'landing in 2 fuselage lengths with STOL kit' section. Was going to put citation on here when I posted but forgot. It in fact came from an article in Pilot magazine in, I think, January. (Wouldn't like to be in the plane when it attempted it though!). ANHL 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for locating the reference for that. I fixed up your reference entry - they aren't normally just put into the article in brackets. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for more details on how to do references. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources and that is why unsourced statements get removed quickly! We still need an author and page for that source, too, if you have the magazine.

- Ahunt 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have just reinstated a reliable paper reference that was removed. I don't see the point of having fewer references for an article, especially ones of the high reliability and stature of Bill Clarke's definitive book on the 150-152.

A related item is that we still have a reference: <ref name="PilotMagazine"> Author unknown: ''Texas Taildragger 152'', page unknown. Pilot Magazine UK, January 2007</ref>. This reference needs to be completed to give it some credibility - as it stands it is not complete. Can someone please provide the author's name and the page number or else it really should be deleted as unverifiable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was NOT reliable; I wrote the first part of the 'mods' section ( not the second 'other mods'), quoting from Pilot magazine. The 'Clarke' book played no part in it and it is improper to cite it as being from 'clarke'. ANHL (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke's book also cites those mods and is a valid reference for those paragraphs, in addition to the magazine ref. Two references are better than one, especially when the magazine ref info is incomplete. If you have the author and page info to add to that it would be very helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Clarke book may talk about them, but the bulk of the claims eg. 2 fuselage lengths comes from Pilot, and not from Clarke. I'll get the page + author refs ASAP.

ANHL 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be most helpful! I always think that more references are better than fewer ones, it makes the article more credible. - Ahunt 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANHL: Thanks so much for finding the details for that reference! - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took some time to dig out the magazine from the pile!ANHL (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]