Talk:Cessna 150

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Tail Fin Confirmed[edit]

Well dang. I believe that Ahunt is correct. One can look at www.aso.com or trade-a-plane and see lots of photos that confirm his statement. Kitplane01


Tail Fin[edit]

Ahunt wrote "That profile with the 15% bigger tail and the long dorsal fin was only used on C-150M models 1975-77". But the web site http://www.cessna150-152.com/faqs/models.htm says otherwise. Therefore I have reverted it.

The problem is that that website's information is in error. Cessna 150s produced from 1966 to 1970 (models "F" through "K") had a short dorsal fin that came only 1/3 from the fin to the rear window and the lower tail fin and rudder. The "L" model which was produced from model years 1971 to 1974 has the lengthened dorsal fin that extended from the fin to the rear window. The "M" model introduced in 1975 had the lengthened dorsal fin and the overall tail area was increased 15% to increase crosswind authority. The higher fin increased the height of the "M" model from 8'0" to 8'6" and it is this model that is illustrated in the sideview. The best reference for Cessna 150 varients is the authoritative All Those Cessna 150s - 17 years of Owners Manuals from 1959-60 through 1977 including type certification data National Flightshops St Petersburg-Clearwater FL, 1977. Ahunt 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Edits[edit]

"More pilots have flown Cessna 150/152s than any other single model of airplane." Boy, I don't think so: more Cessna 170/172's have been sold, and they're still going strong - they're bound to trump the 150/2 series. - DavidWBrooks 19:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) This comment has been removed from the article.


106 kts Cruise Speed?! Whow! I wanna buy that 150 with the O200 Motor... I always calculate with 85 / 75 kts. 134.93.161.18 12:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) That's what the pilot's operating manual says. It's not what my C-150 gets, bit that's the book figure.


Some times the costs of changing the engine to allow mogas out-weigh the benift. It is also illegal to burn mogas in some countries even with a permit. I'll leave the mogas comment but it is disturbing that people in the aviation field advertising mogas can be used in aircraft even when modified. Thats just my two-cents.--capt. erwii 05:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

this is not a POH, nor are we here to declare what people should or should not do - the fact of the matter is, that thousands of GA aircraft in the US and elsewhere have autogas STCs. i've seen both sides argued, mostly inconclusively, and whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant in the context of a brief description of the aircraft.
personally, I'm not sure why the autogas comment was there to begin with, as it's not something unique to the 150/152. it certainly doesn't deserve any more text in the article than it already has. -eric 06:36, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Famous Cessna 150s (just for the record): one flown by Frank Corder into the White House on Sept 11, 1994 (suicide flight). another caused evacuation of the U.S. Capitol and White House by flying within 3 miles of the White House on May 11, 2005 (accidental intrusion into restricted airspace).

  • I do not believe the above information is encyclopedic enough for inclusion 24.9.10.235 04:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether it's encyclopedic or not, it is truly a measure of the plane that one was landed, illegally, in Red Square (before 1989--it was still the Soviet Union). If I find the exact date and the pilot, I'll post it, and if a Piper driver wants to note that Pussy Galore instructed a team of bimbos to spray "knock out gas" from Piper singles in the James Bond (Sean Connery) movie, Goldfinger, please be my guest. Some of this is more than trivia--there is some historic merit in presenting miscellaneous information for non-aviators. It's highly likely that all 150s and 152s were built in Wichita, Kansas, but I'll not post it until I verify it.

Homebuilding70.130.42.69 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC) This user soloed in a Cessna 150 at 3AlphaUniform,1Kilo1,IndiaCharlieTango,SierraLimaNovember,&3KiloMike

Merge with Cessna 152?[edit]

I'm not going to flag it but I want to know what popular opinion to this suggestion would be. Right now as it stands both articles are sparse and rather repetitive, and many if not most aviation resources lump them together anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.10.235 (talkcontribs) 11 February 2006

  • I concur with this suggestion. Engineer Bob 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Minor corrections, I think... following are correct for 1968 (150H) model.

  1. C-150 models, at least in 1968, were the Standard, Trainer (dual controls), and Commuter.
  2. The 162 mph 'top speed' is the redline or never-exceed speed. Max level speed is published at 122 mph.
  3. Cruise speed, per aircraft manual, is about 112 mph depending on altitude.
  4. Aerobat is distinguishable by small tinted plexiglas panels in the cabin roof.
  5. Stall speed given in article is at full, 40 degrees, flaps. Clean stall is 55 mph.
  6. The Lycoming engine in the 152 has a TBO of, I think, 2000 hours. The 150's Continental is TBO 1800 hours. I respectfully disagree that this makes a big difference in operating cost.
  7. Aircraft manual publishes service ceiling as 12,650 feet.

68.102.38.24 04:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Pete Levy, Wichita, KS

Possible trivia[edit]

I actually looked this up after reading something about Michel Lotito. Would it be benificial to indicate that this plane has been eaten? :)--24.231.16.109 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not unless he could fly afterwards. =] Trekphiler (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually this was in the article at one time (see [1]) but it was edited out. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit![edit]

Come-on all you guys who know airplanes only by spotting them! Be realistic, for god's sake! I've flown this piece of shit (Designed to transport old ladys from point A to point B) since 1973 (Much to my disgust). NO 150 can ever be brought to cruise at 123 mph. 97-103 mph (Depending on haw bad it has been treated) is something of the REAL world 81.246.174.191 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing TAS with IAS. The 150 has an optimal POH airspeed of 122 mph TAS at 6500 feet. Most will come close to that if you take them that high, even though the IAS at that altitude is considerably lower. Ahunt 02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


At 2400 RPM running two legs in opposite directions perpendicular to the posted winds aloft at 3,000 MSL and measuring speed as time to two known points and averaging the result I've flown my C 150F at an average of 112 mph. If you dislike the C 150 so much, why have you flown them for 23 years?

This actually raises the valid question of whether we should differentiate between IAS and TAS on our cruise/max speed numbers; I don't have an answer. Also, 2006-1973=33 years! That's a long time to fly an airplane you think is a 'piece of shit'. ericg 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • WHOA--I don't have the wiki form book memorized, but I'm certain that we can keep our scatology at HOME!

Homebuilding 70.130.42.69 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cessna T-51: Myth or reality?[edit]

I noticed that someone has removed the separate Cessna T-51 article and made that a redirect, and so I removed the reference to it as a "variant with a separate article" in the Infobox. The question which remains—related to the "US Military Service" section—is whether the T-51 designation is real, which is to say, official. The U. S. Air Force Academy's site's Fact Sheet on Airmanship (Fact Sheet) refers to Cessna T-41s as T-41s, mentioning separately that the academy operates "twelve Cessna 172s," but the Fact Sheet refers to the 150-horsepower 150s as "150-horsepower Cessna 150 aircraft."

That, though, is not the end. An article from the Academy Spirit, the school newspaper, refers to an individual as an "IP for the T-41 and T-51." (Academy Spirit Article) A schedule for the 2006 Parents' Weekend advertises the display of aircraft, including the "Blanik TG-10B, Blanik TG-10C advanced aerobatic glider, the Schempp-Hirth TG-15B, Discus 2b, T-41, T-51, and the DA-20." (Schedule)

Without more information, it looks as if "T-51" may be a kind of local designation or nickname. Does anyone have anything decisive and verifiable on this? It would be really nice to resolve this accurately in the article. —SkipperPilot 23:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To make matters even more murky Global Security says "Wikipedia also claims that there is a Cessna T-51, but they fail to describe it and no one else has ever heard of such a thing." Ahunt 00:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Of further interest the USAF website has fact sheets on all their current aircraft but none on a T-51. The only mention of a T-51 is found on http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_print.asp?bioID=6566&page=1 where it refers to it as a flight simulator. I do remember a civil Cessna 150 owned by a private individual many years ago being painted up in USAF T-41 style markings and labelled as a "T-51". It could be the source of a mythological aircraft. Ahunt 01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Found it. This should multiply the confusion greatly. A photo of the above mentioned civil aircraft, N3577J, in USAF style markings can be found at [2]. To make matters worse it says "T-50" on the nose of the plane, something the owner probably made up. This photo is on the Cessna 150-152 Club website Global Security has a whole bunch of information on the T-50, but it is a Korean superonic jet trainer and no relationship to the Cessna 150. Ahunt 11:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Now that you bring up that picture, I think I've seen elsewhere pictures of either that "T-50" plane or another painted like it. It seems to be definitely just the owner's (or owners') affectation. Finding that information about the T-51 simulator, and no other information on a T-51 designation, is useful. More than ever I now think that the use of "T-51" for the Air Force Academy's 150's must be a sort of colloquialism. (And thus the problem, since we're short an official source on this apparently unofficial designation.) Any thoughts on how to reflect this in the article? —SkipperPilot 17:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, I enjoyed the sleuthing. That one "mock-USAF" C-150 has probably been photographed many times - I have seen its photo elsewhere in books and magazines. Affectation is probably a good term for it! Although I shouldn't talk as this is my own plane!! Perhaps "tribute" would be a more diplomatic word for it! Regardless we have a problem: from the sources on the T-51 you cite above it is possible that they all refer to the simulator including the parents' weekend tours and the IP - all could be simulator references. The cadets could refer to the C-150s at USAFA as "T-51s" after the simulators just to be ironic. So that leaves us with no citable source that the designation describes the academy Cessna 150s. I looked carefully through the USAF website to find the units that fly at the academy and there is no information there on their types operated. Given all that I think referring to the T-51 in the Wikipedia C-150 article is at best speculative. I vote that we cut all references to the designation until a source can be found. Naturally the USAFA's use of the Cessna 150s can remain as they do operate the aircraft, we just can't be sure that they are called T-51s. Perhaps a phone call to the academy would solve the mystery. Of course that would be "original research"!! Ahunt 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I chose poorly in using the term "affectation"; you're right that "tribute" is more diplomatic. (And, regarding affectation, I'm not one to talk anyway, as I own a flightsuit and helmet!) Your assessment is right: We have no reliable source for the T-51 as anything but a simulator; certainly not as a 150. You're also right about the phone call; so tempting, but I guess we'll just have to wait until something definitive comes up on one of the websites. I'll make a tentative edit, subject (of course) to anyone's improvement. Very nice airplane, by the way. —SkipperPilot 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - it is fun to fly and faster than a 150, which I used to own (1984-90). Your edit looks really good - I concur! Ahunt 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's really just a faux trainer, this needs fixing. And so does this. Ah, the joys of editing... Trekphiler (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

I *Like* having a trvia section. Therefore I've removed the 'trivia' tag which suggests removing the trivia section. However, if everyone disagrees I'll back off. Kitplane01 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:14:04, August 2, 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree with Eric on this one. As outlined in the policy Wikipedia is not a place for for disordered lists of information. Trivia sections don't belong in an encyclopedia. The information in the section should be incorporated into the body of the article or if that doesn't fit, then deleted. I have reinstated Eric's tag.
To be honest this particular article has grown into a very disordered and bloated mess compared to many other aircraft articles (for an example of better ones see Grumman American AA-5 or Beechcraft Musketeer). It really needs a complete rewrite to pare it down and remove all the duplicate information.
Incidently I have moved this discussion to the bottom of the talk page from the top so comments can be added underneath. If you sign your name with four tildes then the page will record your name and the time of the entry. Ahunt 11:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The tag doesn't suggest removing the trivia section, it encourages editors to merge it with the article and remove any items that aren't notable. ericg 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! The trivia section information needs to be moved into other sections where it fits. Ahunt 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than just complain how poorly this article reads I have re-worked it to remove text redundancies and unsourced statements, along with fixing some NPOV issues, US-centric pricing, clarity, grammar and spelling mistakes as well. I have re-worked the trivia section so that the information that was in it now appears in other more appropriate sections instead and also removed the "trivia tag" Ahunt 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Date Links[edit]

I have removed a number of links to dates that have nothing to do with the article content. This is explained in the Manual of Style which says "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Ahunt 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't include full dates such as September 12 1957, which allows individual date preferences to work. Also, if you find "year in Baseball" or "Year in Vegetables" links, those would be irrelevant. But I think a good case could be made that "year in Aviation" links are relevant to an aircraft article. Although I don't use those articles at all, many WP:AIR members spend alot of time working on the "Year in Aviation" articles, and they do find this new movement in Wikipedia to remove them a bad idea. Using them in full dates, where they interfere with preference formatting, is a separte issue. - BillCJ 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You will notice that I left the Year in Aviation Links in, except where there was nothing on that Year in Aviation page that was relevant to the subject linked from. The same applies to the links to days and years - if it has nothing on the subject on those pages it only serves to take readers away from the subject that they are researching in into something irrelevant. The MOS is pretty clear: dates should not be linked to, unless are "likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". Links to days and years that have no mention of, in this case Cessna 150s, are just distractions and contribute nothing useful to the article. You will note I left in the September 12 link as there is one connected Cessna 150 item on that page, although to be fair there is more detail about it on the Cessna 150 page than on the September 12th page. Perhaps you can explain how a link to 1957, which has no mention of "Cessna" or "Cessna 150" on it at all meets the MOS standards that the link to this page "deepen(s) readers' understanding of a topic"? Ahunt 20:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I think were both opperating under a few misunderstanding of what the other person is trying to say here. 1957 alone has nothing to do with Aviation - I'm not for keeping those, nor did I put any of those back in at any point. Howerver, the 1957 in aviation page does have ifo relevant to the Cessna 150, including aother aircfat whose first filghts were that year. I have no problem removing somw of the links to years that really have nothing to do wit the plane. But if we remove all the "year in aviation" links from all the aricraft articles, then soon those pages won't have anything linging too them, and someone will want to delete them for that reason.
"September 1957" should not be linked, as there is now real purpose for that, nor should we have "September 1957" or "September 1957", . However, there's nothing wrong with "September 1957 in aviation", which we write as "September 1957" - this looks just like "September 1957", but they link to different places.
As Months and days, linking "12 September" and "September 12" produces, respectively, "12 September" and "September 12". If a person has their date preferences set (works only for registered users), then both these links will look the same. This is in perfect accordance with the Manual of Style setion you linked to above. The first paragraph states: Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the WikiMedia software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users. It works only for users who are registered, and for all others will be displayed as entered.
Anyway, I hope now you understand better where I'm coming from, and can use this as a basis for showing me where I'm misuderstanding you, assuming it's still relevant to the discussion. - BillCJ 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me! Thanks for your take on it. Ahunt 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

military history project[edit]

How, exactly, does this fall under the scope of military history? ericg 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is used by the United States military as the T-51. MilborneOne 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to the talk section called "Cessna T-51: Myth or reality?". The fact that the USAF uses a couple for training (whether as the T-51 or not) doesn't strike me as 'historical'. The Air Force also drives Suburbans. ericg 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It does not have to be 'historical' to be part of the military history project events of today can still be part of a military history project, the fact that the USAF Academy uses three Cessna 150s and has designated them T-51As makes them military aircraft. I am not sure what the talk section you refer to but official references clearly show the allocation of T-51 to a Cessna aircraft. The official Air Education & Training Command website refers to the aircraft as the T-51A [3]. MilborneOne 11:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's two sections up on this page, so I'm not going to link it. As far as military history goes, there are 3 C-150s in use by the USAF, so the article qualifies for the 'military history' project, but somehow the hundreds of military de Havilland Chipmunks do not? I'm just saying that the priorities here seem completely screwed up. ericg 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies I didnt look further up the page, doesnt change my comment though. The Chipmunk is part of the miltary history project it just takes time to add the project to every related article. MilborneOne 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning & visibility cloudy[edit]

The article says, "The only changes this model year were the propeller on the A150L Aerobat, to a new Clark Y". Now, unless thing have changed, the Clark Y isn't a prop foil design, so more than the prop has changed. Can somebody fix it? Trekphiler (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

COMPARISON OF FULL-SCALE PROPELLERS HAVING R.A.F.-6 AND CLARK Y AIRFOIL SECTIONS is the title of a 1931 report composed by NACA. I'd say it's legit. ericg 22:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Userbox[edit]

If you have soloed a 150, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!

Code Result
|{{User:Ahunt/150}}
Cessna.fa150k.g-aycf.arp.jpg This user has soloed a Cessna 150.
Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cost Section[edit]

The cost statements actually seem well referenced to me. Is there one in particular you doubt? Since I own a C-150, I feel like I've got a pretty good idea for what it costs to own one. But I'm willing to make changes to improve this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talkcontribs) 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The main problems I had with this section are twofold:
1. The information, while referenced, is quite out of date. At current US fuel costs the average cost of running a private C-150 100 hrs a year is currently in the range of $125-135 per hour when all costs are accounted for, including hangarage, insurance, maintenance, fees, publications, overhaul reserve, fuel and oil. It is not currently possible to run a 150 for the bottom quoted figure of $50 per hour, as fuel is over $30 per hour unless you don't buy any insurance, do no maintenance, pay nothing for hangarage, etc. The numbers do not represent reasonable current costs.
2. No other Wikipedia article on light aircraft includes operating costs. Because the section provides numbers that are so US-centric there are lots of qualifiers added to the section "The cost of operating an airplane can vary widely, depending on the mechanical health of the plane, country of operation with the associated regulatory requirements of that country and the home airport, which determines hangar rent and influences maintenance and fuel costs." and also "Costs in Europe can be expected to be considerably higher than this figure, due the increased cost of fuel, hangarage, parts, maintenance and regulatory and landing fees. Costs in other parts of the world will vary due to the same factors". It makes the whole section non-encyclopedic quality work.
I don't believe that such a vaguely worded and highly qualified section using out of date data belongs in an encyclopedia, in a book on "how to own a C-150" perhaps, but not in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
About #1. I think you're right, the numbers are out of date. I'll change them tomorrow (it's late tonight).
About #2 You are right that most small plane articles don't have cost data. but they probably should. The numbers are US centric but then most C-150s are in the United States (in fact, the US has most of the world's GA airplanes. If someone in Europe or Canada wants to add prices for their region that would be wonderful.
What does everyone else think? Should the section exist and be fixed (I'll do the work) or should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talkcontribs) 07:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit dubious about this sort of thing because it becomes dated with startling rapidity, & don't we have enough to do keeping up with things that aren't changing year to year (if not month to month)?
I'm also a bit (not very) troubled by the inherent U.S. centrism. If you've got good data, & especially if there are figures xt U.S., why not daughter it into C-150 ownership, or somewhere? This could also address issues of model differences in greater detail (if desired), maintenance issues, so on.
Or, better still, you might just link to here, where more detailed info wouldn't be such an issue, & where a more specialist editor base could adequately handle it, & paste it back here when it's in suitable shape. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good debate to have, so I have invited the other members of WikiProject Aircraft to participate in this debate here. The outcome here may result in changes one way or the other to the more global project page content guidelines. Hopefully we will see some of them offer some thoughts here over the weekend. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be extremely wary of including cost: it will probably vary massively even within the US, and worldwide it simply isn't possible to include all meaningful data. It would be very reasonable to include an external link, but I'm not sure that any coverage of cost can be included without running afoul of WP:NOR, much less a couple of the WP:NOTs, most notably WP:NOTCATALOG which specifically frowns on price information. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ahunt - it's simply not the kind of information that has a place in an encyclopedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, operating costs are so widely variable that it would be best for our encyclopedia to just cover unit costs. If a plane was popular because of its low operating costs, that would be notable and worth quoting a range (and the year) of such costs, but trying to track a variety of ranges in different countries seems to be a move in the wrong direction. Certainly it’s vital when contemplating the purchase of an aircraft, but as Ahunt observes, it’s not really encyclopedic (outside an article addressing such costs). Askari Mark (Talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus from editors here to indicate that "operating costs" don't really belong in aircraft type article for a variety of reasons. On that basis I will go ahead and remove the section from this article and also add some general information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy I think you people are all wrong. This is a popular small plane for which costs can be quantified with references. In fact, the section had references. I wonder if the people voting no actually are airplane owners??? Further, the information is interesting to people. Does anyone who owns a Cessna 150 vote "no". Here's one Cessna 150 owner voting "yes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things that can be written about C-150s might be interesting, but that doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. I have owned six aircraft, including a C-150G that I had for six years. I am also the author of a best-selling book on how to buy light aircraft and what they cost to operate, so I am pretty familiar with the issues and the variability and uncertainty involved in costing them. - Ahunt (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

F150 engine[edit]

Reims built F150's had Rolls-Royce manufactured Continental O-200 (100 hp) -engines, not bigger O-240's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vastajalka (talkcontribs) 09:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In his book Clarke, Bill: Cessna 150 and 152 first edition, page 5. TAB Books, 1987. ISBN 0 8306-9002-0 says "Reims produces Cessna airplanes in France that are identical to the Wichita Cessnas." This seems to confirm that they have O-200 engines. I checked the US type certificate and it does not mention the F150 models at all. Does anyone know where the French type certificates are located? This would provide the definitive answer. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
A quick look at the uk register site (G-INFO) which shows engines fitted has 1975 F150M G-BCRT CONTINENTAL MOTORS CORP O-200-A, G-BFIY 1977 F150M a CONTINENTAL MOTORS CORP O-200-A, G-PHLY is a 1973 FRA150L has a CONTINENTAL MOTORS CORP O-240-A, G-OPIC a 1974 FRA150L has a O-240-A. So this bit of original research indicates that the straight 150s were O-200 powered and the aerobatic versions had O-240s. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Logically that would make sense. Having flown aerobatics in the 100 hp A150 it could use a bit more power. - Ahunt (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

While this has been suggested before at Talk:Cessna 150#Merge with Cessna 152?, it appears that no consensus was reached. My reasons for suggesting the merge are:

Thoughts? McNeight (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Quite true in the previous attempt there was no consensus to merge the articles, so it didn't proceed. The 150 article is already quite long and while the 152 article is somewhat shorter it is long enough to stand on its own. A merged article would be very long and I suspect the next call would be to split it one way or the other. On that basis I don't see any point in merging them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I concur with Ahunt's reasonings. Also, en.wp's aircraft coverage is larger and generally more extensive then that on de.wp. If anything, they should be following en.wp's example, not the other way around. Further, WP is not paper, so we generally have some leeway in coverage, including variant articles. While the aircraft are no doubt closely related, WP:AIR does have many variants articles of main aircraft, and the 152 is at least a variant. However, I have no problem with trimming the redundant/duplicate content, though at first glance there really doesn't seem to be that much. - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per Ahunt and BillCJ. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That is five days with no further input, I think we have a consensus. I will remove the tags. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Child Seat[edit]

Can someone confirm that you could get four people in to a C150? As the spec currently reads, you can get a pilot, passenger, and two kids. I thought but am not certain that the child seat was for one kid only. Kitplane01 (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The POH for later models (post 1963) with the larger baggage compartment confirms that the optional child seat holds up to two small children under one seat belt. The seat is about ten pounds so that limits the occupants to 110 lbs as per the baggage compartment limit of 120 lbs. Naturally the front seat occupants have to be pretty light to keep the gross weight under 1600 lbs, but it can be done legally. - Ahunt (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Top fuel[edit]

This edit says the Meteor Crater accident wasn't due to fuel. NTSB says it was. Isn't NTSB the better source? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if you want to cite the NTSB report you can change it. - Ahunt (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
With that done, & moving it under "accident" (where it seems to better belong), the whole thing strikes me as lacking notability. Thoughts on deleting the incident entirely? Not uninteresting, to be sure, but...not like Will Rogers was aboard or Neil Armstrong was at the controls. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it's notable through sheer force of oddity. An aircraft incapable of climbing out of Meteor Crater? Worth mentioning I think. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree it is worth keeping, it doesn't meet our usual WP:AIRCRASH-TYPEARTICLE criteria, which is why it was under notable flights and not accidents, but it is unusual enough to make an exception for, in my opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I can live with it. If it's better placed where it was, do move it back. (I haven't looked to see if it was already. :D) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It is okay under accidents, we just need to note here that it is a consensus exception to WP:AIRCRASH-TYPEARTICLE. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Since I actually went to the trouble to review all the reports before I changed it, perhaps you can actually cite the NTSB report that says it was due to fuel? When I looked over the NTSB report, along with the information at the other link (Aviation Safety Network aircraft accident report) I listed, they seemed to be in agreement that it wasn't due to lack of fuel.

TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION STALL IN FLIGHT: LOW PASS PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - FAILED TO OBTAIN/MAINTAIN FLYING SPEED MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - UNWARRANTED LOW FLYING FIRE AFTER IMPACT

— ntsb.gov
So if you wouldn't mind, could you please show myself and the other editors the proof about where the NTSB says it is fuel related? I don't mind if it needs to be in another section, but I would prefer than you can show more than just "because I say so" as a reason for reverting something after I took the time to try and verify it. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, after a bit more looking, I have found several other references, one of which gives a fairly detailed account of that day's events.

The plane took off from Winslow after being refueled on August 8, 1964 and since the crater is only a few miles away must have had its trouble begin very soon. The two-seater plane; the smallest of the Cessnas heavy with fuel flew over Meteor Crater. There the hot thin air caused a loss of lift and the plane went into the bowl of the crater. This was not a sightseeing tour. The intent of their dad the children relates was only to fly over the crater. Now caught in the crater Captain Kidd attempts to gather up enough speed to make it out over the rim. But, the heavy plane and thin hot air seem to prevent that. As a personal note from my own time in the crater bottom I would expect it to be difficult to get going very fast in only the half-mile plus diameter near the crater floor. The two men circle in this battle for lift till the accident happens as the plane completely stalls.

Y'know, Avanu, if you'd replied you'd looked at the NTSB reports before I changed it, you'd have saved everybody the headaches, including you. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I simply looked over the available research and changed the page accordingly. I didn't know I needed to reply in advance of the question. :)
I'm also not an expert at looking at NTSB reports. So, can I change it back now without any issue? I don't mind moving it to the accidents section, if needed. -- Avanu (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, waited 3 days, no objections seen here, so I went ahead and put things back. -- Avanu (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Developpment REIMS Series[edit]

'Correction' The Reims series wasn't not equipped with O-240, but the O-200 from Rolls Royce, witch was most largely identical with Continental O-200A (without any fuel pump, even not the mechanical drilling preparation and cover plate seen on later O-200's from Continental. Cosy--81.13.237.223 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In reading the variants section, that seems to be correct in that the same O-200As were used, it is just the earlier statement in the text, which I will fix. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are based on verifiable references. I have been through Joe Christie, The Complete Guide to the Single Engine Cessnas and Bill Clarke Cessna 150 and 152 as well as the FAA Type Certificate and I can't find any reference to Continental O-240s being used on 150s. Since the article text that mentions this is unreferenced I will just go ahead and remove it as unreferenced. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Reims did actually build O-240 powered 150s - will add with cite in a mo. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey that is great that you have refs that clear that up! - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of procuced C150 in France[edit]

Hy there I have to made a correction: belonging that source : French article about Reims and C150 There has been a total of 1764 C150 produced by Reims Aviation in France. 336 of them have been (or mostly still are) C150 Aerobat. So nearly the half of worldwide sold C150 Aerobat went produced in France. Cessna sold from the C152 with the Lycoming O-235L2C a total of 7584 planes, the numbers produced from Reims are actually not known but I will search for.

Other articles about REIMS:

1: bancrupty procedures 2003 after 64 years of existence: http://www.lunion.presse.fr/article/autres-actus/reims-aerospace-64-ans-dhistoire-remoise 2: Informations from Cessna himself under "vintage": really not very helpfull and wrong: http://www.cessna.com/news/fast-facts.html

cosy--81.13.237.223 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)