Who sells the STC that allows a Cessna 150 to be equipped with a Lycoming 0320, and also provides a gross weight increase?
We have two 150's we are restoring, and a larger engine would sure help.
Thanks,
Mike
STC on Cessna 150?
Moderator: N84712
Mike,
Someday I am going to teach you guys how to use a search engine!
Glad to see you posting again. Here you go.
Joe A
http://forums.cessnaowner.org/read/5/17097
Someday I am going to teach you guys how to use a search engine!
Glad to see you posting again. Here you go.
Joe A
http://forums.cessnaowner.org/read/5/17097
Thanks Joe....
Thanks Joe,
Looks like AOL is working today...
Mike
Looks like AOL is working today...
Mike
-
Jerry Eichenberger
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:33
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
- Contact:
Mike -
Unless you really need it for something, I's shy away from this conversion.
We use 150s with th eO-320 engine as tow planes in our glider club.
Here are my issues:
While they climb like a rocket with no glider on tow, that's about the only real benefit. In cruise flight, you have to throttle back a good bit to keep them out of the yellow, but who really cares if you go 15 mph faster in a 150?
The fuel consumption naturally goes up from 5.5 gph to over 8 gph. With 22.5 usable gallons in the tanks, your range goes down dramatically. To be both legal and sensible, you only have 2.2 hours duration before you're getting gas.
We have had some trouble with the extra vibration cracking skins on the tail and flap surfaces, and I believe that we had one of the tow planes suffer a crack in the bracket that attaches the vertical fin to the aft fuselage.
The only reason we use these critters as tow planes is because there are so few tailwheel qualified pilots anymore than our cadre of tow pilots would be reduced a whole bunch if we had Pawnees, which are much better tow planes.
Unless you really need it for something, I's shy away from this conversion.
We use 150s with th eO-320 engine as tow planes in our glider club.
Here are my issues:
While they climb like a rocket with no glider on tow, that's about the only real benefit. In cruise flight, you have to throttle back a good bit to keep them out of the yellow, but who really cares if you go 15 mph faster in a 150?
The fuel consumption naturally goes up from 5.5 gph to over 8 gph. With 22.5 usable gallons in the tanks, your range goes down dramatically. To be both legal and sensible, you only have 2.2 hours duration before you're getting gas.
We have had some trouble with the extra vibration cracking skins on the tail and flap surfaces, and I believe that we had one of the tow planes suffer a crack in the bracket that attaches the vertical fin to the aft fuselage.
The only reason we use these critters as tow planes is because there are so few tailwheel qualified pilots anymore than our cadre of tow pilots would be reduced a whole bunch if we had Pawnees, which are much better tow planes.
Jerry A. Eichenberger
Columbus, Ohio
614-798-1600
Columbus, Ohio
614-798-1600
-
Carl Prather
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:21
- Contact:
150 Horse Cessna 150
Mike,
If you are interested in towing banners or gliders the 150-150 is not ideal. If a Cessna 150 with a bigger engine is needed, some thoughts towards using 152 might be in order.
If you are looking for Super Cub or Citabria performance, the upgraded C-150's are a relative disappointment. Work done in a Citabria or Cub is more easily handled than in the 150-150 which struggles to keep up. The Cessna has the advantage of being all aluminum (some would disagree on this account, including me) and nose draggers might appeal to many.
From the ground to first 100' or the other way down, the Cub is a better short field plane. Once in the air, I enjoyed the Citabria for better seat comfort, and better visibility. Also, the Citabria was easier to re-trim from climb to descent and the tail feathers are much more rigid than the 3" of bur I'd on the Super Cubs. The Cub is tough to beat in slow speed flight. Flying at 50 mph feels like one was doing 100.
Needless to say, it's far more cool to be seen tooling about in a stepside Chevy pick up rather the Nash Metropolitan!
If you are interested in towing banners or gliders the 150-150 is not ideal. If a Cessna 150 with a bigger engine is needed, some thoughts towards using 152 might be in order.
If you are looking for Super Cub or Citabria performance, the upgraded C-150's are a relative disappointment. Work done in a Citabria or Cub is more easily handled than in the 150-150 which struggles to keep up. The Cessna has the advantage of being all aluminum (some would disagree on this account, including me) and nose draggers might appeal to many.
From the ground to first 100' or the other way down, the Cub is a better short field plane. Once in the air, I enjoyed the Citabria for better seat comfort, and better visibility. Also, the Citabria was easier to re-trim from climb to descent and the tail feathers are much more rigid than the 3" of bur I'd on the Super Cubs. The Cub is tough to beat in slow speed flight. Flying at 50 mph feels like one was doing 100.
Needless to say, it's far more cool to be seen tooling about in a stepside Chevy pick up rather the Nash Metropolitan!