Cessna 150 payload/jumpseat question
Rob
As a student pilot who will be looking to buy a plane in 4 - 6 months, I'm
having a dilemna. I don't want to do a partnership/corp for a few reasons,
not the least of which are the liability issues. That limits a man of my
means to basically a Cessna 150, which just happens to be what I'm taking
my training in (152 aerobat actually). The majority of my flying will be
simple local area joyriding, so the 150 fits that just fine. I noticed the
150's appear in specs to have higher useful load than the 152's, and I have
seen at least two ads for C150's with a "child seat", which I assume is a
small seat installed in the cargo area. The cargo bay certainly is
adequate to fit a small adult or large kid in a properly installed seat,
but does this violate the plane's certification? We have an 8yr old son
who would usually need to come along with the two of us, but a 4 place
plane is a bit steep for my budget, as I want to lay down cash for the
bird, so as to be able to afford to hangar vs. tie down and not have to
float a monthly payment on top the $160/month hangar rental. It appears
one can find C150's from 1968 up to the end of the model (152 debut) with
reasonable TTAF's (2000-4500 hrs) with fairly recent OH ( < 700 hrs) on the
engine for around $18,500 to $25, 000 all day long (Aero Trader, ASO, Wings
Online, etc).
Being able to bring the boy along in a seat in the rear would solve my
dilemna. I weigh 210lbs, the wife weighs 125lbs, our son weighs 75lbs (for
now). Just seems to me the FAA would not like that third seat.
Probably not possible, just curious.
Rob
comanche driver
the child seat was cetified by cessna for the 150. the problem is with the
weights that you have given you would end up with only a couple of gallons
of gas to keep it in the envelope. Do a weight and balance and see how
much gas you would be able to carry. I dont know off hand what the
capacity of the child seat was, but i dont think that it was that high
since the cargo capacity of the 150 is so low it shouldnt be more than that
minus the weight of the seat.
you might want to look into some of the not so popular 4 seaters, there
prices are lower that a C172 or a warrior. you might look into a grumman
tiger or a beech muskateer (Spelling?) they are good airplanes but dont
have as big following so the prices are lower.
good luck
R. Burns CFI
Rob <CaptR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6b3ph5$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> As a student pilot who will be looking to buy a plane in 4 - 6 months,
I'm
> having a dilemna. I don't want to do a partnership/corp for a few
reasons,
>snip snip
> Rob
>
>
Michael
Rob <CaptR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>float a monthly payment on top the $160/month hangar rental. It appears
>one can find C150's from 1968 up to the end of the model (152 debut) with
>reasonable TTAF's (2000-4500 hrs) with fairly recent OH ( < 700 hrs) on the
>engine for around $18,500 to $25, 000 all day long (Aero Trader, ASO, Wings
>Online, etc).
>
>Being able to bring the boy along in a seat in the rear would solve my
>dilemna. I weigh 210lbs, the wife weighs 125lbs, our son weighs 75lbs (for
>now). Just seems to me the FAA would not like that third seat.
The Cessna 150 had, at one time, as an option, a back seat for children. If
you can find one, it can be installed. No FAA problem here. So it is
possible - but it's also a really bad idea.
Right now the three of you are 410 lbs total. With full fuel and no baggage
you are already overgross in most C150's. Add your overnight bags and such
and you are BADLY overgross. That's illegal, and, more to the point, it can
bite you if you're not careful. You COULD get away with it - but the C-150
with the 100 hp engine is marginally powered even at full gross. No problem
in the winter but not good in the summer. Now, if you could find one with a
150 hp engine the legality may not change (I don't know if the is a gross
weight increase for the mod) but it would work out OK.
Thing is, your kid is going to grow. Pretty soon he won't fit in that back
seat anymore and the W&B will be a disaster. You'll always be leaving
behind stuff you need, offloading fuel (and the C-150 does not have all
that much extra to begin with) and generally regretting buying less airplane
than you really needed.
If you can afford to shell out $20,000 and are going to hangar it anyway, I
would recommend you check out some of the older breeds of Piper. The blue
book value of a 150 hp Tri-Pacer with a mid-time engine is about $17,000
and for that you will get about the same cruise speed as a C-150, and a
payload of 600 lbs with full fuel (4 hrs worth).
Realistically, if you want to carry two adults, a kid, and their stuff in a
relatively modern airplane, you can't do it on 100 hp. Sorry, that's just
the way it is. Depending on what you can afford, I would consider the
Cherokee 140, an older Cessna 172 (the 145 hp models), a Tri-Pacer (135 or
150 hp), or something similar. I think the C-150 is not nearly enough
airplane but if you have $20K in cash to put down and can afford another
$5K/yr to pay for hangar, insurance, fuel, and maintenance you can buy enough
airplane for your needs.
Sorry for being so long-winded...
Michael Masterov PA-22-150 N3653P "Patches"
Ron Natalie
Michael wrote:
> The Cessna 150 had, at one time, as an option, a back seat for children. If
> you can find one, it can be installed. No FAA problem here. So it is
> possible - but it's also a really bad idea.
I thought that that was only the 152 that had the option, and finding
one is the hard part.
> Right now the three of you are 410 lbs total. With full fuel and no baggage
> you are already overgross in most C150's.
And 152's too.
Michael
In article <34D612...@sensor.com>, Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
>> The Cessna 150 had, at one time, as an option, a back seat for children. If
>> you can find one, it can be installed. No FAA problem here. So it is
>> possible - but it's also a really bad idea.
>
>I thought that that was only the 152 that had the option, and finding
>one is the hard part.
No, the C-150 had the option as well, I believe that version was the C-150
Commuter. I seem to remember very few were made with the back seat, in
either the C-150 or the C-152 flavor, so they may be hard to find. On the
other hand, I would guess there is very little demond for them either -
anyone who has one will likely be interested in unloading it.
Michael
John R. Johnson
Right. As I recall it was the "Commuter." As I remember it had an
eighty pound weight limit and took away all of your baggage space and
weight allowance. You still had about a 550 pound useful load. Gas
and three folks! Righto.
John
Ken Forbes
I own a150 ,My weight 215 wife 160 fuel 22.5ga*6Lb/ga=135 total=500lb empty
wt1100 gross wt 1600 useful load 500lb know how you are taught to keep your
fuel tanks full all the time, not in a150 ,great plane fun plane but you always
have to be planning how much fuel you can carry and how much weight and if you
over load on a hot day .you might not make it. forget jump seat.
Rob wrote:
> As a student pilot who will be looking to buy a plane in 4 - 6 months, I'm
> having a dilemna. I don't want to do a partnership/corp for a few reasons,
> not the least of which are the liability issues. That limits a man of my
> means to basically a Cessna 150, which just happens to be what I'm taking
> my training in (152 aerobat actually). The majority of my flying will be
> simple local area joyriding, so the 150 fits that just fine. I noticed the
> 150's appear in specs to have higher useful load than the 152's, and I have
> seen at least two ads for C150's with a "child seat", which I assume is a
> small seat installed in the cargo area. The cargo bay certainly is
> adequate to fit a small adult or large kid in a properly installed seat,
> but does this violate the plane's certification? We have an 8yr old son
> who would usually need to come along with the two of us, but a 4 place
> plane is a bit steep for my budget, as I want to lay down cash for the
> bird, so as to be able to afford to hangar vs. tie down and not have to
> float a monthly payment on top the $160/month hangar rental. It appears
> one can find C150's from 1968 up to the end of the model (152 debut) with
> reasonable TTAF's (2000-4500 hrs) with fairly recent OH ( < 700 hrs) on the
> engine for around $18,500 to $25, 000 all day long (Aero Trader, ASO, Wings
> Online, etc).
>
> Being able to bring the boy along in a seat in the rear would solve my
> dilemna. I weigh 210lbs, the wife weighs 125lbs, our son weighs 75lbs (for
> now). Just seems to me the FAA would not like that third seat.
>
George R Patterson
Rob wrote:
>
> I noticed the
> 150's appear in specs to have higher useful load than the 152's, and I have
> seen at least two ads for C150's with a "child seat", which I assume is a
> small seat installed in the cargo area. The cargo bay certainly is
> adequate to fit a small adult or large kid in a properly installed seat,
> but does this violate the plane's certification?
The seats were made by Cessna as options. No certification problems.
>
> Being able to bring the boy along in a seat in the rear would solve my
> dilemna. I weigh 210lbs, the wife weighs 125lbs, our son weighs 75lbs (for
> now).
No way. A typical 150 can carry about 400 pounds with full tanks, and
there's not much you can do to improve this by leaving fuel at home. Add
the weight of the seat, and you've got gas, you and your wife, and her
handbag hitting max gross.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Rob
Thanks to all who replied. So much for my lame idea. I've gotten several
recommendations on the Piper Tri Pacer, and the Piper Cherokee 140. I've
also been watching for Grumman/American General AA5A Travelers or Cheetah's
as they were renamed after 1974 (I think). Some older 1960-65 C172's are
in the range, too.
I Like the Tri Pacer 150hp and they are reasonable, but I would prefer one
that had recently been totally restored and recovered with modern Ceconite
or Stitts system, some updated avionics and recent replace on interior
fabric etc., all AD's done, etc., with a real recent zero-time job on the
engine. Pretty tall bill to fill, though, they seem to be hard to come by.
Just have to raise the limit a bit, worth it for a 4 place, though. My
checkride is still months off, just doing my homework for when I'm ready.
I want to own my own flying machine. Period. I love flying too much to
rent all the time.
Rob
Michael
Rob <CaptR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I Like the Tri Pacer 150hp and they are reasonable, but I would prefer one
>that had recently been totally restored and recovered with modern Ceconite
>or Stitts system, some updated avionics and recent replace on interior
>fabric etc., all AD's done, etc., with a real recent zero-time job on the
>engine. Pretty tall bill to fill, though, they seem to be hard to come by.
I've looked around. One with a fresh reman, fresh fabric, good avionics and
a good interior is out of your range - they're above the 25,000 mark.
Amazing but true. I paid 12,500 for mine with a runout engine. By putting
as much into it, I should end up with a freshly majored engine and enough
avionics to have an IFR trainer. That leaves the fabric to be done later.
And there's no way I'd sell mine - I've put a lot of time, effort, and money
into it. Most others feel the same way - the old 'Motorized Milkstool' really
grows on you. That's why you don't find many nice ones out there and the ones
you do find are getting close to $30,000. On the other hand, Ceconite is a
lifetime fabric if you hangar it. An engine with 1000 hrs is likely good for
1000 more. There are surprisingly few AD's on TriPacers considering how many
of them are out there. The right seat shows the usual Piper wear in most of
them - the pilot crawled over it too many times - but fabric isn't too
expensive and you can legally reuphoster your plane yourself. And the old
avionics and instruments may look clunky, but they often work OK. And that
sort of bird averages about $17,000.
Or you can do what I did - there are lots of them out there ready to be
reworked at bargain prices. For $25-30K you could have a clean plane
with IFR capability, a fresh engine, about the best short/rough field
capability you will find a tricycle gear aircraft, and have it set up just
the way you like it.