Smart Plane Shopper: Cessna 150/152

They don’t fly fast, they have cramped cabins, and they aren’t exactly sexy when it comes to ramp appeal. That’s all just fine because the venerable Cessna 150/152 is just plain fun to fly and even better, can be easy on the budget. They’re easy to handle for low-timers, plus you can find repair support at most every airport. But don’t bottom feed the market of these aging trainers because for little planes with stone-simple systems, they can still rack up big shop invoices to get a neglected one up to snuff. Still, private owners love their 150s and 152s—and flight schools still hunt them for training lines— which might explain why resale prices have remained solid over the last 15 or so years. Here’s a primer to start the shopping in the right direction.

Well-Worn Trainers

Search the market for 150s and 152s for sale and you’ll find tired trainers and well-loved personal travelers. And while plenty of flight schools have abandoned Cessna’s two-seat trainer in favor of modern LSA models like the Van’s RV-12, it’s impressive that 150s and 152s still earn their keep on the training line—67 years since the first Model 150s hit the ramps. It’s simple: 150s and 152s are forgiving, durable initial trainers—we learned to fly instruments in them. Plus, any owner would be hard-pressed to find a single A&P who couldn’t wrench one.

But for the buyer looking to score a cherry on a tight budget, it’s a dilemma. Many 150s and 152s have logged an impressive number of hours on their clock—over 20,000 in some cases—serving hard time in the hands of ham-fisted students, and with more damage history than you can squeeze into one maintenance log, and with run-out engines. Many are in desperate need of avionics work. But you’ll also find models that have been nicely refurbished, sporting the latest avionics, snappy paint work, new interior and glass, plus upgraded low-time engines. Expect to pay top dollar for these birds that are at the top of the 150/152 food chain. On the high end, you’ll pay $60,000 or more (yes, we remember when you can buy them for $15,000, too). Thankfully there are a lot of model years to choose from.

In the beginning, the 150 sort of filled a void in Cessna’s lineup because the all-metal Model 140, with its 90-hp Continental engine, had been out of production for several years. And what many don’t realize is the Cessna 172 predates the 150 by three years, appearing in 1956. But the 150’s purpose was to serve a growing flight training market, while the 172 made for an easy step-up for students just as it does today.

And there was at least some resemblance to the 172. You can tell a very early 150 by its straight, squared-off tail, plus its fastback turtledeck-style fuselage that had no rear window. That reduced rearward visibility like it did on the Cessna 120/140 models. But Cessna made worthy changes to the 150 early on, including moving the main gear struts aft by two inches in 1961, which solved the airplane’s tendency toward a tail-heavy CG. And finally, a rear window (“Omni Vision,” Cessna called it) came in 1964. The airplane didn’t get the tubular gear legs that widened the track until around 1971.

Forever Small

Throughout all of 150/152 production, the overall size of the small trainer didn’t change much, but its max gross weight allowances have. When it was born, it was a 1,600-pound airplane but by 1978, the gross weight increased to 1,670 pounds. Still, the empty weight increased so it didn’t exactly turn into a weight-hauling machine. If you’ve flown a 150 or 152 with another person on board, you know it’s an intimate experience, and it was even tighter until Cessna bowed out the cabin doors and narrowed the center pedestal for more side-by-side legroom. The cockpit became a touch more civilized in 1976 with the addition of vertically adjustable seats.

Finally, the baggage compartment was also enlarged several times and one option included a rear child seat, proving that young families might actually travel in these little planes. We did, and remember the baggage area being reasonably generous—eventually accommodating up to 120 pounds of bags. When loading, figure on 528 pounds of total useful load, and a 152’s fuel capacity (one tank in each wing) is 24.5 gallons usable, though some models have long-range tanks boosting capacity to 39 gallons. For comparison, a Van’s RV-12, with its single fuel tank, holds 20 gallons. As for design and styling, it wasn’t until 1975 that the fuselage got a larger fin and rudder and a couple years earlier, electric wing flaps. To this day, some owners think electric flaps (over the manual owns) were a step back.

Powerplants were small, too. In the days of 80/87 octane fuel, the first 150s had 100-hp Continental O-200 engines, which turned out to be reliable. But when owners eventually had to hunt high and low for the fuel, Cessna dropped in the 110-hp Lycoming O-235-L2C. Fouling of the spark plugs aside (as carb ice is to the O-200, lead fouling is to the O-235—lean aggressively) that was an even better match because it added much needed power, and for flight schools, the TBO went from 1,800 to 2,000 and then eventually to 2,400 hours, which was welcomed. Who knew that engine would someday have an eye-widening price north of $40,000 to swap … especially since a new 150 was typically priced around $12,500.

When you shop, you’ll discover that over much of the 150 and 152 production run, two variants were available: the Aerobat and a seaplane conversion, which appeared in 1968. The seaplane actually works, but don’t expect it to leap off the water. It performs slightly better than a Piper J-3 on floats, but it’s no amphibious Aviat Husky, that’s for sure. If given a choice, we’d jump on a well-cared-for Aerobat (it came along in 1970), and our logbooks prove that it makes a wonderful light aerobatics platform for keeping sharp with unusual attitude recovery, as an introduction to basic aerobatics, and for simply throwing around the sky. Use caution, though; negative-G maneuvers are prohibited with two people in the seats. Plus it surely lacks the power (and control sticks in favor of yokes) of a true aerobatic machine—don’t expect it to rocket back up to altitude during maneuver recovery like an Extra would.

You might easily spot an Aerobat by its checkered wings and striped tail (most owners wouldn’t think of at least keeping some racing checkers for tradition when upgrading the paint). But you won’t find many on the market—we’re told only 5% or less of the fleet are aerobatic and that considerably widens the price delta between plain-vanilla models. Interestingly, the price premium when new was roughly $1,500 to $2,000. Today, add another zero to the end of those numbers, in many cases.

Student-Friendly Performance

That can mean a lot of things, but the reason for the 150/152 success is partly because it isn’t hard to handle and is durable enough to sustain hours and hours of painful touch-and-go landings. But that isn’t to say you can’t prang one, including bending the firewall if you slam it on with enough force. Or stall and, unintentionally, spin it. And when it comes to overall handling, it doesn’t come close to the snappy Van’s RV-12 that’s become hugely popular in the training community for lots of good reasons. Plus for speed control during approach and landing, we think the Cessna trainer might be easier for students to slow down than the clean RV-12—which beats the Cessna hands down for outside visibility thanks to its glass canopy.

Don’t be in a hurry to cover ground in a 150/152, but everyone recognizes that, and appreciates the miserly 5- to 6-gph fuel burn. The top speed for the 152 is booked at 109 knots (we think that’s optimistic), which is the same as the little Piper Tomahawk and 2 knots faster than the Beech Skipper. Keep them all rigged properly to get every knot you can. And we’ve flown them all, in hot weather, and give the Cessna the slight performance advantage over the Piper and a bigger one over the two-seat Beech. In the 152, we’ve generally flight-planned for 95 knots.

When the Model 152 II came out somewhere around 1978, it was arguably a different bird than the first 150, sporting a 28-volt electrical system, a one-piece cowling, a McCauley gull-wing prop, an oil cooler and redesigned fuel tanks. The good news is that the 152 offers up roughly 40 more pounds of useful load than the original Cessna 150. We don’t think the 152 performs a whole lot better than a 150, and we still wonder why the airplane got a 28-volt electrical system. It complicated avionics upgrades (not really an issue today), and don’t be surprised to find planes still equipped with Cessna/ARC avionics. In the 28-volt 152, the stock navcomm radios were RT385As, with seven-segment digital displays, and the transponder was the mechanically tuned, cavity tube-equipped RT359A. Shops that work on this gear are few and far between, so plan accordingly when making a deal on planes that have this ancient equipment.

A scan of the most recent 150/152 wrecks that made the NTSB reports shows that while the airplane isn’t immune to typical runway prangs (25% of the wrecks we looked at were hard landings that bent metal)—especially in crosswinds—our estimation is that the 150/152 is more forgiving than most Light Sport models in crosswinds. Roughly 5% of the wrecks were because of carburetor icing and almost 10% of accidents were engine/mechanical troubles. But the real head-shaker was that just over 20% of 150/152 wrecks were fuel related—that’s way too high since the airplane’s fuel system is stone simple (On/Off), plus it’s an airplane that couldn’t be easier to plan fuel endurance.

On the Shop Floor

For the well-maintained 150/152, the airplane is a pleaser because it has simple systems. But like others, the fleet isn’t getting any younger and the oldest models are closing in on 68 years in service, and for most trainers, the years haven’t been kind. But the key, like any plane, is picking one that either has been very well maintained or one that has been updated and thoroughly inspected. Yes, you’ll pay a premium for good ones, but for project planes, you’ll end up paying big.

Start with a good prepurchase inspection and comb through the logs, looking for real annual inspections (not the same pencil-whipping year after year), AD compliance, and avionics/static system upkeep. The good news is that there aren’t many FAA ADs that break the bank if not completed. One important one is AD 11-10-09 that addresses regular inspection of the seat rails, but this issue applies to some other Cessnas. The key is to prevent the seat roller housing from coming off the seat rail—you don’t want that to happen on takeoff. And we might add, no matter the airplane, make seat inspections part of the preflight—especially after maintenance. Ask us how we know—we’ve flown planes with no seat-stops installed because techs simply forgot to put them in.

Mechanics tells us that perhaps the biggest problem with these airplanes (and across the entire GA fleet, really) is corrosion, especially in planes left outside in harsh climates. Still, the 150/152 is small and simple enough where there’s really no excuse not to take it apart and do thorough inspections even if it takes longer and costs more. Again, the maintenance logbooks tell an important story. You’ll usually recognize a good plane by its logs and the money spent on its care.

And when it comes to regular maintenance, owners report that typical thorough annual inspections on a well-maintained plane generally come in around $1,500 to $2,000, but that’s if there isn’t a lot to repair. On the other hand, we’ve seen plenty of annuals on neglected 150s (and bought without inspecting them first) that racked up impressive invoices. Engine overhauls and swap will be pricey like on every other machine. We’ll look at this broad topic in an engine shop survey in an upcoming report. Mechanics are generally ho-hum when it comes to wrenching a 150 or 152—how tough can it be? But don’t ask them to lay on their backs to install avionics in them.

“From an avionics upgrade standpoint, these are some of the most uncomfortable aircraft to work behind the instrument panel. I haven’t completely refused to work on them yet but, as I age, it’s coming down the road for sure,” one tech told us. But hey, we hear similar bitching about old Mooneys.

One of the best things you can do, other than pick a well-loved bird, is join the Cessna 150/152 club. A one-year membership is $35, and there’s an active forum packed with good information on flying, maintaining, and owning the type and a good classified section, plus there’s a well attended fly-in. Over on Facebook, there’s a 150/152 page with 3,800 members that’s worth joining.

There are plenty of STC’d aftermarket pieces and parts approved for the 150/152, including modern LED lighting, the latest avionics (yes, some owners load big-screen glass into the small instrument panel), STOL kits, and speed mods. Knots2U to name one supplier, sells an aerodynamically modified main wheel/brake fairing kit ($2,410, for 2 to 3 MPH of speed), $265 wheel-hub caps with a hinged door for brake access, and gap seals. For the $765 gap seals, made from 2024-T3 Alclad Aluminum, the company advertises a 3- to 4-mph increase in cruise and 100- to 150-fpm increase in climb. We like that the wheel pants are assembled in two pieces, which allows the removal of the fairings without having to remove the tire or even jack up the aircraft. They’re finished in a gloss white gel-coat and ready for paint. There’s also a $750 vortex generator kit. And before any speed mod, we say upgrade the seat belts, which goes without saying in an Aerobat. Alpha Aviation has basic replacements, available in a few different colors, starting at $775. Hooker Harness offers some high-quality choices, too.

Owners Say …

I owned, with one or two other owners, a 1966 Cessna 150 for roughly eight years. Although it had been a trainer for a while, the airframe did not have a ton of hours. The O-200 Continental was nearing TBO but had been overhauled, and then top overhaul later on. Inspection of the engine revealed good compressions and it had good logs for the engine and prop. Models this old, unless refurbished, had the original gauges, which don’t include CHT or carb heat gauges, so we quickly added them and it proved invaluable. This combination of engine and carb iced up pretty readily, and this helped our awareness for proper carb heat usage. We flew a lot in the temperature range where the carb throat is cold while the atmosphere is warmer and moist.

The fuel gauges are not very accurate so we quickly calibrated a piece of dowel rod to stick the tanks, making sure the aircraft sat level before doing so. Since the usable weight is low, you can’t have full tanks and two large men in it at the same time. We agreed to keep the tanks no more than 3/4 full regularly and fill as needed for the passenger load/mission. Over the years, we added shoulder harnesses (that’s easy as the structure is already there), a new headliner and insulation (the cabin is noisy and drafty otherwise) and newer radios. We had a yoke-mounted GPS and added a push-to-talk switch to the left yoke. We also had corrosion treatment done during an annual as we saw signs of corrosion starting. One of the fuel senders also needed to be replaced, and later a fuel tank leaked. Not too many people will weld your leaking fuel tank, but we found a racer who was more than willing to solve the problem. Parts are readily available through multiple suppliers. The Cessna 150/152 club is a great resource for such things.

Although it had the STC for auto fuel, we generally used aviation gas, especially in the colder months. Mostly it was the hassle of finding ethanol-free fuel and getting it to the aircraft safely. After a while, we abandoned the idea and had our A&P put the timing back to aviation fuel mode, which helped the power slightly. The engine was tired but we let it go past TBO with regular borescope inspections as well as Blackstone oil analysis (based right here in our home town of Fort Wayne, Indiana). We changed a few cylinders and fought a couple stuck valves and mostly dealt with the lower spark plugs fouling easily. We changed them from the massive electrodes to the wire electrodes and that solved the problem. If we flew it more often, we probably wouldn’t have had quite the number of issues we did. That’s eventually why we sold it.

I was a low-time pilot, well out of currency, and my first co-owner was transitioning from ultralights to regular aircraft. We were still able to get insurance at a reasonable rate. Later, as the newbie moved and I took on a much more experienced pilot, our rates went down a little. The plane burned about 4 gph at cruise and would burn up to 6 gph if you stayed in the pattern. That’s pretty cheap flying! In 2003, when we bought it from the estate, sales prices were fairly normal, and after putting well over $3,000 into the updates and almost seven years into ownership, the market was lower at the time and we sold it for $4,000 less than we paid for it. We had fun with it while it lasted, two and sometimes three of us flying it and using an online program to schedule it. We used a standard flying club guidebook to model how we worked together and charged expenses like annuals or updates. It’s about as cheap as flying gets in these parts. Mind you, our hangar rentals are in the $110 to $200 a month range—which is nothing like the rates on the coasts.

—Dave Slosson, via email

I owned a 1966 Cessna 150F for about 10 years and sold it about eight years ago. It was pretty much bulletproof and I never had to do much to it except deal with a frayed rudder cable and a stuck exhaust valve on the O-200 engine. I used it to commute to my job as glider instructor in Vermont (20 minutes in the air versus 1 hour, 40 minutes by road). My son got his private rating in it. As a CFI I have flown probably over 1,000 hours in these planes, and they just take the abuse. One student liked it so much he bought one and had it shipped back home to Germany.

—Terry Mason, via email

I owned a 150L for a number of years. It was easy to fly and a relatively low-cost plane to maintain and insure—they are a nearly perfect airplane in their category. However, they are somewhat underpowered. Think carefully about your typical operating environment before purchasing one. At lower altitudes, standard temperature conditions, and with a paved 2,000-foot runway, you can safely have a passenger and full fuel. As density altitude and weight increase, performance becomes marginal to unacceptable.

Two related points: You can land in places you can’t safely take off from and the 40° flap settings on the older models demand some respect, as climb performance on a go-around can be minimal to nonexistent unless you carefully manage flap retraction.

—Greg Charest, via email

Our special thanks to Jessica Koss for helping with some of the images in this report.