Cessna 150 STC questions, Cont. IO-240?
12-12-2017, 12:19 AM
#12
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
The problem with that O-240 is its high price. A straight tail 150/150 allows more aft CG than a 152 for lighter pitch control. The larger vertical stab nulls out any ill effects of 150HP up front. Best part is the 400' over gross wt takeoffs and Lear 24 style deck angles. It is the only Cessna that is actually fun to fly. Dont knock a fastback 172, they are better fliers than later models and have much better seating for short people.
12-12-2017, 02:05 AM
#13
All is fine at .79
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,082
150’s start at around $17k and DA-20’s are still a while lot more expensive.
Haven’t found a IO-240 STC on the FAA website or I didn’t look well enough.
They’re actually fun to fly.
A 172, don’t care which model is about as exciting as a wet paper bag and they fly like that too.
Trust me I’ve got a couple of thousand hours in Cessna singles. Don’t care for the 182 either.
Once saw a 150 painted in the ‘new’ 182 paintscheme.
While we’re at it...how about a IO-240 and an electric constant speed prop?
Climb baby climb
Haven’t found a IO-240 STC on the FAA website or I didn’t look well enough.
They’re actually fun to fly.
A 172, don’t care which model is about as exciting as a wet paper bag and they fly like that too.
Trust me I’ve got a couple of thousand hours in Cessna singles. Don’t care for the 182 either.
Once saw a 150 painted in the ‘new’ 182 paintscheme.
While we’re at it...how about a IO-240 and an electric constant speed prop?
Climb baby climb
12-12-2017, 03:29 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by skyhwk
Google "FAA STC Database". You can search the database by make/model. If any STC is available, you'll see it there.
My guess is that you will find it cheaper and quicker to install an O-320.
12-12-2017, 06:07 AM
#15
All is fine at .79
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,082
Yeah but I don’t want the fuel burn of a 0-320, it’s 2017 we can go fuel injection
The fuel burn of a IO-240 is essentially the same as a 0-200.
Also weight wise I think it’s almost equal.
Here’s a perfect candidate, knock him down another grand or so:
https://www.aerotrader.com/listing/1966-Cessna-150G-123241867
The fuel burn of a IO-240 is essentially the same as a 0-200.
Also weight wise I think it’s almost equal.
Here’s a perfect candidate, knock him down another grand or so:
https://www.aerotrader.com/listing/1966-Cessna-150G-123241867
12-12-2017, 11:27 AM
#17
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Doesn't really matter. TBO is a recommendation and never a guarantee.
You heard it here first.
Someone call the airlines! TBO doesn't matter!!
They've been wrong the WHOLE TIME!!!!
12-12-2017, 12:55 PM
#18
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Wow... TBO doesn't matter.
You heard it here first.
Someone call the airlines! TBO doesn't matter!!
They've been wrong the WHOLE TIME!!!!
You heard it here first.
Someone call the airlines! TBO doesn't matter!!
They've been wrong the WHOLE TIME!!!!
12-12-2017, 04:15 PM
#19
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by kevbo
Only when the law requires it. It is fairly common to see 3K hrs on factory Lycoming cyls and 5-6K on lower ends if they fly a lot. It is also fairly common to see cyls and cams fail by 500 hrs.
I'm sure they'll need a good laugh.
12-12-2017, 04:41 PM
#20
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Those operators are required to follow the manufactures recommendations or else convince the FAA why they shouldn't. Remember Alaska 261, they didn't follow manufacturers maintenance schedule and the FAA was quite OK with it. Part 91 and 134.5 operators run equipment on condition.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
