Cessna 150 with 150hp bew/mgw
 

Ok so any one with info on C150/150 max gross weight and average bew? I'm looking at buying one and really want to be able to carry 2 full fuel and light baggage without being over weight.

Shameless plug, but selling my Cessna 150 now as I just bought a Baron...if your interested in a 150/100, let me know.

I am not familiar with the Sparrowhawk or whatever this one is, but you can't carry two adults plus full fuel in a regular 150 or 152 let alone a heavy one. It would have to have wing extensions and an STC for high gross- makes no sense for the cost, just get a 172 and be done with it. And since you mention carrying baggage I assume you mean to go somewhere, but these airplanes are not meant for x-cty. The seats are crap, cabin is small, ground speed is slow, and the range is a few hundred miles.

Cubdriver is right about the useful load on a standard 150/152. Can't remember the gross wgt on the 150, but its 1650 on the 152. With an empty weight of approx 1150, you're only going to get about a 500 lb useful load. Subtract about 150 lbs for fuel and you are left with 350 lbs for folks and bags. The o-320 is comparable in size and weight to the o-235 (talking 152's). I believe the o-320 is only about 30 lbs heavier. When you total up the installation and prop change, you will pare down the total useful load to approx 450. Not too bad for the increase in performance. My biggest concern with the STC has not been with the decreased useful wgt but rather the big increase in fuel consumption. A good compromise is the sparrowhawk conversion. STC for the o-235 installs new high compression pistons and a removal of the McCauley prop and installation of a Sensenich prop. Fuel burn doesn't increase too much and the useful load is barely decreased.
BTW- I believe the C150/152 is a fine airplane for cross-country travel aircraft.

Back in 74 I flew a brand new 150 from the factory in Strother, Kansas to the flight school I was attending in Miami,FL. That was a LONG trip, but probably the most fun I ever had in an airplane. 1,350 NM if my memory serves. Took me 13.5 hours. When I went to take my Commercial check ride, the DPE asked me what I flew for my long x/c. I showed him that flight, and he said "Yup, that qualifies".;)

Well I saw on one stc it raised the mgw to 1760.

STC's

There folks might know something, even though the STC applies only to a 152.

I did my SES in a 150/150. The GW increase included both the float and engine STC - I'm not sure where one ended and the other started. :) Note that your range will drop unless you run at low power and lean aggressively, negating the advantage of the ability (if you even have it) to run full tanks with two people. My feeling is that if you need to run at "normal" 150 loads / ranges but need more climb for some reason, then this setup may be worthwhile - especially if your engine is runout and needs overhaul anyway. Otherwise a 172 looks good, as noted above.

I'll say the airplane had no quirks; it flew fine. The BEW increase would be the difference between an O200 and O320, which I wouldn't think would be much (edit: seems to be about 35 lbs.), plus possibly a beefed up engine mount and a heavier propeller. I don't know what they do about the CG moving forward; ask the Sparrowhawk folks above.

I got the official number for the plane at 1760 it's mostly going to used for short hops to the beach. Just a thought about the limited range seems like people take issue with but I would through this out to you all where or when would you go somewhere more than two hours without stopping to use the bathroom and stretch, just a thought. Did find an stc for a 14.5 gal tank adds 12lbs empty. That would give u over 3rh range.

Really, it was a dynamite airplane on floats (at least to learn in), and I'll bet it'd be great at banner towing. I can't see much use otherwise, and like I said unless the O-200 engine is already run out it won't possibly be cost-effective compared to an off-the-shelf 172. Buying one that's already "done", as the OP seems to be alluding to, might make more sense - but I don't know how many are available.

The OP said "full fuel"; if in fact you're looking for three hours run time I'd think a 150 with long-range tanks would still fill the bill - no fuel tank STC needed.

As I said in a previous post, I flew a new 150 from Kansas to Miami. The last leg, which was from Tallahassee to Miami (OPF), took me just under 3.5 hours. This plane was a box stock 150. No long range tanks. Granted, I was almost on fumes when I got there, but no problem. I would not have pulled a long leg like that unless I was sure the weather was CAVU.