Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes I think I've narrowed it down

After looking around I am leaning towards a '67G through '70K. One thing I have not been able to find exactly is what year did the seat get moved lower? The club I fly in has two G's and two M's. I MUCH prefer the 67G as I sit too low in either of the 77's. Whatever year that started in is a big minus for me.

I used what arguably could be considered the "enchilada" 150, which would be the latest M model, as a comparison to all others before it. Everybody's gross weight is pretty much 1600lbs. Empty weights are 30 or more lbs less in the earlier models. But the '71 L comes in under 1000? What's up with that? That's why I wanna know about the SEAT! Cruise being within 5 knots doesn't really break a tie much either. Range reporting I consider iffy at best. I'm not considering stretching the tanks at all but an extra half hour of range is a positive side if true.

Getting down to the years, I started with the '67 because it is the first year the panel is preferable to the rounded earlier years. An alternator was also placed that year starting on the list. I didn't go into '71 because I like the landing light on the wing. Which, of course, the 77's have placed back there. Well, OK I could live with the landing light in the cowl for a little wider choice and better "little things" upgrades. But what year did the seat....? Oh bother...

The public page of the club has a listing of year-by -year changes.

I found Wikipedia says 1973 the seats were lowered to improve headroom. I did read the stuff on the front page and the hanger. Maybe I missed it there.

Matt,
I believe that you are going to find that you are going to have to check each airplane on an individual basis.

Seat change? Supposedly the seat change happened in 1970, Matt. But I do not believe that the seats have actually been lowered." Cessna put less cushion in later seats to make them appear lower. And to give more room. So depending on if the airplane still has the original upholstery or not? Or even the original seats? In 1972 the seat tracks were lengthened by two inches. But the seat is primarily restricted from moving back by the step up to the baggage compartment.

Empty weight? That depends on accessories and options installed on the aircraft, more then the year itself.

Other changes that you didn't mention? In 1967 is when Cessna bowed the doors. Flat or tube gear? Short or tall tail? Fuses or all circuit breakers? Flap switch?.......................

We have owned a 1970 and a 1975. Though I actually prefer the 1967 to 1970 models. We now fly the 1975. Why? Because it was the best value at the time. In reality, the options really don't make that much of a difference. At least to us. They fly equally well, (ah? Except the taller tail and longer dorsal? But I have learned to live with that!)

So, unless you just must have a particular option. May I suggest that it may be better to concentrate on the individual airplane rather then restricting your self to any particular year?

Enjoy your search, Matt.

Bill
Grants Pass, Oregon

This puzzles me, Matt. I fly an M and want to fly a 66 or earlier because I think the rounded panel would improve my vis forward and down. Is it that the flat panel has so much more room for avionics?
Also, I have the landing light in the cowling, and aside from its shorter lifespan, it seems to me it would illuminate night-time taxi turns to the right.

Hearing your concerns, I have to wonder if I have it wrong.

Hey Jim,

Since I fly a round panel I'll give you my 2 cents. I do like the forward vision on my '64D model. I find the seats sit high (or seem to). Going to M model panels is probably like going from a 150 to a 172 for others…a lot more of your vision is retained within the cockpit itself. For flying VFR I think the round panel is a healthy configuration.

But since the panel was designed without much "human factor" consideration, the placement of the instruments is seemingly random! It's tough to organize the "6 pack"…and the yoke will inevitably break it up. IFR configuration would be challenging (though I've seen enough of them to know they exist). The scan I was taught in flight training is completely lost.

I'm still running a generator and using old fuses. I'm surprised though how reliable some of these old systems are…still I'd love to convert.

Matt:

I have a "G" and really like it. The seats do sit a bit higher. I noticed this in my transition from a later 150 and a 152 both of which I rented during my training. Despite a miserable, and flat, re-upholstery job, I noticed I sat higher in the G.

Since then I have re-upholstered with help from Shelby Isham, and I left in the webbing over the springs. Now I sit REALLY high. I like the higher position, though the thicker upholstery causes some difficulty for my taller passengers. I am 5'9" and have short legs.

I think the G model panel is the best of the lot. I don't like the rounded panel simply because there seems to be little logic to the placement of the instruments. The G panel is a T configuration, but seems to be smaller and lower than later panels. I also detest Cessna's attempt at color coordination in the later panels. The overlays on the G panel are all black. Though I have removed the right and left plastic overlays on my panel (see 46juliet.blogspot.com).

I also like the flat landing gear. It seems my landings improved when I slid into the G, though the higher seat position might have had something to do with that, too.

Having said all that, I would heed the advice to examine the individual airplane rather than get stuck on particular model years. A well-maintained, solid airplane that is not quite within your model year specs is better than something not so well maintained. Remember, you are purchasing an elderly machine and overall condition should be a bigger consideration than individual characteristics. Unless, of course, you plan to do a major refurbishment.

Reg

Hi thanks!

It's not just me, but a consensus in the club among all of us under 6 foot that the later models - both of them, one with new seats- sit lower. I certainly feel that way.

Jim: You do have it right. Next time you sit in a 66 though consider it's not the rounded panel alone giving you all that visibility. I would like the light in the wing for longevity, and for the fact that it illuminates some of the plane which could be useful for whatever reason I may need to look at the airframe while flying (or see if I'm flying through clouds at night). I haven't had any issues with right visibility at night with the wing light. Round panels just don't appeal to me, and the majority of planes with round panels also have very old instruments. Or so says my trending.
I also agree with Reg on the round panel, and later panel, comments.

Also, I am keeping my eyes peeled for an IFR panel. So something standardized is nice.

None of this is the be-all end-all but man you guys always have great points! What I've listed is my criteria. I'm 5'8". And I am not buying my airplane to accomodate my tall, "portly" friends. I'll still maintain my club membership so I'll rent the 172 for the people who can't fit in my 150.

Really, the seat being lower (to me, among two 150m's) is the most important and would negate everything else on my list. I can guarantee you I'd be sitting on a cushion for the life of the plane if I got one of those. I can't stand flying it and will only do so if both of the G's are rented out. Sure, once I flew in it a bunch I'd get used to it. But if circuit breakers, different flap retractions, and a cowl light are the only compelling reasons for a newest 150...it's not enough of a reason for me.

As I said before, if I am going to part with more than $19.95 (plus s/h) I'm going to get what I want and I'll wait for it. And there are alot of 67-70 examples on barnstormers. BUT I am not closing my ears so please keep the comments coming it's why I'm doing this.

Matt: I have a 150H (1968), am 5'9" and have no trouble with visibility over the panel. My brother used to have a '66 that I flew quite a bit. I really have noticed no significant difference in visibility. My airplane has an IFR panel, but not exactly in the "6 pack" arrangement. The VSI is low on the right side and difficult to see when I have my Garmin 196 mounted on the yoke.

I'll disagree with GPBill on this one. They are not all alike. When I was shopping I narrowed it down to L-M models only. When it got right down to the final decision, I narrowed it to 76-77 models only. I immediately discounted the 152s for their 24 volt electrical systems and usual high time airframes. Looking back, I would reconsider a nice 152 with 5k or less TT.

Some of the reasons in my choice of '71 and later models:

*No slanted doors
Being tall, they're a bit difficult to get in and out of, for me at least.

*Instrument panel
I liked the standard 6-pack instrumentation better. Beginning in 1970, or somewhere thereabouts, the radio stack was moved farther to the right in order to allow 8 instruments in the left panel plus, room for a clock and a suction gauge.

*Circuit Breakers
Not available in pre-76 models. I didn't want fuses and had no desire to swap them out.

*Seat Height
The 73-77s definitely sit lower.

*Eyebrow Panel
Not available on pre 70 models.

*All Metal Cowling on pre-71 models
Especially at the rounded front corners, they have a tendancy to crack. You'll notice alot of these models have been rivited back together where the cracks have formed. Yes, a new nose piece is available from Ce$$na. Fiberglass nosebowls on 71-77 models are much easier to repair and aren't as prone to cracking.

*Longer vertical fin on the empennage
I just liked it better.

*Round Spring Steel Gearlegs
After flying both, I've come to the conclusion the flat ones are better, especially on grass or rough surfaces. With the flat spring gear, the gear moves up and down only. With the round steel gear, the gear has a tendancy to move up-down, left-right and in lots of circular patterns. Round steel gear leg covers have a tendancy to crack at the step opening. Cessna finally came out with a redesigned later model 152 gear leg fairing that eliminated this problem.

There's nothing really wrong with the entire line of 150s and I'm a huge fan of the straight tails. I just didn't want to own one. I was always under the impression that the later the model, the better the improvements were from the factory...just like cars. Others may argue that point.

Narrow it down to what you want to live with and focus on those year models. Trade-a-Plane is excellent, as is Barnstormers and Controller. Most times, the nicest ones seem to be at the farthest geographical location. Then again, the diamond in the rough may be hidden right in your own backyard.

Good luck on your search!