![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Well dang. I believe that Ahunt is correct. One can look at www.aso.com or trade-a-plane and see lots of photos that confirm his statement. Kitplane01
Ahunt wrote "That profile with the 15% bigger tail and the long dorsal fin was only used on C-150M models 1975-77". But the web site http://www.cessna150-152.com/faqs/models.htm says otherwise. Therefore I have reverted it.
"More pilots have flown Cessna 150/152s than any other single model of airplane." Boy, I don't think so: more Cessna 170/172's have been sold, and they're still going strong - they're bound to trump the 150/2 series. - DavidWBrooks 19:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) This comment has been removed from the article.
106 kts Cruise Speed?! Whow! I wanna buy that 150 with the O200 Motor... I always calculate with 85 / 75 kts.
134.93.161.18 12:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's what the pilot's operating manual says. It's not what my C-150 gets, bit that's the book figure.
Some times the costs of changing the engine to allow mogas out-weigh the benift. It is also illegal to burn mogas in some countries even with a permit. I'll leave the mogas comment but it is disturbing that people in the aviation field advertising mogas can be used in aircraft even when modified. Thats just my two-cents.--
capt. erwii 05:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Famous Cessna 150s (just for the record): one flown by Frank Corder into the White House on Sept 11, 1994 (suicide flight). another caused evacuation of the U.S. Capitol and White House by flying within 3 miles of the White House on May 11, 2005 (accidental intrusion into restricted airspace).
Homebuilding 70.130.42.69 ( talk) 03:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC) This user soloed in a Cessna 150 at 3AlphaUniform,1Kilo1,IndiaCharlieTango,SierraLimaNovember,&3KiloMike
I'm not going to flag it but I want to know what popular opinion to this suggestion would be. Right now as it stands both articles are sparse and rather repetitive, and many if not most aviation resources lump them together anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.10.235 ( talk • contribs) 11 February 2006
Minor corrections, I think... following are correct for 1968 (150H) model.
68.102.38.24 04:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Pete Levy, Wichita, KS
I actually looked this up after reading something about Michel Lotito. Would it be benificial to indicate that this plane has been eaten? :)-- 24.231.16.109 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Come-on all you guys who know airplanes only by spotting them! Be realistic, for god's sake! I've flown this piece of shit (Designed to transport old ladys from point A to point B) since 1973 (Much to my disgust). NO 150 can ever be brought to cruise at 123 mph. 97-103 mph (Depending on haw bad it has been treated) is something of the REAL world 81.246.174.191 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
At 2400 RPM running two legs in opposite directions perpendicular to the posted winds aloft at 3,000 MSL and measuring speed as time to two known points and averaging the result I've flown my C 150F at an average of 112 mph. If you dislike the C 150 so much, why have you flown them for 23 years?
Homebuilding 70.130.42.69 ( talk) 03:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that someone has removed the separate Cessna T-51 article and made that a redirect, and so I removed the reference to it as a "variant with a separate article" in the Infobox. The question which remains—related to the "US Military Service" section—is whether the T-51 designation is real, which is to say, official. The U. S. Air Force Academy's site's Fact Sheet on Airmanship ( Fact Sheet) refers to Cessna T-41s as T-41s, mentioning separately that the academy operates "twelve Cessna 172s," but the Fact Sheet refers to the 150-horsepower 150s as "150-horsepower Cessna 150 aircraft."
That, though, is not the end. An article from the Academy Spirit, the school newspaper, refers to an individual as an "IP for the T-41 and T-51." ( Academy Spirit Article) A schedule for the 2006 Parents' Weekend advertises the display of aircraft, including the "Blanik TG-10B, Blanik TG-10C advanced aerobatic glider, the Schempp-Hirth TG-15B, Discus 2b, T-41, T-51, and the DA-20." ( Schedule)
Without more information, it looks as if "T-51" may be a kind of local designation or nickname. Does anyone have anything decisive and verifiable on this? It would be really nice to resolve this accurately in the article. — SkipperPilot 23:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I *Like* having a trvia section. Therefore I've removed the 'trivia' tag which suggests removing the trivia section. However, if everyone disagrees I'll back off. Kitplane01 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:14:04, August 2, 2007 (UTC).
Rather than just complain how poorly this article reads I have re-worked it to remove text redundancies and unsourced statements, along with fixing some NPOV issues, US-centric pricing, clarity, grammar and spelling mistakes as well. I have re-worked the trivia section so that the information that was in it now appears in other more appropriate sections instead and also removed the "trivia tag" Ahunt 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed a number of links to dates that have nothing to do with the article content. This is explained in the Manual of Style which says "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Ahunt 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
How, exactly, does this fall under the scope of military history? ericg ✈ 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The article says, "The only changes this model year were the propeller on the A150L Aerobat, to a new Clark Y". Now, unless thing have changed, the Clark Y isn't a prop foil design, so more than the prop has changed. Can somebody fix it? Trekphiler ( talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have soloed a 150, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!
Code | Result | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|{{ User:Ahunt/150}} |
|
Usage |
- Ahunt ( talk) 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The cost statements actually seem well referenced to me. Is there one in particular you doubt? Since I own a C-150, I feel like I've got a pretty good idea for what it costs to own one. But I'm willing to make changes to improve this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 ( talk • contribs) 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good debate to have, so I have invited the other members of WikiProject Aircraft to participate in this debate here. The outcome here may result in changes one way or the other to the more global project page content guidelines. Hopefully we will see some of them offer some thoughts here over the weekend. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we have a consensus from editors here to indicate that "operating costs" don't really belong in aircraft type article for a variety of reasons. On that basis I will go ahead and remove the section from this article and also add some general information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots of things that can be written about C-150s might be interesting, but that doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. I have owned six aircraft, including a C-150G that I had for six years. I am also the author of a best-selling book on how to buy light aircraft and what they cost to operate, so I am pretty familiar with the issues and the variability and uncertainty involved in costing them. - Ahunt ( talk) 10:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Reims built F150's had Rolls-Royce manufactured Continental O-200 (100 hp) -engines, not bigger O-240's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vastajalka ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
While this has been suggested before at Talk:Cessna 150#Merge with Cessna 152?, it appears that no consensus was reached. My reasons for suggesting the merge are:
Thoughts? McNeight ( talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone confirm that you could get four people in to a C150? As the spec currently reads, you can get a pilot, passenger, and two kids. I thought but am not certain that the child seat was for one kid only. Kitplane01 ( talk) 06:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
This edit says the Meteor Crater accident wasn't due to fuel. NTSB says it was. Isn't NTSB the better source? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION STALL IN FLIGHT: LOW PASS PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - FAILED TO OBTAIN/MAINTAIN FLYING SPEED MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - UNWARRANTED LOW FLYING FIRE AFTER IMPACT
— ntsb.gov
The plane took off from Winslow after being refueled on August 8, 1964 and since the crater is only a few miles away must have had its trouble begin very soon. The two-seater plane; the smallest of the Cessnas heavy with fuel flew over Meteor Crater. There the hot thin air caused a loss of lift and the plane went into the bowl of the crater. This was not a sightseeing tour. The intent of their dad the children relates was only to fly over the crater. Now caught in the crater Captain Kidd attempts to gather up enough speed to make it out over the rim. But, the heavy plane and thin hot air seem to prevent that. As a personal note from my own time in the crater bottom I would expect it to be difficult to get going very fast in only the half-mile plus diameter near the crater floor. The two men circle in this battle for lift till the accident happens as the plane completely stalls.
— Jim Tobin - The Plane Crash Revisited - Meteorite Times Magazine
'Correction' The Reims series wasn't not equipped with O-240, but the O-200 from Rolls Royce, witch was most largely identical with Continental O-200A (without any fuel pump, even not the mechanical drilling preparation and cover plate seen on later O-200's from Continental. Cosy-- 81.13.237.223 ( talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hy there I have to made a correction: belonging that source : French article about Reims and C150 There has been a total of 1764 C150 produced by Reims Aviation in France. 336 of them have been (or mostly still are) C150 Aerobat. So nearly the half of worldwide sold C150 Aerobat went produced in France. Cessna sold from the C152 with the Lycoming O-235L2C a total of 7584 planes, the numbers produced from Reims are actually not known but I will search for.
Other articles about REIMS:
1: bancrupty procedures 2003 after 64 years of existence: http://www.lunion.presse.fr/article/autres-actus/reims-aerospace-64-ans-dhistoire-remoise 2: Informations from Cessna himself under "vintage": really not very helpfull and wrong: http://www.cessna.com/news/fast-facts.html
cosy-- 81.13.237.223 ( talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cessna 150. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
A IP recently changed the height to 6'8.88". I looked it up in the POH and it is 8'6", which is what the specs had said before the change. The same IP also changed the length to 21'6", but the POH says 23'11". I think that this is just vandalism. - Ahunt ( talk) 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cessna 150. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Where did the production figures in the "Production" section come from? There is no citation. These numbers add up to 23,949, which agrees with the infobox, but the Thompson book (as cited, I don't have it) reportedly says 23,839 while the Clarke book (cited elsewhere, and I have it) claims 23,840 from official published Cessna figures. What gives? I wonder if this is one of many instances of serial numbers being allotted for some aircraft that were never actually produced. Carguychris ( talk) 00:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Well dang. I believe that Ahunt is correct. One can look at www.aso.com or trade-a-plane and see lots of photos that confirm his statement. Kitplane01
Ahunt wrote "That profile with the 15% bigger tail and the long dorsal fin was only used on C-150M models 1975-77". But the web site http://www.cessna150-152.com/faqs/models.htm says otherwise. Therefore I have reverted it.
"More pilots have flown Cessna 150/152s than any other single model of airplane." Boy, I don't think so: more Cessna 170/172's have been sold, and they're still going strong - they're bound to trump the 150/2 series. - DavidWBrooks 19:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) This comment has been removed from the article.
106 kts Cruise Speed?! Whow! I wanna buy that 150 with the O200 Motor... I always calculate with 85 / 75 kts.
134.93.161.18 12:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's what the pilot's operating manual says. It's not what my C-150 gets, bit that's the book figure.
Some times the costs of changing the engine to allow mogas out-weigh the benift. It is also illegal to burn mogas in some countries even with a permit. I'll leave the mogas comment but it is disturbing that people in the aviation field advertising mogas can be used in aircraft even when modified. Thats just my two-cents.--
capt. erwii 05:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Famous Cessna 150s (just for the record): one flown by Frank Corder into the White House on Sept 11, 1994 (suicide flight). another caused evacuation of the U.S. Capitol and White House by flying within 3 miles of the White House on May 11, 2005 (accidental intrusion into restricted airspace).
Homebuilding 70.130.42.69 ( talk) 03:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC) This user soloed in a Cessna 150 at 3AlphaUniform,1Kilo1,IndiaCharlieTango,SierraLimaNovember,&3KiloMike
I'm not going to flag it but I want to know what popular opinion to this suggestion would be. Right now as it stands both articles are sparse and rather repetitive, and many if not most aviation resources lump them together anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.10.235 ( talk • contribs) 11 February 2006
Minor corrections, I think... following are correct for 1968 (150H) model.
68.102.38.24 04:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Pete Levy, Wichita, KS
I actually looked this up after reading something about Michel Lotito. Would it be benificial to indicate that this plane has been eaten? :)-- 24.231.16.109 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Come-on all you guys who know airplanes only by spotting them! Be realistic, for god's sake! I've flown this piece of shit (Designed to transport old ladys from point A to point B) since 1973 (Much to my disgust). NO 150 can ever be brought to cruise at 123 mph. 97-103 mph (Depending on haw bad it has been treated) is something of the REAL world 81.246.174.191 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
At 2400 RPM running two legs in opposite directions perpendicular to the posted winds aloft at 3,000 MSL and measuring speed as time to two known points and averaging the result I've flown my C 150F at an average of 112 mph. If you dislike the C 150 so much, why have you flown them for 23 years?
Homebuilding 70.130.42.69 ( talk) 03:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that someone has removed the separate Cessna T-51 article and made that a redirect, and so I removed the reference to it as a "variant with a separate article" in the Infobox. The question which remains—related to the "US Military Service" section—is whether the T-51 designation is real, which is to say, official. The U. S. Air Force Academy's site's Fact Sheet on Airmanship ( Fact Sheet) refers to Cessna T-41s as T-41s, mentioning separately that the academy operates "twelve Cessna 172s," but the Fact Sheet refers to the 150-horsepower 150s as "150-horsepower Cessna 150 aircraft."
That, though, is not the end. An article from the Academy Spirit, the school newspaper, refers to an individual as an "IP for the T-41 and T-51." ( Academy Spirit Article) A schedule for the 2006 Parents' Weekend advertises the display of aircraft, including the "Blanik TG-10B, Blanik TG-10C advanced aerobatic glider, the Schempp-Hirth TG-15B, Discus 2b, T-41, T-51, and the DA-20." ( Schedule)
Without more information, it looks as if "T-51" may be a kind of local designation or nickname. Does anyone have anything decisive and verifiable on this? It would be really nice to resolve this accurately in the article. — SkipperPilot 23:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I *Like* having a trvia section. Therefore I've removed the 'trivia' tag which suggests removing the trivia section. However, if everyone disagrees I'll back off. Kitplane01 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:14:04, August 2, 2007 (UTC).
Rather than just complain how poorly this article reads I have re-worked it to remove text redundancies and unsourced statements, along with fixing some NPOV issues, US-centric pricing, clarity, grammar and spelling mistakes as well. I have re-worked the trivia section so that the information that was in it now appears in other more appropriate sections instead and also removed the "trivia tag" Ahunt 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed a number of links to dates that have nothing to do with the article content. This is explained in the Manual of Style which says "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Ahunt 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
How, exactly, does this fall under the scope of military history? ericg ✈ 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The article says, "The only changes this model year were the propeller on the A150L Aerobat, to a new Clark Y". Now, unless thing have changed, the Clark Y isn't a prop foil design, so more than the prop has changed. Can somebody fix it? Trekphiler ( talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have soloed a 150, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!
Code | Result | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|{{ User:Ahunt/150}} |
|
Usage |
- Ahunt ( talk) 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The cost statements actually seem well referenced to me. Is there one in particular you doubt? Since I own a C-150, I feel like I've got a pretty good idea for what it costs to own one. But I'm willing to make changes to improve this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 ( talk • contribs) 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good debate to have, so I have invited the other members of WikiProject Aircraft to participate in this debate here. The outcome here may result in changes one way or the other to the more global project page content guidelines. Hopefully we will see some of them offer some thoughts here over the weekend. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we have a consensus from editors here to indicate that "operating costs" don't really belong in aircraft type article for a variety of reasons. On that basis I will go ahead and remove the section from this article and also add some general information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots of things that can be written about C-150s might be interesting, but that doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. I have owned six aircraft, including a C-150G that I had for six years. I am also the author of a best-selling book on how to buy light aircraft and what they cost to operate, so I am pretty familiar with the issues and the variability and uncertainty involved in costing them. - Ahunt ( talk) 10:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Reims built F150's had Rolls-Royce manufactured Continental O-200 (100 hp) -engines, not bigger O-240's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vastajalka ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
While this has been suggested before at Talk:Cessna 150#Merge with Cessna 152?, it appears that no consensus was reached. My reasons for suggesting the merge are:
Thoughts? McNeight ( talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone confirm that you could get four people in to a C150? As the spec currently reads, you can get a pilot, passenger, and two kids. I thought but am not certain that the child seat was for one kid only. Kitplane01 ( talk) 06:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
This edit says the Meteor Crater accident wasn't due to fuel. NTSB says it was. Isn't NTSB the better source? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION STALL IN FLIGHT: LOW PASS PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - FAILED TO OBTAIN/MAINTAIN FLYING SPEED MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - UNWARRANTED LOW FLYING FIRE AFTER IMPACT
— ntsb.gov
The plane took off from Winslow after being refueled on August 8, 1964 and since the crater is only a few miles away must have had its trouble begin very soon. The two-seater plane; the smallest of the Cessnas heavy with fuel flew over Meteor Crater. There the hot thin air caused a loss of lift and the plane went into the bowl of the crater. This was not a sightseeing tour. The intent of their dad the children relates was only to fly over the crater. Now caught in the crater Captain Kidd attempts to gather up enough speed to make it out over the rim. But, the heavy plane and thin hot air seem to prevent that. As a personal note from my own time in the crater bottom I would expect it to be difficult to get going very fast in only the half-mile plus diameter near the crater floor. The two men circle in this battle for lift till the accident happens as the plane completely stalls.
— Jim Tobin - The Plane Crash Revisited - Meteorite Times Magazine
'Correction' The Reims series wasn't not equipped with O-240, but the O-200 from Rolls Royce, witch was most largely identical with Continental O-200A (without any fuel pump, even not the mechanical drilling preparation and cover plate seen on later O-200's from Continental. Cosy-- 81.13.237.223 ( talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hy there I have to made a correction: belonging that source : French article about Reims and C150 There has been a total of 1764 C150 produced by Reims Aviation in France. 336 of them have been (or mostly still are) C150 Aerobat. So nearly the half of worldwide sold C150 Aerobat went produced in France. Cessna sold from the C152 with the Lycoming O-235L2C a total of 7584 planes, the numbers produced from Reims are actually not known but I will search for.
Other articles about REIMS:
1: bancrupty procedures 2003 after 64 years of existence: http://www.lunion.presse.fr/article/autres-actus/reims-aerospace-64-ans-dhistoire-remoise 2: Informations from Cessna himself under "vintage": really not very helpfull and wrong: http://www.cessna.com/news/fast-facts.html
cosy-- 81.13.237.223 ( talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cessna 150. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
A IP recently changed the height to 6'8.88". I looked it up in the POH and it is 8'6", which is what the specs had said before the change. The same IP also changed the length to 21'6", but the POH says 23'11". I think that this is just vandalism. - Ahunt ( talk) 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cessna 150. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Where did the production figures in the "Production" section come from? There is no citation. These numbers add up to 23,949, which agrees with the infobox, but the Thompson book (as cited, I don't have it) reportedly says 23,839 while the Clarke book (cited elsewhere, and I have it) claims 23,840 from official published Cessna figures. What gives? I wonder if this is one of many instances of serial numbers being allotted for some aircraft that were never actually produced. Carguychris ( talk) 00:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)