Would you ever consider flying cross-county in a Cessna 152?
- DoggzillaLv 69 years agoFavorite Answer
Absolutely, I pity these people who think a plane is just a way to get from point A to point B, its not all about how fast it goes. Its a way to see the country from a point of view that nobody else ever gets to see, and you would be surprised at how much more you get to see just flying over your own neighborhood, let alone the entire country.
Also, ignore that idiot who said the 152 doesnt have a speed advantage over a car, not only does it fly nearly twice as fast, it doesnt have to follow roads. Just as an example, flying from Boston to LA is 2600 miles by air, while it is over 2900 by ground. It would take 23 hours to fly in a 152, compared to 44 hours in a car. It would take less than 15 hours if you were flying even the oldest Mooney M20, which is obviously a third of the time, so small planes are still better than the best car.
If anybody thinks any car is better than the worst plane, they are morons. You can keep your Lambo, Ill take any plane over that.
- KatieLv 44 years ago
I have many hours in Cessna 152s (and the very similar predecessor, the Cessna 150). It is a great training aircraft, is very durable, and is very economical to own and operate. It makes transitioning to the 172 a breeze. I also think it is a lot of fun to fly. I also have a lot of time in Cherokees and I think the 150 and 152 are slightly more difficult to fly and land well than Cherokees. This is a good thing, as you will learn better habits in the 150 and 152. Also, you can do spin training (very valuable experience) in a 150 or 152, but not in some Cherokees. The 150 and 152 also can be induced to spin pretty easily, which is not true with some other entry-level aircraft, such as the 172. There are some drawbacks. I'll spend some time on these, but don't get the wrong idea -- it's a wonderful airplane, it just has limitations, as all aircraft do. Okay, the drawbacks: Most 152s and 150s currently available in the rental fleet have been used as trainers for MANY years -- indeed, for a long time the general aviation market was in the dumps, and 150s and 152s were the only readily available two-seat trainers. This means that most of them have seen heavy use and cosmetically are not very appealing. Not a big deal if you're training, but a big deal if you are taking Mom for the first flight. The aircraft was cramped by the standards of the day, and is even more snug now that Americans are so much fatter. It is too heavy to qualify as a Light Sport Aircraft, so flying one requires a private pilot certificate. Moreover, a number of modern LSAs can beat its performance hands down. It may just be my imagination, but turbulence seems much more noticeable in the 150 and 152 than in other two- and four-seat aircraft I've flown in. The 150 and 152 are very load-limited. Anyone who flies one needs to keep a careful eye on the weight. With two fat people you will likely be over gross. The aircraft can be nicely equipped for IFR training, but avionics can be heavy so you'll likely need a very thin IFR instructor. Stock Cessna avionics, and the replacement avionics that have been put into 150s and 152s over the decades, tend to be pretty bad. There are exceptions, but you tend to see a lot of crap in 150 and 152 panels. By the standards of modern entry-level aircraft, they have relatively low fuel capacity, even given their very economical fuel burn. They aren't fast. But hey, we like flying, so slow is okay, right? :) They are somewhat prone to carburetor icing and (particularly in the 152) lead fouling of the plugs. The upshot is that they are trainers, not traveling airplanes. You can certainly use one for long distance travel (and I have) but really for that kind of work you'll want a 172 or Cherokee at least. But when it's all said and done, if you told me the only airplane I could fly for the rest of my life would be a beat-up 152, I could still die happy.
- FanManLv 59 years ago
If by "cross country" you mean the FAA definition of any flight more than 50 miles, then yes, thousands of student pilots have flown XC in a 152... it's one of the requirements for a pilot certificate. If you mean "across the entire country", well, in a slow airplane like a 152 it would be a minor adventure, but sure, I'd do it if I had the time. You get to see the sights and meet people (at every fuel stop, since the 152's range isn't that much).
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Went on a 1200 mile cross country in a Luscombe once, so I would think the Cessna 152 would be OK if you weren't in a hurry. Just enjoy the scenery and get a lot of navigation practice. I remember that cockpit got awful narrow and the seats got awful hard after 10 or 12 hours.
- 0NE TRlCK P0NYLv 79 years ago
I flew from Toronto Ontario, Canada to Anchorage, Alaska in a Cessna 140 many decades ago. A buddy of mine was ferrying the plane and asked if I'd like to come along. I got in quite a few hours of control time too.
We had beautiful flying conditions through the Rockies.
Would I do it again? Give the place and the time and I'll be there if you let me at the controls. I don't have a license but I can keep it in a straight line.
- SkyDogLv 49 years ago
How do you think a Cessna 152 got to where it is / was?
I've ferried only one, mostly due to the fact that at 6'2" I was extremely uncomfortable. Other than that, there was / is nothing wrong with light aircraft.
- Anonymous9 years ago
I've flown coast to coast (round trip) in a 80hp Cessna 140 with no nav gear. A C-152 would be fine and would be a great experience. It's all in choosing a viable route.
- 9 years ago
Personally No because of the noise, THe propeller being right by your ears will give you a headache and you'll kill you self by the end of the flight. Also, you don't have the luxury of flying on a Boeing or Airbus with leg room, while you are crammed up in a Cessna. Also, the stops for fuel would become annoying after awhile and if you are owning/ renting it can become a bit pricey. WHile with the Boeing and Airbuses you'll have one non-stop trip and your there with out the hassle of a Cessna 152. I feel traveling on a Cessna is also slow compared to the speeds of the jetliners. So, no to flying cross country on a Cessna.
- Irv SLv 79 years ago
Yes, but then I've gone cross country on a motorcycle.
You'd have to be doing it for the love of flying though.