Cessna 150 vs 152

Cessna’s 150 and 152 two-seat trainers dominated the flight school lineup for decades.

A sizeable portion of the pilot population learned to fly in one of these two planes, and many soloed in one of them—one of the most memorable days in any pilot’s life. In fact, it can be tough to find a pilot anywhere that hasn’t got at least a few hours in one or the other.  

Soon, every single one of these planes will be more than 40 years old, with the oldest approaching 70.

Many are still airworthy, and new pilots are honing their skills in them every day. But, with their age comes increased maintenance and insurance costs.

Newer Light Sport Aircraft rules have enabled plane makers to build lighter, newer planes that meet the new specifications. As a result, these planes are slowly being retired and replaced by a new line of LSA two-seaters. 

Here’s a look at these classic two-seat trainers, including what’s similar and what’s different about the 150 vs 152. 

Cessna 150

Cessna made two very similar aircraft: the 150 and the 152.

Both were two-seat, high-wing, tricycle-gear airplanes. The 150 was introduced in 1957, two years after the successful 172 four-seat trainer. 

The 150 is a descendant of the Cessna 140, a high-wing, two-seat taildragger that the company stopped making in 1951.

The early 150s had a distinctive straight tail and lacked a rear window, making them look much more like the older 140. Later versions looked more like a scaled-down 172, with similar designs and windows. 

The 150s were marketed with different names based on their equipment:

• Standard
• Trainer
• Commuter
• Aerobat

Like most Cessnas, the 150 progressed with modest upgrades and changes, the first being dubbed the 150A and the last the 150M.

According to Wikipedia, Cessna made 23,839 150s between 1958 and 1977, making it the fifth-most-produced aircraft in history.

The 150 was built to compete with other two-seat trainers on the market at the time, including the Beechcraft Skipper, Piper Tomahawk, Ercoupe, and Grumman/American AA-1 airplanes. 

In some ways, it traces its lineage back to war trainers like the Piper J-3 Cub—an inexpensive aircraft built to teach flying skills.

The airframe shares many of the same characteristics of the 172 and other Cessnas that came from the 1950s drawing boards.

The 150 was powered by a Continental O-200 four-cylinder engine that made 100 horsepower.

It incorporated large, slotted Fowler flaps that were more effective than the 140’s plain flaps.

The electrically activated flaps had settings down to 40 degrees, and it had simple and reliable spring steel landing gear struts to take all those student landings with grace.

Cessna 152

In 1977, Cessna replaced the 150 with the 152. 

The differences between the two are minor, the biggest being that the 152 used a Lycoming engine with 110 horsepower. The 152 was also updated with a maximum 30-degree flap setting that matched the 172.

The 152s never had a particular name assigned to them, although an Aerobat version was also built. The 152II was not a separate variant but rather a package that included more equipment better suited for IFR flying. In total, 7,584 152s were built between 1977 and 1985.

The company stopped producing the 152 in 1985.

Due to the economy, it scaled back on its small aircraft production at that time. When it reintroduced small general aviation planes in the mid-1990s, it did not include a two-seater in the new lineup. 

By the Numbers — Comparing the 150 vs the 152

Even though the newest 150/152s are approaching 40 years old, many airworthy examples still operate worldwide.

Their simplicity means they are still inexpensive to maintain, insure, and operate.

Besides flight schools, many private owners keep 150s and 152s for personal commuting or pleasure flying. Prices for used 150s and 152s on Trade-a-Plane vary from $30,000 to over $90,000. 

Here’s how the original 150 compares to the updated 152s. Despite the minor updates, the airframes are more similar than different.

If you were in the market for one or the other, the ultimate choice would probably be finding the airframe with the greatest value. That is the one with the lowest hours on the airframe and engine and the best maintenance and upkeep history.

	1976 Cessna 150F Commuter	1985 Cessna 152
Length Overall	23 ft 11 in	24 ft 1 in
Wingspan	33 ft 2 in	33 ft 4 in
Max Takeoff Weight	1,600 pounds	1,670 pounds
Useable Fuel	22.5 gallons	24.5 gallons
Full Fuel Payload	~ 343 pounds	~ 375 pounds
Max Cruise Speed	~ 95 kt	~ 105 kias
Max Range	420 nm	415 nm
Max Rate of Climb	670 fpm	715 fpm
Engine	Continental O-200 100-hp	Lycoming O-235 110-hp

Modern Alternatives to the Classic Two-Seaters

Cessna does not currently make any two-seater aircraft.

From 2007 to 2013, Cessna produced the all-new 162 Skycatcher. This effectively replaced the 152 but aimed at the newly created Light Sport Aircraft market.

Unfortunately, economic conditions led to poor sales, and the company only made 192 of these planes.

Today, Light Sport Aircraft (LSAs) have created a boom in planes that would be considered competition with the C-152.

Planes like the Tecnam, Flight Design CTLS, and Czech SportCruiser have similar specifications. Another conventional two-place training aircraft worth mentioning is the Diamond DA-20 Katana. 

It’s important to note that neither the 150 or the 152—nor any of their predecessors, for that matter—meet the FAA’s requirements of being an LSA.

Even the lightest Cessnas exceed the FAA current limit of 1,320 pounds.