Talking to a young guy (18yo) today, he just got his PPL and he said he wanted a Cessna 152 because he could do acro in it. I said, only if it's an Aerobat.

He said, all 150s/152s were aerobatic.

I didn't try to argue because I thought I could be wrong, so I ask yous guys.

Are all 150s/152s aerobatic, or just the Aerobats?

IIRC the Aerobats have beefed up wing spars/structure to allow for higher G loading, and I think they have windows in the roof. Do they have bigger engines, also?

I didn't think the airframe or engine was anything different. I thought the biggest difference was the doors were jettisonable. I could be wrong though.

Aerobats have larger cross section wing struts (172 size). Extra structure at wing spar where strut attaches. Beefed up horizontal stab at main spar, G meter, quick release doors, sky lights, different seat belt/harness system and removable seat cushions for parachutes. And of course different Airworthiness Certificate.

Certainly the doors. Pretty certain that the C150 Aerobats used:

- thicker aluminum for the leading edge skins
- different struts
- different engine mount
- two windows in the cabin roof

Dunno about the C152 Aerobats.

https://150cessna.tripod.com/3a19.pdf

It depends on what acrobatics the kid intends on flying.

See pages 13-17.

article from Plane & Pilot:

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... 2-aerobat/

From the POH of a 150M, chandelles, lazy eights, steep turns, stalls and spins are the only approved aerobatic maneuvers. The plane is certified in the utility category.

Cessna 152s are actually selling at a fairly robust price and for the money he probably could find a nice Decathlon which is going to serve him better if he is going to try aerobatics. A cousin of mine just closed on a nice one in California and it was inline with the price of a nice 152. Just a thought.

Sounds like he might have been flying with my former instructor. Those lazy 8's and chandelles seemed to get out of hand sometimes. Lots of extra rivets on the Aerobats.

I believe the POH statement is technically incorrect. The limits shown are the design load factor limits, it is the ultimate load factor that is 150%.

Yes, you could fly aerobatics in an C-150/152. But not legally.

Other than the Aerobat versions, they are Utility Category, NOT Aerobatic Category aircraft.

Even the aerobatic category 150/152 Aerobats aren't very aerobatic with a poor climb rate and pretty limited set of approved maneuvers IIRC. I don't think any of them had inverted systems either.

The Aerobats I've flown had the Sparrowhawk conversion which increased the HP to 125. That said, even with the extra HP, all maneuvers required, um, "significant energy management".

best,
Rich

I believe there is an AD to change the rudder stops, just had it done on our 152. https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=53278 As I understand, spins are prohibited without the kit.

For six or seven months I had WTB ad for a 152 Aerobat running on Barnstormers, and of twelve or so planes I looked at non had the kit installed.

Chris, spins are approved in the POH. Why would they need the kit?