Poll...would you get your IFR rating in a 152?

The ONLY factor why I would is:
-Price

Several factors why I would rather not:
-I've put ice several times on 72s and don't think I'd ever want to know what that's like in a 52
-Performance, lack there of (better climb, cruise, more payload,)
-Space
-Time to start learning to fly a little bigger airplane anyway

For the extra cost I'd pay for the 172. I may do a little of my time in a 152 but wouldn't want to be in one in hard IFR. My instructor and I aren't that big but there are a lot of DPs around here, Oregon, we couldn't do (climb).
 
[ QUOTE ]
I was a LOT like you in my early 20's. I could eat anything and everything and not gain an ounce.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing how two-a-days keep the lbs off.
grin.gif
 
God that's the truth! I'd report to "camp" weighing around 200 and be down to 190 at the end of two weeks.
tongue.gif


Maybe I should try that again.
wink.gif
 
Not anymore!!! People are dropping like rocks these days. My guess is all these supplements dehydrating the stew out of them. The only supplements we used were about 4 Advil before game time. Whatever happened to the good old days?

Sorry, back to the regular scheduled program.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Damn. 6'1" and 233. We'd never be able to both fly in a 152....

[/ QUOTE ]Dude! Do you get taped or something? I know for a fact that's above the AF's "MGTOW" for your height!

"You--big boy....you go now! You been here 4 hour!"
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Damn. 6'1" and 233. We'd never be able to both fly in a 152....

[/ QUOTE ]Dude! Do you get taped or something? I know for a fact that's above the AF's "MGTOW" for your height!

"You--big boy....you go now! You been here 4 hour!"
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, as an anaerobic kind of guy, got too much upper-body muscle mass. Never make the unrealistic AF max weights, but always pass the body fat. The AF weights are all optimized for cross-country runners, which is seemingly what the AF wants; not us stocky fireplugs.

Course it all helps to throw people out of the way at the O-Club during games.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
haha...5'2 plus about 10 inches!
shocked.gif


I eat like theres no tomorrow, but apparently I have speedy metabolism.
cool.gif


And I suppose running and biking helps keep me this way...

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn. 6'1" and 233. We'd never be able to both fly in a 152....

[/ QUOTE ]


Perhaps I will have set the record on the best person at being able to carry full gas tanks + pax + bags. I'm 6'1" and 120lbs...my medical says 110!

Nick
 
Absolutely. The rating is what is important to me, not the plane I do it in.

I've been doing a bit of flying with a 152 and the damn thing is growing on me. But I have dropped down to 180 from about 200 so that makes things a lot better now. The airplane doesn't seem as underpowered now! Hell, I could actually carry a passenger with me now!
 
I am using the same 152/U plane for my IFR training as I did for my private. I am sticking with the 152 because of my familiarity with this particular plane. I figure that Ill save a few dollars during my intial training and then eventually finish up with a 172, so I can practice the other approaches that the lil' one can't handle.

Happy Flying!
 
Well "i'm 6'2 ...210, and I hate 150's.... I plan on getting mine in the Seminole. ATP all the way.1.
Smokey.............................................................................
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm 6'1" and 120lbs...my medical says 110!

[/ QUOTE ]
Put down the crack pipe and eat some food, dammit. That's simply an unhealthy weight for your height.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The AF weights are all optimized for cross-country runners, which is seemingly what the AF wants; not us stocky fireplugs.

[/ QUOTE ]Heh. Around the time of Gulf War I, a buddy of mine from AFROTC washed out of UPT (at Willy, incidentally) for chronic airsickness and was retained into a squadron section commander job in one of the maintenance units at Hill; he made it his mission in life to hound what he called the "anorexic twigs" who didn't meet the lower end of the weight standards on the grounds that most of them were just as out of shape and unfit for duty as the Airman Jellydonuts at the upper end of the spectrum. In the appearance-conscious AF, these skin-and-bones types usually escape such attention because they look ok in uniform, but couldn't lift a 5 lb bag of flour to save their life. Vince struck back for us fatties, and for that, he's my hero.
tongue.gif


And for what it's worth, stocky fireplugs with slightly high blood pressure tend to have better G tolerance than cross-country runners, so you've got that going for you...which is nice.
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The AF weights are all optimized for cross-country runners, which is seemingly what the AF wants; not us stocky fireplugs.

[/ QUOTE ]Heh. Around the time of Gulf War I, a buddy of mine from AFROTC washed out of UPT (at Willy, incidentally) for chronic airsickness and was retained into a squadron section commander job in one of the maintenance units at Hill; he made it his mission in life to hound what he called the "anorexic twigs" who didn't meet the lower end of the weight standards on the grounds that most of them were just as out of shape and unfit for duty as the Airman Jellydonuts at the upper end of the spectrum. In the appearance-conscious AF, these skin-and-bones types usually escape such attention because they look ok in uniform, but couldn't lift a 5 lb bag of flour to save their life. Vince struck back for us fatties, and for that, he's my hero.
tongue.gif


And for what it's worth, stocky fireplugs with slightly high blood pressure tend to have better G tolerance than cross-country runners, so you've got that going for you...which is nice.
wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Aloft,

Long live us big guys!!!!
laugh.gif
That's funny about your friend, yet so true. We've got a couple of those guys in my unit too. They're about 6'0" or 6'1" and one guy is around 135lbs and the other guy is probably about high 140s They probably wear a 34 (chest) Long flight suit and I swear they're under the damn AF weight limits for their height. But as you said, no one notices these rails, even though they can't lift a damn thing.

To go with what you were saying, I was at Holloman AFB at the centrifuge with one of these guys and he had a hard time passing the thing. For the centrifuge, you need to be able to sustain (I forgot the exact time periods), but the Gs were A-10/F-15E: 7.5, F-15C: 8.5, F-16: 9Gs with the centrifuge seat reclined 30 degrees. This rail had a resting G tolerance of 3.3!!! So he had his work cut out for him. I personally hate Gs, but my resting tolerance (at least back then) was 6.6. So qualifying was no big deal. But some guys had to really work to barely pass.

And a sidenote for those that've never experienced the "pain" of the centrifuge. I've met people that think the centrifuge would be "so much fun". Truth be told, it's painful. It's painful when you're at about the top of your Gs, and even you're using the breathing techniques taught to you, the pain of having the Gs crushing your chest and not allowing you to inflate your lungs...with the resulting feeling of suffocation...is painful. You ride the centrufuge without any of your G-tolerance equipment (which just squeeze the hell out of you just the same). Interestingly, females also seem to have good G tolerance. One female life-support officer was going through testing while I was there qualifying. They took her up to 11.8 Gs (or there about), and she was hanging in there.....
 
I heard women are generally better with G's as they are shorter which means their heart is closer to their brain which is meant to be helpful (which is probably why the rails struggle).

Women and G's what JC is all about.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well "i'm 6'2 ...210, and I hate 150's

[/ QUOTE ]
You think thats bad, I'm 6'5 215 and I own a C-152 (I ust to actuall)...
 
I always liked the 152 (6'0" and 175), but it just takes forever to get anywhere, even compared to the boring 172. On a good day, the 172SP I fly will get a GS of 115kts. I rarely hit a GS of 100 in the 152 without a good wind.
 
Speed is good and all, but in the time-building stage, it's sometimes more advantageous to go with the lower cost per flight hour. I've been looking at that lately between renting C-172s and C-182s. The 182 will get me there faster, but the trip won't be any cheaper because of the greater rental expense so unless I need to haul more than the 172 can carry, the 172 yields more hours in the logbook for the same cost.

(Yes, I know there's something to be said for quality of flight time versus quantity, and after I hit the 100 hrs PIC I need to fly CAP's C-182s, I'll be changing my tune.
grin.gif
)
 
Back
Top