Talk:Cessna 152

message: Some newer models (1983-1985) use a 108hp Lycoming O-235-N2C (higher compression and redesigned combustion chamber) engine to reduce the lead fouling problems over the O-235-L2C.
:That is all good info and is accurate, so I added it to the article! Ahunt 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me - I have altered the article to better reflect this. Do feel free to change the article yourself if you think anything could be better and more accurately stated! Ahunt 10:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The 152 had a cruise speed of 107 kts (or close to it) in all model years, this information comes from the aircraft POH. Keep in mind this is TAS at optimal altitude, not IAS down low. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Engine

message: As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES consensus is required to changes images. User:Jason4789 seems determined to use his image in this article, even though it is virtually identical to the one already in use. I do not see any reason to include this new image, unless some special feature of it can be pointed out. - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally a change of infobox image if challenged needs a consensus so Jason4789 needs to make a case for changing it here. Again normal practice is to have a flying image in the infobox so it would probably be better to propose an image with the aircraft in the air then replace it with another ground image. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a look though the commons cat to see if there was a better in-flight image we could use. There are some inflight images there, but none really show the aircraft well (mostly bottom views, as it flies overhead). The best one is this one here. What do you think? Incidentally the reason that I originally used the image I took as the infobox image was 1. There weren't any good inflight images at that time (still really aren't), 2. It is one of the very first 152s built, a 1978 model year, built in the fall of 1977, 3. It has a slightly unusual "air mail" paint scheme. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really good enough probably best to stick with the status quo for now. Must make a note to look for 152s when I next go out and about (but not my local it doesnt allow GA!) MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it isn't the best for a lead image. I'm off to the airport this morning - see if I can do better. The main challenge is that our local cheapy flying club doesn't have any 152s, still using 40-year old 150s! Might catch one by chance though. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It figures. I went to the airport and got a photo of an AN 124, nose up and loading, but rare birds like the 152 were not in evidence. I'll keep looking for a good in-flight photo. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That will do! I'll fix! - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox image

message: The Cessna 150 from Reims has n't been equipped with O-240, it was the same engine as Continental O-200 from USA, but licensed by Rolls Royce and called RR O-200 with exactly the same pieces and technical references. They produced 1764 machines in Reims , 336 of them as C150 Aerobat. So we can say today that nearly the half of ever produced Cessna 150 Aerobat has been fabricated in France by Reims Aviation.
cosy --81.13.237.223 (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's sort this out over at Talk:Cessna 150. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong engine - Cessna 150 

message: AOPA is overhauling the Cesssna 150 and 152 and selling them.  I don't know if these should be in their own article or if they should listed here as a variant.  The idea is to make a relatively low cost airplane, both for initial capitol investment and hourly costs, to use for use in training.  The intention is to help bring down the cost of training for perspective pilots.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjw1 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These are just overhauled aircraft, not a new model or a significant modification, with say a new type of powerplant or similar and as such are just not notable. Lots of Cessna 150/152s have been overhauled by many different companies. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: AVweb's Paul Bertorelli had some things to say on the subject that bears on notability: "AOPA is touting the airplanes as “reimagined,” but they really aren’t that. They’re the same old airplanes just brought to new standards. Reimagined would be a composite two-seat trainer with no struts and a glass panel—an LSA, in other words, but a robust one." - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reimagined