Talk:Cessna 152/Archive 1

Archive 1

Max gross

Hi there! In regards to this edit, we might want to clarify what that describes. The Cessna 152s that I fly have a max gross in the POH of 1670, and a quick google search for 'Cessna 152 max gross' finds plenty of other references to 1670lb max gross as well. Is it possible that the editor making the reversion is familiar with a specific model that has the 1600 gross? If so, we might want to put in a range, eg, "1600-1670lb, depending on year". Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah sorry, there's my kneejerk not-trusting-anons-who-randomly-change-numbers-and-leave-no-edit-summary-or-citation response. It can be put back in. -Lommer | ^talk 22:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any 152 has a gross weight of 1600lbs. They are all at 1670. Some Cessna 150 models have 1600lb gross weights. Mrcfjf 14:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Retractable Landing Gear?!

I would also like to see some reference to back that up. I've never, ever heard of a 152 with retractable landing gear and frankly that more or less defeats the purpose of the 152, and I'm pretty sure the structure is far too small and light for it anyway; that's why Cessna developed the Cutlass RG.

That is most certainly not true. Heck, the 152 can barely meet weight and balance empty, never mind with heavy retractible gear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up and Expansion

Since I've been called onto the carpet, I think the following things should be cleaned up or added:

• Design history; what changed when and why?
• Design features; what makes the 152 a nice trainer?
• Greater use of charts; maybe not directly copied out of the POH, but there's gotta be something that can be uploaded to {{commons}}
• Switch to use the {{airtemp}} and {{aircontent}} templates; I've already started to do this to the Cessna 150 article
• Greater wikification of terms and measurements (what is a ft²)?
• Fact check; "More pilots have flown Cessna 150/152s than any other single model of airplane." Can you back this statement up? Care to compare/contrast with Piper Cub or T-6 Texan for all time pilot-maker?
• References in general; there has to be a number of books written about the 152
• Background on the suffocation of general aviation in the 1980s, and why Cessna quit making single-engine aircraft
• Information sharing with the Cessna 150 page; I was tempted to put a merge tag on the both of them, but they are truly distinct enough that they at least deserve their own page

I think that both the 150 and 152 are important aircraft because so many pilots have used them (and continue to use them) to get their licence. I also think that they deserve better articles than this. Right now, I've got more information on the Taylor E-2 than what you'll find on the 150, 152, and 172 pages combined. For a larger work in progress, take a look at ERCO Ercoupe. McNeight 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I also agree that the 150/152 are important aircraft, but given the similarities and the sparsity of both articles, I'm wondering if it would be wise to merge the two articles together. Please see the talk page for the 150 for my other comments. 24.9.10.235 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

152 facts

• More pilots have flown Cessna 150/152s than any other single model of airplane.
• More than 75% of the 152s built are still flying, 19 years after production ceased.
• Many 152s sell for 3 to 4 times their original sale price, even after inflation adjustments.
• Several conversions for the 150/152 exist, including bigger engines and taildragger conversions.

Unless someone can cite a source for what appears to be marketing cruft, I'm leaving these bits in here. McNeight 07:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I just did some cleanup on this article, changing wording and correcting typos. I also removed several sections that seemed either overly specific ("the rudder trim is only adjusted yearly by a trained engineer" - this is not true for my flying club) or inappropriate for this article (talking at length about the use of flaps should be in the flaps_(aircraft) article. CecilPL 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed the citiation tag

Removed tag for 'landing in 2 fuselage lengths with STOL kit' section. Was going to put citation on here when I posted but forgot. It in fact came from an article in Pilot magazine in, I think, January. (Wouldn't like to be in the plane when it attempted it though!). ANHL 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for locating the reference for that. I fixed up your reference entry - they aren't normally just put into the article in brackets. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for more details on how to do references. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources and that is why unsourced statements get removed quickly! We still need an author and page for that source, too, if you have the magazine.

- Ahunt 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I have just reinstated a reliable paper reference that was removed. I don't see the point of having fewer references for an article, especially ones of the high reliability and stature of Bill Clarke's definitive book on the 150-152.

A related item is that we still have a reference: <ref name="PilotMagazine"> Author unknown: ''Texas Taildragger 152'', page unknown. Pilot Magazine UK, January 2007</ref>. This reference needs to be completed to give it some credibility - as it stands it is not complete. Can someone please provide the author's name and the page number or else it really should be deleted as unverifiable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference was NOT reliable; I wrote the first part of the 'mods' section ( not the second 'other mods'), quoting from Pilot magazine. The 'Clarke' book played no part in it and it is improper to cite it as being from 'clarke'. ANHL (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarke's book also cites those mods and is a valid reference for those paragraphs, in addition to the magazine ref. Two references are better than one, especially when the magazine ref info is incomplete. If you have the author and page info to add to that it would be very helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Clarke book may talk about them, but the bulk of the claims eg. 2 fuselage lengths comes from Pilot, and not from Clarke. I'll get the page + author refs ASAP.

ANHL 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be most helpful! I always think that more references are better than fewer ones, it makes the article more credible. - Ahunt 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ANHL: Thanks so much for finding the details for that reference! - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Took some time to dig out the magazine from the pile!ANHL (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)