zaitcev.mee.nu

I blogged about GX and about the 150 (twice) as it happened, but IIRC I posted no head-to-head comparison. But indeed, airplanes are naturably comparable, both being basic 100 hp two-seaters. A request by a connection at MyTransponder prompted me to write it all down.

Firstly, the basics of specific airplanes. C150 N2966V weighs 1600 lbs gross, 1128 lbs empty, for 472 lbs useful load. Of that, it drains 5.5 gph. GX N28GX is 1320 lbs gross over 689 lbs (no chute), for 631 lbs useful. The difference in utility is very much pronounced. When I flew C150 with a small instructor (140 lbs), we had to off-load fuel down to 10 gallons! In GX, I can take my wife and a couple of bags, fly XC to an overnight destination. In 150 I can only take her for 1 circuit around the pattern.

Funnily enough, the C150 has a large, easily accessible baggage/cargo area, but GX has an adequate, but poorly accessible baggage hold (must remove seats to get to it). People of 1940s were so small, it was another world. They needed and used all that space.

As far as flying qualities go, GX wins by a mile. It is completely natural, all controls feel just right. It needs a light touch, but not excessively so: flaring for landing is quite easy. In contrast, in C150 you actually have to be a pilot, especially when dragging it in with power, and it is easier to overcook and balloon when flaring. For people with large and current experience in typical basic and advanced singles, there is probably not much difference, but for a low-time pilot it is quite noticeable. Of course, flying GX one must not get too complacent. In particular, you must be able to handle crosswinds.

Speaking of which, touching down with a crab in GX is undesirable, and wheelbarrowing is a strict taboo. I heard its landing gear was not not as sturdy, although I did not prang one yet. Unfortunately the cowl of GX is completely smooth, and also oddly and deceptively shaped. The right way to know the centerline is to extend the line between the rudder pedals up, then reference a part of Dynon display for visual alignment. The C150 is supposed to be more forgiving of harder landings.

Note that the Piper-style direct nosewheel steering requires the rudder to be straightened momentarily when nosewheel comes down at landing. Still, I found this skill easier to master than Cessna's toe brakes. And the bungee cords are a pure nightmare. To this day I taxi N2699V in zig-zags.

I touched upon the visibility before. For some reason I am more comfortable in C150. The visibility for the tall people is poor in both, but in C150 I do not have to fly bent over like a question mark. Also, the ventillation in GX blows at feet. I made a mistake of flying in shorts and sandals once and caught a good cold (I cruise at about 9.5/10.5).

If you are short though, GX offers excellent creature comforts (sans air conditioning of course). And the instrumentation is thoroughly modern. I suppose, one could plop an Aspen into C150. The cost is going to be more than the whole airplane.

And it's understandable. One thing I do not see mentioned much is how poorly C150 was designed and built. It's horrible. When I see the rudder assembly, I get scared. The flaps are horribly over-engineered for their function and yet require constant attention. It truly was a cheap airplane. To be fair, Cessna worked to improve it during the long production run. They gradually strengthened the tail and doubled up in the areas of worst cracking. I would say, the late-70s Ms are reasonably safe, as long as you have and use a seat stop and generally pay attention.

By contrast, GX is designed and built like a Lexus. Unfortunately, it comes with a price tag to match: $135k for a stripper model. Repairs are costly too. And its durability is unproven. Nonetheless, the owner of N28GX uses it for primary training. I really hope his business plan closes.

P.S. I also compared GX to 162 before, but theoretically.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 4 kb.