Steve & Others I relate completely with the thoughts submitted in this and similar threads. Re yours. I have never flown a 152 or a M-10. I have flown, looped and spun a 150. It is a fine, versatile airplane and has as you imply a great elevator, among many other good features. I've seen students practicing full-stall landings drag it in with the tail almost touching the runway. I would like to own one.
Having said that(Oh! Oh!---here it comes). My 1968 Mooney Alon would takeoff sooner, outclimb and was faster than the 150's I was assoaciated with. It has impeccable manners---no surprise spins when practicing departure stalls---no high-rudder stall/spins turning final. And to me it felt like a bigger plane, with it's adjustable bucket seats and its big interior(kiddie seats in the back). Furthermore, it(all coupes) is the only plane I would turn back in with an engine failure on takeoff(I have). If 200 feet above the runway, and having practiced at altitude), a skilled pilot can whip the plane around and, if not too far out, land it on the runway. Also, if you had a wind down the runway taking off you can safely touch down at 70-80MPH ground speed on your return(thanks in part to that wonderful cable on the nose gear).But not on a 1600 ft field, I would think! I regularly flew out of a 2000 ft turf field with high trees at each end. I side-slipped in and, with the planes natural sink rate, had no trouble landing. I also flew out of the field on hot days when my friend who owned the runway wouldn't fly his 150 out. (alas! methinks pride of ownership doth cloud ones opinions and memories). Not everybody can own an Alon, there are not enough. But I owned a O-200 Coupe and, with a split elevator, its performance is comparable to or better than the Alon. I owned the 85HP Coupe and it is every bit as much fun to fly as either of the above. And The "C" model does a great, fun short/soft field takeoff. All of the above assumes that these planes are reasonably loaded. I hope I haven't fueled a 150 vs Coupe controversy. That is not my intent. They are both fine aircraft but designed with different goals in mind. My purpose is to suggest that you have good choices between comparable planes with the usual tradeoffs. There are also upgrading opportunities with the Coupe which keep Coupers imaginations and hopes alive. And there's cost. I sure agree with you Steve on the Austin-Healey. I owned a 1965 "3000". It was beautiful and exciting to see go by but inside it drove like a truck and the engine heated the interior like a stove. Best Regards....Cliff
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
