1948 Cessna 120

Wow, this is a sweet little bird. I actually think that the price is really good for a 120 in such a great all around condition and with only 125 h on the engine.
 
I'll wager that red plush interior will burn like the Hindenburg.
 
A 120 with electrical? i thought those were called 140's??? So would this be a 120 that was changed to a 140?
 
Jimmy cooper said:
It's a 140 with fabric wings. Basically same airplane as a 140.
Click to expand...
140s also left the factory with fabric wings just like the '48 170s. The metalized wings were done later by STC or Field Approval.

The primary difference between the 120 and 140 is the 140s had an electrical system and flaps.
 
So, who would win in a fight, a metalized 140 with an O200, or an 8F with a C90?
:popcorn:
 
ChemGuy said:
A 120 with electrical? i thought those were called 140's??? So would this be a 120 that was changed to a 140?
Click to expand...
No, it is a 120 with an electrical system.
Not at all unusual to have had one added on at some point in the last 70 years.

The 140 also had a small window behind the doors along with flaps. This one appears to have had the window added, but not the flaps.

The ad doesn't say what kind of charging system (if any) that it has - the 120 I flew had a whopping 15 amp generator that eventually got swapped out for a 60 amp alternator. It also had nav and landing lights along with radios and a transponder.
 
Fearless Tower said:
140s also left the factory with fabric wings just like the '48 170s. The metalized wings were done later by STC or Field Approval.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's the 140A that had metal wings from the factory -- but that was the later semi-tapered, single-strut design, sorta like a C-150 wing with the small C-170A flap.

The primary difference between the 120 and 140 is the 140s had an electrical system and flaps.
Click to expand...
As built, the C-120 did not have the 140's cabin window behind the door. Many have been retrofitted over the years, however. [whoops; Capt. Thorpe beat me to it! :oops: ]

ce120-03.jpg
 
Looks like I was typing my long-winded reply at the same time others were answering. Good thing we all agree!

German guy said:
Wow, this is a sweet little bird. I actually think that the price is really good for a 120 in such a great all around condition and with only 125 h on the engine.
Click to expand...
It's still priced too high. The nicest 140s seem to be going for $24K and this one isn't as nice as those.

ChemGuy said:
A 120 with electrical? i thought those were called 140's??? So would this be a 120 that was changed to a 140?
Click to expand...
No, it's a 120 with electrical added. Still a 120!

Jimmy cooper said:
It's a 140 with fabric wings. Basically same airplane as a 140.
Click to expand...
Not exactly true. The biggest difference if flaps. The 140 had them, the 120 didn't.

Fearless Tower said:
140s also left the factory with fabric wings just like the '48 170s. The metalized wings were done later by STC or Field Approval. The primary difference between the 120 and 140 is the 140s had an electrical system and flaps.
Click to expand...
And the 140 had the "D" window in the baggage area. I understand that it was an option on the 120s. A lot of 120s have had them added over the years. Then of course there's the 140A model which came out with a factory metal wing and the plane was eventually put up on tricycle gear to become the early 150s.

GeorgeC said:
So, who would win in a fight, a metalized 140 with an O200, or an 8F with a C90?
:popcorn:
Click to expand...
I think hands down an 8F! I owned a metalized 140 once and I think that's a big mistake. Too much added weight and it almost never looks right. If I was comparing the two, I would compare the 8F and the 140A, then it would be a close race that I think the 140A would win. A little more room inside than a Luscombe.
 
As a 140 guy, I took a closer look at the photos. One thing that really concerns me are the wheel extenders. If you're in the 120/140 group, you'll know this is a hot topic. In 1946, Cessna started production of these planes. As they were used for trainers, some people felt the tail came up too easy and caused them to nose over easily during training. Cessna came out with a 3 or 4 inch block of metal that moved the axle forward and looked like crap. They changed the gear legs to a new design, called a swept gear, in 1947. There is no reason a 1947 or later plane should ever have extenders, yet this 1948 plane has them. This is not approved and probably makes ground handling very interesting and adds a lot of weight to the tail.
 
That particular airplane in the Craigslist ad, handles like a dog!!

Those wheel extenders, while ugly, make the handling characteristics extremely poor.

Take them off!!!!!
 
I've owned two 140s and there was a 120 on the field. The 140 is a natural evolution from the 120. As I said, they are very similar. Neither model had enough hp. They both needed an 0200. An yes, the wheel extenders were totally without merit. Heavy and useless.I also owned a luscombe 8F. A much better airplane, fun to fly, loop, roll etc. I much prefer the luscombe 8F!
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I've owned two 140s and there was a 120 on the field. The 140 is a natural evolution from the 120. As I said, they are very similar. Neither model had enough hp. They both needed an 0200. An yes, the wheel extenders were totally without merit. Heavy and useless.I also owned a luscombe 8F. A much better airplane, fun to fly, loop, roll etc. I much prefer the luscombe 8F!
Click to expand...
Not trying to argue, but saying one is a "natural evolution" isn't correct. They were released at the same time. How did one evolve from the other. The 120 was basically a cheaper version without electrical, flaps, or the D window.
 
Who here could inspect a 120/140 and tell if it had the 0-200 upgrade done to the C-85?
 
If one had the Don swords conversion and a person familiar with the 85 hp 140, would know instantly simply by taking off and climbingv, etc. the 140 with two people and full tanks is a real dog in summer. I always flew mine with half tanks even alone. Mine were in excellent condition , one a trophy winner, both had under five hundred smoh when I bought them . No comparison with the luscombe 8F which was-is a great little airplane, better looking too!
 
Old age has its problems, getting in and out of the 120/140 is just too difficult :( , I simply don't fold up that small any more.
 
It's down the road from me if anyone wants a serious look.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Just make sure you sit in it first. They are a bit small.
Click to expand...
I'm 6', 215 lbs. I fit fine. With another guy my size, it's not comfortable and as others have mentioned with 85hp it's very sluggish on takeoff. I have a cruise prop though, with a climb prop they're a lot better and you only lose a few mph.

I flew a 140 back from Arizona in the summer. It had an O-200 and it was very impressive compared to my plane.
 
Beauty! Interior looks immaculate and only 125 since major. She's got a lot of life left in her.
 
The 140 guys I flew with didn't use the Flaps anyway , were small and didn't effect the approach much . Slip it in and enjoy the Ride

My 120 has all the nice upgrades , is a Fun little plane , economical too .
 
Airplanebarn said:
The 140 guys I flew with didn't use the Flaps anyway , were small and didn't effect the approach much . Slip it in and enjoy the Ride

My 120 has all the nice upgrades , is a Fun little plane , economical too .
Click to expand...
I very rarely use my flaps. When I want a very short landing, I do think they help, but not much!
 
kgruber said:
That particular airplane in the Craigslist ad, handles like a dog!!

Those wheel extenders, while ugly, make the handling characteristics extremely poor.

Take them off!!!!!
Click to expand...
Um, I've got close to 1000 hours tailwheel and my plane still has the extenders and I don't find them THAT offensive. The plane handles fine with them or without them if properly rigged.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Um, I've got close to 1000 hours tailwheel and my plane still has the extenders and I don't find them THAT offensive. The plane handles fine with them or without them if properly rigged.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you haven't flown one without them right? They're ugly, they're added weight, they cause torsion loads on the gearboxes, and Jack will make fun of your training wheels! Any one of these things should make you remove them! Of course I'm giving you crap since you're my friend, but in reality, the plane will amaze you at how much better it handles on the ground and how much lighter the tail is.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yeah, but you haven't flown one without them right? They're ugly, they're added weight, they cause torsion loads on the gearboxes, and Jack will make fun of your training wheels! Any one of these things should make you remove them! Of course I'm giving you crap since you're my friend, but in reality, the plane will amaze you at how much better it handles on the ground and how much lighter the tail is.
Click to expand...
I have flown one without them out of the three 120s I've flown. I'm NOT saying everyone should put them on, and mine are coming off eventually, but it's not the end of the world. Ie. my main point is that I wouldn't want someone to not buy a 120/140 because it had the extenders currently installed.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I have flown one without them out of the three 120s I've flown. I'm NOT saying everyone should put them on, and mine are coming off eventually, but it's not the end of the world. Ie. my main point is that I wouldn't want someone to not buy a 120/140 because it had the extenders currently installed.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. Buy the plane, take them off! As you know, this is a hot topic on the 120/140 forums. Most of us seem to hate them. On a 1947 or newer plane, it is critical that they come off. They were never intended to be on there, they're not legal and will cause you issues. On the 1946 planes, it's just an opinion that I share!
 
Lowflynjack said:
I agree completely. Buy the plane, take them off! As you know, this is a hot topic on the 120/140 forums. Most of us seem to hate them. On a 1947 or newer plane, it is critical that they come off. They were never intended to be on there, they're not legal and will cause you issues. On the 1946 planes, it's just an opinion that I share!
Click to expand...
Mine ( 1947 120 ) came with them ON , I was having trouble staying straight . Took them Off and THAT DAY it all came together for me ... coincidence ?? Not sure , but they will NOT go back on !
They make nice paper weights .
 
There's a photo of the firewall and the fuel strainer is visible. Is it just me or is that thing installed upside down?

01111_aZtNx16Y9Ru_600x450.jpg
 
Joshuajayg said:
There's a photo of the firewall and the fuel strainer is visible. Is it just me or is that thing installed upside down?

01111_aZtNx16Y9Ru_600x450.jpg
Click to expand...
No, that is indeed the correct installation for the glass gascolator on the 120/140/170s

Glass dome on top. Strainer valve on the bottom.
 
Joshuajayg said:
There's a photo of the firewall and the fuel strainer is visible. Is it just me or is that thing installed upside down?

01111_aZtNx16Y9Ru_600x450.jpg
Click to expand...
That's correct, just a different style. That's how mine looks. This is not mine, but here's one listed on Ebay that is like mine. You can see the drain valve would be on the bottom.
s-l1000.jpg
 
Joshuajayg said:
There's a photo of the firewall and the fuel strainer is visible. Is it just me or is that thing installed upside down?
Click to expand...
The gascolator is correct, It's the mufflers that are wrong. these are better, but not OEM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top