Cessna 120/140 yay or nay?

I've had both a 120 and a 140. The 120 was the airplane I taught myself to fly a tailwheel airplane. It had the gear extenders, since it was a very early '46.

My 1946 140 has been crashed and rebuilt at least three times and just about every part has been replace except the fuselage and the right wing. It has the later style landing gear legs that move the axles forward three inches.

When I flew the 120 40 years ago, I only weighed 145 pounds, so I could carry full gas and a decent sized passenger. Now that my gross weight has increased considerably, I can only carry about 70 pounds will full tanks. So, yeah, it's an itty bitty airplane...

The seat mounts have four or five holes that fit retracting pins in the seat back and that is the only adjustment. With mine all the way in the most aft holes, I fit my 5' 9" butt in the plane after some pretty hilarious contorting and twisting. I'm too old for that stuff now...

The flaps are fairly effective and any more than 20 degrees burns off all the lift of the fabric wing as it quickly stalls during a three point landing. Wheel landings take a little bit of extra power, since the wing wants to quit flying unless you carry lots of extra speed. That make it an excellent crosswind/gusty airplane, however.

All these characteristics make it a great airplane for learning to fly. Flying a 150 after learning in a 140 will bore you...


Absolutely spot on!

Definitely on the nosewheel version boring you. I’m in a 172 club as well as my 140, once I got my 140 and went and got the club plane I did feel very bored flying her... but she has 180hp and fancy gadgetry in her so differebtvships for different missions but yes absolutely less “fun” to fly once ya fly the old Cessna tailwheels...
 
Gear was never moved forward, there are early models with straight gear and later ones where it’s swept forward, but still attached at the same spot... it wasn’t right at 48, it’s a serial number of which I’m not sure of. My 47 has swept forward gear.

Whoever said the gearbox was moved forward? Guess what, the gear can be farther forward without the gearbox being moved.
 
I've had both a 120 and a 140. The 120 was the airplane I taught myself to fly a tailwheel airplane. It had the gear extenders, since it was a very early '46.

My 1946 140 has been crashed and rebuilt at least three times and just about every part has been replace except the fuselage and the right wing. It has the later style landing gear legs that move the axles forward three inches.

When I flew the 120 40 years ago, I only weighed 145 pounds, so I could carry full gas and a decent sized passenger. Now that my gross weight has increased considerably, I can only carry about 70 pounds will full tanks. So, yeah, it's an itty bitty airplane...

The seat mounts have four or five holes that fit retracting pins in the seat back and that is the only adjustment. With mine all the way in the most aft holes, I fit my 5' 9" butt in the plane after some pretty hilarious contorting and twisting. I'm too old for that stuff now...

The flaps are fairly effective and any more than 20 degrees burns off all the lift of the fabric wing as it quickly stalls during a three point landing. Wheel landings take a little bit of extra power, since the wing wants to quit flying unless you carry lots of extra speed. That make it an excellent crosswind/gusty airplane, however.

All these characteristics make it a great airplane for learning to fly. Flying a 150 after learning in a 140 will bore you...

Mine has 150 seats. I’m 6’1” and 190 pounds and it’s super comfortable.
 
what isn't pretty about her? The classic taildraggers could be painted with turds and are prettier than anything new in my eyes!

Paints not so great, panel needs some love.

Planning to pull venturis this weekend and install a sportsman kit.

Plane already had 26’s and 180 gear and pponk kit with a dynon. Love how simple it is.
 
I've had both a 120 and a 140. The 120 was the airplane I taught myself to fly a tailwheel airplane. It had the gear extenders, since it was a very early '46.

My 1946 140 has been crashed and rebuilt at least three times and just about every part has been replace except the fuselage and the right wing. It has the later style landing gear legs that move the axles forward three inches.

When I flew the 120 40 years ago, I only weighed 145 pounds, so I could carry full gas and a decent sized passenger. Now that my gross weight has increased considerably, I can only carry about 70 pounds will full tanks. So, yeah, it's an itty bitty airplane...

The seat mounts have four or five holes that fit retracting pins in the seat back and that is the only adjustment. With mine all the way in the most aft holes, I fit my 5' 9" butt in the plane after some pretty hilarious contorting and twisting. I'm too old for that stuff now...

The flaps are fairly effective and any more than 20 degrees burns off all the lift of the fabric wing as it quickly stalls during a three point landing. Wheel landings take a little bit of extra power, since the wing wants to quit flying unless you carry lots of extra speed. That make it an excellent crosswind/gusty airplane, however.

All these characteristics make it a great airplane for learning to fly. Flying a 150 after learning in a 140 will bore you...

This is exactly what happened to me. I did a few hours toward PPL in a 150. It was fine and flew well. Then bought a 140 and I have maybe 35 hours on it. I am looking for the next plane already as my goal is to take some longer trips across high DA locations here in the SW. But honestly after considering Mooneys etc I just keep coming back to being comfortable with what I know. I just cannot bring myself to go with a 182 over another tailwheel. The 150 was so boring compared to the 140 that I would never go back to it. I will probably just put an IFR panel into the 140 and keep chugging along toward an instrument rating. I dont even need to insure the thing, really. Between no insurance, 4.5 gal/hr pattern work and a nice c85 stroker, it is kind of hard to have more fun per dollar in any type of certified plane.
 
This is exactly what happened to me. I did a few hours toward PPL in a 150. It was fine and flew well. Then bought a 140 and I have maybe 35 hours on it. I am looking for the next plane already as my goal is to take some longer trips across high DA locations here in the SW. But honestly after considering Mooneys etc I just keep coming back to being comfortable with what I know. I just cannot bring myself to go with a 182 over another tailwheel. The 150 was so boring compared to the 140 that I would never go back to it. I will probably just put an IFR panel into the 140 and keep chugging along toward an instrument rating. I dont even need to insure the thing, really. Between no insurance, 4.5 gal/hr pattern work and a nice c85 stroker, it is kind of hard to have more fun per dollar in any type of certified plane.

iv flown my 140 out west in high DA. I was solo…. She did ok with an 8500ft da take off, not so much with a 9500DA take off. So I’ve decided 8500 is my max even light. So they can do it… just need limited weight and a patient pilot. Ground effect is your friend in high DA. I’d take off every time like a soft field and stay right close to the ground as soon as she’d lift off… let her build some speed and get on step a bit before climbing out…
 
Last edited:
i've owned a c-120 and c-140. great airplanes. when I retire i'm going to sell my twin and buy another one just to play around with . easy on the wallet.
 
With about 6 hours of dual in a rag-wing 140, I can't say that I really liked the plane. Climbing in and out was not easy. Did not manage to complete a tail-wheel endorsement - yet. Never even tried using the flaps during that time, but was told that they didn't do a whole lot. Found out that I could handle the 140 reasonably well in light / no wind conditions, but given a gusty crosswind - not! Learned that a grass field is definitely more tail-wheel friendly than asphalt. Went up for some dual pattern work on a gusty day - and after 3 failed attempts to land it, gave up and told the instructor he had to land it. The controls didn't seem well coordinated - very sensitive on rudder, not so much on aileron. Not sure if I ever really got my turns exactly coordinated - and noticed that it would often come out of a turn in a crab, and stay crabbed (unless corrected) - maybe I've gotten 'rudder lazy' flying the 'nose-draggers'. Interesting that most of the panel is mounted on rubber vibration isolators - at certain throttle settings, it'd visibly shake. A 140 is not on my list of airplanes I'd consider buying.
 
With about 6 hours of dual in a rag-wing 140, I can't say that I really liked the plane. Climbing in and out was not easy. Did not manage to complete a tail-wheel endorsement - yet. Never even tried using the flaps during that time, but was told that they didn't do a whole lot. Found out that I could handle the 140 reasonably well in light / no wind conditions, but given a gusty crosswind - not! Learned that a grass field is definitely more tail-wheel friendly than asphalt. Went up for some dual pattern work on a gusty day - and after 3 failed attempts to land it, gave up and told the instructor he had to land it. The controls didn't seem well coordinated - very sensitive on rudder, not so much on aileron. Not sure if I ever really got my turns exactly coordinated - and noticed that it would often come out of a turn in a crab, and stay crabbed (unless corrected) - maybe I've gotten 'rudder lazy' flying the 'nose-draggers'. Interesting that most of the panel is mounted on rubber vibration isolators - at certain throttle settings, it'd visibly shake. A 140 is not on my list of airplanes I'd consider buying.

Yea they can be a handful in gusty stuff, but that goes for even a heavy tailwheel.

you mentioned something about the turns, when ya get to the vintage stuff Cessna hadn’t engineered the planes yet to “assist” the pilot… adverse yaw is far more real in a vintage design than say a Skyhawk. Turns must be led with rudder.

no doubt that no plane is for everyone, but I think ya mighta missed an opportunity… you’re spot on it’s no Skyhawk or Cherokee 140 or even a 152 in terms of ease to fly… it simply demands more. but given a bit more time to become proficient at it- your piloting skills would becomes honed by her lack of built into the design assistance. There are days it’s gustier than I’d care to fly her but now can jump in a Skyhawk or 150 in wind conditions idda never been comfortable in in them before my 140 time, and nail the centerline every time with far less sweat than I would have 5 years ago.
 
With about 6 hours of dual in a rag-wing 140, I can't say that I really liked the plane. Climbing in and out was not easy. Did not manage to complete a tail-wheel endorsement - yet. Never even tried using the flaps during that time, but was told that they didn't do a whole lot. Found out that I could handle the 140 reasonably well in light / no wind conditions, but given a gusty crosswind - not! Learned that a grass field is definitely more tail-wheel friendly than asphalt. Went up for some dual pattern work on a gusty day - and after 3 failed attempts to land it, gave up and told the instructor he had to land it.
Sounds like you're having more issues with a tailwheel plane and the transition than with a Cessna 140 specifically. I'm not sure I would blame the plane explicitly for that, you may have ended up having the same experience in any starter taildragger.

The controls didn't seem well coordinated - very sensitive on rudder, not so much on aileron. Not sure if I ever really got my turns exactly coordinated - and noticed that it would often come out of a turn in a crab, and stay crabbed (unless corrected) - maybe I've gotten 'rudder lazy' flying the 'nose-draggers'. Interesting that most of the panel is mounted on rubber vibration isolators - at certain throttle settings, it'd visibly shake. A 140 is not on my list of airplanes I'd consider buying.
Most Cessnas have the panel mounted on "shock mounts".
 
Back to the OP. I've flown a 140 once, and it left a lasting impression. I've never flown a plane that was THAT light on the controls, it was unbelievable you just thought about turning left and I was in a 30 degree bank. I found the control harmony and ground handling to be sublime. I would love to have an excuse to own one someday. Truly a pleasure to fly and frankly I'd take a 120/140 any day of the week over a J3, despite them being the "iconic" traildragger.
 
This would be my only comment about my very limited time in the 120/140 compared to the 150/152/172's I've flown. Adverse yaw, if you turn just the yoke to the left, the nose goes to the right while the left wing tip falls. Gotta lead the turn with the rudder.

you mentioned something about the turns, when ya get to the vintage stuff Cessna hadn’t engineered the planes yet to “assist” the pilot… adverse yaw is far more real in a vintage design than say a Skyhawk. Turns must be led with rudder.
 
They were after all designed as trainers.

Citation please?

Even the 150/152 was never 'designed' as a trainer.. they were marketed as commuter aircraft. Its even part of the name: Commuter, Commuter II, Patroller and the aerobatic Aerobat models.

The 140 was not approved for for hire flights unless modified: (from the POH)

The Model 120 or 140 may be operated for hire, beyond the
three mile radius from the airport, in the above categories when
equipped with one landing light and certificated flare installation

'Used as' and 'designed as' are not the same thing.
 
iv flown my 140 out west in high DA. I was solo…. She did ok with an 8500ft da take off, not so much with a 9500DA take off. So I’ve decided 8500 is my max even light. So they can do it… just need limited weight and a patient pilot. Ground effect is your friend in high DA. I’d take off every time like a soft field and stay right close to the ground as soon as she’d lift off… let her build some speed and get on step a bit before climbing out…
Yah I have the 100hp c85 and we fly max gross basically every flight and it is fine, but you will recall the T&J crash in Sedona where they probably just got into a sinker two up and couldn't fly out of it. So you aren't doing any serious commuting with multiple people over long distances and having any real reserve performance for hot or high or both type environments. There is a ton to be learned from flying an underpowered airplane like a 140 because you can really see the effect upon performance of flying the airplane poorly, e.g. it really climbs less well if the ball is not centered and in the pattern you will not get to pattern altitude by the numbers if everything is not done properly so you are constantly looking at everything. The guy above who could not land it clearly does not see the fun in learning what he (or she) does not know - there is no messing around in a 140 and no faking it, and like most things there is a bigger feeling of satisfaction in developing your skills and really keeping it straight and centered when conditions are not perfect. Lately trying to put it down and make the first taxiway on a calm day has been the challenge - again you can play it all back on cloudahoy and really see where a constant, slow approach speed just makes it all so smooth. And whoever said flaps don't do anything has no idea what they are talking about - Full flaps make a big difference when you are doing power off 180 landings and trying to make the first exit. My plane also climbs noticeably better with one notch for whatever reason.
 
Yay.

I've had my 120 for just over a year. Have put 193 hours on it! It's been a great solo commuter. Occasionally i'll take a passenger for a ride and have done a few XC's with my wife.
 
The guy at the Eugene FBO was the STC holder from the 135 HP conversion of the Cessna 120/140. Never got to fly it but I'm sure it was a rocketship. I owned N76293. I wonder......
 
I had two Cessna 140s and I sure miss that 4.5 hour fuel burn. One had a C-90, the other had a C-85. Flying around at 100 mph, low maintenance, and plenty of attention! The red/white one had wheel extenders and I would never recommend them to anyone, but as I stated in an earlier post, there are plenty of people who recommend them... mostly people who know nothing about it and have never flown one!

Taken at Brenham, TX at the 50's Diner that was there. My 1946 Cessna 140
8198907146_a09520c431_c.jpg


This was my beautiful 1946 Cessna 140. I still love and miss this plane!
26078165054_64a3325984_c.jpg


If you're really bored, click here to see an album of photos I took of our Cessna 120, 140, 140A planes we were flying. We had quite a group for awhile.
 
one had wheel extenders and I would never recommend them to anyone, but as I stated in an earlier post, there are plenty of people who recommend them... mostly people who know nothing about it and have never flown one!

You can say that again. NOTHING ruins the GREAT light handling of a 140 than those worthless wheel extenders.
 
I had two Cessna 140s and I sure miss that 4.5 hour fuel burn. One had a C-90, the other had a C-85. Flying around at 100 mph, low maintenance, and plenty of attention! The red/white one had wheel extenders and I would never recommend them to anyone, but as I stated in an earlier post, there are plenty of people who recommend them... mostly people who know nothing about it and have never flown one!

Taken at Brenham, TX at the 50's Diner that was there. My 1946 Cessna 140
8198907146_a09520c431_c.jpg


This was my beautiful 1946 Cessna 140. I still love and miss this plane!
26078165054_64a3325984_c.jpg


If you're really bored, click here to see an album of photos I took of our Cessna 120, 140, 140A planes we were flying. We had quite a group for awhile.

Wow what a great album ! We’re hoping to repaint our striping next spring to the red 140A scheme… then when I retire someday strip and polish it :)

13552A5D-24B0-4373-AA33-874FA2F050DB.jpeg
I love my bird I’m not a huge fan of the blue tail portion and just really like the A scheme. I’m not hell bent on perfect historical accuracy for now- maybe put her back to the original green stripe when I polish it someday…we’ll see. I’m thinking being I’m not doing 100% historical accuracy I think I’ll do the striping the same color as I did my instrument cover. I still like keeping with the general feel of the era tho… I don’t care for ones with modern looking swoosh type striping.

6E478390-DA34-48A3-A939-DEFDE42E2D17.jpeg
That’s my interior red…
 
Can anyone help me get in touch with David Lowe about an STC I bought from him? He has gone radio silent. Hope he is Ok.
 
Back
Top