Cessna 140

T

timrev8

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
12
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
Hi everyone
I am almost ready to take the next step in my slow moving aviation experience.

I want to buy a C140 (hopefully with metalized wings) to build some time and attend the local fly-ins

How would i compare a c140 to the 152 that i trained in?

any input, thoughts,or stories would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
Skylane81E said:
It doesn't have a training wheel...
Click to expand...

And the flaps are a lot less effective. But it's not like you need them.

Not as much power, won't climb quite as fast. IIRC speeds are about the same.

It's an easy airplane to fly.

Has a degree of "cool".
 
I have only flown the 140A. But my heart belongs to Luscombe.
 
Don't be afraid of fabric wings. I personally think metalizing wings tends to destroy uesful load, but that is my opinion. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can buy a Cessna 140A that was all metal from the factory.
 
I agree, if you want metal wings get a 140A. Modern fabric lasts a long time so don't be afraid of it. Metalizing the wings ruins the performance. I have been flying a friend's 1946 140 for over 30 years. Still enjoy flying it and usually do a bunch of landings when I fly it. Don
 
The 140 is a great airplane. Get one with fresh ceconite, and avoid the metalized wings.

What's the difference between the 140 and the 150? Your'e asking the wrong question. What's the same?

They both fly.
 
Can't speak to the 140, but fabric wings on a Luscombe are 55lbs. lighter than the metal ones. That's alot on a little airplane.
 
Love the 140! My first flight in a GA airplane as a kid was in a 140 which belonged to a friend of my father. "Doc" (MBDiagMan) in Texas owns one and hopefully will be along to comment, or you might wish to PM him...
 
thats great! thanks for all the info

I suppose the metal wings aren't a must

I dont know many other planes other than the few cessna i have flown and a cherokee

can someone tell me about others comparable to the 140, Luscombe?
 
There are 150's with the conversion that pop up for not too much more money that are pretty neat...

There are also Stinsons and Piper Pacers that go for pretty cheap.
 
Luscombes come in 65, 75, 85 and 90 hp versions. Some have been upgraded to 100 hp. Some have electrical systems and starters, some don't. I personally would avoid one altered to any of the Lycoming 115 to 150 hp for reasons of appearance, poor useful load and my respect for tradition.

Older Luscombes have fabric covered wings, later have metal wings with a single strut. A few Luscombes have flaps but I have never missed having flaps on mine.

Luscombes have control sticks, C140s have control wheels. Either is available in polished or painted. Well polished is the best looking, highest maintenance finish and one should have a clear understanding of the work involved in keeping up a polished airplane before buying one.

C140s have the Cessna spring gear and some older have extensions to move the wheels forward for improved handling, I believe the factory changed the gear to move the wheels forward on later production.

There is probably more that is similar than different in the ownership and flying of Luscombes and C140s. Both have small cabins, limited visibility, charming and less than charming characteristics. Either will be enormously fun to fly.

I have owned my 85hp Luscombe 8E for 39 years and believe it to be the best combination of fun, economy, handling and panache available in its class. If I were buying today, I would pick a nice 140 over a ratty Luscombe and vice versa. If I lived at a reasonable elevation (home airport is 6,880) I would prefer a no-elelctric 65hp Luscombe 8A with fabric wings.

Happy hunting.
 
l8evator said:
C140s have the Cessna spring gear and some older have extensions to move the wheels forward to make them more prone to groundloop,
Click to expand...

F.T.F.Y.

Oh - compared to the 152 - you don't have that cavernous baggage area that you can't really fill unless you are transporting Styrofoam packing peanuts.

The 120 I learned to fly in had the wings metalized. Seemed to be OK. It also had an electrical system installed, but the 140 came with that from the factory.

It had a landing light that retracted into the bottom of the wing and sucked more power than the generator would supply when it was on - so you couldn't use it for very long.

Cleveland brakes are nice - the original Goodyears (IIRC) were grabby.
 
Ragwing C-140 is more nimble in the air than a 150; more "immediate" control feel. But not "squirrely"- if it's rigged and trimmed right, a 2-seat Cessna will behave very nicely hands-off. The 140A (metal wings, single strut) are more similar in feel to the 150... after all, the first 150s were just 140As with square tail feathers and a different gear configuration (the wing and cabin section are virtually identical). But they are sweet flyers; definitely a little different. Off the top of my head, I'd guess the average 140A is probably a little lighter than the average 150, even the early square-tail 150s (assuming the same goodies in the panel, etc).
The C-120 is basically a "budget" version of the 140- no electrics (I think), and no D-windows, flaps, etc., although a lot of them now have D-windows, flaps, metal wings, bigger engines, or all of the above. I met a guy in San Diego who had one that was even set up for basic IFR. For night flights in that area or penetrating the marine layer, he found it more than adequate.

As entry-level taildraggers, I don't see any problem with them. Because of the fairly modest "deck angle" and the rounded glareshield, visibility while in 3-point is not bad. Plenty of rudder authority, and not prone to weathervane more than other types. A lot of them have extenders to bring the mains forward a few inches to prevent nosing over... whether that's necessary or not, especially for beginners, will depend on who you ask. :D I've flown a few 140s, all without extenders if I remember correctly, and didn't have a problem... personally, I think the nose-over thing with 120s and 140s is mostly mythical; didn't seem nose-heavy to me at all. You can put almost any taildragger on its nose, if you abuse the brakes; the 2-seat Cessnas are no exception.

But what do I know? You will get a lot of useful info on them here:

http://www.cessna120-140.org/
 
Last edited:
rottydaddy said:
The C-120 is basically a "budget" version of the 140- no electrics (I think), and no D-windows, flaps,
Click to expand...
Correct. But many have been "upgraded" as you mention.

I've flown a few 140s, all without extenders if I remember correctly, and didn't have a problem... personally, I think the nose-over thing with 120s and 140s is mostly mythical; didn't seem nose-heavy to me at all. You can put almost any taildragger on its nose, if you abuse the brakes; the 2-seat Cessnas are no exception.
Click to expand...

I brought the 120 to a full and complete stop with the tail still up by really leaning on the brakes. The problem was it came down with a bang... A big bang. So I didn't do that again.

Never had any problem stopping short. I usually made the turnoff that was before where Cherokees typically touched down.

It will land and stop on a lot less runway than it will take to get back out again.
 
Tim I used to own N76112, a 1947 C140. It was newly re-fabric covered. The problem with the metallized wings is you're left with a useful load deficit- 25 pound's worth which is an hour's fuel.

We had a generator, KLX 135, KT76A, and an SL30, brake extensions and the clevelands....which I can't recall ever using except on the ramp.

I miss my 140!

It was well rigged and got about 100 mph on a continental 85; all the flaps did was lower the nose for the wheel landing sight picture- no real difference in full stall low speeeds.
 
Last edited:
I was surprised at how many are for sale on Barnstormers
 
Another thing about this genre of airplane: Did I mention it should be really light weight? Fabric over metal wings, minimalist instrument panel and go easy on the interior upholstry. I would prefer a metal prop - because it works better. Addition benefit of fabric wings...at least on Luscombes, is that you can tune them to fly perfect. Add some of the ball-bearing pulleys and you got yourself a sweet flier.
 
Count me in as another 'rag wing' proponent. While fabric is expensive to redo in general, it's rather straight forward and something a person with average craft skills and some basic tools is capable of and wings can be carted home and done there with the new low VOC coatings like Stewart Systems.

If you're planning a trip to Airventure you can actually get everything you need there including the instruction and practice at the craft seminars held throughout the week. Fabric is basically a "once in a lifetime" issue anyway with modern fabrics and systems.

The advantage is more useful load/performance and no hail dents. :D
 
I have a 140 and I am really smitten with her.

When I was looking for one I thought that I wanted a metal wing too, but I learned that as long as you don't have to tie down in the open, there are plenty of advantages to the rag wing. The weight saving with a rag wing is a big deal on these planes.

Most all of these planes have gained weight since new, so if you will be taking a passenger often, the rag wing will save enough weight to make a big difference.

Mine has an O200A and a climb prop, so it can handle the weight fine, except with a low cruise speed of course. She's also an instrument plane with a custom panel that was done from scratch in the eighties as a present for his wife. She got her instrument rating in her, as I am in the process of doing.

I am REALLY happy that I bought a 140 instead of a 150. It's a real hoot to fly, and when you show up at a Fly In dragging the tail, you get a certain amount of respect form the start.

I think that finding the right 140, could be one of the best values in today's plane market. I'll try to post some pictures of Miss Piggy.
 

Attachments

  • C140inGrass.jpg
    C140inGrass.jpg
    66.8 KB · Views: 36
  • C140inHanger.jpg
    C140inHanger.jpg
    75.8 KB · Views: 33
  • C140Panel.jpg
    C140Panel.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 43
  • LarryTailDraggerDSC00663 (2).jpg
    LarryTailDraggerDSC00663 (2).jpg
    3.6 MB · Views: 37
Last edited:
Properly coated there is no greater problem leaving a rag wing tied out than a metal wing plane.
 
Thanks Henning. I am stuck without hangar availability and the open hangar is my only alternative at the time. Rag wings or not, I REALLY would hate to leave her outside.
 
Agree with the comments about keeping the ragwings in consideration. Only thing I would ad is that you are looking at ragwings, on the pre-buy make sure the fabric is in good condition with plenty of life left. Recovering can be a pretty big/costly project these days. Getting harder to find shops that can do a decent job and depending on how much fabric, the cost can approach engine overhaul prices.

Buy a good one, take care of it and it should take care of you.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Agree with the comments about keeping the ragwings in consideration. Only thing I would ad is that you are looking at ragwings, on the pre-buy make sure the fabric is in good condition with plenty of life left. Recovering can be a pretty big/costly project these days. Getting harder to find shops that can do a decent job and depending on how much fabric, the cost can approach engine overhaul prices.

Buy a good one, take care of it and it should take care of you.
Click to expand...


The fabric on Miss Piggy is a little long in the tooth according to the calendar, but still punches good and according to my old school IA will be good for a long time to come.

If the day ever comes that requires new fabric, I will do like Henning talked about and recover it myself. With the modern fabrics, it's not like the bi-plane days, properly cared for it lasts a LONG time.
 
Glad your still having fun with the 140. Doesn't seem like it's so hard now does it? Don
 
MBDiagMan said:
Thanks Henning. I am stuck without hangar availability and the open hangar is my only alternative at the time. Rag wings or not, I REALLY would hate to leave her outside.
Click to expand...

Do they charge more for calling it an "open hangar" (seriously never heard that before:rofl:) than a parking shade?;)
 
Yeah, that's what it is, a parking shade. With hail storms recently, I sure am glad that she is at least under that much protection.

There are no enclosed hangars available for any price around here. After the Keystone XL pipeline comes through I hope to get a grass strip in and a small hangar at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top