If I had a spare $30k...

Salty said:
Even as a total tech geek, I find those panels to be absurd. It just doesn't work for me. I mean, don't get me wrong, do whatever you want to your airplane. It just seems inherently wrong. It's either not the right plane for you, or you're trying to make it something it isn't. But again, I'm not criticizing, just expressing my opinion.
Click to expand...
How so? I understand the purist "that's not what came from the factory it's garbage" argument but aside from that what's the issue?
Nothing wrong with cruising around slowly with a gps IMO.
The g5 would definitely look better as another av30 or 275 but otherwise I don't see the problem.
 
Justin Brady said:
How so? I understand the purist "that's not what came from the factory it's garbage" argument but aside from that what's the issue?
Nothing wrong with cruising around slowly with a gps IMO.
The g5 would definitely look better as another av30 or 275 but otherwise I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...
AV-30 doesn’t support glide slope and has no magnetometer yet for certified installations so that was out. It’s a great unit otherwise and essentially replaced all the analogue instruments except for the redundant altimeter which I like for “needle up (IFR) or needle down (VFR)” cruising.

275 was tempting but woefully backordered and a bit of overkill. May also have been too deep but didn’t get that far.


Philosophy was that in these days of a precision WAAS approach to every runway why not have the ability to both navigate and get back in occasionally with a simple panel. Also nice to stay current at 5 gph.
 
Steamflyer said:
AV-30 doesn’t support glide slope and has no magnetometer yet for certified installations so that was out. It’s a great unit otherwise and essentially replaced all the analogue instruments except for the redundant altimeter which I like for “needle up (IFR) or needle down (VFR)” cruising.

275 was tempting but woefully backordered and a bit of overkill. May also have been too deep but didn’t get that far.


Philosophy was that in these days of a precision WAAS approach to every runway why not have the ability to both navigate and get back in occasionally with a simple panel. Also nice to stay current at 5 gph.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I completely understand your reasoning, I was just saying from a visual perspective the g5 is out of place, but they always are.
 
Justin Brady said:
Oh yeah I completely understand your reasoning, I was just saying from a visual perspective the g5 is out of place, but they always are.
Click to expand...
Many a discussion was had over that, but the aircraft is a "flier" not a "showpiece," the shop had time to install at a reasonable price right then, and none of the 275 proponents were writing checks!

That said, could see a swap some time down the road as only the cover panel was harmed.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Agree. The wheel extenders have always been the hottest topic on the 120/140 forums. I've flown them with, flown them without, flown the newer models where the axle was moved forward by sweeping the gear legs forward, and the best handling one was the early models without the extenders. Pick up the tail of one with extenders and one without... the extenders add a lot of weight to the tail, not to mention they look stupid! Training wheels for an airplane that didn't need them.
Click to expand...

It’s been ages since I flew an early 140 with the original main wheel position, but it seemed easier to wheel land it than my ‘48 which has the forward swept wheel legs.

I feel just fine with my ‘48, but I think a big part of it is which you get used to.

Yes, the extenders have always been a hot topic. Sort of a Ford/Chevy argument. I guess I could put a pair of extenders on my ‘48 and put them on backwards so as to move the mains rearward.:eek:
 
MBDiagMan said:
Yes, the extenders have always been a hot topic. Sort of a Ford/Chevy argument.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people who argue about them haven't flown both. It was amazing how much easier it was to get the tail up on takeoff in my '46. It also handled a lot better on the ground.
 
 
Yes, mine is still a ragwing. Not only does it fly great but it has a significant effect on useful load.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Yes, mine is still a ragwing. Not only does it fly great but it has a significant effect on useful load.
Click to expand...

I've heard up to 40# penalty for metal vs. rag. I've flown ragwing, metalized and factory metal (140A) and like the ragwing feel the best.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I think a lot of people who argue about them haven't flown both. It was amazing how much easier it was to get the tail up on takeoff in my '46. It also handled a lot better on the ground.
Click to expand...

Yes, I wouldn’t argue that one is better than the other. They are just different. I could be just as happy if mine were an ealy model with the original gear position as long as everything else were the same.

Jack, did I show you mine when you were here at the museum?
 
Steamflyer said:
3/4 metalized. Another Ford/Chevy debate. Personally love the rag wing feel in flight.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue one way or the other (I have never flown a Cessna 120/140, but I want to).

Having said that, I would argue that its cheaper (and less risk) to pay less money for a flying airplane than to pay more for a plane that has sat for 7 years.

And in the one case where the flying plane is more, I personally would feel more comfortable paying $35k for the flying plane than taking the risk of the unknown on a $30K project.
 
Steamflyer said:
Which NE TX museum are you referencing by the way?
Click to expand...

Mid America Flight Museum in Mount Pleasant(KOSA.) My hangar backs up to it. Very unique warbird museum because everything is airworthy and flown regularly. I spend most of my Saturday mornings giving tours and otherwise spending time there. Occasionally I get an interesting ride and have even been at the controls of their historical C47 turned DC3.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Mid America Flight Museum in Mount Pleasant(KOSA.) My hangar backs up to it. Very unique warbird museum because everything is airworthy and flown regularly. I spend most of my Saturday mornings giving tours and otherwise spending time there. Occasionally I get an interesting ride and have even been at the controls of their historical C47 turned DC3.
Click to expand...

Was thinking of flying the 120 up from Houston on Saturday to the museum, which I just learned of.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Yeah, I only miss 180 by a very few pounds.
Click to expand...

Any size pilot (geometry permitting) can fly a 120 solo. A pair of heavier pilots and full fuel will push gross. That said, I've had myself at around 165# and a friend at 230# with full fuel and 100 F and no real issues. But in those conditions I find the stroker to shine.
 
Steamflyer said:
Was thinking of flying the 120 up from Houston on Saturday to the museum, which I just learned of.
Click to expand...

Would love to have you! PM me if you decide to come. We are open from 8AM until noon Saturdays. Will probably close for the winter in a month or so.
 
I’m 6’1” and normal waisted. My 150 seats were put in on a field approval and probably a little different than most. I’m incredibly comfortable for even multi hour flights.
 
Justin Brady said:
How so? I understand the purist "that's not what came from the factory it's garbage" argument but aside from that what's the issue?
Nothing wrong with cruising around slowly with a gps IMO.
The g5 would definitely look better as another av30 or 275 but otherwise I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...
It’s not a plane I would fly in a situation where gps or glass gauges would serve any purpose, and they spoil the vintage look, which for me is the whole point. But again, JMO, no offense meant to those that see it differently.
 
I have been to several 120/140 National meets and my seriously modified 140 is not well received there. I believe it’s sort of like showing up at a model A club meeting in a small block Chevy powered model A. They’re nice to me, but never interested in my plane beyond the technical guru looking it over and declaring that it looks like a safe, well maintained aircraft.

It’s all cool though. I enjoy mine and they enjoy theirs. There are different kinds of planes because there are different kinds of people.

The GPS and modified panel serve a great purpose as a great 5.6 GPH basic instrument trainer.
 
“my seriously modified 140 is not well received there“. Typical 120/140 owner is pretty cheap. They also have no issue with putting an O-200 in them. There’s a bit of hypocrisy/jealousy out there. My 120 was setup as an IFR plane back in the 50’s. It’s kinda grandfathered. Just has a single nav now, if I ever upgrade it I’ll keep the radios low on the panel. A $10,000+ GNX375 would be a nice replacement for the Narco AT-50.
 
We all gave this guy a hard time for the color not being black like Mr. Ford intended; however, it was all in jest.

03D597DD-F8E6-4DA0-B19E-675382B8ECC7.jpeg
 
manac said:
“my seriously modified 140 is not well received there“. Typical 120/140 owner is pretty cheap. They also have no issue with putting an O-200 in them.
Click to expand...

And the O-200 makes its power at the top end of its rpm range. Find the stroked C-85 to be an all around better performer.

I supposed there's a 120 out there with no D windows, no electrical and the wood prop, but these things were trainers and continuously modified/upgraded. They weren't show planes and they made thousands upon thousands of them, so each to his own in terms of how to enjoy.

My thing is engines, so when I see some drop head coupe from 1932 with a modern small block in it, I'm like "huh?" but not my ride.
 
I’ve heard folks say that about the stroker as compared to the O200A. All O200A installations are not the same although the vast majority are. Most O200 A installations have been done on Randy Thompson’s STC. I know Randy from the 120/140 get togethers I’ve been to and think the world of him. He is THE 120/140 engine guru. My O200A was done in the fifties on an STC scarcely available at the time. In my discussions with Randy he pointed out that my prop is not approved on his STC. The way mine is propped, it doesn’t give up anything to any 85 or 90 no matter how it’s modified.
 
manac said:
“my seriously modified 140 is not well received there“. Typical 120/140 owner is pretty cheap. They also have no issue with putting an O-200 in them. There’s a bit of hypocrisy/jealousy out there. My 120 was setup as an IFR plane back in the 50’s. It’s kinda grandfathered. Just has a single nav now, if I ever upgrade it I’ll keep the radios low on the panel. A $10,000+ GNX375 would be a nice replacement for the Narco AT-50.
Click to expand...

My 140 is not shunned at the 120/140 Nationals because of the O200. They don’t like the panel and yokes and they make fun of the 150 wheel pants.
 
Hmmm, I do have a spare 30k, but what I don't have is a hangar and I'm not putting that on the ramp.
 
I don’t like seeing ANY airplane tied down on the ramp to rot. Our airport manager doesn't like it either and goes to all lengths to try to find a hangar for planes that are being flown. The ones that are taking up hangar space not being flown get politely asked to remove them from the airport. If that doesn’t work and it still doesn’t get flown it turns into a demand.

I love my airport!
 
“My 140 is not shunned at the 120/140 Nationals because of the O200”
That’s my point, you can’t put modern avionics in them but you can hack them with a heavier engine.
I have the original engine but it’s a stroker now.

I was based out of KASH in NH, $650 vs $40 a month will re-cover and paint a plane pretty quick. She spent those years outside.
 
MBDiagMan said:
How is bolting in an engine from the same engine family with the same dimensions, “hacking?”
Click to expand...

Because there was a hacksaw somewhere in the hanger while they did it?
 
Or maybe in the hangar next door?

I expect that most people couldn’t even look under the hood and tell the difference.
 
Enjoyed having Steamflyer come from Houston this morning to visit the museum. He has a really neat 120. I was watching him off and on via Foreflight and he was making good speed with no tail wind indicated at his altitude.

Gotta love 120/140’s. Lots of smiles per gallon.
 
Had a great visit to the museum this morning. The restorations were impeccable; Doc was a great host and docent - learned a lot. Will be back.

The only issue was trying to figure out which of the old taildraggers from the 1920s and 1930s to beg to fly first!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top