If I had a spare $30k...

Gorgeous!
 
Timbeck2 said:
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a fur coat. But not a real fur coat, that's cruel.

~Bare Naked Ladies
Click to expand...
"If I had a penis I'd still be a girl but I'd make much more money and conquer the world"

Uncle Bonsai
:D
 
Super cool, but last annual 2007... Hopefully not for a reason...
 
mcmanigle said:
Super cool, but last annual 2007... Hopefully not for a reason...
Click to expand...

Thats my thought, it looks good, but $30K for a Cessna 120 that hasn't flown in 7 years is not reasonable.

For that price you can get a nice flying 120, and for less than what you will likely spend getting it back in the air (assuming nothing is major is wrong with it), you can get a good 140. If there are any major repairs needed, then you are getting into flying Stinson territory.
 
Cool plane but ... it is a high wing ...

(Ducking & Running!)
 
Buy it for $30k, put $30k into it, and you'll have a really nice $30k airplane. NTTAWWT...
 
William Pete Hodges said:
There is a really cool 1951 article on AirFactsJournal by Wolfgang Langwiesch about flying a C-140 across the continent of Africa. It is one of my favorite articles. It gives you a good idea of his thought processes and what one of these little airplanes can do.

https://airfactsjournal.com/2013/10/from-the-archives-wolfgang-langewiesche-flies-across-africa/
Click to expand...

Appreciate the link, fun article for sure. I would have loved a more in depth photo-essay type article about that trip.
All over africa in a 140 in 1951 would be a hell of a trip.
 
I love the 120/140 planes but I just don’t fit inside. Then you frequently see those listings where the seller says he loves the plane, but needs to upgrade to a 170 for more space/cargo/speed.
 
Justin Brady said:
Appreciate the link, fun article for sure. I would have loved a more in depth photo-essay type article about that trip.
All over africa in a 140 in 1951 would be a hell of a trip.
Click to expand...
When I first read that article I owned a Cherokee 140 with the back shelf option. I did some performance comparisons with the POH. Except for shorter Takeoff and landings, I was surprised how much low end performance and utility could duplicated in my Cherokee. He talked about landing on sandbars, which he could do easily, while the Cherokee would be less adept with, but other than that it gave me a different perspective on my own bird and the flying I did. It was a real eye opener.
 
texasclouds said:
I love the 120/140 planes but I just don’t fit inside. Then you frequently see those listings where the seller says he loves the plane, but needs to upgrade to a 170 for more space/cargo/speed.
Click to expand...
Are they actually any faster? I'm waiting for 170As to be under 50k again...
 
If things go well, my 1946 140 will be available for purchase soon.

I've been working on getting it airworthy for over two years, so it will be in excellent condition.

It will probably not be that expensive.
 
I noticed that the pics showed that it has the mlg axle extensions. Not that common. They move the axles fwd enough to enhance the ground handling.
 
Beautiful plane but guaranteed the engine is not in "sweet" condition unless pickled.

Same story for all these old airplanes. Grandpa's pride and joy. Then he got too old and sick to fly, or maybe put in a nursing home. Nobody in the family wants to say "look Dad, you will never get better and we ought to sell your plane." So they wait til he finally passes away, and the plane gets liquidated with the estate. At that point it has 20 years of corrosion on the camshaft, crank flange, etc.
 
Maxnr said:
I noticed that the pics showed that it has the mlg axle extensions. Not that common. They move the axles fwd enough to enhance the ground handling.
Click to expand...
Pilots are removing them. The help prevent tipping over while increasing the tendency to ground loop. They move the CG further back from the wheel axle.
Love my 120!
 
MarkH said:
For that price you can get a nice flying 120, and for less than what you will likely spend getting it back in the air (assuming nothing is major is wrong with it), you can get a good 140.
Click to expand...

IMHO all a 140 does is add 40# of flaps and associated mechanisms not needed. Comes right out of the gross. Both are about the nicest flying planes around.

As for wheel extenders, just stay off the brakes! It's on the checklist - heels on the floor. Also, in 1947 or so the gear themselves were swept forward about three inches.
 
That looks nice on the surface and at a good price, but the deal killer is that it apparently has sat up without running for 15 years. Been there done that and ended up having to rebuild the engine. Not on my Cessna, but on my Mooney, If you’re prepared to foot the bill for an engine overhaul if necessary then take the chance.

Most of the 120’s out there have had the rear windows added. The fact that this one has not, indicates that it is probably a pretty original plane. Originally, the differences between a 140 and 120 were the lack of rear windows, electrical system and flaps on the 120’s. Most of the remaining examples now have the rear windows and electrical system, but no flaps. You really don’t need flaps on one because they slip so nice. The 140 flaps are mostly drag and very little lift anyway.

My ‘48 model has the 3” forward mains. The 120/140’s are sweet flying planes. I was ain mine yesterday morning just enjoying a beautiful morning. I leave traveling duties for the Mooney, but I have flown the 140 on as much as 700nM one way trips the national meet and people came in them from all over.

I came close to selling it about a year ago. I turned down a crazy high offer and I’m glad I did. It’s just a hoot to have in the hangar for those beautiful blue sky days.
 
MarkH said:
Thats my thought, it looks good, but $30K for a Cessna 120 that hasn't flown in 7 years is not reasonable.

For that price you can get a nice flying 120, and for less than what you will likely spend getting it back in the air (assuming nothing is major is wrong with it), you can get a good 140. If there are any major repairs needed, then you are getting into flying Stinson territory.
Click to expand...

Have you priced 120/140’s lately?
 
GeorgeC said:
Are they actually any faster? I'm waiting for 170As to be under 50k again...
Click to expand...

I hope you have lots of patience. Barring economic collapse (which is not an impossibility) you will probably never see that price on a good 170 again.
 
MBDiagMan said:
My ‘48 model has the 3” forward mains. The 120/140’s are sweet flying planes. I was in mine yesterday morning just enjoying a beautiful morning.

I came close to selling it about a year ago. I turned down a crazy high offer and I’m glad I did. It’s just a hoot to have in the hangar for those beautiful blue sky days.
Click to expand...

Not only are they sweet flying, with well balanced controls and control wheels with a nice flat spot to rest your palm, they will handle substantial crosswinds. Mine cruises around 107 mph at 2400 rpm with the stock prop (7148) and a stroker. It's a '46 so a bit more nose heavy than the later ones with swept gear. Only really thing I've noticed is it hates tailwinds, even light ones, on landing and to a degree, on take off. Probably because it doesn't need any help from the wind moving the nose down.

Throw in a GPS and and an indicator and you can go where you please (slowly) in semi-decent weather and if needed shoot a gentle approach.
 
MBDiagMan said:
View attachment 111202

You mean a panel like this? ADS-B transponder and a 420?

This isn’t isn’t your Fathers 140.
Click to expand...

Gorgeous. Yes, those are the lines was thinking along, though in my 120 it's a GPS175 + AV-30 + G5 as I am very lazy. Have to find a pic.

Really nice wheel pants too - I run 8.00's, so no joy on the pants due to muddy grass work some of the time.
 
Wow! A six pack in an original type panel! Looks great! You might squeeze a 175 in there where the engine monitor is.
 
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.
 
So you don’t like my steam gauges? What is it that makes it absurd?

For me, it makes the perfect instrument trainer.
 
Steamflyer said:
As for wheel extenders, just stay off the brakes! It's on the checklist - heels on the floor. Also, in 1947 or so the gear themselves were swept forward about three inches.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top