cessna 120/140 vs 150/152

B

Brad W

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
2,065
Location
NE Florida
Display Name
Display name:
BLW2
It has been a lot of years for me being in either of these types
and I'm sitting here daydreaming of getting something low cost and economical to put around in.

aside from the obvious conventional gear vs training wheel, I'm curious about a compare and contrast. What do you think of when you consider these types?

I did my PPL in the 152 and 150...and have a little time in both 120 and 140...but not a lot.

I don't remember anything about the seating and comfort, except that it was shoulder to shoulder with the instructors. I don't remember being horribly uncomfortable otherwise. I was a lot younger back then, wonder if I would hate either or both now form that perspective (climbing in, seating position,etc).

The last flight I took in a 152 it struck me how bumpy the ride was on a windy day. With the lower wing loading I'd suppose the 120/140 would be even worse.
 
The fuselages are the same width across all those models, but beginning with the 1967 150G the doors were bowed outward, supposedly giving an additional 3” at the elbows.

The rear window (1964 150D) and big baggage area (1966 150F) give a feeling of spaciousness.
 
Pilawt said:
The rear window (1964 150D) and big baggage area (1966 150F) give a feeling of spaciousness.
Click to expand...
Yea, they are effing HUGE inside. You could purd near park a truck in the baggage area.

But personally, given the choice, I would buy the 120/140. But I won't because they are too big and heavy to fly under the sport rules. Disclamer: I have way more time in a 120 than in 150/152s.
 
I would go with the 120/140 for sentimental reasons and ramp appeal. You show up in one of them and people will come out to look at it. I have flown several 140's and soloed in one. The last airplane my dad had was a 140 with a 90hp engine. It was tight with him and I in it, we were both above average in height and a little over average on weight. Below pictures are of my solo in 1978 and the last 140 my dad had.

20200202_161537.jpg IMAG0002.jpg
 
for a pilot with low tailwheel time, how will the insurance compare
 
Brad W said:
for a pilot with low tailwheel time, how will the insurance compare
Click to expand...
I am betting 120/140 will be higher, sorry. I have over 600 and dad had thousands of TW time and it was not a problem. Hopefully someone will post with more relevant information. Little side note neither of us had the tailwheel endorsement, I am grandfathered and so was my dad.
 
Unless you go with the later model 150 they will all feel the same. You give up a little performance but the added room is really nice. The larger baggage area is also a huge plus as the 120/140 and fastback 150’s is really tight. If you only compare the early 150’s to the 120/140 the decision gets harder. The tailwheel planes are more fun at least when the winds are calm. They obviously have more ramp appeal as well. The 150 is a way better performer though even against the 140A. I routinely fly with several guys with 140/140A’s and get off sooner, climb faster, cruise faster, and land shorter. There is a 140 a local guy just bought that has an O-200 and is pretty even with my 150. I get off a little quicker thanks to the follower flaps but everything else is nearly equal.

Best of both worlds is to find a 140 with an O-200 or at the very least a 85/200 hybrid. I would love to convert my 150C to a tailwheel but the rest of the plane isn’t worth restoring so if I ever do I’ll find another one to fix up.
 
Plano Pilot said:
I would go with the 120/140 for sentimental reasons and ramp appeal. You show up in one of them and people will come out to look at it. I have flown several 140's and soloed in one. The last airplane my dad had was a 140 with a 90hp engine. It was tight with him and I in it, we were both above average in height and a little over average on weight. Below pictures are of my solo in 1978 and the last 140 my dad had.

View attachment 86130 View attachment 86133
Click to expand...
Wow, a 32 year old airplane! I guess that was pretty old for a GA machine in 1978.
 
The c85 with O200 guts will outperform the O200 in the same plane, if both are propped correctly. The 200 makes similar power at a higher rpm. The c85 Dream Machine is more fuel efficient. There is precious little room in the back of a 140 for baggage and you arent filling the tanks with two 200lb people, but for putting around it is an awesome plane and tailwheel is great fun.
 
My experience in a 152 is exactly one flight. I'm not a light guy and neither was my CFI on flight lesson #1. But obviously I had enough fun in it to continue the program to the end, in various incarnations of 172's.
 
Atypicalguy said:
Its always entertaining when people freak out about comments on old threads, as though the passage of time has any impact on the validity or importance of the information contained therein. My plane is 78 years old. Any four year-old thread is brand new by comparison.
Click to expand...
Well I guess that would make it post war, at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top