Cessna 120/140 yay or nay?

I've been looking for a second plane, was looking at 4 seaters but a 120 caught my eye. Love the lines of it, and its got a new o200 sitting up front. Purchase price is easy on the wallet, mechanic said they're dirt simple, whats the catch with them?

Never flown one, or sat in one unless a 150 counts.

A few hours in a J3 and Citabria but thats about it for conventional time.

 

Yea. For sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think the 120s don’t have flaps, right?

 

They do not have flaps or rear windows. Which year model are you looking at? All double strut models originally had fabric wings. Most rag wings will slightly out perform the early 140's that had the metallized wing mod. With the newer fabric options rag wings are not a the disadvantage for maintenance they used to be. The 46 models had a different panel layout and a different cowling front opening. In 1948 they moved the gear legs slightly forward (about 6 to 8 inches) to make nose overs and prop strikes a little less likely. I do not know if they made "A" model 120's, I have only seen "A" model 140's which had the single strut and metal wings from the factory. C85 in 46 & 47's, C90's in later models which is basically an O-200. I understand an O-200 has a different cam shaft and probably some other differences. They are rated at a lower RPM than O-200s due mainly to the length of the prop being longer on C-140s & C120s than C150s.

 

Never flew a C-120, but I have flown the the C-140 with the landing gear "fix".
It's fun to fly.
For me it's a 1.5 person airplane, unless the other person is petite, as I am not petite.

 

Learned to fly in one, nice simple airplane. Got me and my brother to Alaska and back.
Flaps are overrated.

 

As someone who has only flown a 152, how does the 120/140 compare?

 

The catch is, you can either take passengers or fuel, not both.

 

<- Yea!
Fun, Little, honest plane. Check out the 120/140 forums.
Negatives, 85 kts, narrow, mine has 500 UL.
Very similar to the 150/152. Little wheel in the right location.

 

I'm surprised to hear that.

 

There's a C140A in the hangar bay next to my Citabria and they are nice aircraft to fly.

The seats are not adjustable and the rudder pedals are fixed, so if you are tall the yoke might hit your knees, and if you are short, you might need a pillow behind you to reach the rudder pedals. I you are 5''9" it'll be perfect.

Gross weight is 1450 for the 120 and 1500 for the 140, which is notably lighter than the 1760 pound GW for the C152, so performance is pretty similar even with 85-90 hp in a 120 or 140, with slightly slower cruise speeds in the 95-100 mph range. With a C-85 with O-200 crank, rods, pistons and cylinders, or an O-200 you'll probably see 105-110 mph.

That said the 120 didn't come with an electrical system from the factory and most have them now, so real world empty weights on modern equipped 120s cut into the useful load a bit, as will larger engines. Similarly, metalizing a 120 or 140 wing adds about 40-50 pounds and along with an electrical system and starter can potentially reduce the useful load down around the 500-550 pound range rather than 600 or so. So check the W&B numbers before you buy to see if the one you are looking at got fat.

The C140 was produced first with the economy model C120 coming a couple months later, both with C-85-12 engines. As noted above the C140A had a metal wing, but it wasn't just metalized. it was an entirely new C170 style tapered wing design with a single wing strut. It also had the option of a C-85-12F or C-90 engine. The C140A is less common as only about 500 were made.

The O-200 in the small aircraft like the Champ and the C120 and C140 is better in theory than in actual practice. The O-200 won't generate full horsepower at less than 2800 rpm, and you don't usually get that much rpm in these aircraft. At best the O-200 was a 97 hp engine anyway even at 2800 rpm.

The C-85 cranks are getting hard to find, so there are STCs out there to install O-200 cranks and pistons in the C-85s and C-90s. That's really the sweet spot as the combination of the C-85 cam, designed to produce max power at 2575 rpm, and O-200 crank, cylinders, pistons and rods gives you slightly more real world power than an O-200 anyway

My impression is the 120 and 140 handle better than the C150 and C152. and I think the 120 or early rag wing 140 has better roll response than the metal wing 140A. The difference the flaps make on the 140 compared to the 120 isn't much. The small flaps on the 140 are not like the larger fowler flaps on the C150 and C152, so a C152 pilot will have to manage approach speeds differently. You'll have to learn how to slip and the C120/C140 rudder has a lot of authority for that purpose as well as for good control in crosswind landings.

I wasn't aware of the gear being moved forward on the 1949 and later models, but there is an STC out there to add an extender block to the bottom of the gear leg, which moves the main wheels forward a few inches. If you buy a 120 or 140 without that mod, it's well worth getting. With or without the mod, stay off the brakes until you are almost stopped and be very diligent in keeping the stick back with any head wind and prop wash to keep the tail down. With a tailwind it's a judgment call whether the airflow over the elevator warrants stick forward or stick back, but if the tailwind exceeds the prop wash effect, keep the stick forward.

They are not as forgiving as a Cub or a Champ, but they also are not difficult to fly for a competent tailwheel pilot. They were after all designed as trainers. That said, it'll be rare to find one that has not been ground looped. If you do ground loop one at more than taxi speed the odds are good you'll damage the gear boxes. However parts support from Univair is quite good.

The trim tab equipped elevator authority is Champ like in that it could use a bit more at low speed, so it's not as short field as it could be. But on the other hand, you do not want to get on the brakes until you've slowed to a walk anyway, so don't try to make it a stol aircraft and you'll both be happy.

In terms of a pre buy be sure to check:

- the area around the door posts, like you would any Cessna;
- the main spar carry through structure (leaks from the small skylights can cause corrosion);
- the landing gear boxes (there are inspection panels in the cockpit floor;
- the tail section for cracks, especially around the tailwheel spring; and
- The tail wheel spring for both breakage and sag. Sag will cause a negative castor angle which will cause the tailwheel to shimmy and a broken tail wheel spring will cause total loss of control on landing, which will do major airframe damage. Looking for a cracked or broken leaf really should be a pre-flight inspection item.

All of the above are repairable, but with the exception of the tailwheel spring won't be cheap, so you want to find those issues before you own it.

 

Yes, find one to sit in. As Larry mentioned, they are pretty short-coupled for legroom, similar to early 150s (like the straight-tail models), but later 150/152s have a bit more room. It all depends on whether you're long-legged.

 

I would argue just the opposite.
The extenders will tend to twist the gear the "wrong way" if you have any side load - not a help. But I never flew with them so I can't do a back to back review.
If you have the original GrabYear brakes, well, the old man claimed that's why he ended up on the nose in a ditch with mom in the right seat. They do bite. Clevelands on the other hand, not no problem, not no way ('46 model 120). Well, I don't recommend holding the tail up with brakes until you come to a complete stop because at that point the tail comes down with a bang. But other than that...

 

The tail coming down with a bang is I suspect one of the reasons the tails develop cracks and tailwheel springs get broken. I'm a fan of just staying off the brakes unless you actually need them to augment the rudder when taxiing.

 

There are a boat load of STCs out there for the C120 and C140.

 

I've owned and flown O-200-powered airplanes since the mid-1960s. I would not want a new-build (say, 2000 or later) O-200-A unless the cylinders have been re-worked after leaving the factory by a good outside shop. Just my opinion, based on experience.

 

YES! That,,, They are way easy to tip up. thus the tail gets slammed.
I find that I can no longer get it into one. I don't fold as easy as I once did.

 

When it comes to old airplanes, dirt simple is not the same as dirt cheap. Pay attention to what Larry Vrooman said about the prebuy and the weak areas he listed.

 

The gear legs were moved forward on the 1948's also. The reason for the RPM limitation with the 72" prop the tips get into the transition range (near supersonic) at the higher RPM's an O-200 is rated for. Cessna 150's had a 69" prop to allow for more RPM and more ground clearance. My 48 model with rag wings and the C90 cruised true airspeed at 94 knots (108mph). The seat back had 3 or 4 slots to adjust it forward and back but the bottom cushion was fixed which I believe came from the factory that way. Mine had a "climb" prop on it and it would out climb comparable 150's. At the time I weighed about 185 pounds and would take a 170 pound passenger, 120 pounds of gear, full fuel (25 gallons) with no issues. Flew the wings off that thing Bahamas to New York, North Dakota to the Mexico border and almost every state in between. I don't remember going further West than Colorado? Very fond memories!!!

 

I'm 100% with you. The extenders are the hottest topic you'll find on the 120/140 forum. I had a plane with them and a plane without... I would never them to a plane. They're not needed, they add weight, and as you mentioned can twist the gear. Stay away!

For those saying they moved the gear, they didn't actually move the gear legs, just swept them forward so the wheel is 3 inches further forward. This happened in late 1947 and continued through-out the life of the plane.

 

I would not add the extenders either. Also have flown the models before and after the gear change, and all of them with the Goodyear brakes.

 

I'd say to use the extenders, they add a safety factor. all us aren't as good as the few that have tipped up.
One little moment of distraction means a year of repairs.

 

The extenders also move the plane’s CG rear wards relative to the wheels. That makes the plane more likely to ground loop. Pick your poison.

 

I don't believe that.

 

I do.

 

It will, but minimally. Should still be easily controllable. Never heard of excessive groundlooping tendencies with the modified gear.

 

120/140 are great airplanes. Tons of them out there so finding one and parts is pretty easy. They aren’t the best performing of the old tail draggers but they get the job done. I fly a lot with 5-6 friends with 140’s and one 140A. My 63’ 150 will outperform them all in every way but ramp appeal. They are perfect for someone wanting an old tail dragger that may need to sit outside as a lot of them have metal wings now.

 

I love mine! Absolutely love it! Just flew a 150 for a friend the other day, the 120/140 is definitely lighter to the touch and less draggy, i would definitely definitely consider it. I took mine out to N idaho to johnson creek, she handled the high DA fantastic. I put 150hr on her since i got her a year and a half ago, learned TW in her.

Good prebuy and as far as airplanes go it is inexpensive to reasonable to maintain.

I burn 5gph at about 100mph. Thats rather impressive when ya think about that... They are a conversation starter everywhere...fly very nice... they are not spacious but very capable for what she is.

my favorite upgrade was VGs really keeps the controls crisp damn near just over taxi speed.

stick with the ragwing, weight penalty of metal is too great and most say they don't fly as nice. I don't think wheel extenders is a hot topic, 8.5 out of 10 owners will say take em off, they really were designed only for the early serial numbers not the swept gear which my 47 has. You can certainly use their brakes And firmly if ya keep that yoke in your lap, my instructor proved that to me as I was scared of them, I'm no longer scared of them. Like anything with the third wheel on the right end everything needs to be respected, but not feared.

visit the association website and two very active facebook pages...

 

Oh and a great article in March FLYING magazine on em... Im a bit partial being it featured two pics of my beloved Shirley’s panel but great article on em...

 

Overall they are great little planes if you are happy with a small lightweight economical plane.
Of the many 120's and 140's that came with the constant chord fabric wings, some have been metalized. I think the fabric wings look better and are lighter weight.
The 140A has a single strut and the double tapered metal wing, just like the 150, it sometimes had extra windows in the lower door and is known as the Patroller.

 

The basic unpainted 120 I Fly occasionally will pretty easily carry 400 lbs of people and if not full fuel,

probably 2.5 hours of fuel or better.
I think it has something like 8000 hours on the airframe but has taught hundreds of pilots to fly in the our area over the past 40+ years.
I have taught a number of people to fly in it. It is a fun cheap airplane.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

I’ve got mine down to about 950 so 500 of useful load. Full fuel ya got 350 left... with 2 hour leg and an hour reserve you can have 390 left... two hour leg is long enough without a **** and a leg stretch

 

I ended up buying a 170. I wasn’t sure I’d fit well in a smaller plane, plus I got my PPL in a early 172.

 

Congrats!

 

This is my 140 that I’ve had almost ten years. She’s a sought after ‘48 model with an O200A and lots of goodies. She’s a ragwing and saving for a heated pitot is IFR capable. I bought a Mooney several years ago but couldn’t bare to part with my 140. She’s a real hoot to fly around locally on a pretty day, and I even take her for a longer walk from time to time.

I love my 140 and as far as flying fun for the buck goes, she’s really tough to beat.

 

And here’s her panel. This isn’t your Grandfathers 140.

 

The main gear was moved forward in the 1948 models along with a few other incidental improvements.

 

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.

 

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 replaced 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...