Looking for opinions on the differences between a Cessna 140 with an O-290D2 and a Taylorcraft with a C85. I know the wing on the 140 is not ideal for short fields, but given the power difference would one or the other be a better choice for backcountry camping with two? Assuming similar acquisition cost, which would you go with?

I have a C-120 with a McKensie O-235 conversion. I have flown a O-290 powered C-120 and comparing that to a 85hp t cart is comparing apples to oranges.

horsepower.

Two people in Montana that's pretty high with even higher density altitudes is a scenario where neither plane is at all appealing - but maybe you two are very light (120 lb).

I took off from Ennis at gross 2500 lbs (filled the tanks to 53) in my MX180C and I was very happy that I could fly for ever up the valley before turning crosswind (noon at 80 degrees). My plane supposedly has a service altitude of 15k feet but a 10k density altitude is VERY attention getting.

I have no experience with either of those planes so can't recommend either. You might also consider a Luscombe with a C85, C90 or O200. My wife and I backcountry camped in our Luscombe and had a blast. Something about that long wing makes it do well in high DA situations.

Don't know about the Luscomb, but a so equiped C140 with full fuel, two average people and a toothbrush each is already over gross. I loved my 140, but it's just not a reasonable airplane for two people to camp out of.

I realize neither is ideal. I will have to look at Luscombes as well. But, no longer in Montana. Sea level in Washington for the foreseeable future.

When I bought my 85hp, short mount Tcraft, I did a weight and balance on it.... at that point I discovered that the P/O had overloaded it just a tad.... we verified that at one point he was at 140% of the gross weight upon takeoff from Kalispell, MT, elevation 2935'. At that point, he flew it to Spotted Bear for the weekend. It made it, pretty easily in fact.
That being said, I've never flown a 140 with an O-290, but I do have a few hours in a 140 with an O-200. You're right, there is no comparison. The Tcraft will out haul that 140 anyday!
If you think about it, you can take that basic Taylorcraft airframe (BC12-D) and take that very basic airframe from 1180# gross to 1500# gross with the addition of bushings in the lift strut attach points, and a 4" longer engine mount (plus some minor weld on plates to the strut attach at the wing and a few other minor things done to the fuel system)......to me, that says quite alot for the aircraft. There is a difference in the way the long mount and the short mount 85hp handle, but I think you'd be happy with either.
My opinion, and worth all you paid for it.
John

My dad has a 120 with a 125hp O-290 that I have quite a bit of time in. I've also got a flight in a 135hp 140 with VGs. Its actually an impressive little airplane with that engine. Cruises 125-130mph and climbs at 1500fpm. Plus, it will haul anything you can get in it... Just not legally. I've never flown a taylorcraft but between the two airplanes I would pick the O-290 powered C-140 because I know what they can do.

Assuming the prices are comparable, I'd be inclined to choose the Cessna.
Beside's Rob's dad's experience... there was a pretty favorable article in the 120/140 Club newsletter some years ago entitled "A Mountain 140" about a similar airplane. Keep it light & keep the prop pitched pretty flat & it'll kick ass. You might be bumping up against gross at times with camping gear but keep it in CG and it'll be OK.

hotrod180 wrote:Assuming the prices are comparable, I'd be inclined to choose the Cessna.
Beside's Rob's dad's experience... there was a pretty favorable article in the 120/140 Club newsletter some years ago entitled "A Mountain 140" about a similar airplane. Keep it light & keep the prop pitched pretty flat & it'll kick ass. You might be bumping up against gross at times with camping gear but keep it in CG and it'll be OK.

The mountain 140 was the other one I've flown.

If it's the one in Bend it sounds like a pretty decent airplane & a pretty reasonable price.

hotrod180 wrote:If it's the one in Bend it sounds like a pretty decent airplane & a pretty reasonable price.

That's the one.

.

Thanks for all the comments. I ended up with the 140. It does indeed kick butt - climbs at 1500 fpm near sea level. Impressive performance for a 140. Still working out take-off and landing numbers - need more practice to get them nice and low. It is a bit nose heavy which makes landing slow a little tricky as it runs out of elevator early in the flare when slow. It would definitely benefit from a higher angle of attack on the ground. Tail hits first with a slow landing, and it won't pop off the ground until well above stall speed because the angle just isn't there. But I think larger tires and practice will fix this. Upgrades in the future will be Desser 8.50s, VGs, and a flatter prop.

glacier, how did you make an extended baggage? Did it go over the top of the battery box?

Nice looking bird

The VG's will be a great addition, I have two rows staggered from each other and some under the rear stab... makes a pretty serious difference!

G-Knight

"Two rows staggered" Care to elaborate and educate an elder?
Might save me some research.

W

Nice ride and congratulations. I've got a little time in a 140 with the 0235 conversion and it was cool. 135 sounds like a blast.

Congrats. I always thought the 140 could be an awesome bird with extra ponies. Come say hi some time if you head south.

wannabe wrote:G-Knight

"Two rows staggered" Care to elaborate and educate an elder?
Might save me some research.

W

When I bought her, she was mostly "stock" ... but the previous owner had installed vgs on the wing.. but in groups leaving a pretty good gap between them. As I started throwing all kinds of mods on this thing I decided to play around and add some more. So in the gaps, I added more vg's except I added them further "up" the wing as the previous owner had installed them pretty low on the leading edge (lower than should be according to what I read - probably could be argued). I didn't expect much but I saw a several MPH drop at least.. so I threw some on the back under the stabilizer to make sure I would retain plenty of pitch authority at low speeds. Stall speed now indicates sub 30mph when it noses over gently... though this happens at an AoA a little too steep for landing...this could partially be why the numbers are showing up so low (25mph)...but either way, actual landing speeds around 35-40mph indicated, could probably get it even lower if you want to risk dragging the tail... this is on the RANS "speed wing" so that is really good low speed performance for this wing...

Basically I just kept adding VG's, and it just kept flying slower... with no negative side I can find. Cool mod!
Also, I can tell a difference at taxi speeds with the stabilizer vgs.. I can take noticeable weight off the nose wheel at fairly low speeds.

SamIntel wrote:.... It is a bit nose heavy which makes landing slow a little tricky as it runs out of elevator early in the flare when slow. It would definitely benefit from a higher angle of attack on the ground. Tail hits first with a slow landing, and it won't pop off the ground until well above stall speed because the angle just isn't there. But I think larger tires and practice will fix this. Upgrades in the future will be Desser 8.50s, VGs, and a flatter prop.....

I put a set of Micro VG's on my C150TD and was under-impressed, but some others have out them on Cessnas & really liked them. The 150 VG kit put them on the vertical stab but not the horizontal stab, I see the kit for the 120/140 has VG's for the bottom of the horizontal stab but not for the vertical. Hmm. Under the horizontal should increase your elevator effectiveness if they live up to their claims. One good thing about the 120/140 & 150 kits, they're only $700 vs $1450 for the 4-place Cessnas. Kinda handy for you that Micro is right on the field there at Anacortes.

Looks like you don't have the wheel extenders on that 46 model. They're not the greatest, but if you wanna move the wheels forward they're a lot cheaper than a set of later-model wheels-forward gear. Since it mounts in back, I'd suggest that you keep the stock heavy battery, but you might think about a lightweight starter and alternator (if you don't already have them) to get that CG moved aft a bit. I see you have single-puck brakes, better than doubles for not putting you on your back.