So I am hoping to be in the market for a plane in 1.5-2 years am wanting to know what you guys think the c-140 is capable of. I don't want to have to keep it at a airport so I am looking to put in on the farm I have a field that has right about 1000 foot of useable area with trees at one end and neighbors at the other. So I really need something that will be clearing 50 ft in about 1000 ft. I am a small guy (125lbs) and most of my operations would be solo. how is the C-140 going to do? C-85/90 O-200/235/290

I really like 140s. they are not super great STOL planes, but I think they are OK. I would try to get your hands on a C140 POH and review the takeoff and landing charts. Condiser operations at gross weight and the highest density altitudes expected at your field, and make sure that there is still margin. You don't want to be clearing the trees by ten feet routinely, because eventually a tail gust will land you in the trees. There are some other planes in that price range that will have better short field performance, like a 165 hp Stinson, or a 160 hp pacer. Even a ragwing 170 does pretty good in the lower elevations.

maybe I should kind of restate things the trees will go, dont have any problems with taking them out for 300ft or so which starts going down hill after the field. The 50 foot when all is said in done should be about 35-40 more then required to make it out. I know what you mean by not wanting to be clearing things by a few feet every day as my backside knows the feeling of passing over things by a few feet...

you mention the ragwing 170 I have around 50 hours in a 170B during my PPL is there a big difference in performance? I know the 170B would probably do it on a cold day but would probably be pretty marginal. I haven't considered the other but will look into them.

I had a 120 for a long time with a C85 and a "climb prop". It is an absolutely wonderful in allot of ways but lacking in short field performance.
I have no 140 time but from what i hear flaps make little take off or landing difference. The little 120 will teach you a thing or two about slips!

1000ft is pretty dang short. I ran in and out of a 1200ft grass strip quite a few times just to say i did. The strip was 350ft field elevation with 50ft trees. I was lucky there was a airplane size notch in the trees at about 30ft because i had to use it every time. I only weight 160lbs, the plane could not have more then 1/4 tanks and no junk. A C-90 or 0-200 would be better for sure but still doubtful you could get a second gall in the plane.
I use to keep the plane at a 2200ft gravel strip. I could do full tanks a buddy and me but it was really really tight over the trees.
Other then those limitations its a great airplane. I have 26" goodyears and had a million strips i could go to. They are cheap to buy, cheap to fly and cheap to maintain if you get one in ok shape.
If i had to do it over again i would have saved up a bit more and gotten a pacer or Tcrate.

The 290 in a 140 is super heavy and leaves you with extremely little useful load and limits your fuel range.

I flew a 140 and it was great (long ago). Not STOL but, just a good honest touring bird. I weigh a lot though.

rag wing, 0200, no flaps

1000' = dangerous

Cessna 140 is a really nice flying plane. Yes, they are a very simple and inexpensive aircraft to own, and not too slow, mine cruises at 110 mph. Down side is they use runway to take off because of the wings airfoil. You can land in the the thousand foot easily, taking off you better have optimal conditions especially with trees on the end.

If you want to operate out of your short airstrip, I recommend talking to folks on this group, huge wealth of info here.

http://cessna120-140.org/forum/index.php

Also recommend fabric wings, no interior, basic vfr instruments, to have a light aircraft. I removed close to 30 lbs of worthless junk, old wire, interior, etc I can see a difference in the 140.

A 1000' backyard strip with trees and neighbors at the ends is pretty marginal. OK for once in a while in perfect conditions, but flying an also-marginal airplane in & out on a regular basis (as in keeping it there), sooner or later you're gonna have a mishap. I'd say either keep it at a less-demanding airstrip, or get a more capable airplane.

I have a few hundred hours in a C-120 with an O-290 and it is a hell of a performer. It's true that the useful load is limited but I'll tell you it will fly with two bigger size guys and whatever you can stuff in the small baggage area. I remember one time heading out on a camping trip we were at a weight of........ Um let's say exactly at gross weight and it was doing 1000fpm at 100mph. Solo it'll climb at1500fpm at sea level. Cruise at 125-130mph. I used to take it into a short 800ft strip with power lines on one end and trees on the other. That was tight even with the big engine to pull you out. Although I have no time in a C-85 120-140 I wouldn't reccomend one to operate out of 1000ft with obstacles.

Here is a video going in and out of the 800ft strip.

I keep my C140 at a 2200' crop duster strip at about 2600 elevation. When I take it into strips <2000' I make sure things are stacked in my favor: solo, half tanks, minimum gear, cooler temps, favorable winds. I couldn't imagine routinely running the aircraft out of a 1000' strip with obstacles, I'd get tired of constantly requiring the best performance and my own best flying skills. A 2000' strip gives me more room to fly when the temps are higher and at gross weight.

If you settle on getting a C140 I would also recommend fabric wings. The 120/140s that have metalized wings have varying levels of workmanship which is dependent on who did the STC work. I flew in one once that was metalized by a high school shop class. At certain RPMs the inboard panel on the left wing would POP and you'd think the wing had snapped off. Also, fabric is lighter than the metal wings. The C85 is a good engine but parts can be an issue. Mine has the C85 with the O-200 rods, crank, piston conversion. It doesn't increase the power of the engine, you are still limited to the original redline (2575 RPM), but it does increase the torque which means you get more of that 85HP more of the time (like during takeoff and climbout). Flown within its limits the C140 is like a motorcycle with wings. It is GREAT solo, a little cramped with two, and very limited with two and a little gear.

I just recently sold my 1959 C150 with the Lowe tailwheel conversion. That uses original 140 main gear legs and the 1959 150 is a 140 fuselage. Main difference is 40d Fowler flaps, and it has the O200 100HP. I installed a 48 pitch climb prop and VG's.

I could land it reliably in 500 feet or less. At my ranch, which is at 4700' MSL, I have a 900' straight section of pasture with trees at one end and a 4' barbed wire fence and ditch at the other. A year or so ago I was trying to figure out if I could take the little 150 in there. After practicing takeoffs at the local airport, I found that on pavement I had to figure on using about 700'. So with the extra drag of grass, and the consequential finite length, I decided to not ever take it in there.

Pierre

cstolaircraft,

The three really dangerous things with the small Continental powered airplanes is not getting into low ground effect quickly, not staying in low ground effect as long as possible, and trying to get over the obstruction with too much margin. Fly over to the Hanger Cafe at Kingsley Field west of Miller, MO and I will buy you lunch. I will try to get Julian (forget his last name) to come over with his C-140 and take you flying. He has a short, rough strip I have been into with his 85 hp 140 and with a C-150. I don't remember how long it is but it was rough enough I didn't want to go back. Bring your helmet.

Robw56,

Very nice, slow approach. If you take the light brush out across the road, you could take off and land under the wire. Or make a low ground effect rudder turn to go down the open area parallel to the road/wire.

JoshP,

I had an ag student who ended up flying an 802 for Jack Frost at Palestine, Arkansas. Kidding, I asked him, "What does the two extra blades on the prop mean? "They mean," he answered, "you have arrived."

Rob, it looked like there was a little slot in the trees on the approach end of that strip. Is that where guys have been dragging their landing gear coming in as low as possible?

I think any of us who have owned airplanes and property dream of walking out the door to our airplanes. But sometimes it's just not practical. Many years ago, Wife 1 and I bought a piece of ground north of Laramie, with the plan of building a home there, and of course, I started planning a strip. At the time, I was partners in a TR182, so first I did some calculating using that airplane's capabilities. Flying it alone and light, I knew that I could easily get it down and stopped in 1000', and I could get it off the ground in less than 1500' on all but the hottest days. But load it up, fill the tanks, fill the seats, add luggage, and at gross it took a little more runway to get down and stopped, but a whole lot more to get off, especially on a warm day with the DA hovering around 9500'. I had 1460' total to work with, and it was obvious that on family trip days, I'd have to hop it over to the Laramie airport solo and pick up the family there, for us to safely depart. Some really warm days, the airplane would have to stay parked. Even in my most optimistic dreams, that was a pretty squeaky situation.

I honestly think that's your situation. It may seem hard to compare to what I was facing, but although you wouldn't have the high DA problems, you have less space and much less airplane capability in a C-140. I think it's a super little airplane, but 1000' just isn't enough to get off safely, consistently.

I don't know what would solve your problem. My problem was solved with a divorce and she got the property. That probably extended my lifespan for a couple of reasons!

Cary

hotrod180 wrote:Rob, it looked like there was a little slot in the trees on the approach end of that strip. Is that where guys have been dragging their landing gear coming in as low as possible?

I think they might have trimmed the trees there a little. The trees are much taller now and the strip is no longer in use. I took that video over 10 years ago I believe.

ok so it sounds like a 140 probably isn't the best choice. so what do you guys have for better suggestions? I have heard stinson 165hp pacer 160 hp t-cart. I am looking for a airplane that will be a good time builder to get 500-700 hours in will teach me to really feel the wing and be able to safely operate out of 1000 ft. I am open to experimental.

Since you don't need 4 seats how about something along the lines of a Kitfox or RANS? Seems like that would be a better fit.

I have mixed feelings about running a 2 stoke in a airplane although if I could find one with the 912 for reasonable I would jump at it. just they seam to be a bit more then what I would like as far as the $$

Well, that' s a big question. A Super Cub or an S-7 Rans. Or a Highlander or CH-701/750. Maybe a T-craft with 100hp but there are others here that can speak to that. A C-141 is definitely a non starter.

but I want to park this in my back yard!

You can.... Once.