Since the 140 is now on 29in Airstreaks I thought a PIREP would be in order. As far as cheap trainers go the 120/140 is a pretty solid option, all opinion of course. I had a J3 with 65hp and no electric and given the same conditions it would take off in about half the distance of my 140 as it sits now. They both land in about the same distance. I am sure both could land even shorter, but I am not a big fan of having power on during landing. I personally don't like having to rely on engine power to bring it in short, plus I don't think I would be able to get out of a sub 500ft strip, close to sea level, as is given my own personal safety factor.

As for take off performance I was able to get into ground effect in 400ft, accelerate in ground effect, and pull to an inital climb from 90mph slowing to 75mph (approx Vy) at 1500fpm and stabilizing at 700fpm up 2000agl. This was from a field elevation of 500ft with a DA of 2200ft. This was also accomplished by popping the flaps which I have found is the best way to get off the ground with the little 140. During take off runs there was no wind, I think with a favorable wind and temperatures I can be sub 300ft on take off roll pretty realistically.

After making tweaks to the rigging and adjusting the trim I am now getting an indicated, and gps verified, 100mph. Before the Airstreaks I would see between 105 and 110 depending on weight. All in all I am very happy with the cruise performance. Roll rate at maneuvering speed has slowed down a bit due to the Airstreaks, but it was to be expected, and there is still really great aileron feel and roll rate.

Landing is where my biggest complaint comes up with the 140. Cessna uses a elevator trim tab vs a jackscrew system. I simply run out of elevator trim with how the plane sits now. Granted I am still on a scott 2000 tailwheel and a swap to a 3200 with the Airstreaks, I think, will be a must. However, I will make due with the 2000 for now. After doing some different landings, I have found, what works for me best is 20deg of flaps( more of a speed brake really) but 20 deg kills all float and in the round out and flare it'll touch down pretty nice in a 3pt, but everything has to be right on. Comparing this to a J-3, is that I could have the worst approach and flare and the J-3 would be damn near perfect on touch down every time. However, I was lucky to get 65mph out of the cub in cruise and the 140 is giving me an honest 100mph, double the range, and an electrical system, so it has a lot better overall utility.

This all comes down to mission and such which everyone has a different one. But as far as cheap to operate goes I have no major complaints, and the ones I do have are nothing that a little technique can't fix.

As sort of an added bonus my 140 does have some easy weight loss options. I am still running the original pull starter, and generator, as well as a pretty heavy battery. I can lose about 30lbs there alone, and I believe there is some more weight to be lost as well but I will go down that rabbit hole at a later date. For now I am just going to keep flying her and get more proficient. Which is pretty easy to do when you are only burning 5GPH.

More photos to come soon!

Thanks for posting this. I have a friend that is starting their pilot training and looking for an inexpensive plane.

Subscribed. More photos, please!

I had a 140 until a few years ago, when my mission changed and required speed and IFR. Looking now to slow down and land short, the Internet would have me believe I need a 185 or a Super Cub. Thanks for the reminder that it doesn't take a lot of money to go slow and short.

Good airplane. I flew my entire 36 hours, paid for by Uncle Sam, in it to become the first ROTC Flight cadet to get a CPL.

Here's a few more from a while back as some mx was getting taken care of. I will be flying it out west here next week so I'll get some photos of her in action. And if anyone knows anywhere worth checking out between Little Rock and Albuquerque let me know, no real plans, just looking to enjoy the ride and a few days off from work.

That's an awesome 140, mighty indeed!

R--Grande

Did you run out of elevator authority before the Airstreaks?

Battery is obviously the quickest and easiest weight loss.

A Good flying aircraft and undervalued IMO for what it is. A true classic!

And they look so good.

wannabe wrote:R--Grande

Did you run out of elevator authority before the Airstreaks?

Battery is obviously the quickest and easiest weight loss.

On stock sized mains the 140 did pretty much perfect 3pts, tail wheel would just touch before the mains and there was def slop allowed for pilot error on the airspeed side of the house. Now, I've pretty much gotten it good enough with the 29's and Scott 2000. If I use 20% "flaps" a 3pt all happens right at the same time. I would like a bit more tail wheel first but I am comfortable with it now. I think it was just coming from flying a cub and what I was used to there.

I stuck a Scott 3200 on my old C120 and it helped, and if they had existed at the time, I'd have gone with a Gar Aero or Baby Bushwheel to give the back end some extra float and less drag.

That fat tailwheel tire makes a huge reduction in drag for my C172TD when trying to accelerate and get the tail off the ground on take-off. A 2000, and the 3200, acts like a pizza cutter in the soft stuff, and really lengthens the ground roll.

Gump

Gump - You keep tempting me to wish I could afford a cartoonist. Chris C

That looks great! Can I ask who or whom supplies the STC for the bigger mains? I thought 800's were all that could be used on the 140. Sweet setup for sure.

RussellGrande wrote:Landing is where my biggest complaint comes up with the 140. Cessna uses a elevator trim tab vs a jackscrew system. I simply run out of elevator trim with how the plane sits now. Granted I am still on a scott 2000 tailwheel and a swap to a 3200 with the Airstreaks, I think, will be a must. However, I will make due with the 2000 for now. After doing some different landings, I have found, what works for me best is 20deg of flaps( more of a speed brake really) but 20 deg kills all float and in the round out and flare it'll touch down pretty nice in a 3pt, but everything has to be right on. Comparing this to a J-3, is that I could have the worst approach and flare and the J-3 would be damn near perfect on touch down every time. However, I was lucky to get 65mph out of the cub in cruise and the 140 is giving me an honest 100mph, double the range, and an electrical system, so it has a lot better overall utility.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one that has noticed this. I also have a 140 and run out of elevator in the flare when trying land slow and short. I have an 0-290 up front so it's probably a bit more nose heavy than yours. I find that if I leave the trim at neutral (not the neutral mark on the wheel, but with the trim tab inline with the elevator) it has better elevator authority - though you have to use a fair bit of force to hold the yoke back through the approach and flare.

For a bit of extra oooomph while pulling back on the elevator for flare, roll the trim wheel full nose forward. Not aft, but forward.

Gump

(on edit: Wheel, not tab)

rcwflyer wrote:That looks great! Can I ask who or whom supplies the STC for the bigger mains? I thought 800's were all that could be used on the 140. Sweet setup for sure.

8.00x6 is the largest tire that can be installed per the TCDS. Anything else needs to be STC'd. Looks like he's running 29" Airstreaks which are a little lighter than true Alaskan Bushwheels, they have a max gross weight of 1700lbs. Airframes Alaska now holds the STC.

Google Cessna 140 wheel extenders for other options

"A" model landing gear legs are swept forward to place the wheels further ahead of the CG than on the earlier airplanes. This was done to protect the airplane from pilots transitioning out of other two-place airplanes who had never flown with toe-brakes. This is why it's common to see 120/140's with steel extensions bolted to the gear legs which move the wheels ahead about four inches. Many consider this to be overkill, as the brakes have to be hit fairly hard to make the tail come up. It's a training problem more than a hardware design flaw.

The model "A" wheels forward are similar to the 180/185 options.

Once watched a clean polished 140 go slowly over on it's nose because owner wanted to make a specific turn off. The pretty CFII (had been a LAKE inst. in AK) could do nothing to stop him. It so slow that I thought - is this really going to happen - I was on short final and just stepped over to the taxi back lane and ran over to help. Closest thing to injury was getting cold in the rain.

Some day I will learn how to get old organic photos digitized - then the hard part of learning to load them within a story. Chris C

Good airplanes. My wife soloed and got her private ticket in one...she never even flew in a nosewheel until she got her instrument rating.

I love the 120/140. It's probably the 2nd best-looking airplane Cessna made (195 gets the top spot - but that's a 'pipe-dream' on my budget). But even a 172 feels very "tight" to me... I got claustrophobic the only time I tried to fit into a 140 - and that was before the other guy even got in... Maybe if you could fly 'em with the doors off? LOL

So I just stick with the Champ/Citabria, where I have have enough room to get in and be comfortable.

JP256 wrote:I love the 120/140. It's probably the 2nd best-looking airplane Cessna made (195 gets the top spot - but that's a 'pipe-dream' on my budget).

Obviously you've never seen a Cessna Airmaster......that'd for sure put the 120/140 at 3rd place.....

Two of my students needed to build time to meet specific job qualifications. They both were working on their commercial certificates at the time. They each needed a total of 500 PIC. They went to the bank of Mom and Dad to borrow some money, bought a really pretty Cessna 140A. I checked them both out in it, and they flew the heck out of that little plane. At the end of the day, they each had the hours they needed, they'd paid for avgas, one annual inspection and replaced the starter. Bought the plane for $22,500 and sold it a year and a half later for $22,500. Hard to beat that for a time builder......

MTV