Howdy all,
I have a cessna 140 with a 115hp lycombing engine and a 76" X 50" sensenich prop. The plane (named Prosecco) is really quite a little cream puff, and while I've never flown a stock 140, I'm told by people who have that Prosecco has a whole lot more power than the factory original. My question is why, in all the reading I've done on backcountry flying, the cessna 140 is never mentioned? Is there something about this aircraft which makes it less than suitable for backcountry work? I would think that with my larger engine I would have the same power to weight ratio as a gross weight cessna 170, though obviously not the same carrying capacity.

I bring this question up because, while I would dearly love to have a Super Cub or a Scout or a 170 with a big engine or a 180hp Maule, I don't. And seeing as how I would rather suck-start a shotgun than work enough overtime to buy one of those wonder-planes, I probably wont have one anytime soon. What I could afford to do is put a set of bushwheels and a climb prop on Prosecco, and just learn to live with the small payload and short range and marginal high-altitude performance.

What makes me hesitant to do this is, well, nobody else seems to be doing it. I've never flown a different tail wheel airplane, so I have no idea how a 140 handles compared to anything else. But while Luscomb, Taylorcraft, Champ and small-engine Super Cubs seem to liberally dot the bushflying literature, the 120/140 is seldom if ever mentioned, either now or in the past.

Ya, I understand it's the pilot more than the plane... But as a low-time pilot that doesn't work in my favor! Any thoughts from people who have flown 120/140's would be greatly appreciated.

Well Ravi,
I can't contribute to any insightful info as to why you see so little about the 120/140, especially any first hand account. I've never flown one. However, they're cuter than stink and seemingly a decent performer and you've got the "big" engine too! Seems to me your'e already ahead of the curve in a lot of respects. You've got a cute plane that you can afford to fly. So fly it a lot!
I've seen some guys (and gals) who can make a seemingly beneign 172 or 182 do wonderous things. I've been in a couple of places in ID when a herd of RV-6's and 8's showed up with a V-tail Bonanza carrying a ton of gear chasing them around (They reffered to it as the station wagon). I have a friend in WA that used to have a BD-4 that he'd take off the wheel pants and go into some surprising places. Another friend in a turbo 195 that goes i]everywhere [/i] in the Idaho back country. Carries a full compliment bar and BBQ with him too he's very popular!
I really feel that any kind of back country work is not type specific. Saftey and an "out of the box" perspective is paramount. Become proficient (not just current) in what you have, it'll serve you well.
BTW, welcome to the site!
Kurt

Several years back the 120/140 Club newsletter had a pretty good article written by a guy in the Spokane area entitled "A Mountain 140". His had a 125-horse Lycoming O-290-D 125 horse, 74-52 prop, 850 main's & 3200 t/w, BLR VG's, lightweight starter, no vacuum system, and minimal radio gear. He also mentioned not being able to afford a SuperCub,180, or Maule- so he made do with what he could afford. Said he had less than $22K into it, and it performed surprisingly well. Sounded to me like quite a nice, and capable, airplane, esp for the money invested. Tailnumber was N140JH, you could try getting ahold of him to talk about it.
Like you said, it's as much (or more) the pilot than the airplane that can make/break back-country op's. I'd suggest to spend some time getting proficient with short/soft-field op's & "maneuvering flight" in tight places, and go for it! Just be realistic about your kills and keep in mind that caution is the better part of valor. Good luck and have fun!

Eric

I have a 140 and fly it in the backcountry as often as I can. You do have to really know the airplane's and your limits and performance. Mine is powered by the c-85, so I really need to know what I'm getting into before I get there. For the backcountry, my plane is really a one person plane with light camping gear. Lots of fun, though!

And if you look behind the Husky in this shot:

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery ... m=4&pos=43

a 140 up at Crane Lake (C-90 in it, I think)

For what it's worth, a friend and I used to take his bone stock Cessna 150 into a lot of cool places around here. As others have mentioned, it involved being honest about his abilities and his airplanes performance, and keeping a REALLY close eye on the density altitude. That said, I think you could go the majority of places in Idaho that are of interest really. And to be completely truthful, you don't even need the bushwheels. We got around pretty well with 6.00/6.00 tires on a trike. 8.50's would be all you need. I'd spend the money on a climb prop and fuel. Just my two cents.--AJ

It's critical in a marginally-powered airplane (and they are all marginal in certain circumstances) is to keep everything as light as you can-- both in how the airplane is equipped, as well as the weight of what you have in it (including pilot!).
It's not too hard to get a pretty close idea on airstrip length-- doing a fly-over at 70 mph groundspeed, you're covering 100 feet every second.
Determining the surfrace condition (soft, rough,etc) is harder. Like someone's signature on the SC.org site sez: if it looks smooth,it might be- if it looks rough, it is!

Eric

A C140 with 115hp engine is a lot of air plane for the money.(not knowing what you paid for it and don't want to) I think it would be fun to fly and relatively inexpensive to operate and maintain. You also have access to a dedicated 120/140 website with endless knowledge at your fingertips.

Don't worry about what some one else has, fly your plane and enjoy it to its full potential. With a 115hp engine it has good capabilities.

Bill

For a quick & dirty comparison of (hypothetical) capabilities, I like to calculate the power loading and wing loading of airplanes.
Power loading = loaded weight divided by horsepower.
Wing loading = loaded weight divided by wing area.
I usually figure empty weight plus two people @ 175#,3 hours of gas @ 6#/gallon,and some misc "stuff" at about 20#.
Airfoil design, etc plays a big part in things too, but some things you just can't quantify. Comparing the numbers of a 140 to a ragwing 170, or a 140A to a 170 A or B seems reasonable.

Eric

Thanks for all the input! I do really like my little plane, and it has been a treat to have a plane I can actually afford to fly. I've flown just over 300 hours in the last 18 months...something I couldn't afford to do in a larger craft. I suppose in the end that's worth more than short field performance for a new pilot like myself.

My one problem is that I'm 6'5", and the cabin on a 140 is rather compact. I have to take my shoes off to fit. Luckily my wife is rather small, and very brave! A stock 170 seems like a reasonable alternative (love that round tail), but I'm absolutely sold on a "high performance" engine.

A friend took me for a ride in his cessna 180 the other day. For some silly reason I thought it would fly like a great big 140. Turns out I could barely keep it on the runway during takeoff! It's a great plane, but I see now why he kept his cessna 120...you don't fly a 180 around for an hour just for fun.

Ravi,

How about sending in a few pics of your plane into the gallery here. I'm starting to look for a project that is inexpensive to fly, and you've given me some ideas.

Jr, is this the pic?

I'll send some photos soon as i can...my computer is in the shop right now. Unfortunately, in the interest of weight savings I rarely bring a camera with me flying...sad for someone who use to be a professional photographer.

I dont have the skills to fly the backcountry yet, but I've done a few trips from California to Utah and Idaho, and in a little plane like mine weight is a big deal. The larger engine doesn't come with a gross weight increase, so with full fuel and my wife I'm already at gross weight. I can pretend I'm a seaplane, which Cessna says gives me another 106 pounds, but the bottom line is I have to be careful with what I carry.

The airplane itself isn't the lightest it could be. Then engine has cylinder head heaters and a spin on oil filter (another eight pounds of oil right there). Inside the cabin are two radios, transponder, venturi vacume system, attitude indicator, vsi, electric turn and bank, wheelen strobes, position lights, two gps units and a 30 amp-hour battery, all of which add up.

Offloading fuel isn't terribly practical in the West, as with only 24 gallons to work with and a 6.5 gph burn at a 90 knot cruise, my range is not quite "nevadaized". It's also worth mentioning that most of my trips start with crossing the Sierra Nevada's which means getting to at least 9500 msl, which can easilly be 12000 feet density altitude in the summer.

It's one of those planes that climbs like a homesick angel with one person and half fuel on a cold day, but every little ounce makes a difference. I've been known to taxi to the end of the runway, stop, and then after appraising the situation, drain my water bottle out the window before takeoff.

My first 200+ hrs was in a C140. A commercial license and lots of memories. A 140 is not a Super Cub, but it will go into more places than many airplanes will. We had a sod strip at our airport and I lived on a farm. Go out and fly. After a rain, after it snows, when it is hot, windy etc. I do like larger tires. They roll easier in adverse conditions, especially soft. There are probably some runways around that are shorter, narrower, trees, slope, something that will give more experience and will help to develop judgement. My flight instructor built time while he was in S. Calif. in the Marine Corps. He flow 140's, Luscombe's etc and he landed in lake beds, ghost towns in the mts. etc. He would ferry out gas, camping supplies, family, and camp for the week end and fly back for duty on Monday. They will do more than you might think. It is all about knowing your airplane, and more importantly knowing about yourself. Remember that the laws of physics will prevail. It is just learning to live with them.

I am the pilot from the white and blue Cessna 120 pictured above. My father owns the airplane, it has a Lycoming O-290D 125 HP engine. It will do better than most would think as an off airport/back country airplane. The airplane has 8.00X6's on it: the largest the type certificate will allow. It would do better with 8.50X6's or 26'' goodyears. I have had it on sandbars as short as 500-600ft, gravelbars, and various other short unpaved strips. I've flown it with PA-18s a few times even some formation takeoffs. The takeoff roll isn't much more and it will climb out just as good as a 160hp cub. I have seen up to 1800ft on the VSI after a solo takeoff at sea level. Cruise is great, about 125MPH at 2350RPM. The only downside is that the usefull load isnt much, but it will haul anything you can get into it. I also know the guy who owns the white and Red C-140, it has a O-290D2 135HP engine, I got to fly it a couple of years ago. The VGs and Flaps really help out, I didn't get to fly it much to see what it could really do but I was making approaches at 45MPH indicated with some power.

more pics- taken in WA and ID

Very Nice Robw56....


I realy need to take my camera when I fly

I wanted to see the takeoff too. 140/170 can always land shorter than takeoff, so bet it was exciting!

Edit: Just went back and read that you have the 125HP engine in it, and it's actually a C-120. What a great airplane. My grandfather had a '51 140A long before I was born but we still have the photos.

What's the STC for the O-290?

The STC number for the O-290D conversion is SA4-581 it can be found in the STC Library on cessna120-140.org

Here is the takeoff video as requested: