Hey all,

I am a new member here and looking to start dipping my wings into the world of backcountry flying. I am in search of a little advice. I currently own a very nice 1948 Cessna 140. Nothing crazy- C85, ragwing, but it's got a nice tailwheel setup, VGs, climb prop, etc. I love it to death, but I'm not sure if it's the best fit for getting into this kind of flying. It lacks the power other planes can provide, but it's got great feel and is super lightweight for what it is. For a little context, I bought this plane after getting my tailwheel in it in Colorado, and I am now located in North Dakota. It does fantastic out here, but it definitely was a done-by-noon kind of plane back at altitude. I plan to return to Colorado within the next year or so, and my current predicament is as follows:

Do I hold onto the 140 for the sake of learning what I am doing and getting into backcountry flying at an entry level, potentially upgrading to something more capable in the future?

Or do I upgrade to something more capable, a 170B, 180, Super Cub, etc. Prior to getting into any real backcountry flying?

I am definitely open to any suggestions one may have, and am all ears to any advice for getting into this type of flying. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who want to throw in their two cents.

(If this post is a better fit for a separate channel, let me know, and I will get it moved. This was the best I could come up with for now.)

Nodak_140 wrote:Hey all,


Do I hold onto the 140 for the sake of learning what I am doing and getting into backcountry flying at an entry level, potentially upgrading to something more capable in the future?

Yes,
That thing will teach you stuff the others will mask with power, and foster habits the others will never truly devlop.

Take care,
Rob

As Rob stated, you will learn alot from the low powered 140. After a few hundred hours it'll be an extension of you and you'll be amazed at what you can do with it. I owned an underpowered 172 for nearly 40 years and I knew that plane extremely well.

I'm definitely not alluding to the fact that MN has a lot of 'backcountry flying, but there are lots of grass strips in the northwoods of MN that can 'wet you appitite' for what you are eventually wanting to do. Of the several planes that I have owned/flown, the Cessna wing is very forgiving. Not sure on the 140 though. I have had several guys fly into my strip that think it's 'fun' since you're coming over a small hill and trees. Besides, I am in the state forest so it appears challenging. I previously flew my O-300 powered 172 in and out of it. Currently fly the RANS (fpr sale) and a Murphy Rebel in and out. 1600' grass with about a 200' grassy lowland overrun.

I recently had a guy from the Grand Forks area ask about the RANS S7 I have listed for sale. He has the same plane as you and is wanting better performance. Fairly open farm country so I was surprised that he wanted something to T/O land quicker.

I'm right next to Itasca State Park if you get over this way.

Other than lacking a bit of cargo space you have a great "starter" platform. By now you are should be very familiar with it's basic handle characteristics, time to take it to the next level.

guessing it would take 500 hours or more depending on what kind of flying your doung to extract all that your140 can teach you. You didnt say how many you have in her. And not much else is gonna teach you so much for so little $$$

Keep in mind most planes are over at noon when the DA starts moving north, at least for the old not bold pilots

I recently started flying a C-120 with the old O235 STC nomanally making 100/115 hp. Read at the 120/40 forum guy says 30 seconds to get off the water with a c85 on the 1400’s. I’m off in 6 with the 235/1650/spinning a 76-39 Somthing to think about.

Rocket

If you are not trying to carry a bunch of gear and another person, I think the 140 will be just fine. Everything has its limitations, work within them and learn to get the best out of it. There isn't much true backcountry flying in Colorado. Way out by the Utah border north of Westwater there are a few that are pretty high, like 8000' IIRC. But, eastern Utah has a wealth of great flying and most of that is at relatively low elevation. It gets hot out out there, I don't like flying when its hot just because I don't like to sweat my balls off in a tin can in the sun. I loved flying Utah about this time of year and spring prior to June. You can fly much of it year round, but the camping sucks in the winter.
I watched a group of 9 airplanes leave Thomas Creek in Idaho a few years ago. Mid morning, so not too warm, there were 180's, 182's, 206, and a stock square tail 172 with an 0-300. The 172 had a guy and his dog not much else, but his takeoff roll was not appreciably longer than the other planes in the group. I am sure they waited for him at each stop, but he probably had just as much fun if not more.

Run what ya brung.
If you need 2 people plus gear, can't leave home without the kitchen sink, or can't imagine skipping the 400' strip at 8000' DA then a PA18/C180 is the ticket. For just you and some overnight gear the 140 will take you most of the places any sane person wants to go.
If you want to get somewhere before tomorrow the C180 sure is nice, but the 140 likely gets more smiles per gallon.

As others have noted, to answer your question with any accuracy, you need to specify your mission and profile. Is it going to be just you, camping gear and gas? For that, the C-140 will happily do most backcountry strips in the west, except MAYBE the really technical ones.

Add one other person and camping gear......different equation. You'd still be able to operate quite safely in a lot of places, by minding temperatures, loads and strips. But, in that case, a 170B might be a better ride. Frankly, many two seat airplanes make great single seat planes, and the 140 is one of those. By the same token, many four place planes make really nice two seaters when you add camp gear.

Now, that said, I've worked with people who consider "mandatory camping gear" to be almost everything that REI sells. There are a select few who go camping with a really small kit. If you're one of those, keep the 140.

Finally, where do you WANT to go? If your goal is to fly as much as possible for as little $$ as possible, stick with the 140. But, your profile and mission is what should make that decision. And, understand that both profile and mission are going to change over time.

My bird has an 0-200 with a serious climb prop. I'm good at places like Garden Valley or Cavenaugh Bay here in the PNW. As others have said, you are a little limited on space. I keep everything small and light. Put my bird on a diet too with lightweight starter, battery, removed the vacuum system, etc. They do tend to get heavier over the years. keep it light and solo. Your VG's may be an advantage already. Pay attention to density altitude.

I appreciate the advice from everyone. I'm definitely going to hang on to the 140 at the very least until I return to altitude. Both my Mom and I want to get into more camping and backcountry adventuring. It would be nice to be able to carry both myself and another person with some limited camping gear, and as multiple people mentioned, I have no issue keeping it light. Especially when it's just me in the 140. I think something like a 170B might be in my cards in the future here, but I am going to try to extract all the knowledge and experience I can from my bird in the meantime.

On another thought, does anyone suggest a good school to learn what I am doing flying in more "backcountry" environments? I keep seeing ads for various schools in Utah and other places that have caught my eye. Or is it just better to find someone who knows what they are doing and learn from them?

I appreciate all the advice!

My buddy flys his 140 from a 6200’ elevation field. When it’s warm, we are pushing 8,500 DA.
It flies well but he flies alone.
Don’t be in a hurry. Take it slow.

I read a pretty good article about this years ago, maybe in the 120/140 Club newsletter.
Written by a guy with an 0-290 powered C140,
he lived in Spokane WA & did a lot of flying in the Idaho back country.
I think he said he did fly a lot with his wife, but they were both pretty lightweight.
His basic philosophy was "I am a flying backpacker",
all his gear & supplies were chosen with light weight & compactness in mind.
Freeze-dried food instead of fresh or frozen, whiskey instead of beer, etc.
He said he couldn't go all the places the "super duper cubs" went,
but he did all right-- esp if he limited his flying to when it wasn't too hot out.

I flew my Maule MX-7-180 with a Lycoming O-360-C1F (180 hp) carbureted engine and constant speed 76" prop in the Idaho back country with 40 gallons of fuel, a 220 lb instructor and a back cargo area filled with camping gear in August 2016. I landed at Warren, Wilson Bar, Reed Ranch, Chamberlain, Cold Meadows, Cabin Creek, Soldier Bar and Johnson Creek. My gross weight was 2,200 lbs, which is 300 lbs less than maximum. I only flew in the mornings due to density altitude. Takeoff distance was about 900 feet at Wilson Bar and about 700 feet at Soldier Bar. Climb rate was around 400 fpm so I learned to use the lift from updrafts on the leeward side of the canyons. Your C140 with 85 hp will would work fine at low density altitude but you wouldn't be able to climb fast at max gross weight. I have 31" Alaskan Bushwheels tundra tires and an ABI 3224A tail wheel and tail spring. Some of those strips are rough and I'm glad I had the big tires and heavy duty tail wheel and leaf springs.

If you are looking for a good instructor for back country flying I strongly recommend Paul Leadabrand of Stick and Rudder Aviation. His training is first class as is his equipment. His training prepared m for flying my RANS S7 when I purchased it. I live in the desert, but his instruction really helped me anticipate what I would be facing in that environment, even though he trains mostly in the mountains. I also highly recommend the RANS aircraft. I no longer own my S7, but it was a great off-airport plane, especially after it was modified by Mark Pringle at Rocky Mountain Kitplanes. I had the RANS factory heavy-duty landing gear installed, and the later aerodynamic ailerons, the later, larger fuel tanks, bigger tires, better brakes, and a larger tail wheel. I installed a three blade carbon fiber Whirlwind Prop and VG’s. Even with the stock 100hp Rotax I had plenty of power and could haul a 200lb passenger with ease. It would have been a rocket ship with a larger engine. For me, tandem seating ts the only way to go if you are flying off-airport. Being able to see your landing zone equally on both sides is just the best. Good luck, and have fun!

You stated in your OP that you wanted to start "dipping my wings into the world of backcountry flying". The 140 is a capable plane, albeit with some limitations. Since you are not an experienced backcountry pilot, I would start the dipping process with the 140 and see how you like the reality of backcountry flying/camping. Once you have tried it (at strips and DA appropriate for your plane) you'll get a feel for whether this is something you want to concentrate on, or just another type of flying you will do on occasion. If this winds up being your primary goal, backcountry flying will absorb all the money you are willing to throw at it. If it is just a different type of flying you choose to do once in a while, the 140 might be all the plane you'll ever need. I fly a 180 Hp Maule on 850X6 tires and it also has its limitations when flying backcountry. I thought the Maule would be my first baby step into backcountry flying and that I'd get a more capable plane later. It turned out that the Maule scratches all of the backcountry itches I have, so I've never needed to upgrade. I still do lots of paved runway, big city flying and decided long ago that the places I can't safely get to in my Maule aren't places I really want, or need to go anyway.

So, start slow, stay in your 140's lane and see how it goes. Nobody else can tell you what kind of plane will be best for you. You have to find that our on your own by playing within the limitations of the plane you have and decide for yourself if those limitations are too restrictive, and whether an upgrade is necessary or not.

What Flyhound said. You can have a whole lot of fun in your 140, just start out slow and understand its limits. You’ll know more about where you want to go with this when you’ve done some trips.
I cannot begin to describe the freedom I feel with a plane full of camping gear, a pushbike (you might need a onewheel or something smaller) food, water, no destination and a couple of weeks in front of me. BC, Alberta, Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, Washington - its like a giant playground.