This is a new listing, higher TT on the airframe but looks to be well kept. I hate yellow with a passion but the price is much better and would allow for VG's, Sportsman kit and bigger wheels/tires.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft

***Edit*** She looks to be sold, he has a full price offer already accepted on first day listed, they move fast when priced right.

mtv wrote:Just find a good 170B and enjoy it. In a 140, you will be perpetually trying to avoid an over gross situation. Get a copy of that 140s weight and balance, add full fuel weight and see what you have left.

Buy a 170.

MTV

Agree. Use this year’s “new truck” money and get a 170.

I had a similar situation myself, and went with a 1946 140 last September. I was zero time in anything, and live in interior “bush Alaska” gas is 8.75/gallon here.

My decision was based on two things. It being the “right” plane and low fuel burn. I wanted a plane I could afford to fly a ton. I know the last two owners well, they both loved the plane and took great care of it. That to me was huge. It has a low time O200, 26” bushwheels, larger tail wheel, 150 seats, borer prop etc. Since there were no rental planes locally, but lots of CFI’s I had to buy a plane to start. Having just 4 hours now, but flying just about every day, I don’t regret the decision a bit. Of course since I live right by the runway it helps get the daily training in.

I have a coworker who has a 9 gal/ hr plane... for the same hours just flying around solo she burns nearly $80/hr in fuel. With the 140 it’s between 4 and 6 just training. I couldn’t justify that high fuel burn personally. To me the 140 is more like my old 1988 Corolla I drove in college. Sure my present day suv is nicer, but I sure miss the micro machine fuel mileage!

I thought the useful load was going to be more of an issue than it really has been....the thing surprised me with just how little runway it needs.... with the o200 and prop it has it’s been a non issue. Then again Alaska temps vs Texas, it might be different.

Down the road when I live somewhere the fuel is cheaper I’ll probably want a “big plane” but will likely just keep this one so the wife and kids can get their pilots licenses too if they are so inclined. Plus I am a sucker for the polished aluminum.... I don’t see it getting stale.... of course, everyone’s situation and goals are different. Good luck with the choice!

A Pacer is another to consider. It may not be your end all plane, but is a good intro to tailwheel ownership.

It would fit your mission, has more performance and space than a 140. And it can do most of what a 170/S170 can at ~50% of the purchase price.

Insurance is cheap by today's standards too, even with low time.

I am curious if you have gotten any insurance quotes comparing the two. I have two new C180 students who coincidentally just bought a 1958 C180A (I have the same airplane 58 serial numbers ahead). They both have about 100 TT and just acquired their PPLs. The insurer is requiring 100 total tailwheel and 25 in type before permitting flight without a CFI. This is a lot of time needed just to satisfy the insurance companies. Another friend I know owns a C120 and he decided it was more cost effective to remove the hull coverage. I am curious if you've contact any underwriters and compared the insurance costs. I would buy the C170 if you have the budget but the insurance is definitely something to consider.


Josh

Liability insurance for my Buell costs more than hull coverage for my 140.

Regards,
Ernie

Dog is my Copilot wrote:I am curious if you have gotten any insurance quotes comparing the two. I have two new C180 students who coincidentally just bought a 1958 C180A (I have the same airplane 58 serial numbers ahead). They both have about 100 TT and just acquired their PPLs. The insurer is requiring 100 total tailwheel and 25 in type before permitting flight without a CFI. This is a lot of time needed just to satisfy the insurance companies. Another friend I know owns a C120 and he decided it was more cost effective to remove the hull coverage. I am curious if you've contact any underwriters and compared the insurance costs. I would buy the C170 if you have the budget but the insurance is definitely something to consider.


Josh

I haven't received any quotes just yet but I have been collecting agent suggestions. 100 hours TW is a lot to be able to fly covered without a CFI, I don't think I have heard of others requiring that but who knows. Insurance and hangar rental are definitely added expenses that can make or break ones budget.

They are insuring through BWI. They are a married couple - each with 100 TT and recent PPLs. The 180 is more of a beast than a C140/170 and also has a much higher hull value. I believe they have the hull value set at 100K. I think the insurance quote will depend on your total time and ratings. I have another student with a bolen converted C172 TW and I believe he is paying 2k/year for a 60K hull with 1 million/100K. He was required to have 25 tailwheel/15 in type. He also has 700 TT with an instrument rating. He is insuring through AOPA. All of the insurance premiums have been increasing but I believe the conventional gear insurance rates have gone up at a faster rate. Age is also playing a factor now - with some high time pilots over the age of 75 having difficulty getting coverage for TW airplanes. Worth checking before making the purchase. I personally have had the best quotes for insurance with Falcon Aviation.



Josh

I just went through the insurance hoops recently. Avemco was the only one that would insure me with zero time in a tail wheel, the only requirement on the policy is 10hrs instruction in the 140 before solo. It goes down 9% at 60 hrs and private pilot completion, and another 9% at 80 hrs. There’s another drop after that, but I didn’t ask about what point it was.

I checked with multiple other brokers, but they wouldn’t touch Alaska planes, especially not tail wheels. They all wanted 60 hrs in type first, thus negating any “savings” enabled by ownership....made training in my own nearly impossible.

It might be easier in the lower 48, but the AK market was tough to find a carrier.

I am with Global and when I bought the Champ I had zero tailwheel time and roughly 500 hours. They required 10 dual and the policy was around $1,100 (2019). The hull value at that time was $20,000. As I got more tailwheel time the policy went down (Marginally) the next year. This year I am over 100 hours TW and upped the hull value $5,000 and my premium stayed basically the same.

Pete

Good info on the insurance rates fellas, I appreciate y'all sharing this with me. I might have a line on a good 170B but I am definitely keeping my eyes and ears open to what else might be coming along. Hopefully I'll have my rating done in the next month or two, all of this rain as of late is definitely hampering my ability to get in the air.

A good 170B is gold these days, if it's in your budget grab it you may just end up with a new friend for life.

Is the insurance on a 170 really any different than the insurance on an early 180 with the same hull value?

Mapleflt wrote:A good 170B is gold these days, if it's in your budget grab it you may just end up with a new friend for life.

That’s what I am hoping for.

Hello my name is Allen, I just started traIning in a C-140. I have 10 hrs. I had 4 hrs previous in a C172. But I knew I was getting a ppl to fly into small remote places in the Caribbean so I might as well fly a taildragger in training. I love the 140 and I'm not looking back. I want to buy a plane. Maule, or C170B. Any other suggestions. My apologies to the op if I should start a new thread I will. But the way I read the suggestions I shouldn't start a new thread till I have commented on another one. I've got the bug badddd. I'm in SC upstate. Anyone else around here. 66SC.

AboveNorth wrote:I had a similar situation myself, and went with a 1946 140 last September. I was zero time in anything, and live in interior “bush Alaska” gas is 8.75/gallon here.

My decision was based on two things. It being the “right” plane and low fuel burn. I wanted a plane I could afford to fly a ton. I know the last two owners well, they both loved the plane and took great care of it. That to me was huge. It has a low time O200, 26” bushwheels, larger tail wheel, 150 seats, borer prop etc. Since there were no rental planes locally, but lots of CFI’s I had to buy a plane to start. Having just 4 hours now, but flying just about every day, I don’t regret the decision a bit. Of course since I live right by the runway it helps get the daily training in.

I have a coworker who has a 9 gal/ hr plane... for the same hours just flying around solo she burns nearly $80/hr in fuel. With the 140 it’s between 4 and 6 just training. I couldn’t justify that high fuel burn personally. To me the 140 is more like my old 1988 Corolla I drove in college. Sure my present day suv is nicer, but I sure miss the micro machine fuel mileage!

I thought the useful load was going to be more of an issue than it really has been....the thing surprised me with just how little runway it needs.... with the o200 and prop it has it’s been a non issue. Then again Alaska temps vs Texas, it might be different.

Down the road when I live somewhere the fuel is cheaper I’ll probably want a “big plane” but will likely just keep this one so the wife and kids can get their pilots licenses too if they are so inclined. Plus I am a sucker for the polished aluminum.... I don’t see it getting stale.... of course, everyone’s situation and goals are different. Good luck with the choice!

Another vote here for the 140. The three best posts in this thread are:
1. Make all your expensive mistakes in a cheap plane, then get a nice one. This is tailwheel we are talking about. Drive your shopping cart backwards through the supermarket next time you are there.

2. You need practice, practice and more practice. Why would you want to burn 15 gal/hr or 9 gal/hr when you can burn 4.5 like I do, when all your flying is going to be in the pattern for a long time?

3. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just get up in the sky. You will learn as well if not better piloting skills in an underpowered aircraft and you are not going to want to put your wife in it with you any time soon, so forget about that.

4. Get something that is ready to go so you don’t spend a lot of time up front fixing it. Or drop the price on the offer.

atypicalguy wrote:

AboveNorth wrote:I had a similar situation myself, and went with a 1946 140 last September. I was zero time in anything, and live in interior “bush Alaska” gas is 8.75/gallon here.

My decision was based on two things. It being the “right” plane and low fuel burn. I wanted a plane I could afford to fly a ton. I know the last two owners well, they both loved the plane and took great care of it. That to me was huge. It has a low time O200, 26” bushwheels, larger tail wheel, 150 seats, borer prop etc. Since there were no rental planes locally, but lots of CFI’s I had to buy a plane to start. Having just 4 hours now, but flying just about every day, I don’t regret the decision a bit. Of course since I live right by the runway it helps get the daily training in.

I have a coworker who has a 9 gal/ hr plane... for the same hours just flying around solo she burns nearly $80/hr in fuel. With the 140 it’s between 4 and 6 just training. I couldn’t justify that high fuel burn personally. To me the 140 is more like my old 1988 Corolla I drove in college. Sure my present day suv is nicer, but I sure miss the micro machine fuel mileage!

I thought the useful load was going to be more of an issue than it really has been....the thing surprised me with just how little runway it needs.... with the o200 and prop it has it’s been a non issue. Then again Alaska temps vs Texas, it might be different.

Down the road when I live somewhere the fuel is cheaper I’ll probably want a “big plane” but will likely just keep this one so the wife and kids can get their pilots licenses too if they are so inclined. Plus I am a sucker for the polished aluminum.... I don’t see it getting stale.... of course, everyone’s situation and goals are different. Good luck with the choice!

Another vote here for the 140. The three best posts in this thread are:
1. Make all your expensive mistakes in a cheap plane, then get a nice one. This is tailwheel we are talking about. Drive your shopping cart backwards through the supermarket next time you are there.

2. You need practice, practice and more practice. Why would you want to burn 15 gal/hr or 9 gal/hr when you can burn 4.5 like I do, when all your flying is going to be in the pattern for a long time?

3. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just get up in the sky. You will learn as well if not better piloting skills in an underpowered aircraft and you are not going to want to put your wife in it with you any time soon, so forget about that.

4. Get something that is ready to go so you don’t spend a lot of time up front fixing it. Or drop the price on the offer.

Responses to these points:

1. If you are on a very limited budget, you cant afford to make those kinds of mistakes. That’s why you get quality instruction.

2. Totally agree. Stock 170 burns what, 6 gph on average? Less in the pattern.

3. A stock 170 IS an underpowered airplane. Your point?

4. Agree….try to avoid a fixer upper.

Back to a 120/140: Remember you are going to HAVE to get flight instruction in whatever you buy. So, as I suggested before, do some calculations BEFORE you plunk down money on a 120/140. If you weigh “much” and you can find a light instructor who is also competent and experienced in type, it may work.

140 is a nice little plane, no doubt, but do the math. I don’t know how big you are and I don’t want to know. Do the math.

I agree that a Pacer would be a great alternative.

MTV

As far as gross weight goes, the 140 will fly, if not paper out, with a load. I was younger and lighter then, but I instructed in a stock C-140 at Monte Vista, Colorado summers while my wife attended Adams State. Some students were light but others were heavy. Up there it will teach you all the safe maneuvering flight techniques I teach. Texas, not so much, but it is a good trainer. All of them are good airplanes and good trainers, Pacer, Tri-Pacer, C-170, C-172. Well maintained but not pretty fly as good as pretty. Low powered fly as good as higher powered. They are old airplanes manufactured to the same high standards.

contactflying wrote:As far as gross weight goes, the 140 will fly, if not paper out, with a load. I was younger and lighter then, but I instructed in a stock C-140 at Monte Vista, Colorado summers while my wife attended Adams State. Some students were light but others were heavy. Up there it will teach you all the safe maneuvering flight techniques I teach. Texas, not so much, but it is a good trainer. All of them are good airplanes and good trainers, Pacer, Tri-Pacer, C-170, C-172. Well maintained but not pretty fly as good as pretty. Low powered fly as good as higher powered. They are old airplanes manufactured to the same high standards.

Agreed, Jim, and I too have done checkouts/instruction in 140s. And, like most airplanes, yes, they'll fly with greater than a gross weight loading.

That said, IF you will have to get instruction (and at some point, if nothing else, you'll have to get a Flight Review), MOST instructors really don't want to put their signatures in someone's logbook, who they don't even know, which clearly documents to the FAA that you flew that airplane in excess of LEGAL gross weight.

I happen to know of a VERY highly experienced CFI and DPE who did just that, there followed some sort of episode which put the pilot's logbooks into the hands of the FAA during an enforcement program, and it became quite clear that the owner of the plane and that CFI/DPE could never have legally flown that plane together within gross weight limits. The CFI/DPE lost ALL his certificates for at least a year.

Is that likely to happen? Nope, but it CAN. All it takes is a flat tire, a flat landing, etc, and the Feds are involved.

There are instructors out there who'll fly planes over legal G/W. What other regs are they going to ignore? And, before casting stones at me, I have flown several airplane types well over legal gross weight in my younger days. All that was legally done in the Restricted category, however, and frankly, I'd NEVER do that again.

Lecture over.

MTV

I'd take an 85 or 90hp j3 or champ any day of the week and twice on sunday over a 140 or a stock 170. The 170B is a good airplane if you drop 60-80k into an avcon or delair 180+ hp conversion. There's a reason 140s are so cheap.

Buy your last plane first!