Other Brands: Cessna C-140 & C-140A Taildraggers

[Seth]

I noticed in different threads some of us have first hand experience in other aircraft. Not to detract from Mooney at all, but those who have first hand experience, please share your personal encounters with these other than Mooney aircraft.

I'll slowly start threads on other airplanes.

For now, please share your personal experience with the Cessna 140 and 140A taildraggers.

Thanks!

-Seth

[gsxrpilot]

I wanted to get a tailwheel endorsement. It just bugs me that there are airplanes out there that I'm not licensed to fly. That should be rectified. I'm not worried about airplanes that are restricted to military (I'm not joining up) or airplanes for which I can't afford the fuel. But all others, I should be able to fly. And that means I needed a tailwheel endorsement.

I wanted something cheap and preferably side by side seating. So I came across a couple of CFI's here in Erie, CO with this C140 and offering tailwheel training )$175 wet with CFI. I was pretty sure I wouldn't fit inside the cockpit and even if I got in, we'd be all out of W&B. But they said to come up and try it one. I was able to get in without much trouble and they assured me that with only 10 gal of fuel on board, we'd be fine to go fly. (Sometimes we'd put as much as 15 gal onboard)

This 140 has an 80 hp engine, two seats, and not much of a panel. It does have full dual controls including right side brakes which is important when teaching tailwheel. It has a steerable tailwheel that can be either locked in or free castering. It took me some time to figure out how to get it locked and unlocked. It's done just with the peddles and brakes. The C140 does have an electrical system with a starter and generator, no alternator. And it uses an interesting pull to start system. There is a T-handle in the panel that with the Master on and the Mags hot, you pull the T-handle which engages the starter and spins the prop. I guess this can be useful when you might need to spin the prop but don't want it to start.

We only flew it on cold mornings but it flew just fine with one full size CFI and one XL sized student. We're 5100 ft MSL at Erie and never used more than half the 4700 ft runway. 

As a tailwheel newbie, it took a few hours to get comfortable taxiing and with take offs and landings. But I was able to pick it up quickly and it became pretty easy, at least I thought. 

I'd love to find a couple of like minded pilots here in the Denver area who would like to own a cheap tailwheel airplane just for fun. It only burns 5 gph and they can be found pretty cheap. It sure is fun to fly low and slow.

 

[MB65E]

Took a 140 with metal wings and a C90 from PHX to STL. Heavy airplane. Packed to the gills. 2 people. Had the gear extenders on it. Pain in the ass to land nicely. It didn’t like wheel landings or 3 points. Owner I delivered it for destroyed it a year later landing. 
I had about 350hrs tailwheel time. several tailwheel airplanes Pitts, Luscombe, 140, 120, all ACA airplanes. I’d rather have a luscombe than a 140... 

-Matt

[EricJ]

12 minutes ago, MB65E said:

Took a 140 with metal wings and a C90 from PHX to STL. Heavy airplane. Packed to the gills. 2 people. Had the gear extenders on it. Pain in the ass to land nicely. It didn’t like wheel landings or 3 points. Owner I delivered it for destroyed it a year later landing. 
I had about 350hrs tailwheel time. several tailwheel airplanes Pitts, Luscombe, 140, 120, all ACA airplanes. I’d rather have a luscombe than a 140... 

-Matt

There's a derelict Luscombe tied down at DVT not far from my hangar.   I'm always pondering the possibilities with it... 

My tailwheel time is limited to the 10 or so hours in Supercubs to get my endorsement.   Definitely a ton of fun, and if I had a place to put it and found a C170 or something I'd be all over that.   I think a C140 would be a little small and underpowered, but definitely fun to mess with.   I'm hesitant to get anything with fabric covering just due to the storage/maintenance issues, otherwise a Maule would be an awesome 2nd airplane.

 

[MB65E]

Fabric covered wings only would be great! No hail damage, and not too hard to recover just the wings. Modern materials used during the covering process now days are awesome. Buddy had a Champ tied down at Turf Soaring near PHX. We bounced a hammer off the wing multiple times after sitting for 15years in the desert. It was covered with Airtec. 
-Matt
 

[BDPetersen]

My first solo was in a C140 60 years ago this year. Just to make it interesting it was equipped with a x-wind gear (look it up) which fortunately only seemed to kick out when taxiing. Later in college one of my roommates had one that was available to several of us. Wheel landing contests were the big thing. When that became too tame we would divide the controls, one getting the ailerons and elevator, the other rudder and throttle and try to work out a wheel landing. Or there was the no-hands wheelies, using only the trim to try to grease it on. We were young. 
Anyway, I’ve had relationships with more 140’s than I can recall with lots of students. The spring gear required finesse. Never a fan of two place side by side, but otherwise it was an honest airplane. I wish noise canceling headsets had come along sooner.

[quik flite]

Cessna 120 , no flaps , with O200 and metal wings  very nice, fun to fly honest airplane. Complete electrical system with new starter , alternator and odyssey battery. New Cleveland brakes,  new exhaust on and on . A lot of fun , but no wing loading. It’s bumpy in any kind of wind.  But relatively easy to fly and land. In a stiff crosswind I prefer grass landings . But have done a few less than stellar landings on grass and pavement. They really are not that difficult to fly , to master it I would have to fly it a lot more 

[Hank]

What does @MBDiagMan have to say about his former chariot??

[MBDiagMan]

Thanks Hank for flagging this with my moniker.  I would have missed it otherwise.

I’ve owned “The Piggy” ten years now.  I call her that because, like me, she has been gaining weight since 1948.  The ‘48 model had a few differences and they built a lot fewer than the earlier models.  The ‘48 had some subtle changes including the main gear 3” forward, a fuel valve that had Left/Right/Both/Off and a few other things that have been modified away.

The Piggy enjoyed a significant restoration and modification project in 1980 with WAY more money poured into her than could ever be recovered.  The wings were recovered with synthetic material and due to being hangared ever since are still in perfect condition. She also got a custom made panel that included a six pack and center stack of the current 1980 state of the art instruments for IFR flight.  She also got an O-200A for 15 extra horsepower, alternator and vacuum pump.  The owner then gave it to his wife for her birthday present and she got her instrument rating in it.

The fact that she’s a rag wing makes up some for the additional panel and engine weight, but she’s nose heavy as a result.  Myself and a small passenger and full fuel and you’re at gross, but the extra power makes up for it well in case you accidentally take off over gross.

As stated earlier in the thread, these planes are extremely lightly wing loaded.  A strong breath from a gnat can move it around.  This makes it scary on the one hand, but a great trainer on the other.  The Hooker Harnesses help you to feel the plane better for when you’re moving around in a strong gusty cross wind which I don’t recommend under best of circumstances, but out of necessity I have put her down a few times in direct 15G25 crosswind.  This was eye opening, but doable due to the fact that flying one of these keeps your feet wide awake.

I got my first Mooney less than four years ago, but couldn't bare to part with The Piggy.  I have enough hangar space for both and it’s pretty inexpensive to operate.

These little planes are still pretty inexpensive to buy and maintain as small planes go.  They’re an easy tailwheel plane to deal with since you can see over the nose.  The early ones before they moved the gear forward have a reputation for being nosed over, but I think that reputation is not fair.  Just be careful and mindful of this and it will never be a problem.  The later A models have a single strut and the cleaner 150 wing.  If I were in the market for one I would only want a rag wing 140 or a 150 winged 140A.

My wife and I love the Mooney for trips, but we love the piggy for sightseeing the NorthEast Texas Lake Country on a pretty day.  The Piggy is also a hoot to just go get in the pattern with and enjoy a little tailwheel flying.

[kerry]

I got my TW endorsement in a C140 with a O200 conversion.  Very easy conventional gear airplane to fly.  Right when the plane rolls on TO you can quickly get the tail wheel off the ground.  Soon after that then the plane is airborne.  

[DMM]

My first plane was a 1946 Cessna 140.  Flew my girlfriend to Cedar Key (CDK), St Augustine, and Jacksonville a few times among other places in the late 70s - we were young.  Had a C90, Cleveland brakes, and a Scot tailwheel.   No radios so navigation was map, clock and compass only.  It was loud - no headsets.  Camped out in FBOs or a tent next to the plane several times.  What a great time, I loved my girl and that plane.  I still miss the plane...... I kept the girl, still married.  

Edited January 7, 2021 by DMM

[MBDiagMan]

I want to offer a response to Paul’s comment about the pull starter on the C140 he flew:

My first car was a 1948 Chevy Fleetline Fastback.  I can tell that impresses everyone  instead of a key start or even a push button on the dash, it had a pedal in the floor located above and to the right of the accelerator pedal.  You could push the accelerator pedal and start pedal at the same time while starting.

That pedal was on a lever that actuated a high current switch attached directly to the starter motor.  It was a six volt system, so the amount of current required to run the starter was tremendous.  This meant that there was no need for a high current starter relay or starter solenoid.

In the 1949 model year, Chevy used a starter solenoid rather than the heavy switch and moved the starter switch as a push button to the dash board.  This was a little easier to manage because you could use your foot only for the accelerator, one hand for the starter button and the other for the choke.  For the younger drivers who might be reading, cars of that time did not just start immediately as do our modern fuel injected models.

So... the auto technology ca. 1948 used a direct switch on the starter.  The pull starter on the 140’s was the aviation equivalent.  The cable that you pull in the 140, actuated a high current switch that is mounted directly on the starter.  It was simple and trouble free.  When the 150 came along, they used a heavy relay to take a low current circuit through the key switch and switch the high current needed for the starter.  Many 140’s with an O-220A transplant, utilized the 140 starter which retained the pull cable.

Most modern O-200A conversions use a lightweight starter and a starter relay, deleting the cable.  They put a push button switch in the panel in place of the pull cable.  I did this with my recent engine overhaul for modernization, but I miss the good old conversation starting pull starter.

[MinneMooney]

I purchased N456RW in 2017. A CFI friend and I flew it from Dallas Texas back to Minneapolis. I too wanted a tailwheel endorsement for myself and my son. I owned it for about 2 years but sold it when the opportunity came up to purchase my ‘65 M20C. Funny thing was the buyer needed it delivered to Paris Texas, so, I got to make the long cross country back to Texas again 2 years after the first trip!

My plane was a 1950 140a with a C90. It held 25 gal of fuel but only had about a 500# useful load so with 2 onboard, you needed to travel light. It was a day vfr plane and not really suited for going anywhere anyways. Plus, I’m 6’5” and with the seat back as far as possible, my knees were still hitting the panel. I did have lots of fun flights on calm summer evenings, however, I did not enjoy flying it when the winds were blowing over 10 knots. Plus, even solo, it just felt like it was very underpowered!

I’m much happier flying the Mooney.

[MBDiagMan]

MinneMooney,

I remember very well when you brought it to Paris a few years ago.  It was a beautiful A model.  I assume it still has a C90.  They should have put an O-200A in the A model, but maybe it was not yet available.  That extra 10 HP would have made it a much better plane.

At the time you sold it to the man in Paris, I shared an open front Tee Hangar with a friend.  Neither of us now live in Paris or Lamar County, but I had moved away only two years previous and had been on the hangar list for ten years.  When I came up on the list I took the hangar because I still have a small ranch on the Red River and go in and out of there weekly.  My friend grew up there and is in and out to take care of his elderly Mother.  Neither one of us used the hangar constantly, so it was vacant some of the time.  It was viewed badly by people driving by seeing the hangar empty some of the time.  I still own property in Lamar County, and my friend also still owns property in Paris proper even though neither of us live there full time.

A person on the field, who will remain nameless, told the purchaser of your 140A something like “just put it in that tee hangar, no one ever uses it anyway.”  This was someone with no authority whatsoever.  My friend came in flying his beautiful Baron B58 and there was a red and white 140 in our hangar.  This confused both he and the airport manager because they thought it was my 140 which looks very generally similar.  Upon contacting the new owner of your 140A, he was embarrassed.  He thought that the person that told him to put it in there was someone with authority to tell him something like that.  So for some short period of time, your gorgeous 140A had to sit outside.

It was a very nice example of an A model 140.

[philiplane]

140's are really old planes and so they have lots of corrosion issues, cracking of skins & structure in the tail, corrosion in the wing struts. And the engines are problematic. The C85 engines are prone to oil pump problems, and lose their prime when sitting. The cure is a new pump & $1500 accessory case because the pump is integral to the case.

On a windy day they are like a kite, so you'd better be sharp with your rudder skills for landing. On a warm day the climb rate is pathetic.

Sort of fun to fly, not so fun to keep airworthy.

I would rather have a Piper Pacer for a cheap tailwheel plane, than a C140.

Edited January 7, 2021 by philiplane

[MinneMooney]

51 minutes ago, MBDiagMan said:

MinneMooney,

I remember very well when you brought it to Paris a few years ago.  It was a beautiful A model.  I assume it still has a C90.  They should have put an O-200A in the A model, but maybe it was not yet available.  That extra 10 HP would have made it a much better plane.

At the time you sold it to the man in Paris, I shared an open front Tee Hangar with a friend.  Neither of us now live in Paris or Lamar County, but I had moved away only two years previous and had been on the hangar list for ten years.  When I came up on the list I took the hangar because I still have a small ranch on the Red River and go in and out of there weekly.  My friend grew up there and is in and out to take care of his elderly Mother.  Neither one of us used the hangar constantly, so it was vacant some of the time.  It was viewed badly by people driving by seeing the hangar empty some of the time.  I still own property in Lamar County, and my friend also still owns property in Paris proper even though neither of us live there full time.

A person on the field, who will remain nameless, told the purchaser of your 140A something like “just put it in that tee hangar, no one ever uses it anyway.”  This was someone with no authority whatsoever.  My friend came in flying his beautiful Baron B58 and there was a red and white 140 in our hangar.  This confused both he and the airport manager because they thought it was my 140 which looks very generally similar.  Upon contacting the new owner of your 140A, he was embarrassed.  He thought that the person that told him to put it in there was someone with authority to tell him something like that.  So for some short period of time, your gorgeous 140A had to sit outside.

It was a very nice example of an A model 140.

Thanks MBDiagMan. I still check FlightAware on a regular basis and see that it flies quite often. Really nice guy that bought it from me.

[MinneMooney]

MBDiagMan, here it is on the ramp in Paris, TX right after I had arrived. I think it may still be tied down outside.

[MBDiagMan]

4 hours ago, philiplane said:

140's are really old planes and so they have lots of corrosion issues, cracking of skins & structure in the tail, corrosion in the wing struts. And the engines are problematic. The C85 engines are prone to oil pump problems, and lose their prime when sitting. The cure is a new pump & $1500 accessory case because the pump is integral to the case.

On a windy day they are like a kite, so you'd better be sharp with your rudder skills for landing. On a warm day the climb rate is pathetic.

Sort of fun to fly, not so fun to keep airworthy.

I would rather have a Piper Pacer for a cheap tailwheel plane, than a C140.

I think you’re lumping all 140’s into the same category.  Have you thought about the fact that Pacers are old too?  An old plane deteriorates based on how it’s stored, flown and cared for.  Lumping them all together doesn’t make sense.

The little Continentals, properly cared for, are known for commonly doubling TBO.  I think you are lumping all of them together as well.

A crop duster friend of mine had a Pacer which I got a few hours in.  I’m not thrilled with those stubby wings.  It’s all about what you get used to I suppose.

[MBDiagMan]

MinneMooney,

I will look for it on the ramp next time I’m there, but I don’t remember seeing it recently.

[thinwing]

when shopping for my first airplane many years ago....my choices came to a 1950 c140 and a 1948  Stinson 108-3.....after flying both...the possibilty of nice wheel landings (airoleo struts)extra 65 horsepower and two usable seats in back...for the same money it was the Stinson.....nicest handling taildragger I have ever flown..

[MBDiagMan]

That beautiful A model is still setting outside.  I took this picture about 10 days ago.   So sad to see.

[Niko182]

I learned to fly in a J3. If I wanted a tailwheel aircraft again, it would probably be that.

[MinneMooney]

48 minutes ago, MBDiagMan said:

That beautiful A model is still setting outside.  I took this picture about 10 days ago.   So sad to see.

Not ideal. However, at least in checking FlightAware, it looks like it’s being flown a couple times each week.

[MBDiagMan]

That’s good!

[MBDiagMan]

51 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

I learned to fly in a J3. If I wanted a tailwheel aircraft again, it would probably be that.

Never flown a J3, but I learned to fly in an Aeronca Champ which is very similar.  Great planes to fly, but they will cost a good bit more than a 140.