Aviation Consumer had a Used Aircraft Guide on the 120/140 in the last month or so. Here's the link if you can access it: https://aviationconsumer.com/used-aircr ... 120-140-3/

As a young baby this example flew me (wrapped up on the hat shelf) to a clinic in Cnel Suárez for an emergency appendectomy! Unusually, for the 1950's in Argentina, my mom was PIC.

download/file.php?mode=view&id=470353

Don't know who the characters are in the photo, but one gentleman appears to be related to Benny Hill

Where do you live Austin? If you’re near SE Michigan, come over and I’ll take you up in our 140A

The C120/C140 is an excellent airplane for a first time owner. Of all the high wing Cessna taildraggers, it has the most balanced and sensitive flight controls and will handle the most crosswind on pavement, which is always a TW consideration. Flies with finger tip pressure properly rigged and trimmed.

It will typically have a C-85, a stroked C-85 (innards from an O200 that effectively makes it more torquey), or an O-200 conversion. Personally think the stroked C-85 is the best fit. The C-90 is also on the TCDS so may be present on later C140s. Don't baby the baby Continentals - they don't like it.

They are very easy to maintain. However, you would want to have any candidate looked over by someone who knows the breed. There are only a few ADs, but a few of them can be expensive to fix. That said, in the past 75-80 years, most examples will have been ground looped and/or flipped over at least once. Tail corrosion needs to be looked for like any Cessna tailwheel aircraft.

Personally prefer the C120 as it does not carry around 22# or so of flaps and mechanism - just slip if high; the split flaps, like on the C170, aren't terribly effective anyhow. However, they built about three times the number of 140s as 120s.

As to the gear. From 1946 through about mid-1947 the aircraft had the original, symmetric gear which has the axle the furthest back. These aircraft can also be distinguished sometimes by having cast rather than stamped rudder pedals. They are a little more nose heavy, but there's a reason that the landing checklist has "heels on the floor" as step five. Do that and they'll be no problems. Extenders were/are available but I don't like the twisting torque they could cause on the gearbox or attach points. Later models swept the leg about 3" forward so they are a little less tippy and side-specific. Still keep the heels on the floor!

There are about a half dozen STCs to metalize the wings. The feel of the fabric wing is more pleasant IMHO. Also, some of the metalization STCs kept the drag wires and some did not; if they are missing from a plane that is supposed to have them, there's a potential issues. I would go fabric. That does rule out the 140A, which is a TW 150 and really a different airplane. They only built about 500 of those.

Parts are widely available, some still from Cessna, many from Univair, and others from BAS and other wreckers.

Anyhow, my two cents; have flown all the Cessna taildraggers (ok, not the Bamboo Bomber) and the 120/140 are just sweet.

I love my 140. I’ve owned it for 50 yrs.

Readers Digest version of" I had the keys to a c-140."

A friend bought it for $500! We borrowed a trailer and brought it to his dad's barn. It could not have smelled worse if a skunk had lived in it. completely disassembled it. while he did most of stitching I took fuselage and engine home. Overall, it only took three years to get it flying.!


Twice, strangers came to our door and asked about it. I told them, we flew it in and then the building boom trapped it. when the wings were ready, I took it to the airport. my daughter drove the truck while I held on to the empennage sitting on the tailgate. A couple years later a Brit saw it a d offered $11000 and $1000 to put it in a container to merryol England.

The airport had a cross runway on a dry lake bed. If the wind was not on the nose you just touch down onthe runway then keep it into the wind

C140 has a special place in my heart. When I decided to become a pilot, my Dad, an airline pilot and A&P, bought a disassembled ragwing C140. He said he would only work on it when I was helping. The engine was completely disassembled, and we recovered the wings among several other things. This happened in the late 70's

The last airplane he owned was also a C140 that I flew, with him, a few times. Late 2010's.

I do like them.

I particularly liked this:

"Excellent Cross-Country Range is assured with 25 gallons of gasoline in twin wing tanks. Both new models, the 120 and the 140, powered with 85 h.p. Continental engines, offer traditional Cessna speed and performance for carefree travel."

The 140 certainly did offer "traditional Cessna speed".

The 140 and 170 were advertised as business airplanes, too, which for the time, before Interstates, might have made some sense.

Mike C.

Is a Cessna 140 a good entry level airplane?

I don’t think you could do any better! You will learn what your feet are for and that will make you a better pilot no matter what you fly.

Thanks for all the replies so far. Should I be concerned with a 140/120 having a major structural failure /wing, tail, etc) due to their age? Do any AD’s address potential structural issues?

I really like the look and affordability of them, but a wing failure concerns me.

I've run into a few that have cracks in the landing gear boxes and a lot that have cracks in the lower door frame/strut area. The latter is fixable with a kit from Cessna. Not a five minute job, but not impossible either. However the gear boxes are steel, need to be welded, and are almost impossible to weld on the airplane. Removing them is major surgery, and due to the cost/time involved it can total some airplanes.

As always, get a good prebuy by someone familiar with those planes. Saw an ad for an older 150 on Barnstormers yesterday. Guy bought it to build time, didn't get a prebuy, got it home and his IA immediately grounded it. Couldn't afford the repairs and was dumping it. Don't be that guy, get the prebuy.

Even today, a relatively slow airplane will crush interstate travel time if your need happens to be "on the diagonal" or across terrain/water.

For example - just looked at a common trip to LEB from NYS. It's a four hour drive. 1.5 hours in a C120. Or Upstate NY to MVY - about 2.5 hours in a slow C120. Forever in a car. HOU <-> DAL is about 3.2 round trip in a C120 this morning. That's barely one way in the car, again if things go well.

If the comparator is two cities on the interstate away from the coasts, yes then a C120 is probably not going to be much faster especially after travel to from the airports is factored in. But much more fun and far fewer traffic jams.

The trip that convinced me was Northern NJ to Ottawa every month. 7 hour drive or 2.5 hrs in a club Archer

Continuing the slow thread drift, Denver metro area to Winner, SD, for us. 7.5 hours of driving but just over 300nm in a straight line. A little 140 would absolutely smoke the fastest hypercar and be way more fun.

Or across man-mad obstructions. I'll challenge any supercar owner to a race against my 80mph aeronca champ. From here to the north side of Atlanta. Heck I'll give them a head start while I fuel the plane and have some breakfast.