Answer: The LSA rule as it stands limits aircraft to a gross weight of 1,320 pounds for land aircraft.

• READ MORE: Pilots Have Questions When It Comes to MOSAIC

Gross weight is determined when the aircraft is certificated. The Cessna 140 GW is 1,450 pounds, and the Cessna 150 is between 1,500 and 1,600 pounds, depending on the year of manufacture. You can take the other seat out and fly partial fuel, and that will make the aircraft lighter, but it won’t change the certificated gross weight.

Understand that the LSA rule is under review with MOSAIC, and if approved as written, will increase the gross weight of aircraft to 3,600 pounds.

When that transpires, many of the single-engine light trainers flown today in the utility and normal category will likely become LSA compliant.

The post Why Aren’t Cessna 140s/150s Considered Light Sport Aircraft? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The contest, which typically occurs on grass or dirt areas parallel to paved runways, was to take place alongside Runway 5-23. 

On Friday afternoon the wind picked up. It blew out of the northwest across the STOL Drag course. Qualifying heats were postponed until the next day. 

A number of the competitors then decided to conduct an impromptu “traditional STOL” event, omitting the drag racing component. They would use the grass Runway 31, which was conveniently aligned with the wind. The pilots, organizers, and FAA inspectors who were present held a safety briefing, and the participants were divided into four groups of five or six aircraft to prevent clogging the pattern. The objective of the contest was to see who could come to a full stop in the shortest distance after touching down beyond the target line.

Each group completed two circuits without incident. Two groups had completed a third circuit, and now the third group was landing. The third airplane in that group was a modified Rans S-7, the fourth a Zenith STOL 701—unusual among the participants in having tricycle gear—and the last a Cessna 140. The S-7 landed, came to a stop in less than 100 feet, and taxied away. The 701 was still a fair distance out, and the 140 seemingly rather close behind it and low. 

• READ MORE: A Cautionary Tale About Pilot Freelancing

A STOL Drag representative who was coordinating the pattern operations radioed the 140 pilot: “Lower your nose. You look slow.” The 140 pilot did not acknowledge. Half a minute later, the coordinator again advised the pilot to lower his nose. 

A few seconds later, the 140 yawed to the right, its right wing dropped, and with the awful inevitability of an avalanche or a falling tree, it rolled over into a vertical dive and struck the ground an instant later. A groan went up from the small crowd of onlookers. “Oh, my God, what happened!” one voice exclaimed. What had happened was all too clear—a low-altitude stall-spin that resulted in the pilot’s death.

The 140 pilot, 45, had an estimated 470 hours total time, more than 300 of which were in the 140. He had already qualified for STOL Drag competitions at a previous event.

The wind at the time of the accident was 15 knots gusting to 21. (As with all aviation wind reports, the 15 is the sustained wind and the 21 the maximum observed; no information is provided about lulls or wind speed variations below the sustained value.) The pilot of the 701 said that he had been maintaining about 50 mph (44 knots), as he had on several previous approaches, and that the wind on this approach felt no different than on the others. 

The 701 is equipped with full-span leading-edge slats, which make it practically incapable of unexpectedly stalling. Operating at a likely wing loading of less than 7 pounds per square foot, it could probably fly at around 35 mph. For the 701, an approach speed of 50 mph was conservative. The 140’s wing loading was only slightly higher, but its wing was not optimized for extremely slow flight. The 140’s POH stalling speed at gross weight was highly dependent on power setting, ranging from 45 mph power off to 37 mph, flaps down, with full power.

• READ MORE: Two Fatal Cases of the Simply Inexperienced

An FAA inspector who witnessed the accident reported his observations to a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator. He noted that the 140 generally took longer to get airborne than other airplanes in its group, in part because the pilot, after first lifting the tail, rotated prematurely, so that the tailwheel struck the ground and the airplane continued rolling for some distance before finally becoming airborne. The pilot, he said, would climb steeply at first, but then have to lower the nose to gain speed. He appeared low and close behind the 701 on the last approach.

Earlier videos also showed that, on landing, the 140 rolled farther than other contestants, despite braking to the point of almost nosing over.

On previous circuits the pilot had used flaps, but on his last approach he failed to put the flaps down. The omission could account for the coordinator’s observation that the nose seemed high. Full flaps would have resulted in a more nose-low attitude.

The NTSB blamed the accident on the pilot’s obvious “exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack.” It went on to cite as a contributing factor the “competitive environment, which likely influenced the pilot’s approach speed.” Since there were many knowledgeable observers of both the accident and of several previous takeoffs and landings by the 140, and everything was recorded on video from several angles, the NTSB’s diagnosis could probably have been even more specific and mentioned the failure to use flaps and the premature downwind-to-base turn.

If, by a chance misjudgment, the 140 pilot found himself too close behind the 701, he still had options other than slowing to the lowest possible speed. Since there was no one behind him, he could have gone around or made a 360 on final. The aircraft waiting to take off would have had to stand by a little longer, but only a fool would grumble because another pilot was being wisely cautious.

• READ MORE: Three-Mile Limit: Novice Pilots Succumb to the Perils of Total Darkness

Instead, the 140 pilot chose to maintain his spacing by flying as slow as he could.

The decisive factor in the accident was most probably the failure to use flaps. It was almost certainly inadvertent. He probably forgot to put the flaps down, then believed they were down—because he had them down on the previous circuits—and chose his speeds accordingly. Adding flaps would have brought the stalling speed down 3-4 mph and also obliged him to use a little more power. Actually, it would have been quite a bit more because he was low, and the added power would have given him still more cushion.

The 140 was a goose among swans in this flock of dedicated STOL airplanes that possessed a near-magical ability to take off and land in practically no distance at all. Still, it was OK to be an outlier. The point of the contest was to have fun. You didn’t need to go home with a trophy—not that there even was one for this impromptu event.

But integrating an airplane with somewhat limited capabilities among more capable ones required special attention to speed and spacing. It would be easy to make a mistake. Once the mistake was made, and compounded by the failure to use flaps, all the pilot had left to lean on was luck—or willingness to recognize an error and go around while there was still airspeed and altitude to recover.

Note: This article is based on the National Transportation Safety Board’s report of the accident and is intended to bring the issues raised to our readers’ attention. It is not intended to judge or reach any definitive conclusions about the ability or capacity of any person, living or dead, or any aircraft or accessory.

This column first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post Nothing Short of a Fatal Mismatch appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The next day, the wreckage of the 140, its front end crushed, was found a few hundred feet northwest of the pilot’s private strip. Since the flaps were down, it had evidently been approaching to land when it stalled and spun. There was no way to know why the mishap occurred, but the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on the accident noted that conditions were such that carburetor icing was likely.

Stall spins are, and always have been, a common cause of fatalities in general aviation. They often occur during turns at the base-leg end of the pattern. What made this accident a little less usual than most was the history that led up to it.

According to the NTSB, the father, 39, was a student pilot. He had learned to fly from his grandfather, who had no pilot certificate at all. The father began logging time in 2007 and stopped in 2015. He got his last FAA medical in 2014 and his last fight review in 2015. He had a student endorsement for a Cessna 150 but none for the 140. The NTSB estimated his total time as 40 hours, of which 20 were as pilot in command and 20 were in the 140. These estimates were based, apparently, on the fact that the pilot used the 140 to survey local water towers from the air and report levels to their owners.

• READ MORE: Three-Mile Limit: Novice Pilots Succumb to the Perils of Total Darkness

The CFI from whom the pilot had received some flight instruction—and who described him as a “safe pilot”—reported that the pilot knew he was not allowed to carry passengers with a student certificate, but he was “anti-regulation with the government.” The NTSB attributed the accident to the “student pilot’s noncompliance and lack of experience” but noted it was impossible to know who was at the controls at the time of the fatal stall. The father could have been upholding the family tradition by teaching his son to fly.

Three weeks after that accident occurred, a Cessna 421 crashed in a wooded area near the DeLand, Florida, airport (KDED), killing its three occupants. A couple of witnesses saw the airplane flying at low altitude. One, who spotted the airplane on two occasions 10 minutes apart, described the engines on the second sighting as sounding as if they were idling. Another witness reported hearing popping or backfiring sounds. The latter witness also reported the airplane rolled to the left three times before he lost sight of it behind the treetops. It’s not clear whether by “roll” he meant a full roll or, more plausibly, a wing dropping and then coming up again.

The NTSB concluded “it is most likely the pilot lost control of the airplane while maneuvering” and added that the “pilot’s lack of any documented previous training in the accident airplane make and model contributed to his inability to maintain control of the airplane.”

• READ MORE: Fatal Cirrus Accident Shows That Some Knowledge Doesn’t Translate

The pilot of the ill-fated 421 was a 500-hour SMEL CFI. His logbook lacked a “complex airplane” endorsement, but that was probably an oversight. A complex airplane is one with flaps, retractable landing gear, and a variable-pitch propeller. It would be difficult to earn a multiengine rating in an airplane without those features—there aren’t a lot of Champion Lancers left.

As pilots who have flown more than one type of airplane know, the actions required to keep them right side up are alike for all. This 500-hour CFI with 40 hours of logged multiengine time had managed to start the 421’s two GTSO 520s, taxi, take off, and fly for at least 10 minutes. He seemed to have demonstrated an ability to control the airplane.

The 421 had a somewhat checkered recent history. Its last annual inspection had been performed five years earlier, and its Hobbs meter had advanced only four hours in the meantime. Its previous owner had put it up for sale on eBay, and a Texas man had bought it for $35,000, sight unseen, intending to spend a few thousand dollars having it restored to airworthy condition and then resell it. The 50-year-old airframe had, according to aircraft.com, 5,713 hours, and both engines were well short of TBO.

NTSB investigators found nothing to suggest the engines had failed, but the condition of the propeller blades indicated “low rotational energy at impact.” Fire destroyed all fuel tanks, and the NTSB report does not comment on the quantity or quality of fuel residues or the presence or absence of water or other sediment in the engines or what remained of the fuel system.

The Texas A&P whom the owner had engaged to travel to Florida and restore the airplane to airworthy condition had located a pilot to deliver it for $4,500. That pilot, 32, was in the right seat when the crash occurred. With a private certificate and 155 hours, he was even less qualified than the left-seat pilot to fly the 421. The owner declined the suggested pilot and instead gave the job to a certain instructor whose name he did not recall.

• READ MORE: Only Assumptions Can Be Made About What Took Down a Curtiss C-46 in Alaska

Most likely, this was the instructor who was flying the airplane when the accident happened. At the time of the accident the airplane had not yet been signed off by the A&P, and afterward everyone involved denied having any idea what the two pilots and their passenger were doing flying it. The NTSB speculated that the flight was probably of a “personal” nature—that is, a joy ride.

The NTSB blamed both of these accidents on inexperience. Although the South Dakota pilot owned his airplane and had flown, on and off, for a dozen years, his experience had been intermittent. The least one could say is that when the accident occurred, he was more experienced than he had ever been before. As for the other cause cited, noncompliance, it’s hard to see how it qualifies as a cause.

Plenty of experienced and compliant pilots stall and spin, and nobody says they did so because they were too experienced or compliant. In the case of the Florida crash, the NTSB cited the “pilot’s lack of training and experience in the accident airplane make and model.”

The analysis fails to even suggest the possibility of an external cause, such as, say, a partial power loss in the left engine. In fact, as an online bodycam video of the arrival of would-be rescuers at the accident site shows, the airplane came to rest right side up and was not severely fragmented.

Was it really out of control? Or was the pilot valiantly trying to cope with an emergency not of his own making?

Note: This article is based on the National Transportation Safety Board’s report of the accident and is intended to bring the issues raised to our readers’ attention. It is not intended to judge or reach any definitive conclusions about the ability or capacity of any person, living or dead, or any aircraft or accessory.

This column first appeared in the April 2024/Issue 947 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Two Fatal Cases of the Simply Inexperienced appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1947 Luscombe 8E.

Pilots are increasingly embracing the many potential advantages of owning and flying vintage aircraft dating to the 1940s and ’50s. While machines like the Luscombe 8 series and the Piper Cubs, Aeronca Champs, and Cessna 140s it competes with are not built for speed, they have other endearing qualities including short-field performance, good looks, and the ability to start conversations wherever they land.

Compared with many of its contemporaries, the Luscombe is less fragile-looking and, when equipped with wheel pants like the aircraft for sale here, displays a smooth, streamlined shape that reminds us of racy designs from aviation’s golden age. The aircraft makes a pleasant traveling platform for two people who know how to pack lightly and are not in too much of a hurry to reach their destination. Still, it will get you there much sooner than driving.

This 1947 Luscombe has 2,330 hours on the airframe and 750 hours since overhaul on its 90 hp Continental C-90 engine. Its panel includes a Garmin GTR 200B com with intercom and a GTX 330 transponder. Additional features include Groves brakes, new alternator and voltage regulator, and new BAS shoulder harnesses. The aircraft’s carburetor was rebuilt last year, and its exhaust was replaced in 2020. 

Pilots looking for a classic two-seat taildragger, especially those who prefer the unusual combination of control sticks with side-by-side seating, should consider this 1947 Luscombe 8E, which is available for $45,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: The Luscombe 8 Offers a Unique Trip Back in Time
• FLYING Magazine: The T8F Is Luscombe’s ‘Crazy Uncle’
• FLYING Magazine: Turbine Luscombe for Sale on eBay
• Plane & Pilot: Luscombe 8A-8F Silvaire
• Plane & Pilot: Luscombe Phantom II: A Modern Time Machine
• Plane & Pilot: Luscombe Silvaire 8F: A Classic LSA

The post This 1947 Luscombe 8E Is a Rugged, Mid-Century ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Knowing that I was fortunate to have a car at all and understanding that complaining would in no way reduce the frequency of breakdowns, I rolled with it, ultimately developing a creative solution. I’d simply remove both of my bike’s wheels and keep it stored in the trunk. It was better to have it and not need it than the other way around, I reasoned. And sure enough, about once a week, I’d leave the dead Oldsmobile on the shoulder of the road and deploy my auxiliary bicycle to reach my destination more or less on time. As I recall, the car would magically start back up after sitting for most of the day.

• READ MORE: 5 Things I Wish I Had Known Before Buying My First Airplane

Since then, that “better to have it and not need it” philosophy has served me well, even extending to aircraft ownership. It first emerged early in my shopping process when I was narrowing my choices to just a few models.

After earning my tailwheel endorsement in an old Cessna 140, I initially decided that it or its flapless twin, the 120, would be the type for me. The familiar Cessna yoke and handling put me at ease, as did the docile yet engaging takeoff and landing qualities. Parts and qualified service were easily sourced, and the small C85, C90, and O-200 engines all promised low fuel burns and economical operation. Best of all, the acquisition cost of these types was among the lowest out there. The choice seemed obvious, with few, if any, drawbacks.

Then I looked into useful load. 

As a resident of Wisconsin, where cheese is as much a lifestyle as a food item and where the long winters make a convincing argument for staying indoors and enjoying said cheese, I, unfortunately, adopted certain physical attributes championed by the general population. Namely, width and weight. Neither is very compatible with 1940s-era light aircraft.

If Cessna had converted the 140 into a mini-Bird Dog, with tandem seating in place of the side-by-side bench seat, things would be significantly more comfy. Luscombe did precisely this with its T8F Observer. But, firmly sold on the early Cessnas, I was faced with the decision of cramming myself into either the small 120 or 140 or saving my pennies for years to enable an upgrade to the larger and more capable 170.

• READ MORE: The Pros and Cons of Aircraft Towing Solutions

It wasn’t an easy choice. I anticipated the vast majority of my flying to be solo, simply bopping into and out of rural grass strips in nice weather. For this, the smallest Cessnas would fit the bill perfectly. But they’d also limit me to doing only that.

Looking further ahead, I anticipated the occasional camping trip. Certainly to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, but also to other destinations, with one friend at a time. And I anticipated someday attempting to join a local circle of friends as they fly into and out of short, challenging airstrips— something that would be both easier and safer when conducted at a takeoff weight well below the airplane’s maximum.

Going with a 120 or 140 would ensure every departure would take place at or near maximum takeoff weight. Every camping trip would have to be solo. Even then, I’d have to pack sparingly. And operating so heavy would also relegate me to longer runways, devoid of substantial departure-end obstacles, where the airplane’s luxurious climb rate could safely commence.

Would I really need the ability to take friends camping or hang with my STOL buddies at challenging strips? No. But just as in my Oldsmobile days, I decided I’d rather have those capabilities and not need them than the other way around.

When it came time to assess the financial reality of acquiring a substantially more expensive 170, it was simultaneously daunting and reassuring. On one hand, a 170 would likely cost about twice what a 120 or 140 would cost. This seems to hold true today. 

But on the other hand, it could be argued that I’d simply be parking the money. So long as I kept the airplane in good shape, flying it regularly and maintaining it properly, there’s little chance it would go down in value and decades of evidence that the value would go up. Difficult as it might be to save and spend such a vast sum of money, it was nothing like tossing it away on a depreciating asset like a car.

• READ MORE: Managing the Doldrums of Winter

For the following two years, I poured every ounce of effort into saving enough for a 170. I lost track of how many hours of overtime I worked, but 80-hour workweeks were not uncommon. I routed a significant portion of each paycheck directly into the airplane account—something I continue today to cover my airplane’s fuel and operating costs.

Eventually, the stars aligned. I found the perfect 170, and I had just enough in the bank to make it happen. Now, coming up on three years of ownership, I feel good about the years of effort to “buy my last airplane first” and obtain a more permanent solution.

Do I go on camping trips with friends often? No. Do I hang with my local buddies, ducking into and out of 700-foot strips? Also no. But I’ve got an airplane with those capabilities, one that I can grow into rather than out of. And I feel good having those capabilities and not needing them rather than the other way around.

The post When It’s Better to Have It and Not Need It appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1946 Cessna 140.

There were a lot of GA aircraft on the market in the years right after World War II, including a range of small, light two-seat personal airplanes such as Piper Cubs, Aeronca Champs, Luscombes, and Taylorcrafts. Some of the designs dated to before the war, while others, like the Cessna 140, had come along afterward and had a relatively new look and feel.

Having flown a number of these old classics, I can say the Cessna tops my list because of its easy handling and side-by-side seating, which I prefer because it enhances interaction with the passenger and gives the airplane a more pleasant shape to my eye.

This 1946 Cessna 140 has 7,270 hours on the airframe and 399 hours on its 90 hp Continental C90-14F engine. The panel includes a King KX-170B nav/com with OBS, King KT-76A transponder, PS Engineering PMA 4000 audio panel with two-place intercom, and uAvionix ADS-B.

Pilots looking for a handsome, economical vintage taildragger that will transport them almost all the way back to aviation’s golden age should consider this 1946 Cessna 140, which is available for $43,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: Approachable Aircraft: The Cessna 120/140
• FLYING Magazine: Man Sells Old Cessna 140 at Garage Sale
• FLYING Magazine: Five Taildraggers That Are Easy To Buy, Fly, and Insure
• Plane & Pilot: This Incredible Plane: Cessna 140
• Plane & Pilot: Cessna 120/140
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Cessna 120/140

The post This 1946 Cessna 140 Is a Sweet Vintage Taildragger and an ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

• READ MORE: What If the CFI Forgets to Sign Your Logbook?

Answer: The short answer is no, it is not legal to fly a Cessna 150 as a LSA, as the requirement for LSA is a maximum gross weight of no more than 1,320 pounds for land-based aircraft, or 1,430 if the aircraft is in the seaplane class. And by gross weight, this means the gross weight as listed on the type certificate when the aircraft rolled out of the factory, which for the 150 is 1,600 pounds.

You are not the first pilot to wonder about putting a two-place Cessna on a diet in an effort to fly it under light sport aircraft rules. Cessna 140 pilots have been pressing for a change or waiver to the regulations, as the certificated gross weight of that airplane is 1,450 pounds.

• READ MORE: How to Fly Into a Big Airshow With Confidence

Do you have a question about aviation that’s been bugging you? Ask us anything you’ve ever wanted to know about aviation. Our experts in general aviation, flight training, aircraft, avionics, and more may attempt to answer your question in a future article.

The post Is It Possible to Legally Fly a Cessna 150 as an LSA? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Before one gets too far ahead of oneself, however, one must take a step back to evaluate the available options from a higher level. In my case, I had reached a point where I had become deeply entrenched in the intricacies of various types. How much heavier a metalized Cessna 120/140 wing is compared to the original fabric-covered wing, for example (around 50 to 75 pounds), and how much it might cost to replace all the fabric on a Stinson 108 (as much as $45,000 to $50,000 when it’s all said and done).

As I was navigating all the various pitfalls and little-known lore of several types, it occurred to me that perhaps I should first back up and determine whether I preferred tandem seating, in which one occupant sits in front of the other, or side-by-side seating. Similarly, it occurred to me that I hadn’t put much thought into whether I preferred yokes or sticks. I had become buried in specification lists and budget sheets, shopping with my brain and ignoring some of the less tangible preferences that aren’t as easily quantifiable in rows and columns.

• READ MORE: Finding Your Ideal Aircraft: Bringing the New Baby Home

Looking at my list of contenders, they ran the gamut. Some had two seats, one had three, and others had four. Some had sticks, others had yokes. And sure enough, tandem and side-by-side seating were both represented in my list of potential candidates—like the SOCATA Rallye that features side-by-side seating and sticks.

So, pausing my investigation into the minutia of various types, I took a broader look at these more fundamental decisions to be made. I began by considering my experiences flying aircraft with tandem seating configurations. Looking at the list of all the types I’ve ever flown—a list well worth maintaining, perhaps inside the back cover of your logbook—I picked out those with tandem seating and reflected upon my experiences.

From the simple Piper J-3 Cub to the Aeronca Champ to the supremely capable Aviat Husky, I recalled the combination of strengths and weaknesses inherent in that configuration. Each was a relative pain to get into and out of. A lack of flexibility and multiple winter layers could make this a real chore. 

Each provided outstanding visibility, so long as you were seated in the front. I definitely did not enjoy flying from the back seat of the J-3, for example. With another person seated up front, I might as well have been flying the Spirit of St. Louis, with zero forward visibility and an extremely claustrophobic cabin. If I was to pursue a type with this seating, I’d insist upon one that allows solo flight from the front seat.

Among the less-quantifiable benefits to tandem seating was the placement of seats along the fuselage centerline. As a friend of mine once observed, the throttle is in your left hand, the stick in your right, and some point between your eyes is the roll center. You may only have 65 horsepower on tap, but when banking into your turn to final, you might as well be flying your own Mustang or Spitfire.

But thinking back, I never really found the stick to feel as natural as a yoke. This might be the result of the law of primacy, as I’d done all of my primary training in Cessna 152s, but it might also have been a preference for using my left hand to control the aircraft and my right hand to control the throttle. One way to get to the bottom of this was to seek out a type where you manipulate the stick with your left hand and the throttle with your right.

I was fortunate to locate a Piper PA-16 Clipper for rent about an hour away in rural Wisconsin. The Clipper is rare in that it pairs control sticks with side-by-side seating and a single throttle control mounted in the center. The person in the left seat manipulates the stick with their left hand and the throttle with their right.

The Clipper had many admirable qualities. The relatively large ailerons provided a snappy roll rate, and it was fun to fly. But once again, the stick just didn’t feel as natural to me as yokes. This might have been a function of my relatively broad shoulders; my arms and hands naturally fell farther outboard of centerline, farther away from a centrally-mounted stick. 

I left the little FBO nearly $200 poorer, but with some useful insight into the yoke versus stick debate. And by determining that my preference was for yokes, this also meant that, by default, my preference was also for side-by-side seating. While sticks can be found in both tandem and side-by-side cockpits, there are, to my knowledge, no light general aviation types that combine tandem seating with two yokes. The Champion 402 Lancer comes close, with a yoke up front and a stick in back, but as a twin with fixed-pitch props and an inability to maintain altitude on one engine, this type was best forgotten.

The post The Daunting Endeavor of Buying Your First Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The afternoon daisy chain around the pattern at Wayne, Nebraska (KLCG) included Steve Henry’s Number 44, Yee Haw, Hal Stockman in Lawnmower 3, and Tom Dafoe flying his vintage Cessna 140, among others. The event came to a halt when Dafoe apparently got slow on final behind another competitor and entered a stall-spin state from wings level on approach at about 300 feet agl.

Tragically, Dafoe died in the accident, with the 140 a total loss. With immediate emergency response and a collective support network engaged to care for his family on the scene, the STOL community turned introspective and stood down the MayDay competition. 

A safety standdown of sorts is in progress to examine the cause of the accident and ways to move forward in a conservative manner with the events on the calendar for this summer and fall.

A Passion for Aviation

Dafoe was a longtime pilot and joyful about aviation. An aircraft broker by profession, he had recently moved from California to Holly Lake Airpark in Tyler, Texas. He had also recently joined the team at jetAVIVA in 2021, after spending 20 years with the Cessna Aircraft Company and Textron Aviation. His colleagues—both current and former—demonstrated an outpouring of support following the accident for Dafoe’s family.

“Tom was truly one-of-a-kind; an incredible family man and friend, and a passionate aviator,” said Emily Deaton, CEO of jetAVIVA. “He was a beloved member of the jetAVIVA team, and we are feeling his loss keenly.

“Our focus is on supporting Tom’s family during this time, and we are encouraging the aviation community to give to the Memorial Fund created in Tom’s honor. jetAVIVA will be matching all donations dollar-for-dollar.”

The post Low and Slow Leads to Tragedy at STOL Drag Event appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

It is often said that a first-time airplane buyer should buy his or her last airplane first. The reasoning is, it makes little sense to invest in an airplane the pilot will outgrow or become bored with. A more expensive option may, in fact, prove to be a better long-term value by serving as a more permanent solution to the pilot’s needs.

Still, a budget is a budget, and while mission requirements vary considerably from one pilot to another, one common goal is to find an airplane that remains interesting and fun while minimizing the cost of ownership. In this respect, the Cessna 120 and 140 offer an intriguing blend of qualities for the new pilot and/or first-time buyer.

Model History

The 120 and 140 were some of the most successful postwar light aircraft in the US. Nearly 8,000 were built between 1946 and 1951, and more than 2,500 remain on the FAA register today.

The 120 was developed as a budget version of the 140, initially lacking flaps, rear side windows and electrical systems. Over the past 70-plus years, however, most of the 120 fleet has been modified with electrical systems and other upgrades.

Today, the presence of flaps is the primary difference between the two models, and with many 140 owners reporting little difference in performance with flaps down, the 120’s lack of flaps should not be considered a significant disadvantage.

The most desirable variant of the family is the 140A. Introduced in 1949, it offered a metal wing with more effective flaps and a redesigned instrument panel. The 140A was also available as the Patroller model, which included Plexiglas doors, a message chute, and a whopping 42-gallon fuel capacity that provided an endurance of around seven hours.

Current Market

As of early 2020, there were 14 140s and two 120s listed for sale in various places, with a median price of $25,000. The most and least expensive examples were significant outliers at $40,000 and $16,000, respectively.

While all the typical factors such as airframe time, engine time since major overhaul and general condition affect these prices, two particular items affect the 120 and 140 more than many other aircraft types—fabric condition and engine type.

Excluding the aforementioned 140A with its standard metal wing—and other 120s and 140s that have had their fabric wings converted to metal at some point in their lives—most 120s and 140s are equipped with fabric wings. While good, modern fabric can last for several decades when properly cared for, it’s wise to determine the age and condition of the fabric as part of a pre-purchase inspection.

With owners reporting $8,000 to $10,000 costs to replace the fabric and address minor internal repairs that are commonly found during the process, fabric replacement can approach half the total value of many airplanes on the market. Accordingly, purchasing an airplane with old, deteriorating fabric is not unlike purchasing an airplane with an engine in need of overhaul, and the selling price should be adjusted appropriately.

There are multiple engine types found in the Cessna 120/140 fleets. The most common—and, typically, the least expensive—is the 85 hp Continental C85 that came equipped in most examples. The noticeably more powerful C90 is less common but very well-liked for its blend of low weight and higher power.

A popular upgrade is the ubiquitous 100 hp Continental O-200, but because the rated horsepower is only attainable at higher rpm, many owners prefer instead to upgrade their C85s with an O-200 crankshaft as an STC. This provides additional power at a lower, more usable rpm range than the O-200.

Finally, some examples are fitted with the more powerful 108 hp Lycoming O-235 and 125 to 135 hp O-290. While the additional power makes a 120 or 140 perform notably better on climbout, these engines are also heavier, and payload can suffer. Additionally, because the O-290 is no longer produced or supported, parts have become both difficult to find and significantly more expensive than the alternatives.

Current FAA records indicate 674 120s, 1,653 140s and 235 140As are on the registry. The relative rarity of the 140A combined with its more sought-after features commands a premium over the others, with prices that are commonly 20 to 30 percent higher than the rest.

Ultimately, the most desirable examples have a recently overhauled engine, newer wing fabric, a well-kept interior and a reasonably up-to-date, ADS-B-compliant panel.

Flying Characteristics

Because the 120 and 140 are essentially tailwheel predecessors of the first 150s, the flight qualities are very similar. Unfortunately, so is the limited useful load. The maximum gross weight for the 120 and 140 is 1,450 pounds, and 1,500 pounds for the 140A. All have a standard fuel capacity of 25 gallons and empty weights that range from 800 to 1,050 pounds, resulting in a rather-limited payload.

With a heavier O-290 bringing his airplane’s empty weight up to 1,050 pounds, one owner reports having only 250 pounds left over for people and bags, underscoring the concern about the heavier, more powerful engine options. Similarly, most pilots prefer the fabric wing because it tends to weigh 30 to 50 pounds less than those that have been metalized.

The tailwheel configuration is, of course, what makes the 120 and 140 so vastly different from the 150. And the relatively benign handling and ground manners make it a great introduction to tailwheel flying. Visibility over the nose is fantastic, and the effective rudder makes takeoffs straightforward.

Read More: Approachable Aircraft

Once in the air, the 120 and 140 do indeed feel akin to the 150, providing a typical cruise speed of 100 to 110 mph with similar cabin comfort, space and handling qualities. Fuel burn varies by engine choice, but 4.5 to 5 gallons per hour is common. The fabric wing provides nice flying characteristics, with a light, crisp roll and an exceptionally docile and predictable stall.

Full-stall, three-point landings are almost a nonevent in the 120 and 140. By the time you milk every last bit of lift out of the wing and settle onto the runway, the remaining speed and energy is so low, very little effort is required to manage the otherwise typical tailwheel characteristics as you roll to a stop.

Wheel landings require more attention, particularly on lumpy grass strips. While most bounces on landing tend to be the result of a misjudged flare or an effort to force the airplane onto the runway, the Cessna’s undamped spring-steel landing gear is quick to convert an errant runway lump into an unplanned trip back into the air.

Early on, the 120 and 140 earned a reputation of being prone to nosing over while braking. Though many blame this on the positioning of the landing gear, the belief was more likely a result of brakes that were unusually powerful for the time period.

In that era, other light-tailwheel-aircraft types typically came equipped with relatively weak, cable-actuated brakes activated by tiny heel pedals. The 120 and 140, on the other hand, came with much more effective hydraulic toe brakes. This resulting combination of leverage and power ended in nose-over accidents when unsuspecting pilots jammed on the brakes.

To address this, many 120s and 140s have been modified with gear extenders, which aim to prevent these incidents by placing the wheels slightly ahead of the gear legs. While these do help to reduce the nose-over tendency, some owners and maintainers complain that they also introduce torsional flex to the gear, which can weaken and fatigue the attachment points to the fuselage. It’s wise to inspect this area closely during a pre-purchase inspection.

Later 140s and all 140As addressed the concern with redesigned gear legs that were themselves slightly swept forward to help counteract any nose-over tendencies. The gear attachment points on these models were strengthened accordingly to handle the torsional loads from the forward-swept gear.

Ultimately, the 120 and 140 provide a great introduction to tailwheel flying. With predictable handling, a very effective rudder and sturdy landing gear, they are forgiving to newcomers while still providing the endless satisfaction that comes from mastering a tailwheel aircraft.

Ownership

Plenty of aircraft types provide a low operating cost on par with the 120 and 140, but few also offer the retro, 1940s-era character and tailwheel flair. Together, these characteristics combine to make every flight that much more interesting, rewarding and memorable than those in more common entry-level types such as the Cessna 150 and Piper Cherokee. Park one of the former on a ramp, and they’ll often go unnoticed; park a 140 on a ramp, and you’ll soon be making new friends as they meander over to swap stories and memories.

And while the 120 and 140 lack the necessary qualities for true STOL operations, many owners find it to be a rugged, reliable machine for accessing poorly maintained grass and dirt strips, particularly when larger tires are fitted. Indeed, without a relatively fragile nosewheel attached to the firewall, the simple and beefy main gear is poised to take significantly more abuse than tricycle gear counterparts. Additionally, pilots in colder climates can install skis to open up entirely different flying experiences and adventures.

It’s this blend of character and qualities that make the 120 and 140 stand out. Though easily surpassed in one measure or another on a spreadsheet, they demonstrate how an aircraft can fall short in many commonly held metrics while offering a wonderful blend of less tangible strengths. Provided an owner can live with a limited payload and leisurely performance, these are airplanes that keep their owners interested and enthusiastic for a long time. Indeed, many owners we know vow they’ll never sell theirs, and it’s not uncommon to hear those who have express regret that they did.

This story appeared in the March 2020 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Approachable Aircraft: The Cessna 120/140 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.