Been looking for a second plane, a 120 caught my eye with a new O-200 upfront. Looks simple, dirt cheap and easy on the wallet. Never flown one or sat in one, comparable to a similar hp Citabria or j3?

I have an hour in a Cessna 140. Very cramped for my 73” height and 1/8 ton carcass.

Cub is too narrow.

Aeronca tandem is just right. Champ. Citabria. Decathlon. Scout. It’s all I’d consider for a fliver.

Aeronca Chief is similar to the C140.

Taylorcraft is the smallest of the bunch.

Luscombe I hit my head on the spar.

Exactly that.

It’s side-by-side with yokes; completely different experience from a tandem, right-hand-stick, left-hand-throttle Citabria or J-3. Also, the only fabric is on the wing. Takeoff and climb performance with an O-200 will be much better than a J-3. It should be similar to an O-200 powered Citabria, and appropriately worse than the higher-horsepower ones.

I’m within 5-10 pounds of FAA standard and found my 140 roomy enough for a passenger and me. The hardest part was bending my left knee high enough to get my leg in. The 120 has the same fuselage, but left the factory with no window behind the doors and no flaps. Some have had both of those added in the intervening years.

If you’re new to taildraggers, a 120/140 is a really good, safe trainer. If you’re experienced, a 120 with an O-200 would be a hoot. When I had mine 10 years ago, The International Cessna 120/140 Society was a good group. The generalist Cessna groups didn’t prove helpful.

I have a few hours in a 140, owned a 7ECA. I prefer the 7ECA. The big thing was fit. I am a little smaller than "FAA standard" and with me and a passenger a bit over "standard", it was tight in the shoulders. I carried big guys in the back of 7ECA that I would not have wanted to try and stuff in the 140.

But if you fit, then they are nice little planes.

I prefer the 140 to the 120 due to the addition of flaps but they are both great flying aircraft. My friend just bought a C120 with an O-290 engine. It is a real performer. The 120 is a great plane to learn good tailwheel habits and is overall a really fun airplane. They are cheap to insure even for new tailwheel pilots. Maintenance, and fuel burn are also very reasonable. I prefer the side by side seating to tandem. It is a bit cramped with two full sized adults but still tolerable for trotting around your local area. A long X-country might be a bit painful but I think you would probably take a different plane for that mission.

The Cessna 120 is a bargain compared to other taildraggers. I’m surprised by the comment stating the 140 is a better choice. Most say the flaps on the 140 are not effective. The best advice I can give you is to find a light airplane. When flying these small airplanes, every pound counts.

It’s always been interesting to me that the features that are considered desirable on those other models were included by the factory on the 120. Metal spars and an electrical system are a couple of examples.

Like many old airplanes some of the 120/140’s have been somewhat molested over the years. Find a nice original example and I think you will be happy.

Robert

The 120/140 cabin is the same as the esrly 150s, tight but ok.
With O-200 it should be a tad better performer than the 150.
I found our 120 to be short field take off, but could never master short landings.

I owned a 140 for quite a while. While I would choose flaps over no flaps everything being equal, I would not turn down a really nice 120 at a good price.

Out of all the planes I've flown, the 140 flaps made the least difference.... by far.

I’m currently doing an extensive restoration on a 120 in my spare time. I’m 6’2” and fit ok. Did a flight with a c-85 powered one and was ok with me and my small stature instructor. I can’t fit in 150’s very well because of the seats up on tracks. The 120 has just cushions on a seat pan with a backrest that has a few positions to change. I can get my legs under the instrument panel easier and don’t have the feeling of flying between my knees like I do with the 150. It is possible to put 150 seats in the 120/140’s by field approval, quite a few airplanes have done that.

Getting in was easier for me with the 120 vs the 150 because of the angle the fuselage is at sitting on its wheels...I just kind of slide into the 120 whereas the 150 feels like I’m climbing (or tripping) into, more like the cub.

They’re dirt simple construction...like scary simple. Weight is the enemy as stated before, every ounce counts. Fabric is preferred but there was an STC to metalize the wings decades ago, adds about 40lbs.

If you go with the Cessna, pay attention to the landing gear structure, bulkheads in the belly especially if it has extenders on the gear, axles are prone to cracking, door post structure at the top by the carry-through spar and down where the strut bolts to the gearbox area are prone to cracking.

Good luck!

What serial number are you restoring? I have a good seat back if you need one. Mine is a fairly early 120.

9746, it really should have been thrown away for the severe molestation she endured by “mechanics” performing “repairs,” but I’m using it as a testament to my skills as an A&P, plus good practice for sheet metal, wiring, paperwork, etc.

Mine is 8886, an early model. Mine left the factory pretty bare bones, with the exception of dual brakes, and remaines that way to this day. Doesn’t even really have an interior and I don’t believe it ever had one. There are no holes in the inside of the doors and no sign the interior was ever painted. The good news is that the carry thru structure looks new as it has never had a headliner to hold moisture against the metal. Even the folks on the 120/140 site don’t seem to know anything about the original 120 interiors ( or lack thereof).

Best of luck with your restoration!

I’m a current 120 owner. At 6 feet and 170 and I find the part its most cramped is below room. Head and legroom are just fine. With the C85 its takeoff limited, you can get it stopped in 300 feet but you’ll need 1000 to get off again (weight and temperature dependent, of course). O-200 will definitely help here.

I did my initial checkout in it with an instructor who was well north of 200 and while it was cramped we fit. Takeoff on a hot May Day took a while but off in about 12-1400 on pavement. Biggest complaint is anemic climb in those conditions - it kinda forces you into a slow shallow climb. Expect about 400 ft/min loaded up.

All Cessna 120/140 are wonderful airplanes. I've owned mine for 46 years. You should check the holes in the spring landing gear where the boarding step attaches. If the holes aren't chamfered , cracks can develop . Eventually, the gear leg will snap and you will have a totaled airplane. Full flaps lower the nose and make wheel landing easier. You can also lower the flaps instantly on takeoff to jump off soft grass runways. The last one forty's were "A" models. They had a metal single strut wing similar to a 150, but without the big flaps. The 140's horizontal stabilizer was too small. Taildrager Aviation is the go to place for all things 140. They are located at Poplar Grove,Illinois and Ken and Lorraine Morris are the folks to see.

What’s the story on the vertical stab? Looks good!