When do planes that are developed from an earlier model stop being derivatives of that original design? Is the Gulfstream G550 a derivative of the original turboprop Gulfstream I, which begat the G2? No way . . . but kind of, too.
Now, if Cessna’s lineage is to be traced forward from one point, as I’ve suggested above, then the overwhelmingly most important model in the leading brand’s history is the Cessna 140. To say that the little two-seat, 85-hp taildragging 140 is the progenitor of the P-210 is a stretch, literally and otherwise, but one can indeed trace the ancestry of that fast, pressurized, high-performance, retractable-gear, turbocharged single directly back to the 140 through a handful of intermediate steps. In this way, the 140 made Cessna Aircraft.
Are you an aviation enthusiast or pilot? Sign up for our newsletter, full of tips, reviews and more!
On its own merits, the 140 is a delight. I’ve flown a few of them and a 120 as well. They handle beautifully and are relatively well mannered on the ground, though you forget that it’s a taildragger at your peril. The 140 isn’t all that slow, either. In stock configuration with the 85-hp Continental C-85, it can achieve the advertised 90 knots and even better when they’ve gotten a horsepower boost. I flew one years ago that had a 125 hp Lycoming. It was a going machine!
Now, as you might know, the designations and equipment on the 140 and its associates is a complicated subject. In its simplest terms, here it is.
In 1946, the 140 was an all-new design with an all-metal fuselage and metal wings with fabric covering. It had flaps and a back window. It wasn’t a development of the 120, which lacked that rear window, an electrical system, the flaps and the fancy finish work. The 120 was instead a budget version of the 140. The 140A debuted in 1949 (the 120 got dropped). This last model featured metal-covered wings and a few other upgrades.
Confusing the picture is the fact that most of these planes have been upgraded in the intervening 70-plus years since they came to market. Most have metal-covered wings, most 120s have electrical systems and a back window, and many of these planes have gotten a boost in power with STCs that allow the installation of everything from 90 hp to the aforementioned 125 hp Lycoming.
When Cessna launched the comely little Model 140 in 1946 right after the end of World War II, it wasn’t alone in guessing there’d be a market for inexpensive little planes for all the GIs returning from around the world. The guessing outpaced the demand, however, and that era in U.S aviation history saw the greatest oversupply of airplanes in history.
The 140 was a victim of that oversupply, though not so much that it meant the demise of Cessna, clearly, as it did for several other notable plane makers, like Globe and Aeronca. Cessna merely shifted gears when folks stopped buying the 140 and put a nose gear on it and called it the 150. And we all know how that went. That all said, the 140 was far from a failure. Cessna built nearly 8,000 120, 140 and 140A planes over the type’s five-year run from 1946 to 1951. Aircraft manufacturers today would give their left strut to have that kind of a failure!
Well what was wrong with 150. every thing has a lineage & the 150 was grate plane. I like it a lot. I tried taildraggers’ & had a little ruff of a time trying them after starting out with tricycle geared planes I think every one has there like & dis likes.
Nothing wrong with a 150, but it’s a development of the 140. I remember transitioning to tri-gear (Piper Colt after years in Champs & Chiefs), the instructor said “just put the mains on, let go of the yoke and then just drive home! Last thing you’d want to do in a taildragger, where the stick’s always firmly back when on the ground until take-off
There is nothing wrong with a 150. I think the author means it went very well! According to an article on Wikipedia it had the 5th highest production of any civilian plane. It was a great little trainer. I first flew one at Jeffco airport in Broomfield, Colorado where I started taking flying lessons. That was in 1966 if I remember correctly. Taking off from that altitude of 5,669′ it climbed at, maybe, 200′ to 300′ per minute. I took my check ride for PP in a different one in 1973 at Burlington International Airport (BTV). I belonged to a flying club at that airport and I remember that the rental for the 150 wet was $7/hr! It was also $20 a month for fixed costs. Oh, and my instructor charged $5/hour. Amazing how times have changed yet, from what I understand, there are still a lot of 150s and 152’s around!
I have many fond memories of 120s and 140s. Started lessons at 15, 1959, in a J-3 but soloed in a 120, doing cross countries in a 140. One of the 140s was converted to tricycle gear and, as a result, I learned that crosswind landings can be accomplished without bending the rudder pedals.
One of my favorite memories happened during a long cross country in the 140 trike. On the way to Lincoln, NE, the 2nd of the three landings, a T-33 pulled up beside me, at an amazingly high angle of attack, and stayed there for a couple of minutes. Then he saluted and pulled quickly away. I always wondered if he could see my beaming eyes through my mirrored military style sunglasses.
I only had one problem in a 140. I lost oil pressure and made a precautionary landing in a farmer’s field within sight if the farmstead. Got a ride to the house on a tractor and called the FBO. My instructor flew a mechanic to the same field. Thought I was in trouble but my instructor said it was the right thing to do. He hinted that landing with the engine running was preferable to when it’s not. Turned out to be a bad gauge, so I was off again. Had a real engine failure and emergency landing in a Beaver in Northern Japan just a few years later. That was less fun but I still didn’t get into trouble so it was all good.
I started taking my son flying with me when he turned two. We flew a lot of different aircraft, 150s, 172/182s, J-3s, Super Cubs, Champs, Beaver, L-19, L-5, Bonanzas, T-34, Comanche, Tri-Pacer, and . . . enough of that. Taking my son flying and he ended up a military pilot. Who’d a thunk it. I also dragged him around the world while served 31 years in the Air Force so being a military brat may have been an influence as well.
The bottom line: the 140 has a special place in my heart. 16 years old and flying in formation with a jet. Can it get any better than that?
Gary
I’d like to emphasize how nearly the Cessna company came to failure in the late 1940s, when the “obvious” after-war market for lightplanes failed to materialize. The Hutchinson (KS) factory was converted to making furniture and farm equipment (it never returned to airplane involvement), while the Wichita factory (the “Pawnee Plant”) cranked out 120s, 140s, 190s, and 195s, and management sweated over every payday.