Cessna 140 registration

[Phil Perry]

as it is factory built it would be 24-xxxx registered then it could not be modified (weight reducing) to be able to carry more payload up to the 600kg MTOW. What we need is the UK LAA system for some of these older aircraft.

Hi Mike, Whilst it is true that SOME older, factory built aircraft may be operated within either the CAA or LAA " Permit to fly" regime, some are refused, but the reasons for refusal are not always clear at the time of application. An Auster 6 with a Gypsy MAjor Mk8 engine, which I was involved was refused, and yet there are quite a lot of other model Austers on permits. It may have been as ours was an ex-artillery spotter with a huge rear window and a rearwards facing single rear seat, but this was not highlighted at the time. A quick look on teh LAA website should list what is on the register, and there's quite a good selection of what used to be G.A. regime aircraft in there. A friend's Luscombe 8E Silvaire was accepted, whilst some other similar Luscombes were rejected.

 

This all boils down to cost of operation, as has been mentioned above. With a permit aircraft, most of the work on the aircraft can be carried out by non-certified persons, ie, owners. . . but with all and any G.A. registered machines, the published periodical checks have to be undertken by an M3 ( Licenced ) organisation, and legally signed off with the associated cost this entails.

 

Phil

 

 

[Keenaviator]

I think a there was an authorisation for them to be fitted, would have to check with either the factory or in original documentation.- boingk

I think you might be thinking of the Reims Cessna 150 which had a 130 hp Lycoming engine.

In 1997 I bought a Cessna 150A which was made in 1961. I later overhauled it and did a Texas Tailwheel conversion to it. This model has the same fastback fuselage as the 120/140 series. All 120, 140 and 150's had Continentals, apart from the Reims which was built in France.

 

I waited in hope for many years for the proposed 750 kg MTOW in RAAus but it didn't happen. So I sold the 150 and got myself a Corby Starlet project allowing me the freedoms and advantages of the RAAus.

 

 

[seb7701]

That's it 'freedom and advantage'. Not so much trying to avoid rules, but moreso to avoid the hassles of GA. Now, if only I could find an economical way of getting one of the many C120's I see listed on barnstormers over here......

 

From this discussion though, I do hold hope that this might be one day do-able.

 

 

[boingk]

I think you might be thinking of the Reims Cessna 150 which had a 130 hp Lycoming engine.

Nope, just checked the FAA docs and found that they are fine for the Lyc O-235-CI. Page 5, item 109 of the doc at this link:

 

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f55c36f242f3204e8625724300680eaa/$FILE/A-768.pdf

 

How's the Starlet go? Bumped into a fellow at Cootamundra on the way back from Temora over Easter who had one, looked very smart indeed and took off like a rocketship!

 

Seb - I reckon it'd be an awesome project... especially if you bought an airframe and recoed an engine. There's an airframe over there for 3.5k and complete flying aircraft look to start at around the 15k mark. I really like the look of the 120/140's, too.

 

Cheers - boingk

 

EDIT: Looked through it more carefully and its got weights for all equipment listed. Generator 10lb, battery 24lb, starter 16lb, lights 6lb. Total weight of equipment 56lb or 25kg... nice!

 

 

[Yenn]

Keenaviator/ Where are you with the Corby Starlet, are you building?

 

If you are building there are a couple of tips I could pass on about the elevator and tailwheel attach.

 

 

[Neil_S]

I like the starter and battery removal. Likewise, I would be curious as to the weight savings with removal of the old instruments, many of which I'll bet run deep into the panel with a hefty weight also. All sounds do-able, depending on what the RAA is thinking, although I wonder with recent rego issues whether now couldn't be a worse time to ask for rego leniency. Like. Don't know the whereabouts of a 120 yet....

Hi Seb,

 

It is my understanding that Lethbridge have a C120 under RA-Aus rego all ready for tailwheel endorsements. Suggest you call Bruce Vickers and speak to him about how he got it registered. 0400849031.

 

Cheers

 

Neil

 

 

[Keenaviator]

Keenaviator/ Where are you with the Corby Starlet, are you building?If you are building there are a couple of tips I could pass on about the elevator and tailwheel attach.

The Starlet depicted in my avatar is mine after completion - this photo taken leaving Temora a couple of years ago. I sold it in November 2011 and have a new project, a Jabiru UL450.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

Boink, you asked how did the Starlet go? Well it went like a cut cat with the new Jab engine and Patroney prop. Easily exceeded VNE straight and level and still accelerating strongly. Climbed at around 1500 fpm and had nice light and balanced controls. The downside is size. After getting the Starlet I got into paragliding and there was no way of carrying my paragliding setup. In the last year of ownership I only dd 16 hours in it. A mate was very keen to have it so selling it was very easy.

 

Regarding Cessna 120/140s, these are very old aircraft. I don't think they were ever made to last because after the Second World War Cessna churned out thousands of them promoting them to be as common (thus disposable) as cars. There was no internal corrosion proofing and chasing corrosion is a never ending task - this I know well because thats what i had to do with my 1961 150.

 

 

[facthunter]

A good point about the lack of corrosion proofing. Also all the weight shedding is well forward and the plane could end up tail heavy, but a "bare" Cont 65 --95 can be quite light ( compared to the fully equiped engine). Starter and battery are a big weight and the original generator weighs more that one from a car( which it resembles). Nev

 

 

[boingk]

Boink, you asked how did the Starlet go? <snip> There was no internal corrosion proofing [in 140's] and chasing corrosion is a never ending task - this I know well because thats what i had to do with my 1961 150.

Sounds great! I was very taken with the one I mentioned above and it certainly sounds like it'd be a hoot to fly. Nice indeed. Would've been even better knowing you'd made it.

 

Good point on the corrosion proofing on the 140's. Our local 150M Aerobat has recently been out with corrosion on the gear legs - small pits that are just on the service limits. New gear cost... wait for it... an arm and a leg.

 

Cheers - boingk

 

 

[Keenaviator]

Sounds great! I was very taken with the one I mentioned above and it certainly sounds like it'd be a hoot to fly. Nice indeed. Would've been even better knowing you'd made it.Good point on the corrosion proofing on the 140's. Our local 150M Aerobat has recently been out with corrosion on the gear legs - small pits that are just on the service limits. New gear cost... wait for it... an arm and a leg.

 

Cheers - boingk

Also, regarding weight - after doing the tail wheel conversion, removing substantial weight and theoretically going through a weight loss program, I had a new weight and balance done. Guess what? It came out substantially heavier than the previous published weight. The only answer we could come up with was that it's previous weight did not include a lot of heavy instrumentation and a few layers of paint.

Cheers, Laurie

 

 

[Guest nunans]

With the current choice of legitimate RA two place aircraft I would have thought that with the exception of GA ab-initio training or aerobatics there is no longer a maket for old cessna two seaters, or actually a two seat VH registered anything.

 

You can simply buy a much more modern, lighter, better performing, cheaper to maintain, real sub 600kg RA aircarft and the two seat cessna's have had their day...

 

To me, unless I was buying a four plus seater, or an aerobatic aircraft. Then RA is the only way to go.

 

 

[seb7701]

Thanks Neil and Boingk- really would be a dream project but so far I am keen to look at one day importing from NZ, but the USA, where all the cessna's are sounds like a nightmare. Corrosion does sound like an issue too- all very good points...

 

 

[ave8rr]

Thanks Neil and Boingk- really would be a dream project but so far I am keen to look at one day importing from NZ, but the USA, where all the cessna's are sounds like a nightmare. Corrosion does sound like an issue too- all very good points...

And if the C140 was to go onto the RAAus register then it would be 24-XXXX as it is factory built and would have to still have all the maintenance work the maintenance manual calls for done. This includes the SIDS programme. I note there are a lot of C172's on the market at the moment as the SIDS compliance date is fast approaching.