It may not have had an ELT, but I'll bet it did come with a "Coffee Grinder". My estimate is 985 lb empty. I enjoy your videos and If I still had my 140 I'd be really careful who worked on it. You definitely would be on the top of the list.
I own a 1946 Cessna 120 and by the swept exhaust pipes I know yours is a 1946 model too. On these aircraft the c.g. is "unfavorably" forward. Cessna came out with a fix called wheel extenders that placed the wheels about six inches forward so as to shift the c.g. farther aft. I notice that you have chosen not to use these on your aircraft. Why? It does not look as "sexy" but it helps reduce the tip-over tendency when breaking with modern disc brakes as oppose to the old Goodyear puck brakes which did not have as good of a grab when braking. Even extenders will not keep you out of trouble as I have found out during my ownership. So, be careful out there when braking hard. I also have a question about your tailwheel. I too have a Scott 3200. It looks like you have the heavier springs required for the Scott pnuematic wheel. Do you? Also the clasp that goes across the spring set, are the bolts directed up so that the friction nuts are on top of the clasp? This is to prevent the bolt ends from accidentally snagging the chains and locking up the tailwheel and therefore your rudder in flight. You will find this detail in the Illustrated Parts Catalog, page 45. You must be an AI so what I say you may already know, but then maybe you do not. Oh, one other thing I would be interested to know how your static probe works out. They tend to not be very effective and some pilots (me) have tried to solve the problem by placing a metal disc slightly forward of the pitot hole so as to provide a "stilling" area and eliminate the aerodynamic yawing affect on the probe. That too did not work out very well for me and eventually I opted to vent to cabin air which then throws in cabin air temperature effects. The real cure is a static port which works in the boundary layer and is therefore unaffected by yaw. As others have said, you have done a beautiful restoration. From the pictures it looks that a potential future EAA Classic award winner. Keep it clean and shinny and bring it to Oshkosh in 2023 so that we can see it there.
Thanks for the comments. You mentioned several things there, so let me do my best. Wheel Extenders: Yes, these airplanes are very tail-light and prone to ground looping. The wheel extenders are the age-old debate (which I don't necessarily want to get into). I chose to leave them off because of a couple reasons. I'm not a fan of how they look, if there is a chance of un-due burden on the gear boxes, I want nothing to do with that, and these airplanes have been flying around for 75 years with no problems. Seems to me it comes down to pilot error. As you said, even the extenders will NOT keep you out of trouble. Scott 3200: I installed new tailwheel springs (Cessna original p/n), then used the 1 1/4" to 1 1/2" wide adaptor. As for the bolt direction, you are correct. Be careful on installation! IA: Yes I am! Static Probe: I'll let you know how it goes, but I'm fairly confident it'll work great. Oshkosh 2023: That's the plan. I hope to see you all there!
Well, your 'hints' didn't reveal a clue so, I'll guess the 'new' empty weight, with your additions and subtractions at 900lbs(+/- 5%). A TRUE airplane, not with the 'training wheel' on the nose 🙂
The empty weight of the airplane was exactly 925 lbs. You nailed it! Please send me a note to HiebertAviation@gmail.com and I’ll get this hat sent out to you.
Nice shine, have fun
Thanks 👍
898#. Beautiful airplane and beautiful work.
Beautiful plane
Our C140B had the static port. Happy New Year!
Happy new year!
W O W
1000 lbs even!
It may not have had an ELT, but I'll bet it did come with a "Coffee Grinder". My estimate is 985 lb empty. I enjoy your videos and If I still had my 140 I'd be really careful who worked on it. You definitely would be on the top of the list.
Appreciate you watching and the kind comments!
913.5 lbs no fuel empty weight.
875 lbs
975 Empty
Is that static port “repair” an FAA approved repair?
I built it exactly to the original Cessna specs, so yes.
@@hiebertaviation Thanks 😊 for replying.
939 lb.
990 lbs
I own a 1946 Cessna 120 and by the swept exhaust pipes I know yours is a 1946 model too. On these aircraft the c.g. is "unfavorably" forward. Cessna came out with a fix called wheel extenders that placed the wheels about six inches forward so as to shift the c.g. farther aft. I notice that you have chosen not to use these on your aircraft. Why? It does not look as "sexy" but it helps reduce the tip-over tendency when breaking with modern disc brakes as oppose to the old Goodyear puck brakes which did not have as good of a grab when braking. Even extenders will not keep you out of trouble as I have found out during my ownership. So, be careful out there when braking hard. I also have a question about your tailwheel. I too have a Scott 3200. It looks like you have the heavier springs required for the Scott pnuematic wheel. Do you? Also the clasp that goes across the spring set, are the bolts directed up so that the friction nuts are on top of the clasp? This is to prevent the bolt ends from accidentally snagging the chains and locking up the tailwheel and therefore your rudder in flight. You will find this detail in the Illustrated Parts Catalog, page 45. You must be an AI so what I say you may already know, but then maybe you do not. Oh, one other thing I would be interested to know how your static probe works out. They tend to not be very effective and some pilots (me) have tried to solve the problem by placing a metal disc slightly forward of the pitot hole so as to provide a "stilling" area and eliminate the aerodynamic yawing affect on the probe. That too did not work out very well for me and eventually I opted to vent to cabin air which then throws in cabin air temperature effects. The real cure is a static port which works in the boundary layer and is therefore unaffected by yaw. As others have said, you have done a beautiful restoration. From the pictures it looks that a potential future EAA Classic award winner. Keep it clean and shinny and bring it to Oshkosh in 2023 so that we can see it there.
Thanks for the comments. You mentioned several things there, so let me do my best.
Wheel Extenders: Yes, these airplanes are very tail-light and prone to ground looping. The wheel extenders are the age-old debate (which I don't necessarily want to get into). I chose to leave them off because of a couple reasons. I'm not a fan of how they look, if there is a chance of un-due burden on the gear boxes, I want nothing to do with that, and these airplanes have been flying around for 75 years with no problems. Seems to me it comes down to pilot error. As you said, even the extenders will NOT keep you out of trouble.
Scott 3200: I installed new tailwheel springs (Cessna original p/n), then used the 1 1/4" to 1 1/2" wide adaptor. As for the bolt direction, you are correct. Be careful on installation!
IA: Yes I am!
Static Probe: I'll let you know how it goes, but I'm fairly confident it'll work great.
Oshkosh 2023: That's the plan. I hope to see you all there!
I have been flying my C-120 without the extenders and have never had a problem…
1037.8pounds
912
948 pounds empty
865
862#
Well, your 'hints' didn't reveal a clue so, I'll guess the 'new' empty weight, with your additions and subtractions at 900lbs(+/- 5%). A TRUE airplane, not with the 'training wheel' on the nose 🙂
Ha! Training wheel, I like that.
741.3 lbs.
978 lbs is my guess.
925 empty weight
The empty weight of the airplane was exactly 925 lbs. You nailed it! Please send me a note to HiebertAviation@gmail.com and I’ll get this hat sent out to you.
895#
956
917