Any Cardinal Pilots out there?

[Flightrite]

175 and 177 were good aircraft. 175 good performer off the ground, the engine had a bad reputation from those who didn't know how to operate it. 177 were good performers for what they were and lots of room.

 

How many hours have you in both types?

The C175 lasted 4 years in production, had engine issues and poor performance, fail.

The C177 lasted longer around 10 years or so, had perf & handling issues, both designs where dropped by Cessna for obvious reasons.

[Student Pilot]

No idea how many hours in each, I liked both aircraft. Engine issues were from people not knowing how to operate a geared engine. Cardinals were good performers, full flying tail was different but not as much difference as say a T tail on a Duchess, everybody likes the Duchess even though the T tail was insensitive and lacked feel. They liked it because it was a T tail like on big aircraft.

How many hours have you on both types Flightrite?

[Flightrite]

No idea how many hours in each.

[Runway16]

The POH for the C177RG says that 2200 rpm and 21 mp you are pulling 57 % a TAS of 153 mph and a range of 1095 s/miles. D.

[tuffnut]

The Cardinal is the E Type of the Cessna high wing aircraft. It was refined over the years and the later models with the slotted tail plane and 180hp engine are the epitome of aircraft design and efficiency. Cessna couldn't keep building them because of the amount of hand working required for those beautiful doors and sculptured body shape. They perform wonderfully on the horse power they have cruising at 140knt on 10GPH. Like all sophisticated machinery, they require a little more TLC and operational deftness than the average bush turkey that replaced them. But if you want a real piece of machinery, and like to soar with the eagles, buy a late model Cardinal!

[facthunter]

On all these figures we must be sure about in flight weight being used and whether the fuel is in US gals or IMP and the distance in NM. Kms or whatever. Cessna hi wing have had about the best flaps (Fowler) of anything comparable and the wings lifting (safe) capability often demonstrated It's also got doors BOTH sides. How much it will carry and with what mount of fuel consumed fuel is all about L/D of the entire plane (clean) ie HOW well does it GLIDE? What fuel does it carry and with what payload does it really have which is useful after you put the fuel on.. It's well known that a 172 is NOT really a four seater even though it has 4 seats. Nor does it go well as one might hope IF any sort of density altitude situation is encountered. It's not alone there either. When the Piper Tri Pacer and the c-172 were put against each other, the Triper was by comparison, a bit of a brick. back in those early days of "trike" undercarriages. Nev

[KRviator]

Some good comments, thanks's all.

 

I had done quite a bit of background research on both the Cardinal and the Comanche but what threw me, and prompted this thread, was the the photo of EJB were the RPM v Prop control didn't seem to correspond. On a closer look @facthunter is right, the prop is pulled back slightly and that'd explain the lower tach. Couldn't get my head around why everything forward didn't equal 2700RPM!

 

I had a bit of a look over the performance specs for the C180 after seeing a couple listed for sale, but I am not wanting to go backwards in performance from the RV-9. A cruise speed of 140KTAS at 8,500' is pretty much a set-in-stone prerequisite and while I might consider a Grumman Tiger if I could get CASA CAR42ZC authorisation to maintain it myself, that'd be the lower limit in terms of performance.

 

There's a couple of really good videos of the 177RG done by a US pilot for those that haven't seen them. The only downside with the Cardinal at present is the carry-through spar issue. From what I have been able to find, Cessna don't appear too anxious to produce anymore of them, so if your carry-through spar fails the inspection, you're screwed.

 

[facthunter]

The centre section spar would rule it out for me, and the u/c is complex and unusual to say the least.. Not without it's maintenance issues.. Is a "good "fixed gear 182 a possibility?. Nev.

[tuffnut]

The center section spar has been subject to a recent AD which if OK establishes its serviceability. Some models had insulation material glued to the carry through and it was not corrosion proofed. If water ingressed the moisture in the foam encouraged corrosion. However a similar spar is used on the Cardinal as on the C210, so at the much lower AUW there is a bigger margin of safety. As far as I know, there has never been a failure of a Cardinal carry through. Don't buy a Cardinal though without this inspection having been done, signed off and the anti corrosion treatment completed. After the first major inspection the ongoing attention required is really just good preventative maintenance and inspection. More of an on going consideration is the fact that the engine and front wheel retraction mechanism is all carried on a fairly complex chrome molly tubular structure bolted to the fire wall. Bend that and you will bend your wallet severely. No less though than on a 182 which if subjected to the same treatment will require the removal of the fire wall and it's support structure which is a BIG job. The main gear is the same as a 210 and although unique, will not give trouble if proper maintenance and pilot handling is of a good standard. Choose your poison carefully!

[facthunter]

I'm basing my thought music on the fact planes here operate to many remote places where such repairs as may be required are miles way. Fuel is a predictable cost . Unexpected very high costs are a show stopper..

Only recently I read a detailed report where the centre section spar failed and corrosion had nothing to do with it but operating techniques may well have. This is an unknown if you aren't the operator. Where that spar is located there are dimensional constraints with head room and it looks as if it's not deep enough. for my liking.. Extremely high bending and twisting loads are possible with that set up. They also cruise above their turbulence penetration speed often, with a lot of operators. Nev