Jump to content

Any Cardinal Pilots out there?


Recommended Posts

So I've been eyeing off a 4-seater for the last year or two and it's probably going to be a factory-built aircraft as I'm prohibited from building an RV-10...

 

VH-EJB, a Cardinal RG, was up for sale earlier this year, was removed and has now popped up again, with a few decent photos, one of which is produced below, but it's got me wondering about the engine/prop on it...

 

Look at the power levers: Full throttle, Full RPM, Mixture leaned slightly, and getting along S&L at 8,500'......But look at the tacho's - both are indicating ~2240RPM. Now the IO-360 should be spinning at 2,700RPM under those conditions, shouldn't it?

 

So what am I missing?

 

ID01671-6828-5-684-1972-Cessna-177-RG-Cardinal-Aircraft.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pitch control is NOT full in (It's in shadow) and the motor is leaned out slightly as U would expect. Full throttle is also normal for that scene. I don't see a fuel flow. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a few hours in the old Cardinal, best looking machine Cessna made, but that's all! They are known to be a slug especially off the ground loaded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Pitch control is NOT full in (It's in shadow) and the motor is leaned out slightly as U would expect. Full throttle is also normal for that scene. I don't see a fuel flow. Nev
FF is showing 10GPH, about what I'd expect for an IO-360 at that altitude, lines up fairly well with the POH. Could've sworn the prop was fully in but it does look slightly out from the panel, but would that small travel account for 450RPM lower than normal? Or do they just have a really small amount of travel for the prop control?
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a coarse( Button in) and a vernier (fine and wind) You don't want them sticking out too much to get bumped. The best Cessna is a C-180 with the reinforced and treated for corrosion seaplane optioned build and check the seat runners. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

At 8500ft, and MP 21.1, it's pretty much WOT depending on temperature.

 

No experience on the Cardinal, but the recommended cruise settings on the IO360 in the Arrow at that altitude and 65% power are either 2200 or 2500 at WOT. So in the range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payload and versatility, the 180 is still OK. You don't have to run on full bore. Reduced maintenance on a lot of things too. ALL getting a bit old. Planes eat money. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been eyeing off a 4-seater for the last year or two and it's probably going to be a factory-built aircraft as I'm prohibited from building an RV-10...

 

VH-EJB, a Cardinal RG, was up for sale earlier this year, was removed and has now popped up again, with a few decent photos, one of which is produced below, but it's got me wondering about the engine/prop on it...

 

Look at the power levers: Full throttle, Full RPM, Mixture leaned slightly, and getting along S&L at 8,500'......But look at the tacho's - both are indicating ~2240RPM. Now the IO-360 should be spinning at 2,700RPM under those conditions, shouldn't it?

 

So what am I missing?

 

ID01671-6828-5-684-1972-Cessna-177-RG-Cardinal-Aircraft.jpg

Pm me your phone contact and I’ll pass on to a mate with a 177 up here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the air speed indicator is reading correctly the 177 above is TASing about 140knots on 38 lph 65% power, not to bad considering the interior space. Don't think a C180 would be faster on 38lph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a few hours in the old Cardinal, best looking machine Cessna made, but that's all! They are known to be a slug especially off the ground loaded.

The 150HP fixed gear version was often called the “gutless strutless”.

The 180 HP fixed gear and 200 HP RG versions were good performers. Great machines, I think there’s an AD requiring the wings to be removed to inspect the spar carry through for corrosion / cracks and of course the usual Cessna SIDs stuff would need to be looked at carefully.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The gutless cutless had its own stigma referred as the C172RG, it too suffered from lathargic performance. Cessna where at a dilemma with the Cardinal, originally designed to replace the 172 but after numerous negative outcomes along the way with increasing HP, making them RG they where caught between a rock and a hard place. Put an even bigger engine on them? Cessna already had the higher HP larger 182 series so gutless strutless model was dropped but still has a following. The spar AD like its larger cousin the 210 is another thorn in the designs side which no doubt effects the value.

Edited by Flightrite
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate of mine, originally from Toowoomba, has one - G-ZION (google it - you will see photos of it and if you google G-INFO (CAA's aircraft database), you can check out all the details. It is a 180HP model, fixed undercarriage, 1972. I've been in it a couple of times and it is a good machine. EJB looks to be a retractable; G-ON is fixed gear from memory.. Apart from that they should be more or less the same with a slightly different useable load. While you're not going to need a g-suit, they are no slouch for the type of aircraft they are. They have a bigger cabin than the C172 and people thought they could just stuff the cabin full like they could the 172... big mistake.

 

The numbers look OK to me, but I am sure a little googling will work it out for you - are there any STCs on it?

 

Avweb had a good article on them: Cessna 177 Cardinal I would certainly look at a later model...

 

Mate's aircraft is here: Cessna 177B Cardinal, G-ZION / 177-01690, Private :. This was before he owned it. As with any used aircraft (ir any used mechanical item), you are buying what the previous owners did and did not do in terms of mainternance, and in the case of aircraft, g-forces. On the first annual, the exhaust had to be replaced and a few other wearable items.. so far, as far as I know, nothing major (well, beyond a few thousand £).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard it once said that the Cessna models that had their model number ending in an odd number seemed to be less successful than those ending in an even number.

Wayne.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard it once said that the Cessna models that had their model number ending in an odd number seemed to be less successful than those ending in an even number.

 

.......... thats odd ?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard it once said that the Cessna models that had their model number ending in an odd number seemed to be less successful than those ending in an even number.

Wayne.

 

That's kinda known already in the GA world but a coincidence in the early series 4 seaters, C175, dog, C177, dog. If they where sucsesful they would be making them today!? A friend if mine has an RG strutless gutless he bought it so his wife can get better access, they are known for room but it sits in the hangar most if it's life, he is less than impressed with its slug perf. I did my retract endo in one a hundred years ago, loved the view and space but that's all!?

Edited by Flightrite
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other "problem" the 177 had was the horizontal stabilizer, to radical for the average cessna driver. An all flying stabilator has to be some kind of witchcraft right?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could call it that. They do have safety and management issues. If an aircraft operates over a wide speed range (as JETS do) some extra pitch authority is necessary in a pretty big way. It's also more drag efficient. The Usual go is an adjustable horizontal stabilizer with adequate hinges and screw jack operation.

. I've never been a fan of a full flying tail. The structure is too rubbery and subject to flutter. and requires some tricky trim tab work in the design. It's my one main criticism of the generally good Piper Comanche series. You CAN live with it if you keep a good eye on it and operate properly, but rather it wasn't there.. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, if i were looking for a reasonably priced 4 seater that actually lifts four adults plus fuel Id go Maule rather than Cessna.

 

Just sayin'.

 

And they come in all flavours now. Those that drag their tail feathers and shopping trolleys too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, if i were looking for a reasonably priced 4 seater that actually lifts four adults plus fuel Id go Maule rather than Cessna.

 

Just sayin'.

 

And they come in all flavours now. Those that drag their tail feathers and shopping trolleys too.

They would have to be small adults in a Maule

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...