177RG

I've got a few hours in them. They're faster than a Cutlass, but that's about all I can say. A straight-leg 182 will go just about as fast and carry more for the same money. IOW, they're pretty much like all the other 180-200HP retractables except the Mooney. Their biggest advantage over the others is the ease of entry provided by the big doors, high wing, and strutless construction.
 
Lots.... Everybody has an opinion about them and many are not accurate. Join CardinalFlyers.com for $34 and you'll learn everything there is to know about them. They have an awesome pre-purchase inspection checklist if you get that far. They have a club luncheon on Thursday at Oshkosh if you happen to be headed that way. I know one very knowledgeable club member and RG owner posts here occasionally.
 
I've got a few hours in them. They're faster than a Cutlass, but that's about all I can say. A straight-leg 182 will go just about as fast and carry more for the same money. IOW, they're pretty much like all the other 180-200HP retractables except the Mooney. Their biggest advantage over the others is the ease of entry provided by the big doors, high wing, and strutless construction.

What's different about a Mooney? 10-12 knots faster and infinitely uglier? :rofl:
 
The strutless high wing looks appealing, the speed (148 knots or so) is workable, it looks comfy and the IO-360 seems like it would have enough ummffff to get me off the ground in a respectable distance. I've always thought the Cessna/High Wing retract mechanasims were goofy. My main concern would be is the gear burly enough to handle gopher hole/ grass strips?
 
What's different about a Mooney? 10-12 knots faster and infinitely uglier? :rofl:

Not 10-12kts in a similar vintage. Maybe 5-7kts. A few of th RG's have turbo STC's and they claim 177kts @ 17,000. IMO the Cardinal is much more comfortable and considerably roomier.
 
Anybody know anything about these? Good, Bad, Ugly?

If I was going to buy a 200hp retract it would be my choice. I think they are the all around best of breed and make an excellent photo platform.
 
The strutless high wing looks appealing, the speed (148 knots or so) is workable, it looks comfy and the IO-360 seems like it would have enough ummffff to get me off the ground in a respectable distance. I've always thought the Cessna/High Wing retract mechanasims were goofy. My main concern would be is the gear burly enough to handle gopher hole/ grass strips?

Small wheels dropping into a gopher hole and it doesn't matter if it's FG or RG it's gonna do the same damage. I wouldn't take it all the places I'd take a Bo, but I wouldn't be paranoid about a grass strip of moderate quality.
 
If I lived at lower altitude I probably would have bought one instead of the Mooney. I rented one for around 200 hrs. Above 8-10,000 msl it didn't climb will at all. Even my wife noticed. 'Do we have to climb'. I loved the visibility and two big doors. Hump in the baggage compartment for the gear was a little annoying. The only bad thing is the gear will not extend if you loose hydraulic fluid. I lost it once on take off. Hydraulic line broke at a fitting on the pump in the tail cone. Pump all the fluid overboard pretty quick. Luckily the gear didn't unlatch so landing was not an issue.
 
I bought a 177RG earlier this year and have flown around 56 hours in it so far. It has been a great plane. It's not a high altitude or heavy weight carrying performer like a 182 but it cruises reasonably fast for less gas. I get an honest 140 knots at 7-8k feet. Some planes make less because they are improperly rigged. There is a bit difference between years in the retract mechanism, the CFO website has details. It handles nicely (much better than the other 17x series) and now that I have started instrument training it seems to be a nice stable platform as well. If you like sightseeing the RG and no wing strut is nice. The wide doors are great. You can get into the front and back seats without sliding the seat. I highly recommend Cardinal Flyers Online.

There is a link to my Cardinal flying blog in my forum signature.
 
If I lived at lower altitude I probably would have bought one instead of the Mooney. I rented one for around 200 hrs. Above 8-10,000 msl it didn't climb will at all. Even my wife noticed. 'Do we have to climb'.

Tornado Ally Turbo makes an STC for the 177RG but I suspect you need to be made of money to make that worthwhile versus buying an already turboed plane.
 
Tornado Ally Turbo makes an STC for the 177RG but I suspect you need to be made of money to make that worthwhile versus buying an already turboed plane.

There was one for Mooneys too. Somewhere north of 30K IIRC.
 
As Yogi said, "it's like deja vu all over again" to again hear all of these comparisons and opinions about the various airplanes that were introduced back in the day.

Seems like only yesterday when we were scouring the pages of the periodicals for information that would help us decide whether they would be the next great thing or just another spam can with a different-sized door.

As for me, I was absolutely sure and certain that I would own one of the first Cardinal RG's in the Kansas City market. When they finally showed up, however, quick demo ride exposed their deficiencies, and even though they are cute little planes with nice big doors, they can't run with the big dogs.
 
I flew one for a private owner once that absolutely needed to get to a meeting and was not instrument rated. It was nice but overall I wasn't that impressed, really weird and heavy in pitch, so much so I wondered if something was wrong with it.

There was also something weird about the windscreen that produced some weird illusions with my sunglasses.
 
As for me, I was absolutely sure and certain that I would own one of the first Cardinal RG's in the Kansas City market. When they finally showed up, however, quick demo ride exposed their deficiencies, and even though they are cute little planes with nice big doors, they can't run with the big dogs.

Exactly, that is the deficiency with all 200hp retracts, just not enough power; it should have 60 more. You can always reduce power and fuel flow when you don't need it, but you can't add power to full power when you need more power. Horsepower is always your friend. All the 200hp planes of that Genre need 230 hp and should have 260.
 
Exactly, that is the deficiency with all 200hp retracts, just not enough power; it should have 60 more. You can always reduce power and fuel flow when you don't need it, but you can't add power to full power when you need more power. Horsepower is always your friend. All the 200hp planes of that Genre need 230 hp and should have 260.

You're going to talk me into spending too much money on a Bonanza...

What's your take on an IO520BA@1300hrs, will it run another 1000? I'd need to at least coerce it into another 500.
 
What's your take on an IO520BA@1300hrs, will it run another 1000? I'd need to at least coerce it into another 500.
It certainly could, plus more, but then again it may not.
 
It certainly could, plus more, but then again it may not.

definitely maybe huh? Wondering what the reputation of the IO520 is? Are they noted for exploding 500 hours pre-TBO or do they have a good rep for making it, then some.
 
definitely maybe huh? Wondering what the reputation of the IO520 is? Are they noted for exploding 500 hours pre-TBO or do they have a good rep for making it, then some.

The IO520 IMO is one of the most solid engines there is. They are capable of going well past TBO if they've lived the proper life.
 
That may be what the book says, but the ones I flew were basically 140 knot cruisers.
I've got about 500+ hours - not all logged - in a 177RG that I flew in with an aerial photographer. I love the bird. I'd agree on the airspeed, although honestly we often cruised at slower airspeeds for various reasons. The range of the bird is great, and the aircraft is nicely responsive. Landings are a bit different than your typical 172 / 182 / 210, but not bad.

Ryan
 
The IO520 IMO is one of the most solid engines there is. They are capable of going well past TBO if they've lived the proper life.

Alright, a plane that fits EVERYTHING I want, speed, cost, panel etc.. has popped up, the engine is at 1300 being the lone exception, I have the funds to purchase it but would not have them to hang a new engine on it for a couple of years. I'll give it some consideration. TBO is 1700 so I don't think asking for 1800 is too much :)
 
I agree with most that's been said about the Cardinal RG.

(1) I see 130 KTAS at altitude (7-8 kft) and leaned for cruise, burn 10-11 gph. 10 gph is about 75 ROP so I don't run it that lean except below 65% power. I completely agree that 200hp isn't enough.

(2) At 3500 DA, at 200 lbs under gross, I climb at about 500 fpm at Vy, clean. Moderate summer downdrafts can easily cut the climb rate to 200 fpm. Above 8000 MSL it really doesn't want to climb at all, as someone else said.

(3) Very roomy interior, especially with the rear seat taken out. I can stow one full sized bicycle with ease and can carry two.

(4) Visibility depends on how far forward or back you sit. The sloping windshield frame can be a problem. From where I usually sit, with someone in the right seat I have to lean waaay forward to see traffic coming from the right when taxiing.

(5) The shallow angle of the windshield accentuates optical distortions, and I think the windshield is stressed enough by the frame to cause significant distortion over time. I replaced the one that was in the plane when I bought it because in some positions, I would see a double runway when flaring.

(6) With approach flaps and speed reduced to 100 KIAS, the airplane is a very stable instrument platform and fairly easy to handle even in light to moderate chop.
 
Bart:

I have a fair bit of 177RG time, think it's a delightful airplane. Like everyone else, I think its main fault is that it needs another 35-50 HP - but what plane doesn't? Really did not like the climb when heavy and hot, but a reasonably roomy cabin and easiest entry / exit in the fleet.

By the way, I have to believe that the one Jesse flew had something awry, as I found the Cardinal to be very light in pitch forces and, indeed, easy to overcontrol on landing if you were not careful.

As for speed, I would never expect to see 148 knots or anything close to that. I flight-planned based on 142, that usually worked out about right.

Alright, a plane that fits EVERYTHING I want, speed, cost, panel etc.. has popped up, the engine is at 1300 being the lone exception, I have the funds to purchase it but would not have them to hang a new engine on it for a couple of years. I'll give it some consideration. TBO is 1700 so I don't think asking for 1800 is too much :)

My Bo had 1500-ish when I bought it, now has around 2,000 on the 520BA, and is running exceptionally well. I watched another 520 torn down (amazing how fast they come apart!), it looked new inside and, in fact, measured to new limits in just about every dimension - and it had 2,650 hours! It's all in the maintenance.

I'd certainly buy a plane with a 1300-hour engine, if everything else pans out properly.

One caution - if the engine in the plane has an "Airmelt" crank, you need to consider factoring the impact of AD 97-26-17 ( http://datafile.biz/tdata/ADText/97-26-17.htm ) into the price; the Airmelt is actually a sound crank, but if the case is ever split, it turns into a non-airworthy part instantly.
 
You're going to talk me into spending too much money on a Bonanza...

What's your take on an IO520BA@1300hrs, will it run another 1000? I'd need to at least coerce it into another 500.

520 unlikely for either without a top unless the previous owner was an LOP adherent. Over the years I've convinced a lot of people to buy a Bo or a Travelair and found them a good one. Most of them still own and fly them and none of them have ever told me they were unhappy with it. There is a reason the Bo is as popular and well thought of as it is, it's one of the best and most rugged GA planes built, has good performance and flies as sweet on the controls as driving a Maseratti.;)
 
Exactly, that is the deficiency with all 200hp retracts, just not enough power; it should have 60 more.
Not for their intended purpose, which in most cases is to introduce and train people to fly complex airplanes and build retractable time cheaply. You don't need to be spending another $25/hr on fuel to do that. The only 180-200HP retractable which really delivers speed is the Mooney M20-series, and with their drag reduction features (including the small cross-section, which significantly affects their cabin comfort), they'd be fast even without retractable gear (viz, the M20D).
 
Last edited:
Not for their intended purpose, which in most cases is to introduce and train people to fly complex airplanes. You don't need to be spending another $25/hr on fuel to do that. The only 180-200HP retractable which really delivers speed is the Mooney M20-series, and with their drag reduction features (including the small cross-section, which significantly affects their cabin comfort), they'd be fast even without retractable gear (viz, the M20D).

All you have to do is pull back the power on a 260 HP plane of similar cross section and weight and you don't burn any more fuel than the 200hp plane. A Bonanza flown at Arrow speeds uses less fuel than an Arrow and with a 260hp 470 is cheaper to maintain. If you don't believe me, ask Marty Bevill, and he had the fastest slickest Arrow I've been in and his Bo has a 520 even. He was doubtful when I told him. As soon as he tried it he called me and said,"You were right".

You are correct, the 200hp planes were meant as low cost of purchase retract trainers for flight schools. initial purchase cost then was considerably below that of a Bonanza. However, that is no longer the economic reality of the market. Now you can buy a Bo at near parity with an Arrow. Since a non flight school purchaser of an Arrow will soon outgrow the training environment, he will soon outgrow the capability of the Arrow, typical time to step up out of it is 3-4 years and it's usually only that long due to the financial burden and difficulties in selling a plane for a reasonable price.

Buy your last plane first, it's the cheapest and safest method in the long run and gets you full mission capability from day one.
 
All you have to do is pull back the power on a 260 HP plane of similar cross section and weight and you don't burn any more fuel than the 200hp plane.
I gather you've never run an FBO or flight school, because in the real world, that doesn't happen. In any event, if you want the speed, you'll need to buy a 250+ HP retractable. If you don't, there are more economical options than a 180-200 HP retractable.
 
I gather you've never run an FBO or flight school, because in the real world, that doesn't happen. In any event, if you want the speed, you'll need to buy a 250+ HP retractable. If you don't, there are more economical options than a 180-200 HP retractable.

I agreed with that before, as I said, flight schools are the market. If you are not a flight school, a 180-200 HP retract is not going to be your optimal purchase.
 
I flew one for a private owner once that absolutely needed to get to a meeting and was not instrument rated. It was nice but overall I wasn't that impressed, really weird and heavy in pitch, so much so I wondered if something was wrong with it.

There was also something weird about the windscreen that produced some weird illusions with my sunglasses.

Your experience is VERY atypical, so something must have been wrong with that one airframe. The stabilator makes the Cardinal line much more pitch sensitive than all the other 100-series Cessnas. It is this characteristic that makes the Cardinals harder to land than the other Cessnas, subject to over-controlling.

I owned a 177RG for 7 years and probably 900 hours and absolutely loved the plane. Ron is right about the speed, though. I filed 135 kts TAS for IFR flights. I traded up to a 210 for more speed and useful load. I really do miss the economy (and the looks, the comfort, the ease of ingress/egress) of the Cardinal.

Wells
 
I gather you've never run an FBO or flight school, because in the real world, that doesn't happen. In any event, if you want the speed, you'll need to buy a 250+ HP retractable. If you don't, there are more economical options than a 180-200 HP retractable.

That's because flight schools rent airplanes by the wet hobbs hour. There is absolutely no benefit to the renter to pull back the throttle. If it were rented either tach wet or tach dry, I would absolutely throttle it back and cruise along slower to save some money.
 
All you have to do is pull back the power on a 260 HP plane of similar cross section and weight and you don't burn any more fuel than the 200hp plane. A Bonanza flown at Arrow speeds uses less fuel than an Arrow and with a 260hp 470 is cheaper to maintain. If you don't believe me, ask Marty Bevill, and he had the fastest slickest Arrow I've been in and his Bo has a 520 even. He was doubtful when I told him. As soon as he tried it he called me and said,"You were right".

You are correct, the 200hp planes were meant as low cost of purchase retract trainers for flight schools. initial purchase cost then was considerably below that of a Bonanza. However, that is no longer the economic reality of the market. Now you can buy a Bo at near parity with an Arrow. Since a non flight school purchaser of an Arrow will soon outgrow the training environment, he will soon outgrow the capability of the Arrow, typical time to step up out of it is 3-4 years and it's usually only that long due to the financial burden and difficulties in selling a plane for a reasonable price.

Buy your last plane first, it's the cheapest and safest method in the long run and gets you full mission capability from day one.

You know what this really makes sense to me. Why screw around with something you'll out grow quickly.
 
Only problem with that is until you've bought your last plane, you probably don't know what your last plane will be. I've been the gamut from 108HP 2-seater to light twin and back to 180HP 4-seater, and I certainly didn't know at the beginning that a Tiger would be my last plane, i.e., the one I'd settle on as a keeper.
 
Back
Top