After the ppl

I own part of a 177FG, and my uncle owns a 177RG. They are great planes.

The FG is faster than a stock 172 of the same vintage, with a constant speed prop and 180 HP engine, and less drag. It's much roomier.

The 177RG only slightly slower than a 182, has a lower fuel burn rate, and has similar useful loads. My uncle has flown his RG from Indy to Haiti a few times. It's a nice, economical traveler. It is only four cylinders, and I think the TBO on the RG's Lycomming is 2000, whereas its 1500 on the 182 Continental, but someone else who knows more should chime in here. (Also, I am comparing 1970s versions. I was never in the market for anything new, so I never looked at those specs.) The 177 has a little more shoulder room (or just about the same) than the 182, but I think the 182 has a touch more head room. In short, I think you do get a little more speed and a little more payload with a 182, but you do pay extra dollars for it with the 182.
 
Is the retarded half the main that comes up last?

Z06_Mir said:
What about the J bar gears? It seems that it leaves more room for pilot error. I'd rather my airplane not bring the gear down than me forget. Or worse only put the gear "half down". That's just me though. Even though I own a retract Cessna I think when the gear comes up it looks half retarded.
Click to expand...
 
You could conceivably convert the Cessna to a bell crank system, but it would be an extensive project.
 
DavidWhite said:
Most of the Mooneys that gear up are pilot error, the gear system is electric with a mechanical backup, whereas the Cessna gear is hydraulic with a hydraulic backup.
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone could gear up a Mooney, at least the Ovation - I'd never be able to get it slowed down enough to land without the gear. As it is, after 60-70 hours in it I still sometimes need the speed brakes too.
 
Z06_Mir said:
But yet a 182 is out of the question due to its 13gph (false) fuel burn and the fact that a modded one is expensive. Why are you willing to get a stock 177RG but need a modded 182(RG?). My stock 182RG does not burn 13gph except for maybe in the pattern. It burns something like 10.8 when flying across the country ROP, it gets better gas millage than my Jeep does.
Click to expand...

Your 182RG has a different engine than a straight-leg 182. We get about 11-11.5 gph in cruise on the straight-leg 182N, but across about 6 years worth of flying, the gallons burned per tach hour always comes out to 13 gph, ± 0.02 so VERY close to 13 total. Climb burn is pretty bad, but I can't remember just how bad offhand. For reference, I know that both the Mooney and the Diamond have an initial climb fuel burn of double the cruise burn or slightly more, so figure the 182 is probably in the neighborhood of 23 gph in the climb.
 
I'm gonna talk to those COA guys and see what kinda info they can get me. I'm not 100% sold on it yet but like I said what I'm seeing seems to fit the budget and mission requirements if nothing else.

Cessna 182 would require a high HP endorsement, right?

Here's the hypothetical but probably close to real world scenario I'm using to evaluate..

A 190lb, 250lb, and 2x 160lb persons with light baggage... say ~60lbs and enough fuel for a ~300nMi flight + reserve.

If I'm doing my maths right, the 177RG can do that. Only just... but it can. If that scenario was going to be 50% or more of my flying the 182 would probably be a more logical choice, but in reality I think it's going to be a 10-15% scenario.

The 80% scenario is more straightforward and could be done in a 172, although I'm entertaining ideas of trying to bring along bicycles or some kind of moped... which clearly isn't happening in a 172
190lb person, 160lb person, < 100lbs baggage and a ~300nMi trip + reserve.


I guess if I decide the "RG" part or maintenance or something else about 177 isn't to my liking the 182 is the logical alternative. Or maybe a Piper Dakota... you guys must have some favorites for me to go look up that fit what what I'm looking for. I'm looking at realistically a $100k budget... for the right aircraft maybe more but I want to be able to afford to still maintain/insure/and fly it after I buy it.
 
cowman said:
.... Or maybe a Piper Dakota... you guys must have some favorites for me to go look up that fit what what I'm looking for. I'm looking at realistically a $100k budget... for the right aircraft maybe more but I want to be able to afford to still maintain/insure/and fly it after I buy it.
Click to expand...

If I were going to get into a complex plane for my personal use I'd go with a nice low TT used Lancair.

lancair.jpg


Now if you need to haul more bodies, I'd probably start looking at the piper line.

I've seen some NICE Comanches going for not too much, good solid plane!

Always enjoyed flying the turbo t-tail arrow, though I probably wouldnt want to own one, but I'd still take it over a 177RG.
 
$100k spent all up front will get you a VERY nice Cardinal.

More realistically, Guy Maher (one of the better Cardinal buyer and Seller Reps on CFO) can find you one for the high 60's low 70's. Then you can save the remainder of the $100k for flying or an excellent start on the maintenance reserve.

Guy is very approachable and willing to answer all your questions. To find out more about his Cardinal Sales or Training services, contact him at guy@laniermedia.com, or call his office number at 704-548-0066.

The other two authorities on CFO to contact are Keith Peterson, well known in the Cardinal Community as an excellent source for conducting Pre-Buy inspections. He can be reached at keith@cardinalflyers.com. The other is Paul Millner. You can contact him via the direct phone number: (847) 683-4799, but if he doesn't answer please call 224-286-4799. This system will attempt to find us and if it can't will let you leave a message.

On the Cardinal Flyers Digest, they have been a wealth of information. All three are well suited to talk to you about your mission specs and loadout and advise on if the C177 fits.
 
PaulMillner said:
Ah! That's why we have the turbo Cardinal!

But even normally aspirated gets in and out of Leadville OK, but not at gross...

Paul
Click to expand...
And in the winter :D. One of my most painful climbs was in a 177RG out of SAF heading down to TUS in mid-july and we weren't even at gross...
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Not sure where the OP is from but... rentals are out there.

http://www.alpineflighttraining.com/cessna-177rg-cardinal/

And if you are going to buy a rental/flightschool plane like the 177, Arrow, etc it would be foolish not to fly all the RG rentals you can first before you lay down the cold hard cash for a permanent saddle.

We rented one out of Paine Field in WA, forgot the FBO, it was my first experience in one and I really was underwhelmed.

Those things were built to be complex trainers, you go from ab intro in the 172 to CPL work in the 177.

The arrows will cruse faster with better handling then the 177, I believe most folks who have some time under their belt will agree.

You want a RG single engine Cessna, you want a 210.

The 77 only is a great bird for photography work, outside of that, its a good complex plane for flightschools who operate it's simple brother, the 172.
Click to expand...
Better handling? How so? I found the 177RG to be one of the better handling airplanes I've flown other than the lack of climb performance at higher density altitudes.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Keith Peterson, well known in the Cardinal Community as an excellent source for conducting Pre-Buy inspections. He can be reached at keith@cardinalflyers.com.
Click to expand...

Keith lives in Chicago. I hired him to come to Indianapolis to look at the plane I bought before I bought in. He will fly over to you to check out the plane in his own Cardinal RG. I think I paid him roughly $1000, plus lunch for everything.

We spent a great deal of time taking the cowling off, and various access panels checking for the main "gotcha," such as wing spar corrosion. He's not an A & P, so he can't give you a full run down of all of the engine internals, but he is very knowledgeable about what to look for to avoid the expensive problems that can arise.

I could have had him do an even more thorough examination with written report, etc., but because my buy in was so low, I couldn't justify paying to have him do more. I was already paying him more than 10% of my purchase price.

I highly recomend him if you are serious about a particular cardinal.
 
Hmmm. Most guys I know just buy a motorcycle after the get their PPL.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't know how anyone could gear up a Mooney, at least the Ovation - I'd never be able to get it slowed down enough to land without the gear. As it is, after 60-70 hours in it I still sometimes need the speed brakes too.
Click to expand...

not trying to make this a mooney thread, but I absolutely agree. I have a hard time slowing down to pattern speed unless I drop those boat anchor landing gear.
 
cowman said:
One that I think fits the mission well(mostly 2, maybe sometimes more adults on 200-400nMi trips to paved runways in the Midwest) is a Cessna 177RG so let's use that as the example...
Click to expand...

I have to agree with many others here. A Medium body (F,G or J) Mooney is probably the best bird for that mission. From what I've heard, you might want to avoid the G or any other model with the "bent wing" (1968 models IIRC).

Since I haven't seen it suggested yet, I'll also put in a vote for a Bellanca Viking.

/braces to have tomatoes thrown at him
 
rbridges said:
not trying to make this a mooney thread, but I absolutely agree. I have a hard time slowing down to pattern speed unless I drop those boat anchor landing gear.
Click to expand...

I must say, I love the speed brakes. Tonight, ATC gave me a slam-dunk that had me arriving in the pattern at 160 KIAS at 13" MP. Brakes out, gear out at 140, flaps out at 110, retracted the speed brakes about 100 AGL to avoid an "exciting" flare...

And, like every landing, put 'em back out at touchdown to maximize aerodynamic braking. Just to make the wheel brakes last longer, I use only minimum braking and let her roll. Usually I don't touch the brakes 'til under 40 knots.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I must say, I love the speed brakes. Tonight, ATC gave me a slam-dunk that had me arriving in the pattern at 160 KIAS at 13" MP. Brakes out, gear out at 140, flaps out at 110, retracted the speed brakes about 100 AGL to avoid an "exciting" flare...

And, like every landing, put 'em back out at touchdown to maximize aerodynamic braking. Just to make the wheel brakes last longer, I use only minimum braking and let her roll. Usually I don't touch the brakes 'til under 40 knots.
Click to expand...

You got me excited just reading that description!

I've only got 1 landing in the M20 but I wanted to comment on your use of brakes at landing - in general. I make it a game with myself to not use brakes at all. If I can do that it's one of my better landings. Regardless of the airplane I'm flying I aim for that as a goal.
 
Jaybird180 said:
You got me excited just reading that description!

I've only got 1 landing in the M20 but I wanted to comment on your use of brakes at landing - in general. I make it a game with myself to not use brakes at all. If I can do that it's one of my better landings. Regardless of the airplane I'm flying I aim for that as a goal.
Click to expand...

And an admirable goal it is, but the Mooney is too slick to avoid all use of brakes - Normal landing speed is 75 KIAS, and with full flaps and speed brakes and the nose held high, on a 3000-ft runway I still need brakes. (Maybe if it wasn't so well-maintained and there was more resistance in the wheel bearings...)

The runway where I use the least braking is 4100 feet long and slightly uphill. I usually go for the 2nd to last turnoff though, if I rolled the full length maybe I could get by with no braking at all. I'll have to give that a try next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top