Cardinal owners...

flyingcheesehead

flyingcheesehead

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
24,256
Location
UQACY, WI
Display Name
Display name:
iMooniac
RG or not... I'm curious:

1) What is your useful load?
2) What cruise speeds and fuel burns do you see? ROP or LOP?
3) What year/model do you have, and what engine HP?

Thanks!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
RG or not... I'm curious:

1) What is your useful load?
2) What cruise speeds and fuel burns do you see? ROP or LOP?
3) What year/model do you have, and what engine HP?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

1968, 150HP with a powerflow exhaust and the maple leaf fixed cowl flap and exhaust fairing

837 pounds useful
(Lots of stuff in this plane. Full panel, brittian 2 axis autopilot that tracks navs and heading bug very well, the powerflow, fiberglass fairings, BRS shoulder harness, 4 cyl EGT/CHT etc.) so it's on the heavy side IMHO

average 8 gph 120 MPH (slow but we have a climb prop due to the 150 & fixed pitch being anemic to begin with)


There's a big difference between the RG and FG, not just in the gear, but also the weight and complexity of fuel injection.

The FG 180 horse have a good power/weight ratio at gross.

150 horse, 2350 = 15.67 #/HP @ gross

180 horse (1969 which has fixed pitch prop 1970< is CS) 2500 = 13.89 #/HP

200 horse RG, 2800 = 14 #/ HP


That all being said, I really would like the RG. No stupid wheel pants to mess with when airing up the tires, goes faster etc. The baggage compartment is small tho due to the wheel well bumps.

It's said the 1968 with a 180 conversion is faster than all the later year FG due to the wing design. The 68 wing is thinner than all the other years which I like to compare to a mooney wing. The 68 (150) climbs pretty flat with typical being 400-600 FPM @ 95 MPH 110 # under gross on 90 degree day at 1,200 MSL.

I did a test the other day and about 300# under gross I climbed from 5500 to 12500 in 12 minutes, surface OAT temp was over 90 degrees.
 
Last edited:
Flew 1976? 177RG for a while. 200hp IO-360.

Can't remember exact numbers, but with fuel to the tabs, we could get 4 people, and a lotta stuff (equivalent to enough for a long weekend at 6Y9) and fly for 3.5 hrs @ 140 KTAS @ 10.5 GPH.
 
dell30rb said:
Do you mean 837lbs payload or 837 useful load?
Click to expand...


useful... gotta remember they were built to replace the 172.

Lots of stuff in it. Full panel, brittian 2 axis autopilot that tracks navs and heading bug very well, the powerflow, fiberglass fairings, BRS shoulder harness, 4 cyl EGT/CHT etc.
 
Last edited:
'74 C177B/Cardinal II
Empty Weight = 1,705
Gross = 2,500

Carries just over 500lbs with full tanks.

Cruise - 130kts at 8,500 to 10,000 @75% power, leaned to 10 to 20 degrees ROP. Burns 10gph with those numbers.

O-360 with CS prop. Ours is pretty fast for a fixed gear. These numbers are from multiple cross country trips from OK to MN, almost 700NM, so adequate distances to get good numbers. At 12,500' to 14,500' you can burn 9GPH and still get near 125kts.

On a recent trip running with some carb heat at cruise seemed to significantly reduce fuel burn with very little loss in speed. That single flight calculates to about 9GPH at about 127kts, but that sounds too good to be true...need to do several more trips to get solid numbers.

Absolutely tons of room inside...wider than a 182. Huge cargo area. Great for traveling with small kids as they are light but need lots of room for stuff. Very comfortable, and easy to get in and out the back or front.
 
Last edited:
1) Book useful load is 996 lbs but for practical purposes I would say 850. With full fuel that limits payload to 490 lbs -- 3 standard adults plus baggage. I've removed the back seat to more easily carry two full size bikes, so more than one pax is a moot point. But I am not impressed with takeoff performance at >2500 DA with even one >200 lb adult in the right seat.

2) Typically 130 KTAS at 2400/24 and 6000 MSL leaned to 100 ROP, which comes to about 11 gph. Or I can run at 23 squared and do 125 KTAS at 10 gph, also about 100 ROP. Above 8000 DA and if no headwind, I will run more or less LOP at 8.5 gph, 2300/WOT ~123 KTAS. I expect better LOP performance at 2400 RPM at all altitudes once I have GAMIs installed (on order).

3) 1976 177RG, IO-360 and 200 hp.
 
None of them are great climbers, again like a mooney from what I understand.
 
Most of them for sale always seem to be packing the old Cessna ARC radios
 
Not an owner, but I rent a 177RG.

200 HP IO-360. Useful load is 970 lb, including 60 gal of fuel. BUT, W&B requires a second adult to be in the back seat, or have 50 lb ballast in the rear cargo.

I can get speed up to just over 130 KIAS with the throttle and prop at the "top of the green," ROP. No fuel analyzer, so LOP is not an option. It burns 10-11 GPH like that.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not an owner, but I rent a 177RG.

200 HP IO-360. Useful load is 970 lb, including 60 gal of fuel. BUT, W&B requires a second adult to be in the back seat, or have 50 lb ballast in the rear cargo.

I can get speed up to just over 130 KIAS with the throttle and prop at the "top of the green," ROP. No fuel analyzer, so LOP is not an option. It burns 10-11 GPH like that.
Click to expand...


Sure starting to sound like there is no performance reason to get an RG
 
jesse said:
KIAS was the key part of what he wrote.
Click to expand...


See #7.

There is a clear performance increase between the 68 150 horse and the "B" models. I would expect the CS to help there.
 
bnt83 said:
Which would you buy, did you like better the 201 or the 177RG?
Click to expand...

201 by a long-shot since you're doing 165 ish knots LOP. I'm not a huge 177RG fan..don't like the way they feel in pitch and they just don't have the performance I'd like out of 200 hp.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
See #7.

There is a clear performance increase between the 68 150 horse and the "B" models. I would expect the CS to help there.
Click to expand...
Right but since the first guy didn't specify KIAS I'd assume he meant true.. and since the next guy specified KIAS then there will be a big difference. FWIW it's amazing how wrong people usually are in discussing the speed of their own airplanes.
 
jesse said:
Right but since the first guy didn't specify KIAS I'd assume he meant true.. and since the next guy specified KIAS then there will be a big difference. FWIW it's amazing how wrong people usually are in discussing the speed of their own airplanes.
Click to expand...


I didn't see that... :redface:
 
There was a thread on the 210 hangout and the difference in IAS at wide open WOT N/A were all over the place highest being 35 knots over the slowest which makes me question the validity of the airspeed system, rigging etc.
 
1971 Cardinal RG #35, 200hp IO-360:
Max gross weight 2800
Basic Empty Weight 1742.3 (very full panel, including an ifr approved KNS-80 and KLN-89b)
Oil - 8 qts 8 15
Fuel Gal. (50 Max) 300

Fuel fuel useful load 742.7 pounds

Note: The fuel tanks have holes drilled in the filler neck that can be used to partially fill the tanks to 22 gallons each, giving the pilot another reliable 60 pounds of useful load.

I've always filed at 130 and figured on 11gph, 135kts/10gph is closer to reality. Leaning was rich/WAG because the plane had only a very primitive slow responding lcd single probe egt.

This airplane's motor was recently overhauled, at which time we added an Insight G4 engine monitor. We've been flying ROP until we get to 50 hours, and then I expect to experiment with LOP operations, since the Insight supports that mode. I'm not sure ROP/LOP makes much difference to the IO-360. Certainly as we learn to use the Insight our flying can be much more quantitative.

The Cardinal is the best piston single engine high wing airplane Cessna ever made.
 
JimNtexas said:
1971 Cardinal RG #35, 200hp IO-360:
Max gross weight 2800
Basic Empty Weight 1742.3 (very full panel, including an ifr approved KNS-80 and KLN-89b)
Oil - 8 qts 8 15
Fuel Gal. (50 Max) 300

Fuel fuel useful load 742.7 pounds

Note: The fuel tanks have holes drilled in the filler neck that can be used to partially fill the tanks to 22 gallons each, giving the pilot another reliable 60 pounds of useful load.

I've always filed at 130 and figured on 11gph, 135kts/10gph is closer to reality. Leaning was rich/WAG because the plane had only a very primitive slow responding lcd single probe egt.

This airplane's motor was recently overhauled, at which time we added an Insight G4 engine monitor. We've been flying ROP until we get to 50 hours, and then I expect to experiment with LOP operations, since the Insight supports that mode. I'm not sure ROP/LOP makes much difference to the IO-360. Certainly as we learn to use the Insight our flying can be much more quantitative.

The Cardinal is the best piston single engine high wing airplane Cessna ever made.
Click to expand...

IF I could get my way, I'd have a 177B and 210M with all the gear doors still on
 
Kent, I seriously considred a 76 RG this spring, so much so that I had a pre buy done. ( pre buy made me decline to purchase). I researched them to death. Useful was close to 1000 lbs the one I looked at was 975 lbs IIRC.

Cruise was according to the owner 140 and confirmed by other cardinal RG owners, ( PM Sal Lagonia) Roomy Spacious and comfortable. Baggage space is limited as stated above due to the bumps from the wheel wells. Also a gear pump warning light is key to have.

If the club is looking I'd use Keith Peterson to do the pre buy. He knows more about cardinals than perhaps anyone out there and he is not to far from you. He lives just west of ORD. If your shopping let me know and I'll ping you if I see something interesting on the CFO members classified page.
 
I don't own one, I don't rent one, and I have no idea on the perf of the fleet.

It's one of the best ergonomic and visually impressive GA planes ever built. And I'm no fan of the Cessna line, but I'd consider it just because it looks and feels so damn sweet.
 
docmirror said:
I don't own one, I don't rent one, and I have no idea on the perf of the fleet.

It's one of the best ergonomic and visually impressive GA planes ever built. And I'm no fan of the Cessna line, but I'd consider it just because it looks and feels so damn sweet.
Click to expand...


The feel & looks is where the $ is at. I don't really care the 150 horse is turtle, it's feel is great and always puts a smile on my face even after flying a C205 600 pounds under gross.
 
bnt83 said:
The feel & looks is where the $ is at. I don't really care the 150 horse is turtle, it's feel is great and always puts a smile on my face even after flying a C205 600 pounds under gross.
Click to expand...

Bingo. When you can get out after 3-4 hours, wipe the bugs off and have a smile - that's what counts. So what if it's x knots slower than a Mooney. Bah! :yes:
 
It's no secret that I bought mine because of its panel and because it is the easiest plane I know of to carry a full size bicycle (or two) in. I agree that the Cardinal is the slickest looking high wing single ever made, and one of the easiest to get in and out of. But it's not the best performing of its class by a long shot. Even if a few Cardinal owners see 140 KTAS in cruise without speed mods, a 200 hp IO-360 Mooney does better still and most Cardinals can only manage even that at full rental power. In climb, I don't usually see more than 1000 fpm on climbout except at sea level in winter. In the summer, at 8000 DA and Vy I'm down to 500 fpm or less.

If you find an airplane with the features you want and it happens to be a Cardinal, and it passes a good pre-buy*, go for it. It's a very nice flying airplane and a very stable instrument platform. With approach flaps you will often feel like you're riding down the ILS on rails. At cruise speeds it handles very crisply and feels more like a 182 than a 172, maybe with a little more of a "sports car" feel. In the pattern, the control forces are much lighter and the stabilator's extra authority helps to make up for the nose-heaviness in the flare (it's very easy to load a Cardinal with CG forward of the envelope -- I carry 60 lbs of ballast behind the hat shelf).

Just don't expect astounding performance.

*Make sure your pre-buy mechanic removes the headliner to look at the spar carrythrough. Many older Cardinals are unairworthy due to corrosion of the CT, and it's an expen$ive job to replace it (if you can even find a replacement).
 
Love mine, Steve R nailed my FG numbers. Nimble and roomy plane for a 180hp.
 
There's actually another corrosion biggie that gets missed by many and that's the fresh air ducting that runs aft from the leading edge to the valve boxes in the wing root ribs. Also many have steel & foam-lined clamps that are fastened to the main spar web, holding wiring and pnumatic lines that pass from the root to tips, and they can corrode the spar web badly.
 
1) What is your useful load?

900 pounds. 50 gallons of gas (full tanks) leaves 600 pounds for pax and baggage. I usually fly with 38 gallons (228 pounds) for 2-3 hours flying, so 672 for pax & bags.

2) What cruise speeds and fuel burns do you see? ROP or LOP?

The airplane will do book speeds and burn rates. I usually run at 65% and leaned to peak EGT. At 4500 or 5500 feet, this is usually 22/2200 or 21/2300, approximately 8.4 GPH and 115 knots true. If I'm in a hurry, 75% is 124 knots true for me, at a little less than 10 GPH. Leaning at 75% is done to match the POH fuel flow, regardless of EGT, and always comes out to a little over 100 ROP.

3) What year/model do you have, and what engine HP?

1974 C177B, 180 HP.
 
That was my conclusion when they were introduced. I was at the dealership with a check in my pocket until I saw the performance charts in the POH.

bnt83 said:
Sure starting to sound like there is no performance reason to get an RG
Click to expand...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
RG or not... I'm curious:

1) What is your useful load?
2) What cruise speeds and fuel burns do you see? ROP or LOP?
3) What year/model do you have, and what engine HP?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
It's been a while but IIRC the 1978 RG I used to fly would easily cruise at 135 KTAS and could creep up to 145 if you were light and at just the right altitude. I'm a little hazy on the fuel burn but around 10 gph sounds familiar. This was of course ROP since we're talking the mid 70's and back then everyone knew that LOP would burn your valves in short order. With full fuel (60 gal useable) I think I could carry almost 650 lb. I believe that all RGs had 200 HP Lyc's.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yeah, but I can fit in an RG cardinal without sawing my legs and shoulders off.
Click to expand...
Aww... I don't know how big you are but I know some big guys who love Mooneys, and some shorter people who don't.

I've never sat in one so I'm not sure whether I'd like it. I confess to having a degree of "Mooney envy", even though I ruled out buying one when I was shopping because (1) I'd never fit my bike in one without removing the rear wheel and (2) I don't particularly like having to slide my butt across the right seat every time I get in.
 
You can say that if you want, and so can he. But you should also be aware that "fits fine" like "beauty" lies solely in the eyes (or other parts) or the beholder.

DavidWhite said:
I'd venture to guess Kent Shook is probably a bit bigger than you, and he fits fine :dunno:
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like some RG's might work for us - We're replacing a straight-leg 182 and there's a lot of interest in an RG of some sort. The 182 had a cruise speed between 130 and 135 KTAS, full-fuel payload of 747 pounds, and endurance of a bit over 6 hours.

Jim's bird sounds like it's pretty close to what we're looking for, and from what I can find online it sounds like the Cardinal's cabin is wider than the 182's? The biggest concerns are that you can't get a bird newer than 1978 and the ease with which it could be loaded outside of CG (the 182 was effectively impossible to load outside the allowable CG range).

Thanks for the info, everyone!
 
DavidWhite said:
I've taken off behind RG cardinals and Arrows in my Mooney - I overtake them really quick.
Click to expand...

MAKG1 said:
Yeah, but I can fit in an RG cardinal without sawing my legs and shoulders off.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old wives tales rear their ugly heads again. I fit GREAT in the Mooney and I'm 6'4" and 300#. Al Mooney was 6'5" tall, so Mooneys have more leg room, by far, than any other plane I've ever flown. This point was driven home to me again when I flew the club's Archer while the Mooney was in annual - My knees weren't even under the panel! And the Mooney I fly has a cabin that's 1.5" wider than a C182.

The "Mooneys are small and cramped" BS is the most-repeated and probably the most wrong OWT in aviation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top