Cardinal owners...

[JimNtexas]

I've taken off behind RG cardinals and Arrows in my Mooney - I overtake them really quick.

It's too bad you are crammed into that tiny cockpit while you do it .

Give me a bigger than C182 cabin and outstanding visibility and you can have your Mooney's 3 knot cruise advantage and steam locomotive visibility.

They're both great planes, but the Cardinal is just a bit better.

 

[gismo]

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.

Probably comes from the poor souls who had to ride in the back seat of an early model.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Probably comes from the poor souls who had to ride in the back seat of an early model.

Probably - But it's migrated to all seats of every model ever made for every pilot who's never flown one.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's too bad you are crammed into that tiny cockpit while you do it

 

[somorris]

(2) I don't particularly like having to slide my butt across the right seat every time I get in.

You got that right, Liz. Enough reason right there to own the Cessna !

 

[JimNtexas]

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 dimensions are on the Cardinal Flyer's Online and Cessna Pilot's Association web site.

What I would suggest is park a C177 next to a C182, sit in the C182. Now open the comparatively small C182 door and walk over to the C177. Open the huge door (be careful if there is a tail wind!). Sit in the C177. You'll immediately see the the C177 feels much larger due to the large door and rear mounted wing. Get your tape measure out and you'll find that while the cockpits are almost identical, the C177 is in fact slightly wider. And of course there is no ugly strut to block your downward view.

Two Texas size adults fit easily into the back seats of the Cardinal, even easier than on a C182. The C177 is a true four adult airplane. Unlike some other IO-360 powered light airplanes.

Our Mooney friends like to talk about legroom. The Mooney does in fact have leg room in the same way an old MG has legroom. You sit on the floor and stick your legs into large pipes. And one thing the Cardinal has that the Mooney doesn't have is clearance between the ground and the prop. But Mooney's are a few knots faster, no denying that.

The C177 has the sitting position of Ozzie and Harriet's kitchen table. We give up a couple of knots of cruise for this vastly more comfortable cockpit and far greater visibility.

The biggest concerns are that you can't get a bird newer than 1978

. If I could make new ones, I'd sell you #2.

If you have $25K laying around it is claimed that the LoPresti C177RG Cowl will give you the speed of Mooney.

and the ease with which it could be loaded outside of CG (the 182 was effectively impossible to load outside the allowable CG range)

I check w&b on every flight, I've never been limited by forward CG.
Forward CG is less of an issue for me now than it was a year ago since I've lost ~60 pounds of front seat ballast.

If I want to fly with two guys in front and full fuel then I remember to put something heavy in the large cargo compartment. I don't think many Cardinal missions are aborted due to cg issues.

The Cardinal is more of a sports sedan than a truck. Remember, it has a high aspect ratio flush riveted laminar flow wing, similar to what that of a Mooney or a Cessna 210, not a more cambered wing like a C182.

Like a Mooney, the Cardinal is about efficiency in cruise flight more than raw power. This means you have to pay more attention loading than in a C182. That 2800 max gross takeoff weight. That is the N* S*** max weight at which you should take off. And don't forget the flaps if you take off from Amarillo Tradewinds airport on a spring day with 3 adults in the Cardinal. DAMHIK.

While there exist turbochargers for the C177RG, were I doing a lot of flying from high altitude airports I think a C182 or tubo-Mooney might be a better option.

It's often said that if you can fit it into a C182, you can probably get your 182 off the ground. That's not always true with a C177. You can probably get away with throwing people and baggage into a C182 without much thought and almost always get away with it.

If you and your partners are used to flying to and from unimproved strips I'd definitely stay with the C182. The C182 is a much better tool for that.

You can almost certainly carry the same people and the same stuff in a Cardinal, but you'd darn well better be SURE about that before you go fly.

 

[DavidWhite]

It's too bad you are crammed into that tiny cockpit while you do it .

Give me a bigger than C182 cabin and outstanding visibility and you can have your Mooney's 3 knot cruise advantage and steam locomotive visibility.

They're both great planes, but the Cardinal is just a bit better.

I don't know of ANY cardinal RGs with less than a 15 knot spread with my mooney.

 

[Luvrv8]

I fly a 1968 cardinal with a STC 0-360 and CS prop and a 1976 model same engine and prop. The 76 has better compressions at annual by a few points. The 68 flies about 8 Knots faster with the same fuel burn. I asked around and was told that the early wing is faster. Don't know that as a fact but someone here might.

 

[dell30rb]

Our Mooney friends like to talk about legroom. The Mooney does in fact have leg room in the same way an old MG has legroom. You sit on the floor and stick your legs into large pipes. And one thing the Cardinal has that the Mooney doesn't have is clearance between the ground and the prop. But Mooney's are a few knots faster, no denying that.

The C177 has the sitting position of Ozzie and Harriet's kitchen table. We give up a couple of knots of cruise for this vastly more comfortable cockpit and far greater visibility.

I like to think the M20J had plenty of room "once you are in there". It truly does have plenty of room in the cockpit, but you are correct that it feels like you are sticking your legs into tubes. Once you are in and flying though, its really a comfortable airplane. Plenty of room in the backseat too.

However, talking numbers the mooney wins hands down. The M20J I fly is loaded with a GTN750, king HSI.. JPI KX155, 2 axis AP and still manages 950 useful load. 9.5 gph (LOP) and 160 KTAS @8000 feet (real numbers)

Cardinal RG has about the same motor and useful load, but does maybe 130-135kts at 9.5 gph.

 

[TulsaWeather]

I fly a 1968 cardinal with a STC 0-360 and CS prop and a 1976 model same engine and prop. The 76 has better compressions at annual by a few points. The 68 flies about 8 Knots faster with the same fuel burn. I asked around and was tols that the early wing is faster. Don't know that as a fact but someone here might.

the leading edge of the '68 and '69 wing is less blunt than the '70 and later Cardinal wing. Even though the x-section of the rest of the wing (through the tanks) is the same.

 

[gismo]

Probably - But it's migrated to all seats of every model ever made for every pilot who's never flown one.

I'm not as big as you but I'm not tiny either and there was plenty of room for me in any of the long cabin Mooneys I've flown in. The seating position is more reclined than a Bonanza or Cessna (but a lot less than most sailplanes and many high performance homebuilts) and that might have something to do with this OWT.

 

[Pilawt]

The Mooney cramped-cabin reputation has some basis when you sit in an older model. Rear seat room in the short-body models is truly abysmal, and though there's ample shoulder room and leg room in the front seats (at 6'3"+ I'm plenty comfortable in there), the old-style windshield seems very close to the pilot's face, compared to most other types. It reminds me of a DC-3 in that regard. Comparing a stock M20F/G to an M20J or later, the sloped windshield makes a lot of difference in cabin spaciousness.

The Cardinal, though, has the easiest entry-exit of any lightplane in its class, bar none. And I agree with the comments above about the Cardinal's light, responsive handling, especially in roll -- the best of any high-wing Cessna; and the visibility is superb. My only beef about the Cardinal would be the lightweight sheet metal and hardware in some components, that makes the airplane seem flimsy in some areas, even compared to a 172.

 

[Fearless Tower]

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.

That seems rather slow for an RG. I have only flown one (a '74 I believe, for about 60+ hrs) and it always gave me 140 KTAS, which I seem to recall was the book speed as well. FWIW, it had a fresh paint job, so can't say for sure how much a difference that made.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

<< 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. >>

That seems rather slow for an RG. I have only flown one (a '74 I believe, for about 60+ hrs) and it always gave me 140 KTAS, which I seem to recall was the book speed as well. FWIW, it had a fresh paint job, so can't say for sure how much a difference that made.

Depends on altitude, temperature, etc. His 130 KIAS really doesn't tell us anything. If it were 130 KTAS, then you're right. Too slow for an RG.

 

[Fearless Tower]

<< 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. >>



Depends on altitude, temperature, etc. His 130 KIAS really doesn't tell us anything. If it were 130 KTAS, then you're right. Too slow for an RG.

Good point, I didn't catch that he said indicated.

 

[azure]

Depends on altitude, temperature, etc. His 130 KIAS really doesn't tell us anything. If it were 130 KTAS, then you're right. Too slow for an RG.

Both RGs that I've flown (both '76) were pretty much 130 KTAS birds. Maybe 135 in certain conditions.

Also, disagree with the poster who said the forward CG is not an issue. I had to add 50 lbs of ballast in cargo for my IR checkride. With me alone I'm barely in the envelope without ballast. And I have some fairly heavy avionics boxes in the tailcone (though also in the panel).

 

[CJones]

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!

Kent - Get in touch with the Flying Country Club down in Moline. That's where I flew the 177RG that I was talking about. If you get in touch with the right person - Tim Leinbach probably - he should be able to get you some real-world info about operating a 177RG in a club setting.

 

[MAKG1]

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.

It's not a wives' tale. I shoehorned myself into an M20J at KWVI, as it's the only complex aircraft for rent at that airport. It was a very tight fit. I could "make it work," but it would not be comfortable. And the back seats were REALLY bad. With the front seats all the way back (which was necessary), their backs were right up against the seat cushions in the back. So, no back seats at all, except maybe for an infant carrier.

Try flying a Cardinal if you're saying your Mooney has MORE room. It's clear you haven't.

 

[MAKG1]

<< 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. >>



Depends on altitude, temperature, etc. His 130 KIAS really doesn't tell us anything. If it were 130 KTAS, then you're right. Too slow for an RG.

Well, KIAS is what I read off the gauge....There is a KTAS dial on it, but it won't stay put and I don't like to look THAT closely to configure it in flight.

Most recently, I cruised at 3500. It was warm; density altitude probably 5000 or so.

But KIAS (well, really KCAS) tells you how the aircraft responds independently of temperature or altitude, for a given MP and RPM. KTAS is what you need for flight planning, but it's very strongly dependent on density altitude. At 5000 DA, 130 KIAS is around 143 KTAS. But I can get that 130 KIAS at any altitude where I can get the MP to the top of the green.

 

[bnt83]

It's not a wives' tale. I shoehorned myself into an M20J at KWVI, as it's the only complex aircraft for rent at that airport. It was a very tight fit. I could "make it work," but it would not be comfortable. And the back seats were REALLY bad. With the front seats all the way back (which was necessary), their backs were right up against the seat cushions in the back. So, no back seats at all, except maybe for an infant carrier.

Try flying a Cardinal if you're saying your Mooney has MORE room. It's clear you haven't.

So.....you're saying, comparitively, its a good thing the mooney is faster because when you get a leg cramp the only thing on your mind will getting out of the thing?

 

[Rwsavory]

There's no need to bash airplanes. Each one has its merits, and there's always a trade-off between interior room and performance. For most trips 10 knots is not going to make a difference. So why not go for comfort if it's important to you?

We've taken long trips in a Cardinal RG in the past and just completed one in our (new to us) Mooney C. The Cardinal is a great airplane and very comfortable to enter and exit with the two huge doors. Our Mooney is also very comfortable once everyone is in it. The Mooney is faster on less HP and less fuel burn. I really like the manual gear and flaps so I don't have to worry about the electrical system as much. I'd be very happy to travel in either airplane.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

Ah, the old wives tales rear their ugly heads again...

The "Mooneys are small and cramped" BS is the most-repeated and probably the most wrong OWT in aviation.

I dunno Cheese, the one and only Mooney I've ever been in was a 64 E that I planned to buy, based on the numbers. I'm 5'7", 170 pounds. While the left seat might have indeed been comfortable, I was cramped in the right seat to the point where I wished I could disjoint my shoulder to free up a little more room. It was a 30 minute flight and was the most uncomfortable I have ever been in any vehicle. I sat in the back seat (on the ground) and there was no leg room, and not a whole lot of shoulder room. This is not an environment (front right or back seat) I'd want to place my pax in so I passed.

In contrast, I have never had a 182 or Beech Mouse (which is roomier than a Bo) pilot fail to comment on how roomy and comfortable the Cardinal is.

I will absolutely acknowledge the Mooney as the haul-ass-king of 360 propelled machines, but in turn, you gotta acknowledge that small and cramped isn't just an OWT, at least for the C/E class hulls.

Room, illustrated below:

 

[MAKG1]

So.....you're saying, comparitively, its a good thing the mooney is faster because when you get a leg cramp the only thing on your mind will getting out of the thing?

Well, not really. The only thing on my mind was my wife wanting to fly with the door open. It really was a nonstarter, so I didn't fly in it. Not worth $150/hour.

She has an easy time in the Cardinal even if I do make her sit in the back seat (for W&B ).

She also has an easy time in a 182Q, and she can sit in any seat I'm not in (at least, not in flight ).

 

[bnt83]

More serious note, what kind of climbs are you guys seeing on climbout?

Mooney drivers feel free to add.


1. Temp
2. Field Elevation
3. Load
4. Feet / Minute
5. Make & Model

I don't see a huge difference between climbing at 80 vs 90/95 ish in the 150 HP 177. I DO feel like it pulls well on the ground roll but it just seems like the wing and CHT's like 90 - 95 MPH climb best.

 

[bnt83]

I flew in the 201J and after getting in the airplane, the only thing I really noticed different was lower visabilty and lower seating position. I was in the front seat.

But much much faster than what I normally fly.

Much stiffer controls, might have something to do with the autopilot.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

More serious note, what kind of climbs are you guys seeing on climbout?

Let's just say I wish I had 20 more horses. Climb rate is, to me, anemic. Winter, I might see 1000 - 1200 FPM if I'm light. This time of year, I'm lucky to see 700-800 FPM.

 

[dell30rb]

It's not a wives' tale. I shoehorned myself into an M20J at KWVI, as it's the only complex aircraft for rent at that airport. It was a very tight fit. I could "make it work," but it would not be comfortable. And the back seats were REALLY bad. With the front seats all the way back (which was necessary), their backs were right up against the seat cushions in the back. So, no back seats at all, except maybe for an infant carrier.

I call BS on having the seat all the way back unless you are a giant. I am 5'10 and with the seat all the way back, I can't touch the rudder pedals.

Did you actually fly the plane?

 

[bnt83]

Guess I would have to fly the RG on a good x-country before I decided if it was worth having over the FG

 

[MAKG1]

I call BS on having the seat all the way back unless you are a giant. I am 5'10 and with the seat all the way back, I can't touch the rudder pedals.

Call BS if you want. I'm bigger than you, but not a giant by any means.

My experience is my experience.

 

[bnt83]

Is the RG cowl better than the FG?

The 68 cowl is nasty compared to the 70+ cowls.

 

[MAKG1]

Guess I would have to fly the RG on a good x-country before I decided if it was worth having over the FG

Especially at high altitude.

The outfit I visited at KCOS has a 177B. I declined on flying that over the mountains -- in favor of a Hawk XP (really!) -- as the service ceiling was uncomfortably close to the highest density altitudes I was anticipating. I've flown the 177RG over the Sierra Nevada as high as 13000 on a warm spring day.

 

[dell30rb]

This is a good report with very accurate numbers on the M20J if anyone is interested.

Average 725 FPM from sea level to 10,000 feet at a climb speed of 105 KIAS

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J Evaluation/M20J_evaluation_report.html

 

[flyingcheesehead]

More serious note, what kind of climbs are you guys seeing on climbout?

Mooney drivers feel free to add.

1. Temp
2. Field Elevation
3. Load
4. Feet / Minute
5. Make & Model

Field elevations between 700 and 1000 MSL, I get to 10,000 in under 10 minutes at a 120-KIAS cruise climb in warmer weather close to gross. In colder weather and/or lighter, I can get close to 1500 fpm at 140 KIAS!

Of course, this is in a Mooney Ovation (normally aspirated 280hp IO-550), so it's kind of cheating. Well, not really cheating - I'm burning 25 gph on takeoff!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Try flying a Cardinal if you're saying your Mooney has MORE room. It's clear you haven't.

I never said the Mooney has more room than the Cardinal... And I wouldn't, 'cuz it just isn't true. I said:

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.

Cardinals are among the roomiest and easiest entry/exit planes there are - That doesn't mean that Mooneys are tiny, and I'm so sick of hearing that when it just isn't true either.

I dunno Cheese, the one and only Mooney I've ever been in was a 64 E that I planned to buy, based on the numbers. I'm 5'7", 170 pounds. While the left seat might have indeed been comfortable, I was cramped in the right seat to the point where I wished I could disjoint my shoulder to free up a little more room. It was a 30 minute flight and was the most uncomfortable I have ever been in any vehicle. I sat in the back seat (on the ground) and there was no leg room, and not a whole lot of shoulder room. This is not an environment (front right or back seat) I'd want to place my pax in so I passed.

Back seat of a short-body? Cramped, sure. I don't know why you had trouble in the right seat unless you didn't have the seat properly adjusted.

I will absolutely acknowledge the Mooney as the haul-ass-king of 360 propelled machines, but in turn, you gotta acknowledge that small and cramped isn't just an OWT, at least for the C/E class hulls.

Back seat of the C/E, yes. I haven't flown a short-body, only a J (mid) and R (long), but I don't think the dimensions in the front seat area of Mooneys have ever changed, so I can't imagine why/how you had such issues in the right seat unless there was some odd modification of the plane you looked at.

 

[bnt83]

Is the RG cowl better than the FG?

The 68 cowl is nasty compared to the 70+ cowls.

Bump

 

[JimNtexas]

My only beef about the Cardinal would be the lightweight sheet metal and hardware in some components, that makes the airplane seem flimsy in some areas, even compared to a 172.

I share that perception about the Cardinal. While the wing is strong, almost as strong as that on a Mooney, a lot of the sheet metal seems thin, and all the complex curves exacerbate the issue. That's why I wouldn't suggest using a Cardinal to routinely fly to unimproved strips, not the RG anyway.

 

[MAKG1]

I never said the Mooney has more room than the Cardinal... And I wouldn't, 'cuz it just isn't true.

You ALSO said the Mooney had more room than any other airplane you've flown.

So, you haven't flown a Cardinal.

 

[spinfire]

The useful load in my 1977 Cardinal RG is 1000.2 lbs. The CoG can be a bit tricky if you put two heavyweights in the front seats. You'll need some weight in the baggage compartment to balance that out. My plane has both a lighter weight starter and alternator, and after last year's annual the inop ADF and ADF antenna hardware is gone (anyone want it? It's still in my basement!).

I usually cruise at 2400 RPM, 23-24" or WOT. This is around 10 GPH. The stock fuel flow gauge is not super accurate (it's actually a pressure gauge calibrated in GPH). A future upgrade will be a proper fuel flow and totalizer so maybe some day I'll have a better idea of the fuel flow for various power settings. Block fuel consumption vs. hobbs is around 8.5-9 GPH since I bought the plane.

My favorite cruise settings is 2400 RPM, WOT, at or above 7 or 8 thousand feet, ROP or even peak if manifold pressure is sufficiently low to make for 65% power. For some reason my plane doesn't seem to run smoothly very far LOP. I routinely get 140 knot true air speeds at that altitude and power setting.

I would definitely hesitate to take a Cardinal RG off of a short strip fully loaded in the summer but being even 100-200 pounds under gross makes a pretty big difference. Like all long-legged airplanes you have considerable flexibility in the fuel planning.

 

[spinfire]

One more thing: There are apparently a lot of misrigged Cardinals out there. This does affect the cruise speed. A common problem is that the flaps don't quite retract as much as they are supposed to. I've never had problems maintaining book speeds at altitude.

My CFII has flown the plane and commented that he liked it a lot. I only have experience with 172, 172RG, and the 177RG, and the 177RG is the obvious winner there.

 

[docmirror]

Does no one try to run LOP on the Lyc 4 banger? For a short time, I had a Grumman with an O-320 and I ran it a bit LOP. Similar engine to the Cardinal. I found the first time it would run rough, then I took off all the intake runners and put new gaskets on, then replaced the intake hoses and clamps and made sure they were tight. After that, I could get just over the peak on my single EGT and run LOP at 65% power and it would be fairly smooth. Saved quite a bit of gas, and kept the plugs pretty nice.