Just why is the Cardinal so slow?

docmirror said:
Well, I'm thinking if I get a semi-free Cardinal how much it will be to make it semi-fast. :D

So, I guess Lo Presti has a fancy cowl for a few thou, then some flap and gap seals, then the gear and exh clean up and finally I'll have a decent plane.

Or, I could just get a Cheetah.
Click to expand...

How much s a LoPresti cowl for the Cardinal? I looked at one for something else, forget what, and I recall it being over $10k:hairraise:
 
spinfire said:
It is interesting, in 200+ hours of flying the plane I have noticed that it definitely flies faster with a rearward CG (several knots at same power settings!).
Click to expand...

That is true of nearly all planes. If the plane is designed to be inherently stable (return to level flight without input after a vertical perturbation), the horiz. stab/elevator pulls down (negative lift) in level flight. Negative lift requires the wing to develop off setting positive lift so from generation of drag, the down force from the tail is a double whammy.

The further aft the CG is, the less downward force is needed from the tail - hence drag reduction.
 
Graueradler said:
That is true of nearly all planes.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. This is more something I've picked up on with 200+ hours of owning a plane, flying it frequently and in lots of different loading configurations, and always flying the same plane every time vs. when I was renting.
 
spinfire said:
Yes, of course. This is more something I've picked up on with 200+ hours of owning a plane, flying it frequently and in lots of different loading configurations, and always flying the same plane every time vs. when I was renting.
Click to expand...

When I would ferry 172s long distances solo, I'd slide the seat back and fly with my feet (boating habit :D) and pick up 5kts.
 
I don't find my RG to be "slow". It's 143kts at altitude is acceptable. It is also capable of 150Kts at lower altitudes with higher fuel burn, say, 4500 feet and below. Check out my video of the "Cardinal vs. Mooney". Clearly, the Mooney is faster, with the Lopresti cowl and ram air. However, the Cardinal has exactly double the interior volume.


 
Strange that I only caught this thread when someone necroposted it. I've flown two Cardinal RGs and own one. Both get about the same performance, in the ballpark of 130kts TAS in cruise at altitude. When the engine was fresh, mine got closer to 135. I've never seen book performance in a Cardinal and suspect that those values require a pristine airframe, implying that even slight airfoil imperfections and out-of-rigness result in significant amounts of drag.

I appreciate my Cardinal for its beauty, interior spaciousness, ease of handling, ease of ingress/egress, visibility, and stability. It is clearly not as fast as even a 182 of comparable vintage. If you want to get maximum performance out of a 200hp IO-360, Mooney is clearly the way to go... or else perhaps some kind of speed mod like the LoPresti cowl.
 
I've also flown two different Cardinal RGs. They seem to require getting everything just so, including mixture, but I could get 130 KIAS at 4000 in level cruise fairly reliably, same as a fixed gear 182. Climb is slow, though. Some of them have wacky W&B and fly much better with ballast in rear cargo. I used 90 lb with two up front in the 1978. The 74 didn't need any.
 
MAKG1 said:
I've also flown two different Cardinal RGs. They seem to require getting everything just so, including mixture, but I could get 130 KIAS at 4000 in level cruise fairly reliably, same as a fixed gear 182. Climb is slow, though. Some of them have wacky W&B and fly much better with ballast in rear cargo. I used 90 lb with two up front in the 1978. The 74 didn't need any.
Click to expand...
2-bladed prop or 3? Something I forgot to mention is that both Cardinals I've flown had the 3-bladed prop. From what I've been told, it helps with climb performance (and noise) but knocks a few kts off of cruise. If I ever replace my prop I will probably go back to 2 blades.

I've also tried ballast in the rear cargo area. Added maybe 2 kts to cruise. Definitely needed if flying with pax as the bird is out of the W&B envelope (CG too forward) otherwise.
 
bnt83 said:
Yuck. 3 blade on a 177RG doesn't make a whole lot sense to me. Minimum the 3 blade should be composite and the same weight as the two blade. A two blade composite that is lighter would be even better.

Two blade lightweight composite prop and a lightweight starter.
Click to expand...
I've flown at least four different Cardinal RG's, three for work, and one for a potential buyer.
One of the 177RG's I've flown had the 3-bladed prop. Personally, I think it's a tiny bit slower, definitely more nose-heavy, and climbs SLOWER. Here's a real flight and gives you some fairly average real numbers.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N8024G/history/20160312/1600Z/KGPM/KODO/tracklog
We try to balance speed and range, so we usually would cruise at about 23 squared and would generally figure 125 KTS average. I've pushed them faster, but we like to keep the fuel burn lower and the fuel stops to a minimum. Of course we slow down a lot for photo work.
I'm flying another Cardinal RG now, has the 2-bladed prop and this bird climbs 150-200 fpm faster than the 3-bladed bird.
 
Yes, I was merely repeating what I had been told, I don't think it makes a lot of sense that a 3-blade prop would help climb performance as the extra blade mostly provides more drag and also more rotational inertia.

I have to say that I've never seen performance like you show in your track log without a tailwind. Your route of flight was east to west, right? That means you would more likely have had a headwind, but not necessarily. As I said, I've flown two basically identical 177RGs and the performance was pretty much the same, 130 KTAS at 6-8 kft, leaned ~100 ROP. I've usually flown my bird LOP, accepting the extra 5-10 kts hit in airspeed.
 
teejayevans said:
Being a Cessna it should be easy to find mechanics that can work on it and parts shouldn't be too expensive (not sure how much it shares with 172).
Click to expand...

It's a totally different airplane from the 172, other than a few bits like the Lycoming and instruments and wheels. Structure, control systems, stuff like the fuel venting system--all different. The spar carrythrough is a really risky deal that needs a good examination if you are looking to buy one. They can suffer serious corrosion and are awesomely expensive to fix or replace.
 
Dan Thomas said:
It's a totally different airplane from the 172, other than a few bits like the Lycoming and instruments and wheels. Structure, control systems, stuff like the fuel venting system--all different. The spar carrythrough is a really risky deal that needs a good examination if you are looking to buy one. They can suffer serious corrosion and are awesomely expensive to fix or replace.
Click to expand...
Very important point. To do a good inspection requires removing the headliner and looking thoroughly, it's not enough to do a cursory inspection with a flashlight. And you will probably need to insist that your pre-buy mechanic do this, as most will not want to because of the low probability of actually finding something. This practice was actually defended on CFO, the worldwide type club. Although they're correct that the probability is small, that won't help you if your bird is one afflicted with spar carrythrough corrosion.
 
It seems like a decent 177, especially the RG, goes for more than a comparable 182. Seems like people are holding onto them and pricing them at a premium when going to sell.
 
I fly a Cardinal RG. If you want max speed out of 200hp buy a Mooney. If you want a huge four adult cabin (wider than a 182) and far better visibility than any other high wing Cessna other than perhaps the 210 then get a Cardinal RG and settle for 135 - 140knots.

You have to watch the CG, but you should do that in any airplane you fly. That's a non-issue really.
 
charheep said:
It seems like a decent 177, especially the RG, goes for more than a comparable 182. Seems like people are holding onto them and pricing them at a premium when going to sell.
Click to expand...
I think that there's a potential commercial use for them that isn't really viable for most Mooneys that is probably a driving factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top