SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Four place airplane
- Thread starter Old Geek
- Start date
bnt83
Final Approach
The Cardinals, 150 or 180 horse, do not have the useful load of similar Cherokees. 172s don't either. Its not really an issue tho.
The Cardinals have tabs in the fuel tanks for a reference point to fill a reduced fuel load. To the tabs in mine equals about 32 gallons usable.
IRRC the "on paper" useful load on mine is 880 pounds. I don't believe it has ever been physically weighed. I have an autopilot two navs, two coms, two GPS an and a powerflow exhaust (I'm sure the poweflow added about 16 pounds.)
This is about the leanest I've ever got it:
Last month I flew non-stop from KLNK ---> LWC ---> KTKX (~500 statue miles), and landed with 10 gallons remaining.
Then flew from there to 54J (another 440 miles) and landed with about 16 gallons remaining.
So roughly I covered about 950 miles on 70 gallons of gas, 48 gallons of that was 87 octane ethanol-free car gas that I bough for $2.60/gal.
Basically no winds during that whole 950 mile trip.
Last edited:
You might want to recheck that -- the legroom, hip and shoulder width are larger in the AA-5x's than a 172's. And yes, from time to time, I do occupy the back seat.
I thought the back seat in the Traveller was downright comfy.
Not for the 177B. I am not sure about the 177A. But I think this there is no technical reason why someone couldn't develope one; only the economic reasons.
I flight plan my 177B assuming 115 kts, and 11 gph. But it flies faster than that, and burns less fuel than that. I don't have access to my poh right now, so I can't quote you the book numbers at the moment.
I love my Cardinal. Nice compromise of performance and comfort and economy. But it's honestly a matter of personal taste. One thing nice about the Cardinal is the cabin space. It's wider than 182 at the shoulders. I have had my 6'4" friend in the back, and he was quite comfortable. You give up some performance for that width, but you get some back, plus the visibility, by losing the struts. Keep the farings in good shape, and keep it well rigged, and 120 kias isn't out of the question.
Actually, if you call Mr Petersen, the economic barrier may be much less than you think. I asked him about doing one on the 310 and his reply was "Come on out, I'll let you use my fuel heater, if the plane will make the two climbs with no problem, they (the FAA) issue the STC." The expense doesn't come in until you need to do modifications to prevent the vapor lock.
bnt83
Final Approach
One of the first things I notice in all these airplanes is how dinky and cheap the controls feel. Take the 150/172 and Grumman AA-1C (others?) that have a very dinky control shaft. They feel downright cheap in the hands. The 177 series, most 182s and all the 200 series have a much larger diameter control shaft that feel much more substantial. Even the 172XP felt cheap to me.
A 177/B/RG doesn't feel that way.
The 150s and 172s I've flown have noticeable play in the interconnect on the yokes due to the universal joints and how the T or Y pivots to provide elevator moment. The 177 is designed significantly different and more solid feeling.
There is a lot of things that Cessna did right on the 177.
Most of the thing I really enjoy about the handling of the cardinal I downright hated when I first flew it. I was a seasoned 150 driver and 177 was soooo different. I took the engine out of the 150 and was stuck flying the 177 and really started to like it.
A 177/B/RG doesn't feel that way.
The 150s and 172s I've flown have noticeable play in the interconnect on the yokes due to the universal joints and how the T or Y pivots to provide elevator moment. The 177 is designed significantly different and more solid feeling.
There is a lot of things that Cessna did right on the 177.
Most of the thing I really enjoy about the handling of the cardinal I downright hated when I first flew it. I was a seasoned 150 driver and 177 was soooo different. I took the engine out of the 150 and was stuck flying the 177 and really started to like it.
Last edited:
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Carry 3 people + bags with easy maintence and under 40k?
You really should have a -161 Warrior or older Archer on your list to check out. Most Warriors have useful loads around 900 pounds and the Archer even more. They far out-haul a similar 172 if that's your concern.
A Tiger would be cool, but I'm not sure you can get a good specimen for 40k. You can get a really nice Warrior for that though.
The Sundowner might be an option. Roomy and hauls a load, but I've heard they are painfully slow. Like barely 100kts slow.
IF you can find a good 180hp Cardinal for 40k, it's a great plane. But that's gonna be tough to do. They are sought after planes.
You really should have a -161 Warrior or older Archer on your list to check out. Most Warriors have useful loads around 900 pounds and the Archer even more. They far out-haul a similar 172 if that's your concern.
A Tiger would be cool, but I'm not sure you can get a good specimen for 40k. You can get a really nice Warrior for that though.
The Sundowner might be an option. Roomy and hauls a load, but I've heard they are painfully slow. Like barely 100kts slow.
IF you can find a good 180hp Cardinal for 40k, it's a great plane. But that's gonna be tough to do. They are sought after planes.
Last edited:
cgrab
Pattern Altitude
I bought my '68 Cardinal for about what the OP is looking for. I don't think it is what he wants. I have had four in it but not for a long flight. Since then I have taken the back seat out and insured it as a two seater. I do like the long legs it can fly. I got about 6.9gph on mogas from OSH to home last year. For that flight I even took out the passenger seat and buckled in a cooler. The plane was near gross with camping gear but had no issues climbing to 10k to get past Chicago.
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
Be aware that earlier Cardinals only have a 3/4 panel. Stupid panel design.
But in general the Cardinal is a great plane.
But in general the Cardinal is a great plane.
bnt83
Final Approach
I agree with you but in reality there is a lot of empty space in pretty much most of them that have a full panel. If its full of stuff usually its a piecemeal unorganized mess of all kinds of stuff. The 1976 B I work on has an old ARC ADF shoved in there from the factory.
Per the IPC the full panel didn't start till serial # 177002314 which was model year 1976. By my calc that means only 438 FG out of 2757 have a full panel.
I think most of the RGs have the 3/4 panel too.
Last edited:
bnt83
Final Approach
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
You can get a pretty decent AA-5 Traveler for that, and it will haul three plus a bag each with 36 gallons of usable fuel (full tanks on a Traveler). Not as fast as a Tiger, but 120 KTAS on 8.5 gph ain't bad.