steingar
Taxi to Parking
It's not slow, it's stately.
Just why is the Cardinal so slow?
- Thread starter jfrye01
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
And if the CG is forward, then the elevator (or stabilator in the case of the C-177) has to push the tail of the airplane down in level flight, at the expense of both total lift and speed.
So you want to design a strutless high-wing airplane. Without external struts, a spar carry-through has to go through the top of the cabin. If you use the same airfoil as on a C-172, the thickest point, and thus the spar, will be right where the pilot's head would be. So instead you use a "laminar" airfoil, with maximum thickness further aft, at about 45% chord, and mount the whole wing as far aft as possible, so the spar won't be in the way (with better visibility a fringe benefit). On a low-wing airplane, it's easy enough to stow the spar below the seat cushions -- front seats in a Bonanza, or rear seats in a Cherokee, Comanche or Mooney (laminar airfoils all).
On the C-177, max forward CG is at about 5% of the mean aerodynamic chord. That means it's really nose-heavy. For comparison, the forward CG limit on a C-172 is at 15.5% MAC.
So you'll need lots of pitch authority to counter that nose-heaviness, especially in the flare. That means either a really long tail, or a stabilator, and a big one at that. And forget about that 40° setting on the flap switch. Then, airflow over the extended flaps hitting the stabilator causes very high stick forces when power is applied for a balked landing. That is mitigated somewhat by tweaking the anti-servo action of the stabilator tab.
So making a strutless high-wing airplane is more than just changing the structure of the wing itself. The strutless C-210 (with laminar airfoil) was reasonably successful; but after test flights Cessna abandoned a planned strutless C-182, and even a prototype C-187, a Cardinal-like would-be successor to the C-182. There just wasn't enough advantage in performance or construction costs compared to the existing C-182.
There is that. Consider that the Grumman-American Tiger gets remarkable speed from its 180 hp, while the externally-identical Cheetah is only marginally faster than its 150-hp competition. The difference is the LoPresti-designed airflow system inside the Tiger's cowling with sidedraft carburetor; while the Cheetah has more orthodox plumbing inside the cowl.
Early in the Cardinal's development they were so sure that the new design would replace the "obsolete" C-172 after the 172H variant, the Cardinal's original model number was "172J". It soon became evident, however, that the Cardinal would turn out to be a bigger, heavier airframe, and more power would eventually be needed.
Ironic that the Cardinal was ultimately replaced in the catalog by a higher-powered version of the "obsolete" 172 itself, the R172K Hawk XP.
Last edited:
brywd
Pre-takeoff checklist
A 285 horse engine running LOP at 10 gph is within about 3 horsepower of a 200 horsepower engine running at 75 percent. So at the same weight is the Mooney airframe dramatically more efficient than the V-Tail? Really?
Maybe in a descent
From a A36 POH:
RPM 2300, Std Day, 6000', cruise lean mixture
Airspeed = 159 KTAS, FF GPH:12.0
From a M20J POH:
RPM 2400, Std Day, 6000', cruise lean mixture
Airspeed = 160 KTAS, FF GPH:9.7
Depends on what you call dramatic.
The 200 hp Mooney will weigh less and the airframe is less-draggy than the Bo, so it will be more efficient if identical HP LOP power settings are used in each plane.
A better comparison might be a 280 or 310 HP Mooney running the same LOP power setting as your candidate Bonanza as the weights will be much closer. (and the Mooney will be more efficient again, but I wouldn't call it dramatically so)
Brittain had similar systems in the pre-J Mooneys, including add-on modules to create a full autopilot system on top of the "dumb" wing leveler. Simple and effective, even today, and fortunately well-supported by Brittain.
M20J's had several autopilot options...come Century and some King. I think my '77 came with a low-end Century (replaced by the second owner with an STEC-30) and my '81 salvage came with a KFC 200. I think the KFC 200 was pretty common in the 80s Mooneys, but I believe there were some other less-featured versions too.
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
I was very close to buying a 177RG. The RG combined a lot of the things I was looking for but ultimately lost out to the TR182 because my wife asked if there was an airplane that could carry the whole family and full fuel, haul ass, and get us over the rockpile.
Why yes there is, sweetie!
But the 177RG is a very nice bird. I still don't understand why the early models had that stupid 3/4 instrument panel.
Why yes there is, sweetie!
But the 177RG is a very nice bird. I still don't understand why the early models had that stupid 3/4 instrument panel.
White Bird
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 99
- Display Name
Display name:
White Bird
Very nice and informative post.
bnt83
Final Approach
You won't find R172K on the 172 type certificate. Its on the 175.
My only beef with the R172K is the silly rudder trim. All the 177B/RG have a real rudder trim like late 182.
Last edited:
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
My daughter wanted a 177 after seeing one on the ramp. They really are a darn good looking plane, even for a high wing. We might still end up with one, but the comparable Grumman on the same HP is significantly more efficient. She's an engineer, so I'm betting at some point the efficient will win out over the good looking.
Art VanDelay
Pattern Altitude
Because everyone thinks it should go fast when in reality it's just a dog performance wise.
TulsaWeather
Pre-takeoff checklist
Neal Howard
Cleared for Takeoff
Why is the Cardinal so slow?
Umm, because it's a fat wallowing pig like Cessna's version of the Piper Cherokee ?
Umm, because it's a fat wallowing pig like Cessna's version of the Piper Cherokee ?
Is it fat? Yep, so are Americans, that's why they built it that way. Wallowing though I would not call it, I think they fly well and I never had any maneuvering issues when using them as a photo ship. There's one company I know uses the 177RGs for pipeline patrol.
bnt83
Final Approach
The O-360 Lycoming doesn't strike me as very efficient, and no mogas STC.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
It's competitive with the Archer II in performance. It was really too big an airframe for the original 150 hp engine. The 180 hp O-360 was a nice match for it.
But the Cardinal excels in entry-exit ease, cabin room and cockpit visibility. And it has the nicest roll response of any high-wing Cessna single.
Luvrv8
Line Up and Wait
I fly a couple of Cardinals. The faster of them is the 1968 model with the thin wing and a STC'd 180 HP constant speed prop. This model walks away from the 1976 B model.
bnt83
Final Approach
Seems like there are usually more 180 conversions for sale than stock 150 horse ones. The only thing that sucks is no mogas STC. If you are ok with burning 8-10 GPH of 100LL then it would be a pretty sweet ride.
The other thing that sucks about all 1968's, including the 180 conversions, it the **** poor air box integrated lower cowl design. At least the landing lights are in the wings....
bnt83
Final Approach
Easy to stay cool on the ground
The things I like the most, that pilots never consider, they are a dream to
work on. Mechanics and radio shops don't curse when they see you coming.
The things I like the most, that pilots never consider, they are a dream to
work on. Mechanics and radio shops don't curse when they see you coming.
bnt83
Final Approach
Last edited:
bnt83
Final Approach
The 68 was "flop" because the "150/172 just got my license pilots certificate" types don't know crap about airplanes...
The 1968 177 - 150 horse (stock) vs the 172H it was designed to replace
Thinner wing = slower flat climb at higher IAS, also more sensitive to AOA changes. High AOA is draggy.
Bigger fuselage, crazy wing spar, the empty weight is higher
Holds an additional 54 pounds of fuel over the 172H (39 gallons vs 48 gallons)
Fill to the tabs, about 32 gallons, and enjoy
, it will kick a 172H in every way.
Last edited:
flightlevelflying
Filing Flight Plan
I don't think I would ever look at getting a Cardinal for an aircraft. Doesn't really serve much purpose. You get a little more room but other than that, there really isn't that much going for it. A 182 is where it is at.
bnt83
Final Approach
You really need to fly both. Need power? 182....
I fly a 205 too, usually about 400 pounds under gross weight. It always leaves a smile on my face. Power is appreciated. But its a lot more work that the 177. Stiffer ride. Sounds like a race car <which I like>.
Every time I fly the cardinal it leaves a smile on my face, quick nimble handling, but not powerful. Handles crosswinds ease smooth ride, great visibility and cruising on 6.5 gallons an hour of car gas. Almost effortless to fly.
Last edited:
flightlevelflying
Filing Flight Plan
I have to admit I love power. I flew a 182 with the extended tanks from Maryland to Georgia when I landed a checked the fuel and I still had enough to make it to Orlando. Maybe the Cardinal can do that too at a slower rate, but I also like having the ability to haul more things with the ability to have all that fuel as well. It's really on how you plan to use the aircraft. Never flown a Cardinal, but if I had the chance I would fly it. Maybe then I would change my mind, but on paper just doesn't seem that exciting.
Fredbob711
Pre-takeoff checklist
I'm apparently a sucker for airplanes that are no longer in production. I really like both the Cardinal and the Grumman AA5. Cardinal for the ease of access, plus it's got decent useful load and performance. The AA5 because of the speed, the canopy, and from what I've read, the handling would be more along the lines of what I like.
Two completely different airplanes, but no input from the wife yet, and I've got plenty of time to do research and decide which way to go.
Two completely different airplanes, but no input from the wife yet, and I've got plenty of time to do research and decide which way to go.
bnt83
Final Approach
Power is tough to beat. My brother flew the lowly 172H (that the 1968 Cessna 177 was supposed to replace) from Seattle to Florida this year with full tanks, two 90# boys, and a ~120 pound wife, and crap stacked to the ceiling the baggage.
The wife gets air sick, in fact about 15 years ago on a flight to the USA from Germany, they got her in an ambulance when they landed. She does better now but still gets sick.
flightlevelflying
Filing Flight Plan
Its a good thing he has a pretty light family haha. I am sure that aircraft's performance was not that great though. That would make me a little nervous along the way. I guess once you get in to higher performance aircraft it is really hard to feel safe in stacking a plane like that full of people and full.
bnt83
Final Approach
If I could afford the 182, I'd probably buy it. I'd want a mid year 182, with electric flaps, the bigger diameter control shafts, baggage door, better instrument panel etc, they aren't cheap.
If I was looking for a 172 and a 177 was in similar condition for a few extra thousand, the 177 wins any day.
The 172 (1959 to 1982) feels cheap when you fly the 177.
If I was looking for a 172 and a 177 was in similar condition for a few extra thousand, the 177 wins any day.
The 172 (1959 to 1982) feels cheap when you fly the 177.
Last edited:
flightlevelflying
Filing Flight Plan
Don't get me wrong I love flying a 172. That is what I trained in. Like I said before it just depends on how you are going to use it. Short hops here and there, like for me a short hop would be the beach which is around 1.5 or so in a 172. But if I was planning on using it for longer hauls, a 182 is what I would be getting. Yes, a 182 is more expensive, but I think you get more out of it than you would a 172 or 177. It just depends on what you want to use it for. I can justify spending more money on a 182. Personal preference.
bnt83
Final Approach
The 177B is really nice, but it still isn't a 182, and for the money you can likely score pretty darn nice 182 and never look back.
flightlevelflying
Filing Flight Plan
I will have to see if I can find a 177 around to fly it. Then I can make a more educated post on the 177, I guess I am little bias to the 182. I just love that airplane.
bnt83
Final Approach
If you must have fuel injection then you need a R172K (172XP), (more like a 182 than a 172 IMHO), 205, or?????
177RG are fuel injected but again, not a powerhouse and pricey
ryoung99
Pre-takeoff checklist
I am going to come take you up in an AA5B, once you have been in one the choice is easy.
JimNtexas
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,259
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
I flew a 182 before I got into a club with a Cardinal RG. I pretty much hate flying a 182 these days. The 182 crams the front seaters together like Spirit Airlines seats and has the visibility of a submerged U-Boat. The 182's tractor like control feel is I guess appropriate to it's mission as a flying tractor. The 182 is noisy and a gas hog.
I admit, if your mission is to lift a lot of illicit agriculture crop from a back country dirt strip then the pain of flying the 182 is worth it.
If you are a civilized person and fly from one civilized airport to another civilized airport then the Cardinal RG is superior in all respects.
Besides, looking good is a full time job!
Last edited:
bnt83
Final Approach
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
The prices for these guys speed mods out of Canada aren't too bad. Are they legal for STC in the states? The website doesn't have much info on that.
http://www.aircraftspeedmods.ca/products.htm
http://www.aircraftspeedmods.ca/products.htm
bnt83
Final Approach
Yes. There are many of those flying on US registered Cardinals. Mine has the exhaust fairing and fixed cowl flap. Many cardinals already had the brake covers.
Fancy pants....aaahhh I'll pass.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Well, I'm thinking if I get a semi-free Cardinal how much it will be to make it semi-fast.
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.
bnt83
Final Approach
Well, I'm thinking if I get a semi-free Cardinal how much it will be to make it semi-fast.
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.
That's like picking a woman with a decent body but ugly face. Just take your friends flying at night, they'll never know how ugly it is
Last edited: