Success of the C-172 vs Cardinal

lockeed

lockeed

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
151
Location
Gaspe - Quebec
Display Name
Display name:
John
Everytime I see a Cardinal sitting somewhere, I always wonder why this plane didn't had the success of the 172.

When the Cardinal came out, if you would've told me that the 172 would end up overselling it by 10/1 + ...I would've told you to get checked. :eek:

Better looking, more spacious, a little faster, same reliability, better visibility, better accessibility to the cockpit, good performance etc...

Maybe the fact that they were underpowered when they came out played a major role.... but they resolved that issue long ago.

What do you guys think?

12163_1239202723.jpg
 
lockeed said:
Everytime I see a Cardinal sitting somewhere, I always wonder why this plane didn't had the success of the 172.
Click to expand...
The original Cardinal was beautiful and eagerly awaited by customers, but they were disappointed by the airplane's wimpy performance with 150 hp. They were also disappointed that it didn't fly like a 172 -- not bad, just different. Some ham-fisted pilots tended to overcontrol in the flare, with crumpled nosegear as the result.

(I got checked out in a brand-new '68 Cardinal minutes after passing my PPL checkride in August 1968, and loved it.)

A switch to 180 hp, a slotted stabilator and revised pitch control linkage after the first year, and a recontoured airfoil, constant-speed prop and cowl flaps after the second, helped the airplane a lot, but couldn't overcome the bad initial reputation.

Said Cessna's Manager of Flight Test and Aerodynamics, William Thompson (Cessna - Wings for The World: The Single-Engine Development Story),
"Another concern was a 70% increase in labor manhours to build the Cardinals as compared to the C-172 from 1974 records. In the tight economy of that era, it was almost impossible to raise the C-177's price enough to make it profitable."
​
Jim Logajan said:
Wasn't the 172 always cheaper than the 177?
Click to expand...
Base prices, per the 1968 Flying Annual & Pilots Guide:

Cessna 172: $10,950
Cessna Skyhawk: $12,750
Cessna 177: $12,995
Cessna Cardinal: $14,500

In 1969 the 150-hp Skyhawk was $13,995, while the 180-hp Cardinal was $17,500, making the Cardinal 25% more spendy than the Skyhawk. By 1976 the Cardinal was 31% higher than the Skyhawk.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Base prices, per the 1968 Flying Annual & Pilots Guide:

Cessna 172: $10,950
Cessna Skyhawk: $12,750
Cessna 177: $12,995
Cessna Cardinal: $14,500

In 1969 the 150-hp Skyhawk was $13,995, while the 180-hp Cardinal was $17,500, making the Cardinal 25% more spendy than the Skyhawk. By 1976 the Cardinal was 31% higher than the Skyhawk.
Click to expand...

I'll take one of each, even adjusted for inflation. No wonder we had a lot more active pilots then.
 
lockeed said:
Maybe the fact that they were underpowered when they came out played a major role....
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to call the Cardinal underpowered, it had the same engine as a 172.
The problem was that the bigger cabin made it much easier to overload, and people did.

Plus, people's expectation of performance is driven by perception. The Cardinal looked like a rocketship. Instead of considering it to be a more comfortable 172, it didn't deliver the performance the looks promised (it performed like a 172).

When they gave it an engine that put the performance closer to its looks, then it was a whole lot more expensive than the 172, and started competing with the 182 pricewise. Not hard to guess how that would turn out.
 
dell30rb said:
What is the 75% cruise speed of a 180hp fixed gear 177?
Click to expand...
Per Cessna data (with wheel fairings):
1969 C-177A Cardinal (180 hp, f/p prop), 138 mph;
1970 C-177B Cardinal (180 hp, c/s prop, cowl flaps, recontoured airfoil), 142 mph;
1976 C-177B Cardinal (cleaner cowling and wheel fairings), 150 mph.

Add grains of salt to taste. :wink2:
 
Last edited:
From a simplistic point of view because I'm that way:

If you can fly a 150/152, you can jump right into a 172 and fly it with zero instruction and no instructor and fly it safely. It's essentially the same airplane with two more seats down to the stall speed plus/minus a smidgen. (Isn't that concept one of the selling points of cessna? That each plane is just a minor step up from the last one.) And it doesn't even have the extra complexity of the constant speed prop. All that has to be a big selling point for the 172 to the new PP who wants to haul the family around.

You're also talking about the 1960's before everything was supersized with the bigger=better mindset that took completely over some 35-40 years later. Remember that 150's were flying off the assembly line like popcorn around then. Today the 172 is the old 150 so the cardinal would likely be more interesting today than it was at the time.

And everything else has wing struts. That doesn't. It's like they forgot to put the strut on when they built it. Yea yea, strutural blah blah zzzzzz. Oh where was I? Oh yea, it just doesn't look right.

Just an irrelevant viewpoint...back to the regularly scheduled supersized money based reasoning.
 
fgcason said:
Today the 172 is the old 150 so the cardinal would likely be more interesting today than it was at the time.
Click to expand...

I think the exact same way.

Why they haven't built a 2012 Cardinal equivalent yet? That I can't answer...

Forget the Cardinal brand name, call it the 178 Falcon or the Cessna Peacock... whatever...!

From the amount of goodlooking Cirrus getting sold each year, I think Cessna should get back at making something that actualy looks good and get a piece of that pie back.
 
I don't know, but I sure wouldn't mind flying one. I've seen a few up close, the only airplane I've found that you can get in and retain some dignity. Those doors are phenomenal.
 
lockeed said:
Why they haven't built a 2012 Cardinal equivalent yet? That I can't answer...
Click to expand...

That's sort of what the NGP was, until they bought Columbia.
As for bringing back the old Cardinal and simply restarting production, why? There's not making much money with just the 172 and 182. If I were the manager, I would argue against diluting the market among three products.
 
lockeed said:
From the amount of goodlooking Cirrus getting sold each year, I think Cessna should get back at making something that actualy looks good and get a piece of that pie back.
Click to expand...

They do; it's called the Corvallis. :)I know it's in a different class though...
 
PilotAlan said:
As for bringing back the old Cardinal and simply restarting production, why?
Click to expand...

I didn't raised that question? :dunno:

I said that Cessna should build an aircraft that is better looking than what their current lineup offer today, as the Cardinal was when introduced back in the 60's.

This was flying 80 years ago:
StaggerwingRyan.jpg



Can you believe we're still stuck with this 80 years later? :rolleyes2:
cessna-172-flying-m0a.jpg
 
Once the C-177 was in production, Cessna went about to design and fly an outwardly-similar but somewhat larger aircraft, intended to replace the "obsolete" C-182. It was (of course) called the Model 187. The first iteration had a Cardinal-like tail, but the prototype was later flown with a T-tail. :vomit::idea::yikes::raspberry:

Sorry, folks, this one was ugly. And it didn't offer enough performance advantage over the ol' reliable C-182, so the project was scuttled.
 
Arbiter419 said:
I don't know, but I sure wouldn't mind flying one. I've seen a few up close, the only airplane I've found that you can get in and retain some dignity. Those doors are phenomenal.
Click to expand...

Yes those doors are phenomenal at catching the wind and ruining the forward door post.
 
lockeed said:
This was flying 80 years ago

Do you realize how far above the common mans price range the D17S was ?

Can you believe we're still stuck with this 80 years later?
Click to expand...


Do you realize that most people still can't afford one of those either.

80 years ago, most pilots flew some rag bag left over from WW1.

80 years ago was 1932, most aircraft we see today weren't invented yet. and it was deep dark depression days, just like now.
 
I remember going from a 172 to a 177RG and being concerned looking outside and not seeing the struts. I knew it was ok but it just looked unsafe.
 
Swampfox201 said:
I remember going from a 172 to a 177RG and being concerned looking outside and not seeing the struts. I knew it was ok but it just looked unsafe.
Click to expand...

Cessna's hooker, no visible means of support. :)
 
Tom-D said:
Do you realize that most people still can't afford one of those either.

80 years ago, most pilots flew some rag bag left over from WW1.

80 years ago was 1932, most aircraft we see today weren't invented yet. and it was deep dark depression days, just like now.
Click to expand...

I obviously wasn't talking about money... at all...

I was reffering to the design of a single engine piston aircraft.

Look at this:
g9j5b.jpg


Now FW 60 years into the future!
Cessna_172_R_Skyhawk.jpg


Wait... what ??? :confused: :eek: :confused:
 
lockeed said:
I said that Cessna should build an aircraft that is better looking than what their current lineup offer today, as the Cardinal was when introduced back in the 60's.
Click to expand...

Cessna is stuck in a rut. Um, no. Not a rut. A pothole. A rut implies you're going somewhere.

Take the lowly snubbed Cessna 150. Make it bigger, same airplane, just make it bigger. Put more seats in. Give it a nike shoe paint job. Rip the piston engine off and put a turbine on the front. Replace the instruments with tv screens.
What do you have?
A respectable Caravan.
A Caravan is nothing more than a glorified Cessna 150. Think about it.

Yea yea yea, they have their line of jets..that all look alike. Everything else is a 150.

This was flying 80 years ago:
Click to expand...

The complicated time consuming construction beautiful planes like the Staggerwing are a dying species. Easily mass produced relatively low cost cookie cutter planes are the way of the future. Creativity be damned because it will eat a hole in the bottom line. Wallyworld should be proud of Cessna.
 
Last edited:
Don't recent developments in GA aircraft production make it painfully obvious why so few new designs are out there? And why Cessna would be insane to embark an a 172 replacement?
 
fgcason said:
Or absolutely no creativity whatsoever.

B O R I N G ! !
Click to expand...
They aren't cars where you can change the design every few years. They need to work aerodynamically. I think that's why you basically have a high-wing design and a low-wing design. Manufacturers try various things to differential themselves but they can't really do anything too radical or the thing won't fly. Yes I know there are some different experimental designs, but will they sell to a mass market?
 
Last edited:
If I was going to buy a Cessna, the Cardinal would be my pick. I like the cantilever wing and the CS prop.
 
Cessna has it right and has had for a good while. Piper has been in and out of bankruptcy, Mooney is underwater now, Cessna keeps going and going. The Cardinal is a neat airplane, so is the 150 and the Citation Ten. I don't think Cessna's are boring at all.
 
In order for an entry-level airplane to be economically viable, it must be inexpensive to build -- think man-hours. The Cherokee replaced the Tri-Pacer not because it was prettier (matter of opinion) or performed better (the early models didn't), but because it was much easier and cheaper to build. It's also why the Cherokee survived and the Comanche didn't, and why the 172 survived and the Cardinal didn't.

What certificated, entry-level four-seat single has come along that was a significant improvement over the C-172/PA-28 class and was simpler and more economical to build?

Well, there was one, but it languished under the ownership of an undercapitalized company with no interest in the light piston market ...

ast.000831.01.jpg


:D
 
I don't think Cessna is boring, after all they made the Citation X and they now have the Corvalis to offer, which is georgous... But they weren't the guys who designed it! ;)

I think they are extremely conservative with their 172/182 line though... Not to say it wasn't a good design, those planes still serve their owners very well...

The Volks Beetle was a great design back in 1938. It's been in production for 65 years around the world. You could say that they got it right the first time, like Cessna. But I wouldn't buy a beetle over the newly designed VW GTI which is rougly the same size, but 70 years of innovation in front of it in all aspects.

Cessna can't re-invent de wheel, but they have the ability and the means to produce a good looking high wing 4 seater. Hell, if Tecnam was able to design, produce and fly the new P2010, please don't tell me Cessna can't do it!
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
In order for an entry-level airplane to be economically viable, it must be inexpensive to build -- think man-hours. The Cherokee replaced the Tri-Pacer not because it was prettier (matter of opinion) or performed better (the early models didn't), but because it was much easier and cheaper to build. It's also why the Cherokee survived and the Comanche didn't, and why the 172 survived and the Cardinal didn't.
Click to expand...

I agree, the labor is killing us here...

But look at the trend now in newly designed aircraft: Full composite.

Or, another great way IMHO to build a plane: Composite body, aluminum wing.

Once the mold is built and ready, making an aircraft shell out of composite is the quickest and simplest thing ever when you look at it on a production standpoint. I think we'll see more and more of those aircraft emerge... I sure hope to see one from Cessna to help garnish their high wing offering...
 
lockeed said:
But look at the trend now in newly designed aircraft: Full composite.

Or, another great way IMHO to build a plane: Composite body, aluminum wing.
Click to expand...
Yes, lots of promise there. But in an economy and political/regulatory environment that suppresses sales to a couple hundred units a year, how long will it take to amortize the R&D, tooling, certification, etc.?
 
Pilawt said:
Yes, lots of promise there. But in an economy and political/regulatory environment that suppresses sales to a couple hundred units a year, how long will it take to amortize the R&D, tooling, certification, etc.?
Click to expand...

Couple hundred? If they designed something that knocked it out of the ball park - they could sell well over those numbers annualy AND with their network, distribute it worldwide.

Pilawt said:
They test-flew a strutless 182, as well - similar to the 210G. Same old story: marginal benefit in performance and huge increase in production cost.
Click to expand...

Agree. But if we go back the the P2010, this plane also has struts, but it still looks georgous. :wink2:
24557_1307812919.jpg
 
I dunno about some of the comments here. In many ways, boring is very, very good in aviation...
And having a number of hours in Cardinals, I do love the 177RG... It's actually a very nicely responsive aircraft, too. I know since I got to maneuver one quite a bit as an aerial photography ship.

Ryan
 
Swampfox201 said:
I remember going from a 172 to a 177RG and being concerned looking outside and not seeing the struts. I knew it was ok but it just looked unsafe.
Click to expand...

I never minded the lack of struts in flight, but my only real beef with the Cardinal (and most 210's as well), was that it could sometimes be a real pain in the ass to check the fuel levels during preflight on. X-country.
 
Pilawt said:
Per Cessna data (with wheel fairings):
1969 C-177A Cardinal (180 hp, f/p prop), 138 mph;
1970 C-177B Cardinal (180 hp, c/s prop, cowl flaps, recontoured airfoil), 142 mph;
1976 C-177B Cardinal (cleaner cowling and wheel fairings), 150 mph.

Add grains of salt to taste. :wink2:
Click to expand...

I'd agree with the grain of salt comment. Never flown a fixed gear Cardinal, but I generally flight planned for 140 KTAS in the RG.
 
Arbiter419 said:
I don't know, but I sure wouldn't mind flying one. I've seen a few up close, the only airplane I've found that you can get in and retain some dignity. Those doors are phenomenal.
Click to expand...

You need to fly one....like flying a fighter plane compared to 172. Controls are so much more quick and precise.
 
lockeed said:
Couple hundred? If they designed something that knocked it out of the ball park - they could sell well over those numbers annualy AND with their network, distribute it worldwide.



Agree. But if we go back the the P2010, this plane also has struts, but it still looks georgous. :wink2:
24557_1307812919.jpg
Click to expand...

Any word on what those will cost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top