Great videos on the Cardinal. Love owning an RG. What a capable and excellent cross country machine. You're spot on with your remarks about transitioning from a 172-177 during the flare phase of landing.
I have admired your photography over the years. I always assumed you were living on Long Island. I guess you get around. I had a friend at Embry Riddle that had a Cardinal RG that he used to commute home on weekends back in the late 70's. Yes, I was jealous. Thank you for the video. I recently retired and would like to get back into private flying.
I owned a 72 C177B for more than 10 years and in excess of 4000 hours in it. Used it like most people use a car. All my clients were on airports. A car wasn't needed. It is an absolute joy to fly. Forgiving (aside from a newby and the porpoise), dependable and great visibility. Didn't hear anything in your video, but the early cardinal had a different wing. They fixed that with the B model and it was like night and day. The A was a dog - no argument over that. Way and I mean WAY underpowered for 4 people and a little baggage. Almost scary w/ a high density altitude day. Loved everything about my C177 but finally (after 2 engine overhauls) sold it for a C182RG Turbo, 3 blade prop. Amazing airplane as well, but significantly higher operating expense. I'd love to find a C177 to fly again - over 30 years ago was last time I flew one. -- Good video!
I really wish I could find such well written/demonstrated explanations on every plane. I have wanted a 177 since the very first time I saw one, however, now that I’m in a position to purchase a plane, I don’t think the cardinal fits my mission. I have a big (think football player) family so to carry more than two of us is gonna be next to impossible in anything smaller than a 182 or larger. Thank you for setting the bar on reviews and the very well put together demonstration!!!
Thank you very much! Its fun shopping for airplanes! A 182 would be great or perhaps a 206 (but they are spendy these days). Good luck finding an airplane
James, sure love the new panel setup, especially the iPad panel mount! Did you consider having a second nav/com or GPS/com installed, in addition to the G430W?
While my 75 RG isn't as fast as some others, while cruising back from Arizona to California recently at 4500 feet, we were doing 150mph (pre 76 birds are in MPH) at 7.1 GPH! (And I have pictures of the panel to prove it). Let's see a 172 do that! Oh, useful load is 1029lbs. Not too shabby! I was looking at a Debonair but when I finally sat in a Cardinal, I said "THIS IS IT!". The flight removed any misconceptions. The biggest reason they don't build them today is, it basically competes with the 182. Think about it 🤔. The 182 to go as fast has to burn 30 to 50% more fuel for only 100lbs more useful load than my RG. The 182 is much cheaper to build, sells for more and has a bigger profit margin. Also, that extra 30 to 60 horses makes a big difference in climb (aaand fuel burn). I never had an issue with landing and never understood why some do. Just fly it like an airplane. Carry a little power over the fence and those BIG flaps will slow you down when you pull the power and like the author of this video says, just hold it and let her settle when she is ready. There's no perfect plane, but for me, the Cardinal RG hits the marks for comfort, efficiency, load and range and just "plane fun" to fly! Happy Aviating!
You mentioned that you might want to consider not getting the earlier (pre 76) models if you want to trick out the panel due to the smaller size. However I can attest that it is just barely enough room to get a nice panel. I have a 1971 177RG and I just put in dual touch screens, a backup G5 and a really nice radio stack too! Only had about an inch to spare on either side, but I made it work. Full touch bar in G3X panel with engine instruments built in. So if you want a nice panel, yes it will be easier with a 76or later. But it definitely is possible with an earlier model.
I considered modifying my 75 to a 76 panel but the FAA says it's a structural modification and requires a DER to approve it. Cessna (textron) says it ISN'T structural! It's just an extension of the aluminum panel and a different "dash cover". Sigggggggggh...
I'm surprised that the other major problem with the 1968 Cardinal wasn't mentioned. In addition to being under powered it had a non slotted stabilator. This resulted in the tail stalling before the wing making for some interesting landings! This was corrected in the 1969 model which had a slotted stabilator. The 1968 models were later retrofitted with this mod correcting the problem with those also. I've owned 6 Cardinal's throughout the years, 2 1968's 1969, 1971 RG, 1973 RG and currently a 1976 RG. It is a great airplane that started out rocky and Cessna never lived down that first year. With the mods it was one of the best airplanes that Cessna built!
Hey Mike, you make an excellent point. I have heard about the issues with the non slotted stabilators. (never flown one myself) I love my 1976 RG too:)!
Doesn't the 177 and 210 have issues with the wing mounts that have to be addressed overtime? I read somewhere, where they have had 177's and 210's loose a wing in flight due to the metal bracket (forget what it is exactly called) would break in two resulting in one of the wings coming off.
@@christopherculvey3391 Since this video was made, a C210 crashed after the wing spar carry through broke. (The C177 shares the same design) That spar had horrific corrosion. A service bulletin was issued urging owners to inspect for corrosion and cracks.
So Mike, having owned a '68, would you recommend a '68 with a 177 hp mod, and all STCs, as a plane for a fairly new PPL that does mostly local flying and occasional 'short' cross country of 2-3 states? Thanks.
I'm giving you guys fair notice: you guys that own Cardinals better take good care of them because i'm planning on shopping for my first airplane to be a '76 (or later ) RG so I could learn to fly and get a few ratings in. God willing I'll have one before the end of next year, so take good care of them.
Awesome videos, thank you! What kind of climb perfomance do you get with that 200hp engine and 2 people and half fuel? I think this may be a good first airplane for me, having gotten my PPL in a 172 and wanting to step up to higher performance aircraft. The other option I like in my budget is a C35 or later Bonanza, but not sure if I'm ready for it...
Thanks! It'll usually do around 500fpm at 100kts in the climb when its heavy-ish at 25 inches and 2500 RPM. I've seen much better on colder days. I've never seen anyone regret getting a Cardinal:)
Eagle Eye Photography thanks for the quick reply! I think the only aircraft I’d get instead of the Cessna 177 or Bonanza 35 is a Vans RV7 or 8. I have a feeling there will be some deals out there in the coming months unfortunately...
I have a few questions, based on an AVweb article I read recently on Cardinals. My questions will make a lot more sense in the context of some specific comments from that article about the retractable landing gear. Rather than paraphrase, here first is an excerpt from that article. “In 1976, Cessna finally got it right, removing all of the electrics from the gear system in favor of fully hydraulic gear using only two switches: a pressure switch to control the hydroelectric gear pump and a squat switch to keep the gear down while on the ground. While any of these gear systems are dependable if properly maintained, 1976 and later Cardinal owners are most likely to report a fully trouble-free ownership experience. Finally, with the 1978 models, the 12-volt Prestolite hydraulic power packs were eliminated in favor of a 24-volt power pack of Cessna’s design. This has proved to be the most satisfactory of all the gear systems and, of course, would be the one to choose if cost considerations and availability permit-only 100 RGs were built in 1978. There are other landing gear issues too, not related to the hydraulics. The most serious is the main gear actuating cylinder rod ends, which had a nasty habit of breaking off at inopportune moments, rendering the main gear inoperative. Actually, the main gear dropped to in-trail position and for a while, there was talk about carrying boathooks to reach down and pull it into the locks. But replacing the rod ends is a more permanent solution. Have your mechanic check for grease zerk fittings on the rod ends. If they are there, you have the old rod ends.” So, my questions are: 1) Would you agree that if one could get an RG Cardinal made from 1976 to 1978, being fully hydraulic, that the gear is less prone to problems? 2) What do you think of the importance in extension & retraction speeds between the 12V and 24V landing gear, say, should you lose engine power at takeoff & you’re only 200’ AGL, since only the 1978 year had the 24V system? I think the 12-volt system is in the 10-15 second range to extend, versus about 6 or 7 seconds for the 24-volt system. 3) Since only 100 models were built in 1978 and probably not all of those are airworthy today, it might not be practical to only set one’s sites on a 1978 model. So, my question is whether the landing gear from a 1976 or 1977 model year could be converted from the 12-volt Prestolite power pack to Cessna’s 24-volt power pack and would it be practical & cost effective to do so? 4) What are your thoughts on the article’s comments about the main gear actuating cylinder rod ends? I know that’s a lot! My apologies for that. Thanks for any answers you can give & for whenever it’s feasible to get to them!!! Safe flying!
As a pilot with over 400 hours in a Cardinal, I'll take my stab at these Q's. 1) Yes. It is very simplified design, and the Cardinal Flyers group is full of experienced owners to help diagnose any issue. 2) I fly a 76, and it is slow. The 78 seems much faster. I have never experienced an issue where faster gear would have actually made a difference. I think it is just cooler. 3) Not yet, but there are several owners in Cardinal Flyers who are looking for an option that the FAA can accept, using a 12-volt pump with double the volume. 4) I've never experienced this or heard of it from another owner. Perhaps someone else has a different experience. This is what I think about the Cardinal: I think the Cardinal was the best compromise Cessna ever made. it is not the most efficient airplane, but it is efficient. It doesn't carry the most useful load, but it carries a lot. it is not the fastest, but it is fast. It is not the biggest cabin, but it is big. The Cardinal excels in three areas: A) The RG is a fantastic platform for aerial photography. Tuck the gear in, and there is nothing obstructing your view of the ground. and B) With 60 gallons of fuel, it has amazing range. I've know pilots to fly 7-hour legs in a Cardinal. I personally can't stay out of a bathroom more than 4 hours, so I rarely need to fill the tanks. The Cardinal has a series of holes in the fuel filler neck which makes it easy to measure 22 gallons per side. 44 gallons is usually what I think of when I am planning "full" tanks. C) For someone who is wheelchair bound, there isn't a plane that is easier to get in and out of. Another way of looking at a Cardinal is it is similar to a Skylane, but has 150 pounds less useful load. However the Skylane needs that extra useful load, because it burns fuel 25% faster than a Cardinal. Otherwise, the performance between the two is nearly identical. A weakness of the Cardinal is also an advantage: It uses a laminar-flow airfoil like the Centurion. The laminar-flow wing climbs slower than the ubiquitous Clark "Y" airfoil, but in straight-and-level flight it has less drag. So, the Cardinal is faster--and more efficient--in cruise.
Hey Robert, excellent question. I have seen water in the sump when I left the airplane sit outside after a big rain storm. I have the old "killer" caps which are known for allowing water to leak inside. This winter I plan on installing the redesigned caps that prevent this. If you have the "killer" caps be careful:)
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC Thank you for taking the time to reply and the heads up. May I assume that you also have the integral wing tanks? Would you mind telling me the number of sump drains on each wing?
I have several hours in the 177 RG , now if it was only turbo charged it would reach new heights and speed similar to a turbo 210 yet burn less fuel . If I could afford a plane the Cardinal would be near the top .
A cessna skylane will out carry, out cruise with bullet-proof continental engine, and no risk of gear-up landing. I flew a trip in my 182Q along with a cardinal RG and this is what I observed. The 182 will actually carry 4 average adults with their bags and full fuel. Add a little extra to your budget and purchase a 182Q. Yes ... 182Q will out cruise
I have both a 182 and a Cardinal RG. (Yes... I need to sell one) Different roles for each, but I like flying the 177 more, very close the same speed on much less fuel and handling is sweet, more comfortable, looks cooler! But the 182 carries more weight and better for back country landings.
Been looking forward to part 2. I love the 177RG! Oh and be sure to check out Keith Peterson's RUclips channel for more on the Cardinal. ruclips.net/user/cardinalflyer177videos
Hi Al Milani, it depends on which model Mooney you are talking about. The newer Mooneys are much faster, but some of the older ones are about the same speed.
@@robertpitchford1786 completely untrue. The point of having two mags is that when one breaks in any way, you have another. The single shaft means that they have a common breaking point. I don't know of any other aircraft other than those with a single drive mag who have had total, dual mag failure.
One reason why I don't , money . I have much time in the 177RG and really like the plane but it's still a plane and the damn thing take a lot of money .
Thank you so much for the 2 videos. Lots of condensed information. Greetings from Germany from a 172 owner...
Thank you!! Greetings!!
Great videos on the Cardinal. Love owning an RG. What a capable and excellent cross country machine. You're spot on with your remarks about transitioning from a 172-177 during the flare phase of landing.
Love that clean uncluttered dash!
That's the best airplane review I've ever seen. Thank you for all the time you spent on this!!
Thank you for the kind words!
Love the simplicity of the cockpit!
Thanks!
I love flying a Cardinal. I have flown it many times to Ocean city MD and the outer banks of NC.
I have admired your photography over the years. I always assumed you were living on Long Island. I guess you get around. I had a friend at Embry Riddle that had a Cardinal RG that he used to commute home on weekends back in the late 70's. Yes, I was jealous. Thank you for the video. I recently retired and would like to get back into private flying.
Your panel cleaned up really well! Thanks Laurie
Thanks!!
Thank you for the video…I’ve been doing some research on either a Cardinal or a Skylane which are on my short list.
Excellent video and voice over. Thanks for sharing.
I owned a 72 C177B for more than 10 years and in excess of 4000 hours in it. Used it like most people use a car. All my clients were on airports. A car wasn't needed. It is an absolute joy to fly. Forgiving (aside from a newby and the porpoise), dependable and great visibility. Didn't hear anything in your video, but the early cardinal had a different wing. They fixed that with the B model and it was like night and day. The A was a dog - no argument over that. Way and I mean WAY underpowered for 4 people and a little baggage. Almost scary w/ a high density altitude day. Loved everything about my C177 but finally (after 2 engine overhauls) sold it for a C182RG Turbo, 3 blade prop. Amazing airplane as well, but significantly higher operating expense. I'd love to find a C177 to fly again - over 30 years ago was last time I flew one. -- Good video!
4000 hours in a Cardinal?? Wow! Incredible! I didn't know the early Cardinal had a different wing....interesting. Thanks!
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC Here's the story of the C177
www.skytamer.com/Cessna_177B.html
I really wish I could find such well written/demonstrated explanations on every plane. I have wanted a 177 since the very first time I saw one, however, now that I’m in a position to purchase a plane, I don’t think the cardinal fits my mission. I have a big (think football player) family so to carry more than two of us is gonna be next to impossible in anything smaller than a 182 or larger. Thank you for setting the bar on reviews and the very well put together demonstration!!!
Thank you very much! Its fun shopping for airplanes! A 182 would be great or perhaps a 206 (but they are spendy these days). Good luck finding an airplane
This video is very good .
Thanks!!
This is going to be my first airplane. Have my eye on one right now. Won’t be long now.
I flew one on pipeline patrol and I thought it was fantastic.
Beautiful aircraft. Well done video.
Great video. Would love to fly in one to see how smooth they are.
Thanks!
You can come in at 65 and land at 55 on numbers and it just lays down, but that is with the Io390 and the wing taps for lower stall.
I had one for 6 years , survived and loved it.
That instrument panel is...IDEAL!
Great plane. I've videoed a couple of ferry flights in Cardinals, which I have posted on my channel. Thanks for posting this!
James, sure love the new panel setup, especially the iPad panel mount! Did you consider having a second nav/com or GPS/com installed, in addition to the G430W?
Very nice 177RG!👍
While my 75 RG isn't as fast as some others, while cruising back from Arizona to California recently at 4500 feet, we were doing 150mph (pre 76 birds are in MPH) at 7.1 GPH! (And I have pictures of the panel to prove it). Let's see a 172 do that! Oh, useful load is 1029lbs. Not too shabby! I was looking at a Debonair but when I finally sat in a Cardinal, I said "THIS IS IT!". The flight removed any misconceptions. The biggest reason they don't build them today is, it basically competes with the 182. Think about it 🤔. The 182 to go as fast has to burn 30 to 50% more fuel for only 100lbs more useful load than my RG. The 182 is much cheaper to build, sells for more and has a bigger profit margin. Also, that extra 30 to 60 horses makes a big difference in climb (aaand fuel burn). I never had an issue with landing and never understood why some do. Just fly it like an airplane. Carry a little power over the fence and those BIG flaps will slow you down when you pull the power and like the author of this video says, just hold it and let her settle when she is ready. There's no perfect plane, but for me, the Cardinal RG hits the marks for comfort, efficiency, load and range and just "plane fun" to fly! Happy Aviating!
You mentioned that you might want to consider not getting the earlier (pre 76) models if you want to trick out the panel due to the smaller size. However I can attest that it is just barely enough room to get a nice panel. I have a 1971 177RG and I just put in dual touch screens, a backup G5 and a really nice radio stack too! Only had about an inch to spare on either side, but I made it work. Full touch bar in G3X panel with engine instruments built in. So if you want a nice panel, yes it will be easier with a 76or later. But it definitely is possible with an earlier model.
Cool, that's great to hear! I'm glad the pre 1976 panels can still get plenty of utility!
I considered modifying my 75 to a 76 panel but the FAA says it's a structural modification and requires a DER to approve it. Cessna (textron) says it ISN'T structural! It's just an extension of the aluminum panel and a different "dash cover". Sigggggggggh...
I LOVE my 177RG- it flies like a dream.
excellent!!
Great Video! Back in the 90s when I worked for the FAA, I use to fly Socata Trinidad/Tobagos. HAve you had a chance to sample those aircraft?
Thanks!! I’ve always been intrigued buy the Trinidad’s but I’ve never had a chance to fly one
Thanks for this great work. I am just a new Cardinal RG owner. Already at CFO. :)
Fantastic!
I'm surprised that the other major problem with the 1968 Cardinal wasn't mentioned. In addition to being under powered it had a non slotted stabilator. This resulted in the tail stalling before the wing making for some interesting landings! This was corrected in the 1969 model which had a slotted stabilator. The 1968 models were later retrofitted with this mod correcting the problem with those also. I've owned 6 Cardinal's throughout the years, 2 1968's 1969, 1971 RG, 1973 RG and currently a 1976 RG. It is a great airplane that started out rocky and Cessna never lived down that first year. With the mods it was one of the best airplanes that Cessna built!
Hey Mike, you make an excellent point. I have heard about the issues with the non slotted stabilators. (never flown one myself) I love my 1976 RG too:)!
Doesn't the 177 and 210 have issues with the wing mounts that have to be addressed overtime? I read somewhere, where they have had 177's and 210's loose a wing in flight due to the metal bracket (forget what it is exactly called) would break in two resulting in one of the wings coming off.
@@christopherculvey3391 Since this video was made, a C210 crashed after the wing spar carry through broke. (The C177 shares the same design) That spar had horrific corrosion. A service bulletin was issued urging owners to inspect for corrosion and cracks.
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC Ty, didn't realise that the 210 incident was recent. I knew I read about it but did not recall when and where.
So Mike, having owned a '68, would you recommend a '68 with a 177 hp mod, and all STCs, as a plane for a fairly new PPL that does mostly local flying and occasional 'short' cross country of 2-3 states? Thanks.
Nice job brother! Cessna should hire you for their marketing dept.
This is great. Well done, sir.
Thank you!
I'm giving you guys fair notice: you guys that own Cardinals better take good care of them because i'm planning on shopping for my first airplane to be a '76 (or later ) RG so I could learn to fly and get a few ratings in. God willing I'll have one before the end of next year, so take good care of them.
Almost the text out of Cardinal Flyers Online Cardinal Presentation ;-) Nice shots never the less!
Yes indeed. I got permission from Keith at the CFO to use much of that verbiage!
Awesome videos, thank you! What kind of climb perfomance do you get with that 200hp engine and 2 people and half fuel? I think this may be a good first airplane for me, having gotten my PPL in a 172 and wanting to step up to higher performance aircraft. The other option I like in my budget is a C35 or later Bonanza, but not sure if I'm ready for it...
Thanks! It'll usually do around 500fpm at 100kts in the climb when its heavy-ish at 25 inches and 2500 RPM. I've seen much better on colder days. I've never seen anyone regret getting a Cardinal:)
Eagle Eye Photography thanks for the quick reply! I think the only aircraft I’d get instead of the Cessna 177 or Bonanza 35 is a Vans RV7 or 8. I have a feeling there will be some deals out there in the coming months unfortunately...
Great video's, thanks for this!
Sweet panel.
Panel upgrade looks phenomenal! Tips on how to maximize ownership invaluable. Keeping my appetite whetted... priceless! Thanks so much Eagle Eye!
Thank you!
I like the 177RG however I don't want old avionic, BUT those avionic looks nice and clean, wonder how much cost this upgraded panel ?
Great video!)
Thanks!
I have a few questions, based on an AVweb article I read recently on Cardinals. My questions will make a lot more sense in the context of some specific comments from that article about the retractable landing gear. Rather than paraphrase, here first is an excerpt from that article.
“In 1976, Cessna finally got it right, removing all of the electrics from the gear system in favor of fully hydraulic gear using only two switches: a pressure switch to control the hydroelectric gear pump and a squat switch to keep the gear down while on the ground. While any of these gear systems are dependable if properly maintained, 1976 and later Cardinal owners are most likely to report a fully trouble-free ownership experience.
Finally, with the 1978 models, the 12-volt Prestolite hydraulic power packs were eliminated in favor of a 24-volt power pack of Cessna’s design. This has proved to be the most satisfactory of all the gear systems and, of course, would be the one to choose if cost considerations and availability permit-only 100 RGs were built in 1978.
There are other landing gear issues too, not related to the hydraulics. The most serious is the main gear actuating cylinder rod ends, which had a nasty habit of breaking off at inopportune moments, rendering the main gear inoperative. Actually, the main gear dropped to in-trail position and for a while, there was talk about carrying boathooks to reach down and pull it into the locks. But replacing the rod ends is a more permanent solution. Have your mechanic check for grease zerk fittings on the rod ends. If they are there, you have the old rod ends.”
So, my questions are: 1) Would you agree that if one could get an RG Cardinal made from 1976 to 1978, being fully hydraulic, that the gear is less prone to problems? 2) What do you think of the importance in extension & retraction speeds between the 12V and 24V landing gear, say, should you lose engine power at takeoff & you’re only 200’ AGL, since only the 1978 year had the 24V system? I think the 12-volt system is in the 10-15 second range to extend, versus about 6 or 7 seconds for the 24-volt system. 3) Since only 100 models were built in 1978 and probably not all of those are airworthy today, it might not be practical to only set one’s sites on a 1978 model. So, my question is whether the landing gear from a 1976 or 1977 model year could be converted from the 12-volt Prestolite power pack to Cessna’s 24-volt power pack and would it be practical & cost effective to do so? 4) What are your thoughts on the article’s comments about the main gear actuating cylinder rod ends? I know that’s a lot! My apologies for that. Thanks for any answers you can give & for whenever it’s feasible to get to them!!! Safe flying!
As a pilot with over 400 hours in a Cardinal, I'll take my stab at these Q's. 1) Yes. It is very simplified design, and the Cardinal Flyers group is full of experienced owners to help diagnose any issue. 2) I fly a 76, and it is slow. The 78 seems much faster. I have never experienced an issue where faster gear would have actually made a difference. I think it is just cooler. 3) Not yet, but there are several owners in Cardinal Flyers who are looking for an option that the FAA can accept, using a 12-volt pump with double the volume. 4) I've never experienced this or heard of it from another owner. Perhaps someone else has a different experience.
This is what I think about the Cardinal: I think the Cardinal was the best compromise Cessna ever made. it is not the most efficient airplane, but it is efficient. It doesn't carry the most useful load, but it carries a lot. it is not the fastest, but it is fast. It is not the biggest cabin, but it is big.
The Cardinal excels in three areas: A) The RG is a fantastic platform for aerial photography. Tuck the gear in, and there is nothing obstructing your view of the ground. and B) With 60 gallons of fuel, it has amazing range. I've know pilots to fly 7-hour legs in a Cardinal. I personally can't stay out of a bathroom more than 4 hours, so I rarely need to fill the tanks. The Cardinal has a series of holes in the fuel filler neck which makes it easy to measure 22 gallons per side. 44 gallons is usually what I think of when I am planning "full" tanks. C) For someone who is wheelchair bound, there isn't a plane that is easier to get in and out of.
Another way of looking at a Cardinal is it is similar to a Skylane, but has 150 pounds less useful load. However the Skylane needs that extra useful load, because it burns fuel 25% faster than a Cardinal. Otherwise, the performance between the two is nearly identical.
A weakness of the Cardinal is also an advantage: It uses a laminar-flow airfoil like the Centurion. The laminar-flow wing climbs slower than the ubiquitous Clark "Y" airfoil, but in straight-and-level flight it has less drag. So, the Cardinal is faster--and more efficient--in cruise.
Thanks so much Jim! You answered all my questions and I got some bonus info too! Thanks so much and safe flying!
@@jimaperkins Most excellent! Thanks!
On your I pad what app do you use?
With the IO390 upgrade you are at 151knots cruise at 4k get up around 10k and you are still 148 -145 but 6-7 gph
What model is that engine monitor ?
10:09 Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy moment of this video.
Ok, this is the coolest Cardinal ever.
LOL, thanks
I’ll never be able to own a plane but if I could, it would certainly be a Cardinal.
Question , have you ever witnessed any evidence of water in your sump cup during the preflight?
Hey Robert, excellent question. I have seen water in the sump when I left the airplane sit outside after a big rain storm. I have the old "killer" caps which are known for allowing water to leak inside. This winter I plan on installing the redesigned caps that prevent this. If you have the "killer" caps be careful:)
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC Thank you for taking the time to reply and the heads up. May I assume that you also have the integral wing tanks? Would you mind telling me the number of sump drains on each wing?
@@robertscovill6084 you bet, it has a wet wing with 1 sump per wing
I have several hours in the 177 RG , now if it was only turbo charged it would reach new heights and speed similar to a turbo 210 yet burn less fuel . If I could afford a plane the Cardinal would be near the top .
I got time the 177 RG , I enjoyed it a lot , next step was the 182 RG turbo , what a hoss that was .
I love the 182 RG Turbo! What a beast!
I hate to ask... Any of you had to deal with the spar issue yet?
Not me. From what I've heard that spar that failed on the C210 had terrible corrosion. I haven't heard of anyone else having issues yet.
I have flown one of these before and it looks good, flys good, But the quirky gear sequence kills it for me, I’ll stick with the arrow.
A cessna skylane will out carry, out cruise with bullet-proof continental engine, and no risk of gear-up landing. I flew a trip in my 182Q along with a cardinal RG and this is what I observed. The 182 will actually carry 4 average adults with their bags and full fuel. Add a little extra to your budget and purchase a 182Q. Yes ... 182Q will out cruise
Almost every cardinal RG I know has had at least one gear up landing
I have both a 182 and a Cardinal RG. (Yes... I need to sell one) Different roles for each, but I like flying the 177 more, very close the same speed on much less fuel and handling is sweet, more comfortable, looks cooler! But the 182 carries more weight and better for back country landings.
I still like the C-175 and the C-210. The Cardinal is a beauty though. But..... 😁
what about main spar ? I need peace of mind about this..Somebody please need feedback thx
Dont cardinals have a bad rap for wing spar problems?
The wing spar problems have all been on the C210, however they share the same spar. The spar that failed was had tons of corrosion and abuse
Been looking forward to part 2. I love the 177RG! Oh and be sure to check out Keith Peterson's RUclips channel for more on the Cardinal. ruclips.net/user/cardinalflyer177videos
The Mooney flies circles around this glider. No ?
Hi Al Milani, it depends on which model Mooney you are talking about. The newer Mooneys are much faster, but some of the older ones are about the same speed.
Mooneys are faster, with MUCH less cabin space, lower useful load and a manufacturer who is bankrupt
I spot my Comanche at the end of the video!
LOL, Cool!
I love cardinals dearly but the single drive mags on the later models are one of the most idiotic pieces of design that I've experienced in aviation.
Agreed, I'm not a fan on that mag either
No greater failure rate than other configurations.
@@robertpitchford1786 completely untrue. The point of having two mags is that when one breaks in any way, you have another. The single shaft means that they have a common breaking point. I don't know of any other aircraft other than those with a single drive mag who have had total, dual mag failure.
The retractable gear really looks fragile but I guess it works. Ok
Much of the script of this video taken from this article: www.cardinalflyers.com/prep/info/article.php
One reason why I don't , money . I have much time in the 177RG and really like the plane but it's still a plane and the damn thing take a lot of money .
It doesn't take that long to start this engine if you do it correctly.
I owned FG for 17 years
Ryanair boarding music
It's time that RUclips moderates amateau videos like this that pays for his flying 'career'.
Hi Bernie, this video was produced for free. I have not monetized any of my videos. I'm sorry the production quality is not good. Have a great day!
Shouldn't say Cessna Cardinal. You should say Cessna 177 RG. I hate the RG.
Would you like to give your reasons?