Cessna Cardinal 177 RG II v. Piper Arrow III (70s) v. Piper Arrow III (brand new)

Dan Luke wrote:
wrote:

Cardinal RG strikes me as just a tad faster/sleeker

It's slower by 10 knots...

Says who?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

The POH

Also most of our club planes are brand new (8 years)... minus the
Cardinal and the Chieftains.

wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:

wrote:


Cardinal RG strikes me as just a tad faster/sleeker

It's slower by 10 knots...

Says who?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


The POH

Also most of our club planes are brand new (8 years)... minus the
Cardinal and the Chieftains.


I seem to remember gettin 140-145 Knots true last time I flew the 177RG
last spring. Of course, with a 50 kt tailwind, I REALLY liked my ground
speed..

Dont base everything on the POH.. they can be overly optimistic at best
with regards to "cruise speed" and "top speed"

Dave

wrote:

Cardinal RG strikes me as just a tad faster/sleeker

It's slower by 10 knots...

Says who?

The POH

Also most of our club planes are brand new (8 years)... minus the
Cardinal and the Chieftains.

What are the book speeds for the Arrow?

The Cardinal RG will do 140+ KTAS. One that won't do that is out of rig or
has engine problems.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
wrote:


What are the book speeds for the Arrow?

The Cardinal RG will do 140+ KTAS. One that won't do that is out of rig or
has engine problems.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Book for the Arrow II ('72 - '76) is 143. If the engine/prop & (most
importantly) rigging are in good shape you should get very close to
that number.


Mike
PA28-180

Dan Luke wrote:
wrote:

Cardinal RG strikes me as just a tad faster/sleeker

It's slower by 10 knots...

Says who?

The POH

Also most of our club planes are brand new (8 years)... minus the
Cardinal and the Chieftains.

What are the book speeds for the Arrow?

The Cardinal RG will do 140+ KTAS. One that won't do that is out of rig or
has engine problems.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Arrow is 147 kias Vno, the Cardinal is 142 kias.

Vne for the Arrow is 183 kias and 174 kias for the cardinal.

Also the Arrow is, in my experience, friendlier in turbulence, don't
get me wrong, the Cardinal is a great plane but I would "prefer" an
Arrow after looking at all the details right now.

wrote:


Also the Arrow is, in my experience, friendlier in turbulence, don't
get me wrong, the Cardinal is a great plane but I would "prefer" an
Arrow after looking at all the details right now.


I wouldn't touch a Cessna RG with a 10 foot pole. For that reason alone
go with the Arrow. The Cessna retractable gear is poorly designed and
will cause you problems.

Newps wrote:
wrote:


Also the Arrow is, in my experience, friendlier in turbulence, don't
get me wrong, the Cardinal is a great plane but I would "prefer" an
Arrow after looking at all the details right now.


I wouldn't touch a Cessna RG with a 10 foot pole. For that reason alone
go with the Arrow. The Cessna retractable gear is poorly designed and
will cause you problems.

Actually wouldnt touching the door with a ten foot pole put me right
under the wind of a Cardinal?

On a serious note... I've had more problems with the landing gear in
Arrows than in the Cardinal... but the Cardinal is super-well taken
care of, what in particular makes that a poorly designed system? It
seems rendundant to me and has a simple emegency extension procedure.

wrote:



On a serious note... I've had more problems with the landing gear in
Arrows than in the Cardinal... but the Cardinal is super-well taken
care of, what in particular makes that a poorly designed system? It
seems rendundant to me and has a simple emegency extension procedure.


Too small a sample. Arrows are trouble free compared to a Cardinal RG.
Gear saddles are a failure point. You'll need a fat wallet to fix
one when it breaks. The switch on the nose gear that tells the plane
that your gear is up or down is a 99 cent piece of crap that Cessna gets
hundreds for. Constantly needs adjustment or you get faulty
indications. Cessna built the cheapest system they could and it shows.

Newps wrote:


wrote:



On a serious note... I've had more problems with the landing gear in
Arrows than in the Cardinal... but the Cardinal is super-well taken
care of, what in particular makes that a poorly designed system? It
seems rendundant to me and has a simple emegency extension procedure.


Too small a sample. Arrows are trouble free compared to a Cardinal RG.
Gear saddles are a failure point. You'll need a fat wallet to fix one
when it breaks. The switch on the nose gear that tells the plane that
your gear is up or down is a 99 cent piece of crap that Cessna gets
hundreds for. Constantly needs adjustment or you get faulty
indications. Cessna built the cheapest system they could and it shows.

And folding into the relatively narrow fuselage isn't nearly as easy as
folding straight into the wing. Although, our club Arrow was down for 6
weeks during its annual this spring waiting for gear parts...


Matt

Newps wrote:
wrote:


Also the Arrow is, in my experience, friendlier in turbulence, don't
get me wrong, the Cardinal is a great plane but I would "prefer" an
Arrow after looking at all the details right now.


I wouldn't touch a Cessna RG with a 10 foot pole. For that reason alone
go with the Arrow. The Cessna retractable gear is poorly designed and
will cause you problems.

But if I do touch an C177RG with a ten foot pole... doesn't that put me
right under the wing?

On a serious note... why is it a poor system, the RG II I've been
flying has never given the hint of a bad system, no leaks, no
hesitation no nothing, and a engenious emergency extention system to
boot.