banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 11:36 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 10:33 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 705
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
Username Protected wrote:
The airplane was and is awesome. Cessna killed it through their own mismanagement.


Absolutely! They thought they could just take the 210 wing and put thinner skins on it, and it would be just fine. What they missed was that it cost just as much to build a little 210 as it did to make a full size 210.

Vince


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 13:30 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19762
Post Likes: +19430
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
Absolutely! They thought they could just take the 210 wing and put thinner skins on it, and it would be just fine. What they missed was that it cost just as much to build a little 210 as it did to make a full size 210.

Back in the Philly suburbs we have a word for stuff like that... we call it STUPID.

Seriously, who was the project manager on this?

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2020, 14:55 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
What brain dead executive decided it would be a good idea to have the new model compete with the one it was meant to replace?

Initially, replacement was the plan... the Cardinal was called the 172J while in development. But the dealership network screamed bloody murder; they didn't want to stop a known winner until they were certain the Cardinal could compete.
Quote:

If they had simply shut down 172 production we’d still see new Cardinals to this day.

Probably not. The costs were too high.
Quote:
As to cost to manufacture, shame on them. Deficient engineering on the wings? Inadequate studies on cost to manufacture? Sorry, that’s just poor execution. The airplane was and is awesome. Cessna killed it through their own mismanagement.

You need to consider what was happening in the economy as a whole at the time. From the mid '60's to the mid '70's, when the Cardinal was designed to when it ended production in 1978, there was a fundamental shift... the percentage of product cost attributed to labor, versus materials, increased significantly... these included the years of Nixon-ear stagflation, with huge run-ups in costs. These factors doomed many labor-intensive products.

Cessna didn't really know how much more it was going to cost to build a strutless wing until they got some experience doing so. They thought the cost-reduction-with-experience curve would be a much steeper decline than it turned out to be.

To their credit, when they began the NGP, Next Generation Piston, project 15 years go, many inside Cessna nicknamed it the fiberglass Cardinal. It was hoped by taking advantage of composite techniques, labor cost could be driven out. Eventually, the acquisition of Columbia was determined to be more cost effective, though eventually fatally flawed. Only one test article of the NGP was built, and it was pretty! Got to see it in person in Wichita.

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2020, 15:49 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
Cardinal with a O470 would have been a GREAT Airplane.

If you read Cessna flight test engineer Bill Thompson's book, "Wings to the World" you'll see a picture of the prototype Cessna 187, a Cardinal with a O470. It wasn't any faster. Drag reduction is much more effective that horsepower, due to the cube-root rule.

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2020, 15:52 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
Was curious about engine upgrades or the power flow exhaust.

The biggest bang for the buck is the Maple Leaf fixed cowl flap (see the "sponsors" listed on the right side of the Cardinal Flyers home webpage, http://www.cardinalflyers.com)
After that, PowerFlow is pretty cost effective. If you're topping a cylinder or two, you can do the high compression piston upgrade, and get 160 HP instead of 150 HP.

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2020, 15:56 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
I don't know any fixed-leg Cardinals with more than 180 HP; the RG had a 200 HP engine

There are a handful of '68s that have had the IO360A 200 HP from the RG retrofitted. The climb well! But, engine cooling is a challenge (we know a lot about how to do that now...), and the cowling isn't wide enough requiring some modification. They don't cruise appreciably faster, due to the cube-root rule of thumb... maybe 5 knots faster?
Quote:
Someone ought to try putting an IO390 into a straight-leg 177 - it'd be a hoot. Especially if it included a constant-speed prop.

That would be fun, same cowling and cooling issues, because you won't have the airspeed to generate the cooling air flow... but there's a laundry list of mods to improve cooling and reduce drag.

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2020, 15:58 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
I think there's a TAT STC for the RG version but nothing above 180hp for the fixed gear airplane (other than minor mods).

The same guy, Jerry Kerkoff, who developed the turbo mod for the Bonanza (now Western Skyways and TAT), and the Cardinal RG also turbo'd two FG Cardinals shortly before he died. I don't know if the mod survives... one of those airplanes ended up being mine, but a subsequent owner removed it.

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2020, 16:01 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
That is what led to the slats that you see in all Cardinal stabilators.

Not slats, but slots... that mod emerged mid '68 model year, the introductory Cardinal model. They also beefed up the firewall in '69 and on, and made that beef up an option for '68's... but if you slot the stabilator (AD required) you shouldn't need a beefier firewall to drop the nose on to.

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2020, 16:03 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
Did the new wing reduce the cruise speed?

Making the wing leading edge blunter did make it a bit draggier, but Cessna compensated by reducing drag elsewhere... in fact, there were ongoing drag reductions through the 11 year model run, so faster cruise speeds, on paper at least. More and more optional equipment became standard, so empty weights tended higher... and the CS prop starting in '70 changed performance as well... so many moving parts!

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 13 Apr 2020, 13:26 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/14/17
Posts: 343
Post Likes: +83
Company: self
Aircraft: C177
Username Protected wrote:
The FBO/Cessna dealer that I was working for when the Cardinal first came out in 1968 had brand new one. Everybody hated it because its anemic performance absolutely sucked. One day it was rented to a welder (because there was nothing else available). He and his young son piled in with load of welding rods in the luggage compartment; 40, 50 lbs or ?. When he returned, he raved about how much better it performed. Obviously, a CG situation. From then on, that was the only one in our fleet this customer would rent. Everybody else still thought it sucked.

To this day I can't understand how Cessna released that plane under those conditions. You're supposedly introducing the next generation of the 172, the airplane to replace the venerable Skyhawk. Why on Earth would you make it so under performing in comparison? It's so much better in every other way, why not put an engine in it that gave it equivalent or better performance?

Idiocy. And then, rather than switch production to the 177, they sold them both side by side. And the Cardinal didn't sell well... huh. Imagine that.

Morons.


Well, pilots can be morons too. The 68 177 holds 60 pounds more useable fuel than the same year 172 does. Do you suppose pilots noticed back then or just kicked the tires and went? (172H = 216 pounds useable 172K = 228 pounds usable 177 = 288 pounds)

If I had to choose between a 150/160 horse 172 or a 150 horse 177 I'd pick the 177 every time. You can fly 5 hours straight and land with more than 10 gallons left. It is more comfortable and the handling is much nicer (except flare & stall characteristics are not 172-like but fine) the view is great.

We also have a 68 182, both are great airplanes IMHO. I trained in 172P, put 200 hours on 150B, I hated the 177 when Dad bought it, too different. Now the 177 is one of my favorites. I've got around 50 hours in a 172A, 75 hours in the 182L, 50 hours or so in a 205. I've got about 25 hours flying a 1977 177B too. I've really enjoyed flying it also, but when the $$$ are considered, I'd rather have the 68 with the 150 horse, fixed pitch, single magnetos and no prop gov. The 68 is happy with a steady diet of $2.50ish 87 mogas, cheap engine, and cheap prop does everything I ask as a flatlander in the midwest.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2020, 07:48 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/04/11
Posts: 1712
Post Likes: +242
Company: W. John Gadd, Esq.
Location: Florida
Aircraft: C55 Baron
Username Protected wrote:
So is there an available STC to put a 180 in a 150hp 68 model?

If so, does it make it the equivalent to a '69 177A?

George



I've heard there is, but I haven't found it and don't know the costs. I've heard there are three. Two with the 360A1A and one with the 360A3A.

Found an A1A motor and what might be an okay price. Still haven't found the prop nor the STC.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2020, 08:32 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 8406
Post Likes: +3662
Company: Aviation Tools / CCX
Location: KSMQ New Jersey
Aircraft: TBM700C2
Username Protected wrote:
So is there an available STC to put a 180 in a 150hp 68 model?

If so, does it make it the equivalent to a '69 177A?

George



I've heard there is, but I haven't found it and don't know the costs. I've heard there are three. Two with the 360A1A and one with the 360A3A.

Found an A1A motor and what might be an okay price. Still haven't found the prop nor the STC.


I see 2 STCs (there are others but they are all one-time STCs):

SA545CE - Bush Conversions Inc? Doesn't seem to be available

SA01043SW - Aero Upgrade LLC http://www.aeroupgrade.com/services.html

Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2020, 09:33 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/04/11
Posts: 1712
Post Likes: +242
Company: W. John Gadd, Esq.
Location: Florida
Aircraft: C55 Baron
I see 2 STCs (there are others but they are all one-time STCs):

SA545CE - Bush Conversions Inc? Doesn't seem to be available

SA01043SW - Aero Upgrade LLC http://www.aeroupgrade.com/services.html[/quote]


Thank you.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2020, 14:00 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/04/11
Posts: 1712
Post Likes: +242
Company: W. John Gadd, Esq.
Location: Florida
Aircraft: C55 Baron
I've heard there is, but I haven't found it and don't know the costs. I've heard there are three. Two with the 360A1A and one with the 360A3A.

Found an A1A motor and what might be an okay price. Still haven't found the prop nor the STC.[/quote]

I see 2 STCs (there are others but they are all one-time STCs):

SA545CE - Bush Conversions Inc? Doesn't seem to be available

SA01043SW - Aero Upgrade LLC http://www.aeroupgrade.com/services.html[/quote]


I was told there is a conversion that does not require a CS prop. That would save a lot of money. I cannot imagine a CS prop would be that much of a performance boost on a 180hp engine---but would love to hear thoughts on the subject.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 1968 Cardinal Fixed Gear
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2020, 21:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 705
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
Username Protected wrote:
I was told there is a conversion that does not require a CS prop. That would save a lot of money. I cannot imagine a CS prop would be that much of a performance boost on a 180hp engine---but would love to hear thoughts on the subject.


All the 1970 and later FG Cardinals were CS prop and 180 HP. Just to be able to turn down the noise i.e RPM in cruise is worth the cost.

Vince


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.