Here's my story:
My daughter is 15 and will be 16 in September (hope to solo here on her 16th). She wants to be a Fed Ex pilot and has already taken her private pilot ground school. I'm a CFI so I can do most of her teaching (if we own the airplane).

We have very few options nearby. We have a flight school (with a 172 for $135/hr) at MTJ but the guy that runs it was out of town over the last year so it has mostly been shut down. The next nearest airplane is a 1:10 drive and its a 182 for $165/hr.

I have a friend that wants to partner on a Cardinal. Here's the listing:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/air ... 49297.html

It seems like a pretty good bird. 400 hours on the motor, NDH, talked to the owners and their shop and it sounds well cared for. Owners had it for 5 years and lost their medical. Paint, interior & radio stack are nothing to get excited about but mechanically its a nice plane. Its a 180hp and that's important around here (5200' elevation)

Here's my rough math:
Fixed
Payment $270
Insurance $1200 ($100/mo) ($40K hull)
Annual $1200 ($100/mo)
Tie down $25

Variable
Fuel (9gal/hr) $50
Oil changes ($100/50hrs) $5
Wear items ($200/50hrs) $10
Engine reserve (25K/2000) ($12.50)

If I'm correct on this stuff, the plane cost me $250/mo for fixed costs (my half) and $78/hr. I figure we will fly 10-20 hours/mo. I also assume I won't lose more than 10% of my investment if I sell it.

Here's my questions:
Is a Cardinal a decent trainer?
Anything to watch out for in these airplanes?
Can I get into any other airplane for a better price (I'm 6'5" so a 150 or 152 won't work - daughter is 6')
How does this plane look (seems like a great value to me)?
Anybody know a good shop up there for a prebuy?
Did I miss anything on the math?

This looks like a really good deal and under the market by maybe $5k. They already have a couple of other lookers. It seems we need to move quickly but that usually drives mistakes so I'd appreciate any and all input.

Lastly - I would keep the P baron, I don't see doing much traveling in a C177.

Thanks!

'Looks like a good deal. I like Cardinals...nice planes...lots of room for entry and for sitting. Enjoy. 'Not a bad X-country plane at all. What's wrong with 120 mph?

I own a 172RG. My wife and I both learned to fly in that plane and still own it. We flew all over the Midwest before buying the Bo. Great plane. The cardinal looks great.....especially for that price !

John,

I considered buying a Cardinal many years ago prior to Bonanza ownership. As I recall, the early models, maybe 68 & 69, were problematic. I see the plane you are interested in has been converted to the 180 hp engine. I'm guessing this is a good thing as the first year models were woefully underpowered with the 150. Maybe you could round up a back issue of Consumer Aviation for a side by side comparison. Also, suggest you check in with the Cardinal Flyers organization as they were helpful when I considered a C-177.

http://www.cardinalflyers.com

John,
The Cardinal that you are examining, looks like a good airplane.
My only negative thought, however, is your 5200 foot elevation. Even at sea level,
the Cardinal, with four pax is quite "climb challenged" with the 180 engine.

I would suggest that you take a demo ride in a 180 hp C-177 with full fuel and two people from your field elevation, and then you can make a better decision.

JMHO, and I wish you a successful search!

John,
The Cardinal is a nice plane. Almost bought one but daughter's college took care of that.

Anyway I would like to invite you to visit the Cessna Pilots Society. You will find a wealth of knowledge, friendly people, and answers to your questions. http://www.cessna-pilots.net

Agree -- looks like a great option!

+100 on CPS! It's not nearly as active as BT, but the quality of people is as good as it gets.

I've never flown a C177, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Great news!

The 177 and 177A had a thin wing that has poor lift and high drag at low speed. The 177B got a new wing. The 150 HP Cardinal was a real underperformer. However, that thin wing with the 180 HP might do you some good, just dont overload it or plan on climbing very well.

I also don't see a constant speed prop on that airplane, the 180HP Cardinals from the factory had that and it will perform much better than a fixed pitch, especially ay higher altitudes.

Wow. I like that Cardinal.

I was seriously in love with the idea of the Cardinal for about a year... until I sat in a few. My head was in the headliner. Not "close"... in it. I am "only" 5'-11", but I am long-of-torso and short-of-leg.

I flew in a few of them, thanks to the kindness of a few members of CFO (Cardinal Flyers Online) that were willing to share their love of those fine planes. They are comfortable enough from the passenger seat, but when I sat in the left seat, I would have to slouch or recline to keep from putting my head into the headliner.

I would own one now if not for that little revelation on my part.

The only real bug-a-boo on Cardinals is the wing spar. If it has been inspected and found to be corrosion free (and then treated with corrosion protection), there are almost no other real worries. You might want to drop a PM to Paul Millner, an outstanding member here on BT, and founder of CFO. He should be able to point you in the right direction. At the very least, go visit their website http://www.cardinalflyers.com/home/_home.php and check it out.

If you can fit in it, it should work out just great. You might even end up keeping it as a way to save gas for those weekend hamburger runs as compared to a Baron

Hi Guys,

I looked at Cardinals fairly extensively during a plane search a few years ago. Nice airplanes, and probably the best looking single Cessna ever produced. I absolutely love the look of the RG.

That said:

There is enough difference in them versus 172s/182s that you really need a guy who knows them. Many a 177 shimmy damper has exploded because they were serviced to full like every other Cessna.

The handling traits are different enough that you probably want someone who knows them.

Like our Beechcraft, you absolutely need someone familiar with the type for the pre purchase. There are a couple of gotchas that are deal killers, such as the infamous carry through spar corrosion issue.

The Cardinal Flyers group is a great bunch, but last time I checked, they were still using a mail list type forum, which can be kinda clunky.

Best,
Rich

I seem to remember hangar talk back in the day about the early Cardinals having a problem with the tails stalling before the wings. I seem to remember this being a problem in a landing configuration during the flare making it easy to drop the nose on the runway first. Was this really a problem with them? I've just heard stories regarding this, but never from anybody that I think ever actually flew one.

Edit: Just searched for Cardinal tail stall and it was a problem. Cessna reworked the tail on all the planes that had been delivered free of cost to the owners adding a slot in the leading edge of the tail on each side among other things. It was knows as Operation Cardinal Rule. This must have fixed the problem because it isn't talked about much today. (Who am I to assume that a manufacturer can't fix an airplane tail problem after the fact. Can a V-Tail flyer do that without hypocrisy coming into play?)

A long time ago I trained seven engineers in a C177 they purchased together to learn to fly. It was the very first Cardinal, and had been retained by Cessna as the certification test bed for the C177B, with the 180 hp engine, constant-speed propeller and the slotted stabilator.

I remember it being a delight to fly and, as we said at the time, "182 speed on two-thirds the fuel burn." The '68 airplanes have a lower maximum gross weight, even with the engine upgrade (the STC may be different; check the paperwork).

The Cardinal has excellent visibility, with the pilot sitting well ahead of the leading edge of the wing and behind a downward-sloping nose. The down side is this provides few airframe references for pitch attitudes and banks. Consequently learning to fly in a C177 requires an integrated approach, I.e., constant scans in and out of the panel, because precise pitch and bank control requires reference to the instruments. That's not a bad thing, approached correctly, but it is different than learning in a C172.

Another difference is the landing flare. A C177 seems to handle more of a flown-on landing than a Skyhawk-style flare-and-drop-the-last-inch touchdown. It's not bad, it's just different.

Other oddities: you need to carry a stepstool to check fuel and the top of the wing. Watch for birds nests, ice and other obstructions in the more-enclosed aileron gaps. Check the fuel vents in the trailing edges of the wingtips. Watch for frost on the bottom of the wet wings in cold weather. Be very careful to hold the huge doors when open, because any little breeze or prop/jet blast from a taxiing airplane will blow those massive sails forward. Crank open the little tiny windows for the only cabin airflow on the ground. There's not a lot of room for large panel displays on the funky Corvette instrument panel.

Passenger access is phenomenal in the front seat as well as the back (although the boarding step isn't as well placed as in other Cessnas). Overall I love the type and think it would be a great trainer if flown within its type-specific characteristics. Someone mentioned http://www.cardinalflyers.com, the Cardinal Flyers Online, as the support group for this type, and they're correct. I visited with Keith and Debbie Peterson, who run CFO, at Sun n Fun, and they are enthusiastic about expanding support for the type. I suggest you join CFO and learn more about the Cardinal, including any necessary corrections to my 25-year-old recollections.

The year was 1969. The location was Fort Lewis, Washington, Gray Army Airfield, KGRF. On GRF was a very active flight school with an average of 12 planes at any given time. Just as I soloed in a C150 a beautiful blue on white Cardinal was brought into the school's hangar and put into service. The Cardinal's tachometer showed a total of 33 hours of engine running time. It had just received the modifications to its stabilator...slots and a change in balance weights.

Within a couple of hours of instruction in it I got signed off to fly solo in the Cardinal. I loved the look of the plane and the visibility without struts, and with the wing being further back than the 150/172 planes. Landing was not as easy as in the other Cessnas. My instructor showed me how to keep in a slight bit of power for landing and by doing that "squeakers" were the norm. I flew about 20 hours in the plane as I progressed toward my commercial rating. Then...

A Musketeer Super III was put into service in the school. I never flew the Cardinal again. I had discovered the quality and wonderful handling of the Beechcraft planes. A part of that was my discovery that I liked low-wing planes better. Even so, the "Mouse" had its own quirks in the landing phase of flight and it took concentration to make good landings.

BTW, the Cardinal and Musketeer both rented at the same rate: $10/hour wet! !!!

Does anybody know if the Cardinal is certified for spins? That's one of the things I really like about the 172. I know its no longer a requirement for a PPL but all of my students get spin training as a part of my requirements - I figure if you can get comfortable with spins then something like a power-on stall is pretty simple.

Had a family meeting last night about buying a trainer and teaching my daughter to fly. We did the math and getting her to CFI (even with me teaching and us owning a plane) and the cost will be north of $30K. That's a good part of a college education and not an investment we can take lightly.

Although I'm a very proud dad, I must confess that I really don't want my daughter to be an airline pilot. I was one and she is way smarter than me. It was a pretty good job when I worked there (even though I worked for TWA in the rough years) but the job has gone downhill since then.

My hopes is that she will get a job as a CFI to support herself through college. If she can make $25/flight hr, it usually works out to half of that ($12/hr) for the hours she would put in and that's probably as good as Starbucks or McDonald's would pay and a hell of a lot better experience.

Flying and teaching flying would be a great start for a young person - the confidence to face all the challenges of life is already build into anybody that has succeeded in this path. (guess I'm talking myself into the decision....)