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

[[email protected]]

So I've decided to buy a plane (in July of 2007), and I've come to a
dilemma. I learned to fly on a Piper Arrow and very much like that
plane, though I haven't flown one in over a year, what I have been
flying is a Cessna Cardinal 177 RGII, very nice plane, great handling
and a pleasure to fly as well, I live in Hawai'i and shipping plays a
big part in inflating the value of planes here... Any plane I buy I
will be putting an AVIDYNE avionics twin LCD system into so I don't
care about the stock avionics packaged, hence my dilemma is as
follows...

I can either buy my flight clubs 177 for 50K (without avionics and a
high time engine (for 20K more the clubs mechanic will put a brand new
engine and prop on).

I can buy a Piper Arrow on the mainland and have it shipped to Hawai'i
for about 10K (from Cali), and refit that with the AVIDYNE system.

or...

I can buy a brand new Piper Arrow for a whopping 427,000 (with the
AVIDYINE and other options I can't get on the older planes stock). And
have peace of mind in a brand new plane that will last a long time
without incurring added maintenance expenses.

Whichever one I buy I will be doing a "lease-back" to the club to allow
other guys to fly it, with a small profit for me (mainly to pay for gas
and maintenance on the plane when I fly it)

Any advice is appreciated.

[Jose[_1_]]

> or...
>
> I can buy a brand new Piper Arrow for a whopping 427,000 (with the
> AVIDYINE and other options I can't get on the older planes stock).

IF a half million dollar investment is a reasonable possibility, take a
look at what you can get, used, for that price.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > or...
> >
> > I can buy a brand new Piper Arrow for a whopping 427,000 (with the
> > AVIDYINE and other options I can't get on the older planes stock).
>
> IF a half million dollar investment is a reasonable possibility, take a
> look at what you can get, used, for that price.
>
> Jose
> --
> There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I could get a lot, like a Piper 6XT or Saratoga, but the operating
costs and insurance costs blow those out of the picture, Hawai'i is a
unique flying environment, most flights are island hoppers, 30 minutes
to an hour at most, so the gas a Saratoga would burn on the ground
would make it very un-economical to operate here.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I could get a lot, like a Piper 6XT or Saratoga, but the operating
> costs and insurance costs blow those out of the picture,

So get a 300,000 plane and save 200,000 for operating costs.

> Hawai'i is a
> unique flying environment, most flights are island hoppers, 30 minutes
> to an hour at most, so the gas a Saratoga would burn on the ground
> would make it very un-economical to operate here.

I'll help keep it flying for you. :)

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > I could get a lot, like a Piper 6XT or Saratoga, but the operating
> > costs and insurance costs blow those out of the picture,
>
> So get a 300,000 plane and save 200,000 for operating costs.
>
> > Hawai'i is a
> > unique flying environment, most flights are island hoppers, 30 minutes
> > to an hour at most, so the gas a Saratoga would burn on the ground
> > would make it very un-economical to operate here.
>
> I'll help keep it flying for you. :)
>
> Jose
> --
> There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

That would be the dream... but I can't take out a loan for operating
costs, I really wish I had 500,000 in the bank though.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>So get a 300,000 plane and save 200,000 for operating costs.
> That would be the dream... but I can't take out a loan for operating
> costs, I really wish I had 500,000 in the bank though.

It's a nice dream. I like it too. And in Hawaii to boot.

If you couldn't do the 200,000 in operating costs on a 300,000 plane
(how many years would that take you to use up?), then how could you
convince a bank to lend you half a mil for a new Arrow? I'd like to
talk to your banker, I have some ideas too. :)

> Any plane I buy I
> will be putting an AVIDYNE avionics twin LCD system into

Why that particular one? For Hawaii flying, it seems all you need is
the wide screen HRPD.

The transition between Cessna and Piper is no big deal (as you know).
I've flown the Arrow and the Cutlass (though not the Cardinal). I
wouldn't pick based on what you most recently flew. I just wonder why
buy if you are going to lease back? (or why lease back if you are going
to buy?) Seems you would lose the part of the benefit of owning that
you don't get from being part of a club. Consider a partnership.

Why is the new Arrow even in the mix? It would be hard for maintanance
expenses to reach half a mil for the other airplanes you were considering.

As to short island hops, a higher performance plane will take you across
the entire chain faster. Where do you intend to go?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

> If you couldn't do the 200,000 in operating costs on a 300,000 plane
> (how many years would that take you to use up?), then how could you
> convince a bank to lend you half a mil for a new Arrow? I'd like to
> talk to your banker, I have some ideas too. :)

I can put $150,000 down. I'm going to use the plane to fly to work and
while I'm at work I wouldn't mind having it flown. Also I can't exactly
take a club plane and go home with it, then not show up at work for a
week when I take a vacation etc. etc. I would be clocking in about 400
hours a year which would make ownership more economical than rental.

> > Any plane I buy I
> > will be putting an AVIDYNE avionics twin LCD system into
>
> Why that particular one? For Hawaii flying, it seems all you need is
> the wide screen HRPD.

Personal taste, the entire system retails at about 35,000, which I
wouldn't mind given the advantages of having both that I'll go into
below.

> Why is the new Arrow even in the mix? It would be hard for maintanance
> expenses to reach half a mil for the other airplanes you were considering.

My "daily" routine would be Moloka'i to Honolulu (47 NM cross country)
don't let that fool you, between Moloka'i and O'ahu is the Kaiwi
Channel, the best weather I've ever flown in and the worst, as well as
the sneakiest, hence a pristine avionics set up would be nice, it would
also get the plane rented more.

> As to short island hops, a higher performance plane will take you across
> the entire chain faster. Where do you intend to go?

Like I said 47NM usually, while the longest flight (from Lihue to Hilo,
which will probably never happen) takes about a 3.0. It's a general
consensus amongst pilots here than a personal plane should be a
reliable durable single (retract preferable), which leads to an
enormous popularity here for the Cessna Cardinal. The consensus is also
that any commuter inter island flying (Part 135) can only be done
economically in Navajos or Chieftains, any other plane (inclucing
Cessna Twins) are uneconomical here, due to our environment.... Salt
Water (propellers last half as long here as on the mainland), humid,
low spread between temperature and dewpoint, daily moderate turbulence
(Airmet Tango was ineffect for 328 days last year), as well as the fact
that the plane needs to be "simple", the "simpler" the better as
getting parts out here for more complex airplans is known to have taken
months (getting an exhaust manifold for the Cardinal took 5 weeks last
year after a crack developed).

[Jose[_1_]]

> I can put $150,000 down.

That buys a lot of airplane, especially for your missions.

If this is your first time buying, I wouldn't go whole hog. Learn on
the first one, and then step up if necessary.

As for reliability (in the avionics, for example), you are better off in
some ways having two systems with 95% reliability than one system with
99% reliability. So, money spent for the "super reliable" may be better
spent on a simple backup system. But personal taste counts for
something (otherwise we'd all be flying other people's airplanes). I've
never owned a plane, but I certainly would not buy the very expensive
new plane as my first one. I'd learn (ownership) on a less expensive
one, make my mistakes where they don't cost as much, and once I know a
lot more than I know now, I'd trade up appropriately (or not - it may
turn out that I had already hit the sweet spot).

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave S]

Having flown the Cardinal RG and the Pa-28R-200, (and liked both).. I
would lean towards the cardinal. You have much greater visibility out
the Cardinal (and can EASILY lean forward to put your head ahead of the
leading edge and visually clear above the wing)..

High wing gives you some rain protection on the ground loading and
unloading.. I used to live in Hawaii and remember afternoon showers
there regularly on the windward sides of the islands..

Large doors that open VERY wide make for easy boarding and loading, and
there are two of them.

Cardinal RG strikes me as just a tad faster/sleeker

Again.. we are having to choose between two very good and capable
airframes, but I favor the cardinal, even though I have much more time
in the Arrow.

Dave

wrote:
> So I've decided to buy a plane (in July of 2007), and I've come to a
> dilemma. I learned to fly on a Piper Arrow and very much like that
> plane, though I haven't flown one in over a year, what I have been
> flying is a Cessna Cardinal 177 RGII, very nice plane, great handling
> and a pleasure to fly as well, I live in Hawai'i and shipping plays a
> big part in inflating the value of planes here... Any plane I buy I
> will be putting an AVIDYNE avionics twin LCD system into so I don't
> care about the stock avionics packaged, hence my dilemma is as
> follows...
>
> I can either buy my flight clubs 177 for 50K (without avionics and a
> high time engine (for 20K more the clubs mechanic will put a brand new
> engine and prop on).
>
> I can buy a Piper Arrow on the mainland and have it shipped to Hawai'i
> for about 10K (from Cali), and refit that with the AVIDYNE system.
>
> or...
>
> I can buy a brand new Piper Arrow for a whopping 427,000 (with the
> AVIDYINE and other options I can't get on the older planes stock). And
> have peace of mind in a brand new plane that will last a long time
> without incurring added maintenance expenses.
>
> Whichever one I buy I will be doing a "lease-back" to the club to allow
> other guys to fly it, with a small profit for me (mainly to pay for gas
> and maintenance on the plane when I fly it)
>
> Any advice is appreciated.
>

[[email protected]]

Dave S wrote:
> Having flown the Cardinal RG and the Pa-28R-200, (and liked both).. I
> would lean towards the cardinal. You have much greater visibility out
> the Cardinal (and can EASILY lean forward to put your head ahead of the
> leading edge and visually clear above the wing)..

Never tried leaning forward, the positive thing though about the high
wing is I can visually confirm gear are locked and down.

> High wing gives you some rain protection on the ground loading and
> unloading.. I used to live in Hawaii and remember afternoon showers
> there regularly on the windward sides of the islands..

Agreed, on Oahu you get a lot of showers that get driven over the
mountains and into two VFR arrivals for HNL, one came over so fast one
time (and the temperature dropped on me) and a thunderstorm started
forming around me, I had to dive the plane between two volcanic craters
to 400 feet AGL (one of which tops out at 1208 MSL, the other at about
350 MSL).

> Large doors that open VERY wide make for easy boarding and loading, and
> there are two of them.

Agreed

> Cardinal RG strikes me as just a tad faster/sleeker

It's slower by 10 knots... but speed wasn't my concern on a primarily
sub-cross country flight.

The reason the "new Arrow" is in the mix is because I plan on keeping
the plane for 40 years at a minimum (thats the plan, might not happen
but all signs point to yes) which would mean that a plane with 0 TT
will be a lot friendlier to my schedules than a plane thats got 5800 TT
(Cardinal RG I'm looking at).

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:

>> Cardinal RG strikes me as just a tad faster/sleeker
>
> It's slower by 10 knots...

Says who?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Judah]

" > wrote in
ups.com:

> So I've decided to buy a plane (in July of 2007), and I've come to a
> dilemma. I learned to fly on a Piper Arrow and very much like that
> plane, though I haven't flown one in over a year, what I have been
> flying is a Cessna Cardinal 177 RGII, very nice plane, great handling
> and a pleasure to fly as well, I live in Hawai'i and shipping plays a
> big part in inflating the value of planes here... Any plane I buy I
> will be putting an AVIDYNE avionics twin LCD system into so I don't
> care about the stock avionics packaged, hence my dilemma is as
> follows...
>
> I can either buy my flight clubs 177 for 50K (without avionics and a
> high time engine (for 20K more the clubs mechanic will put a brand new
> engine and prop on).
>
> I can buy a Piper Arrow on the mainland and have it shipped to Hawai'i
> for about 10K (from Cali), and refit that with the AVIDYNE system.
>
> or...
>
> I can buy a brand new Piper Arrow for a whopping 427,000 (with the
> AVIDYINE and other options I can't get on the older planes stock). And
> have peace of mind in a brand new plane that will last a long time
> without incurring added maintenance expenses.
>
> Whichever one I buy I will be doing a "lease-back" to the club to allow
> other guys to fly it, with a small profit for me (mainly to pay for gas
> and maintenance on the plane when I fly it)
>
> Any advice is appreciated.
>

I wouldn't recommend leasing back a $427,000 plane, even to a club. I
don't know how your club members treat your club's planes, and our club
members for the MOST part treat our planes wonderfully, but it takes just
one, and from my experience usually there are several...

There are different schools of thought on Lease Back in general - a
million threads in this group that you can read. I know because I
considered a leaseback on a new Cessna 172 a couple of years ago. But the
bottom line is that your fellow club members are probably not going to be
looking out for your $427,000 investment the way that you would, and they
will utilize the plane like any other in the club. So while you may have a
full 2000 hours before engine service, you'll still be replacing bald
tires, oil filters, wingtips, light bulbs, and switches at the same rate
whether you spend $427,000 or $127,000. In fact, you may have more of it
on the $427,000 if it is more popular with the club. But your hull damage
insurance bill will be significantly higher, which will inflate the hourly
rate to the club, which may offset the desire of the members to fly it,
especially if the membership is in the club to reduce their flying
expenses. Furthermore, some members may steer clear of a new plane in fear
of damaging it and being responsible.

I don't know what your club's rates are, what the usage is, or what planes
are available. But my guess is that you will be most profitable if you buy
the club's cardinal, or import one like it off the mainland, even if you
upgrade the engine, prop, and avionics. Especially if the club doesn't
already have an Arrow, I think you may find that people who did not learn
to fly on an Arrow may also shy away from it if they've flown high wing
all their life.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Dave S]

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

[[email protected]]

Judah wrote:
> " > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > So I've decided to buy a plane (in July of 2007), and I've come to a
> > dilemma. I learned to fly on a Piper Arrow and very much like that
> > plane, though I haven't flown one in over a year, what I have been
> > flying is a Cessna Cardinal 177 RGII, very nice plane, great handling
> > and a pleasure to fly as well, I live in Hawai'i and shipping plays a
> > big part in inflating the value of planes here... Any plane I buy I
> > will be putting an AVIDYNE avionics twin LCD system into so I don't
> > care about the stock avionics packaged, hence my dilemma is as
> > follows...
> >
> > I can either buy my flight clubs 177 for 50K (without avionics and a
> > high time engine (for 20K more the clubs mechanic will put a brand new
> > engine and prop on).
> >
> > I can buy a Piper Arrow on the mainland and have it shipped to Hawai'i
> > for about 10K (from Cali), and refit that with the AVIDYNE system.
> >
> > or...
> >
> > I can buy a brand new Piper Arrow for a whopping 427,000 (with the
> > AVIDYINE and other options I can't get on the older planes stock). And
> > have peace of mind in a brand new plane that will last a long time
> > without incurring added maintenance expenses.
> >
> > Whichever one I buy I will be doing a "lease-back" to the club to allow
> > other guys to fly it, with a small profit for me (mainly to pay for gas
> > and maintenance on the plane when I fly it)
> >
> > Any advice is appreciated.
> >
>
> I wouldn't recommend leasing back a $427,000 plane, even to a club. I
> don't know how your club members treat your club's planes, and our club
> members for the MOST part treat our planes wonderfully, but it takes just
> one, and from my experience usually there are several...
>
> There are different schools of thought on Lease Back in general - a
> million threads in this group that you can read. I know because I
> considered a leaseback on a new Cessna 172 a couple of years ago. But the
> bottom line is that your fellow club members are probably not going to be
> looking out for your $427,000 investment the way that you would, and they
> will utilize the plane like any other in the club. So while you may have a
> full 2000 hours before engine service, you'll still be replacing bald
> tires, oil filters, wingtips, light bulbs, and switches at the same rate
> whether you spend $427,000 or $127,000. In fact, you may have more of it
> on the $427,000 if it is more popular with the club. But your hull damage
> insurance bill will be significantly higher, which will inflate the hourly
> rate to the club, which may offset the desire of the members to fly it,
> especially if the membership is in the club to reduce their flying
> expenses. Furthermore, some members may steer clear of a new plane in fear
> of damaging it and being responsible.
>
> I don't know what your club's rates are, what the usage is, or what planes
> are available. But my guess is that you will be most profitable if you buy
> the club's cardinal, or import one like it off the mainland, even if you
> upgrade the engine, prop, and avionics. Especially if the club doesn't
> already have an Arrow, I think you may find that people who did not learn
> to fly on an Arrow may also shy away from it if they've flown high wing
> all their life.

Bottom line is that the price isn't a bother for me... the pilots who
rent my plane will be given the privelege of renting, not the right to
rent it, due to the advanced avionics and refurbishment I would do on a
used plane. Ultimatley I think that a 1970s Arrow would be the best
choice with an interior refurbishment, in terms of price, the only
question that will remain is how much do aftermarket installations of
Avidyne systems and Autopilots etc. really cost, am I going to get a
better "Deal" on the particular setup if I go with the brand new Arrow?

[Dan Luke]

> 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

[cwby-flyer]

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

[Paul kgyy]

Check with Aviation Consumer. They have a 2-volume set that compares
all common production airplanes, and the $75 (or so) price is peanuts
compared with the cost of a purchase mistake.

Each model has its advantages. The Cardinal looks sexy, provides rain
protection, and is easy to get in and out. The Arrow has a simpler
landing gear and a nice clear baggage area.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Newps]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Doug[_1_]]

Highly unlikely you will keep the plane for 40 years. Practically
unheard of.

I would recommend buying a single, non-retract airplane that will carry
the load you need to carry. Cessna 172 or 182 or a Piper Warrior or
Pathfinder. Retractable gear is a maintenance headache. With your short
hops, speed doesn't really matter. I would also recommend buying it
with the avionics you want, although with 10K in shipping costs you may
have a hard time finding exactly whay you want in Hawaii.

As for leaseback, a simple plane like a 172 or Warrior will rent MUCH
more often and the required insurance premium and required 100 hour
inspections will dictate that you rent it as much as possible if you
want to have any hope at all of breaking even or better.

If I were in your shoes I would either get a 172 or a 182, one of the
later models (1999 or so), but not a new one. New airplanes depreciate
a LOT the first year, so I'd let someone else take that hit. However an
older model that has the avionics I want, if I can find it, would do
even better financially, but would not have the newer planes
reliability. If you prefer the Piper line, then choose one of those.

Good luck.

[jmk]

> I can either buy my flight clubs 177 for 50K (without avionics and a
> high time engine (for 20K more the clubs mechanic will put a brand new
> engine and prop on).
>
> I can buy a Piper Arrow on the mainland and have it shipped to Hawai'i
> for about 10K (from Cali), and refit that with the AVIDYNE system.

Here's my two cents... Both are reasonable planes. The Cardinal *had*
a bad reputation for years (and you could pick one up cheap as a
result), but they are beginning to recover from that. I fly a turbo
Arrow III, and have a natural preference for that - but question: What
is the primary use of the plane on leaseback? Is it for training, or
for sightseeing?

Obviously the cardinal has the edge for photo and general sightseeing
in the islands. But the Arrow is clearly preferred for pilots going
for their commercial ticket. Relatively bullet proof, cheap to
operate, and all the systems can be "tested." [Emergency gear
extension, for example.]

Frankly, if I was going to look at significant bucks (as you are),
*and* going to put the plane back on leaseback - I would not even
consider *new* for either. Buy a good quality used one (either plane,
but NOT a turbo Arrow for leaseback) with a run out engine. Have a
good shop do the overhaul, add your avionics suite - and while they are
at it, have the interior re-done and get a good paint job. You should
still be well under $200K, probably more like $120K or less total. The
plane will look like new, fly like new, feel like new - and your
payments at the bank will be a small fraction of what they would be
otherwise. This will allow you to charge a lot less per hour, keeping
it rented a lot more.

[Newps]

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.

[[email protected]]

> wrote:

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

But, get to 10,500 MSL... and the Cardinal climbs and
goes faster than an equally weighted Arrow.

At least, that has been my experience in Colorado.
Yes, we have 14,000 peaks, but you don't fly OVER the
peaks, you fly AROUND them. :-)

Having had both, I prefer the Cardinal.

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Aluckyguess]

The Arrow is better looking. If your going to spend that kind of money I
would a buy Bonanza. I have flown them all. The Bonanza is so much nicer.
Kind of spoils you.

[Jim Macklin]

I'd rather have a 30 year old 36 than a brand new Cessna or
Piper. Fresh paint and a panel mod and new windshield makes
the Beech the best. It is fast, you sit up and it is done
depreciating.



"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
| The Arrow is better looking. If your going to spend that
kind of money I
| would a buy Bonanza. I have flown them all. The Bonanza is
so much nicer.
| Kind of spoils you.
|
|

[[email protected]]

Check out the Cardinal flyers online site

http://www.cardinalflyers.com/

They have alot of info on the RG, since the site is owned and operated
by 2 guys (Paul Milner and Keith Peterson) that each own an RG (Paul's
is turbo'd!). They are adamant that the gear is solid if rigged and
maintained correctly, and they have the data to prove that. All the
info you could possibly need for the landing gear and the rest of the
plane is available to members ($34/yr). Also, most RG owners report
140-145 kts cruise @ 75%.

Bud


wrote:
> 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.

[[email protected]]

Doug wrote:
> Highly unlikely you will keep the plane for 40 years. Practically
> unheard of.

One more reason why the mainland is different from Hawai'i... Two guys
at the airport have had their Cessnas for the better part of 50 years
now, one guy has a Cherokee Six he's had for 30, before that he had a
Piper cub for 20. Lot's of Beech Volpars are still in service with the
same people (or their grand-children) with which they were in service
beggining in the 30s, while one cargo airline (Kamaka Air) flies DC-3s
that it had fully restored, which I believe were old Trans-Pacific
(Aloha Airlines) DC-3s.

> I would recommend buying a single, non-retract airplane that will carry
> the load you need to carry. Cessna 172 or 182 or a Piper Warrior or
> Pathfinder. Retractable gear is a maintenance headache. With your short
> hops, speed doesn't really matter. I would also recommend buying it
> with the avionics you want, although with 10K in shipping costs you may
> have a hard time finding exactly whay you want in Hawaii.

Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.

> As for leaseback, a simple plane like a 172 or Warrior will rent MUCH
> more often and the required insurance premium and required 100 hour
> inspections will dictate that you rent it as much as possible if you
> want to have any hope at all of breaking even or better.

Yes, but it will rent to people who wil bust it up too, I'm not looking
for volume, I'm looking for people who are willing to spend a bit more
than they normally would to get a premium product, which I can think of
at least 4 already.

> If I were in your shoes I would either get a 172 or a 182, one of the
> later models (1999 or so), but not a new one. New airplanes depreciate
> a LOT the first year, so I'd let someone else take that hit. However an
> older model that has the avionics I want, if I can find it, would do
> even better financially, but would not have the newer planes
> reliability. If you prefer the Piper line, then choose one of those.

No fixed gear, I would entertain a 182RG, but the 235 HP engine puts a
big bump up in that insurance over the 200 hp one in the 177 and the
Arrow, also I in particular dislike 172s for their stall
characteristics, they seem to break quickly and fall rather than stall
out.

> Good luck.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Both the Arrow and the Cardinal...........and for that matter the Sierra,
were produced for ONE reason only. 200HP, retractable gear for commercial
students.

They are TRAINERS for the GI Bill guys of the 60's and 70's. All these
airplanes fly like trucks, have no control harmony to speak of, are not
particularly nice looking and mostly worn out.

The day the GI Bill ran out, which was in about 1978, true support for these
airplanes ran out as well.

If you like low performance and the feel of a truck...........any of the
three will suit you.


Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Dan Luke]

"karl gruber" wrote:

> Both the Arrow and the Cardinal...........and for that matter the Sierra,
> were produced for ONE reason only. 200HP, retractable gear for commercial
> students.

BS.

True in the case of the Cutlass RG, perhaps; not true in the case of the
Cardinal RG.

And what's 200 hp got to do with it?


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Newps]

wrote:
Also, most RG owners report
> 140-145 kts cruise @ 75%.


Why would anybody buy a Cardinal or Arrow for long term ownership when a
182 goes the same speed, costs less to operate and appreciates faster?

[randall g]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:24:10 -0700, "karl gruber"
> wrote:

>They are TRAINERS for the GI Bill guys of the 60's and 70's. All these
>airplanes fly like trucks, have no control harmony to speak of, are not
>particularly nice looking and mostly worn out.

Where did you get this from??? I have been flying a Cardinal for years
(and just purchased a Cardinal RG) and they fly wonderfully; far nicer
than a 172 for instance. Looks are in the eye of the beholder, but I
think Cardinals are beautiful.




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Jay Honeck]

> Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
> not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.

That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.

Atlas, our fixed-gear Piper Cherokee 235 Pathfinder, will absolutely
walk away from an Arrow in a head-to-head speed race, (I've never raced
a Cardinal RG, but I've over-taken older Mooneys and Bonanzas, too) has
a 1460 pound useful load, and burns that sweet car gas. In every
measurable way, the Pathfinder is superior to the Arrow, except one --
fuel burn. With the money you're talking about, that hardly matters.

Do what you want, but IMHO if you've got the kind of money you're
talking about spending, you'd be crazy not to get a Lancair or a
Cirrus.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> Do what you want, but IMHO if you've got the kind of money you're
> talking about spending, you'd be crazy not to get a Lancair or a
> Cirrus.

For short hops?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
> > not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.
>
> That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.
>
> Atlas, our fixed-gear Piper Cherokee 235 Pathfinder, will absolutely
> walk away from an Arrow in a head-to-head speed race

Um. If Atlas is faster than an Arrow, it has to be because of speed mods.
Put the equivalent speed mods on the Arrow and Atlas will lose. For
example, vref says the 1973 Arrow cruise is 140 knots and the 1973 235
cruise is 133 knots.

Of course, Atlas will haul way more than any Arrow.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jay Honeck]

> Um. If Atlas is faster than an Arrow, it has to be because of speed mods.
> Put the equivalent speed mods on the Arrow and Atlas will lose. For
> example, vref says the 1973 Arrow cruise is 140 knots and the 1973 235
> cruise is 133 knots.

We flight plan 142 knots.

> Of course, Atlas will haul way more than any Arrow.

Atlas will haul more than any single engine plane short of a Caravan.
He's a beast -- but we love him anyway...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Do what you want, but IMHO if you've got the kind of money you're
> > talking about spending, you'd be crazy not to get a Lancair or a
> > Cirrus.
>
> For short hops?

For any hops. If I had half a million bucks laying around, I'd be
looking at a Lancair. That is one helluva an airplane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave S]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> wrote:
> Also, most RG owners report
>
>> 140-145 kts cruise @ 75%.
>
>
>
> Why would anybody buy a Cardinal or Arrow for long term ownership when a
> 182 goes the same speed, costs less to operate and appreciates faster?


A 182 costs less? Based on what? Certainly not fuel burn at 75% power.
The 182 has greater than 200 hp... the other planes in question have
right at 200 hp for the models in question.

Dave

[Doug[_1_]]

In a leaseback situation you NEED volume to cover your ADDITIONAL costs
of insurance and 100 hours. Find out how much RENTAL insurance is vs
regular insurance (the insurance you would get if just you flew it).
Find this out before proceeding as if you are going to rent it out. And
rental insurance is sold by the month, not by the rental hour. Around
here insurance on a 172 is $1000 per year. Rental insurance is about
$8000. 100 hour inspections cost about $400 or so so that adds $4 per
hour. The only way to make money or break even is to rent it out a LOT.

[Matt Whiting]

Dave S wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> Also, most RG owners report
>>
>>> 140-145 kts cruise @ 75%.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why would anybody buy a Cardinal or Arrow for long term ownership when
>> a 182 goes the same speed, costs less to operate and appreciates faster?
>
>
>
> A 182 costs less? Based on what? Certainly not fuel burn at 75% power.
> The 182 has greater than 200 hp... the other planes in question have
> right at 200 hp for the models in question.

Insurance, annuals, maintenance. Insurance for a retract can easily be
three times that for a similar fixed gear.

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Um. If Atlas is faster than an Arrow, it has to be because of speed mods.
> > Put the equivalent speed mods on the Arrow and Atlas will lose. For
> > example, vref says the 1973 Arrow cruise is 140 knots and the 1973 235
> > cruise is 133 knots.
>
> We flight plan 142 knots.

Do you have speed mods?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[SeeAndAvoid]

When I saw this topic I figured I liked both types and would read on.
Until I saw "Hawaii" and "club/leaseback". Horrible combination.
I spend a fair amount of time out there, and I've seen what that salt
air does to decent airplanes. You want to drop half a mil on something
that will be eaten alive, and you think it'll last 30 years? It may, but
it'll probably be worth half or less what it'd be worth anywhere else.
Those guys you know that have had those airplanes that long, they
probably have no choice! Double whammy - hard to unload
corroded airplanes, and in the middle of the Pacific, those airplanes
are stuck there for life.
Then the abuse of a club or school, not to mention the ridiculously
high insurance costs. If you're going after the renter, most newer
ones will avoid these types if they aren't commercial rated. The
ones that are, let's say on vacation, may not care for the high
checkout requirement hourswise when they can get into a C172
fairly cheap and quick.
If this is a inter-island quick flight commuter, multiple daily flights
possibly, you're just begging for a gear-up somewhere. Either
by pilot error (depending on the experience/familiarity) or the
poor gear design (this is bottom of the barrel for retractables
except for maybe the Cutlass), or that dreaded salt air taking
it's toll - or all of the above. Really going on faith there, and
I'll say again, I like both of these types, but not for this mission.
Jay could be on to something, a (mostly) composite airframe
that is fixed gear. Cirrus SR20 or Diamond Star would fit
this, or possibly a Liberty XL2. Depending on which, and
what year, you could build a small fleet with half a mil. Avgas over
there aint cheap and these are more economical than what
you have in mind.
> Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
> not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.
I wouldnt use any of those words, but I'll be nice ;)
That's a whole lot of very capable airplanes you're ruling out. Guess I
have to ask, what's your #1 point in doing this? To have an airplane
for your personal use that you occasionally rent out, for tax purposes?
Or is it the possible profit in the leaseback? Or you being coaxed by
some guys trying to unload an airplane and get a new sucker to take
over the leaseback situation - often a real stinker of a situation.
(no avionics, high time engine, probably high time airframe, likely some
damage history being rented/clubbed, guaranteed of at least some corrosion
for $50k? - no favors being done there)
Either way, with either of these types, forget about a profit. You might
have the occasional good luck of nabbing a commercial student, but
overall they'd probably sit - except when you're flying it = no profit.
Meanwhile, those lowly 172's would be renting 10x as much as
yours, making those owners a...................profit. You have looked
into what insurance is, right? For that $70k Cardinal (after engine
rebuild, and tack on whatever you spend on it) I bet it's at least
$6k a year on a leaseback.
Good luck in whatever you decide, proceed with caution. Remember,
you said any advice is appreciated!
Chris

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote
>
> And what's 200 hp got to do with it?

Less fuel burned.

Lower insurance, especially for the lower time pilot.

No need for the high performance rating.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:09:52 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"karl gruber" wrote:
>
>> Both the Arrow and the Cardinal...........and for that matter the Sierra,
>> were produced for ONE reason only. 200HP, retractable gear for commercial
>> students.
>
>BS.
>
>True in the case of the Cutlass RG, perhaps; not true in the case of the
>Cardinal RG.
>
>And what's 200 hp got to do with it?

high performance-the "greater than" verbage was often loosely
translated.

TC

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

(I've never raced
> a Cardinal RG, but I've over-taken older Mooneys and Bonanzas, too)

The older Mooney I can understand, they weren't that fast. The Bonanza
driver let you win. The slowest Bonanza is a 185 mph airplane.

[Newps]

Dave S wrote:


>
>
>
> A 182 costs less? Based on what? Certainly not fuel burn at 75% power.
> The 182 has greater than 200 hp... the other planes in question have
> right at 200 hp for the models in question.

To operate as an owner the Arrow/Cardinal RG will cost far more.
Insurance alone will probably be 50% more.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Um. If Atlas is faster than an Arrow, it has to be because of speed mods.
>>Put the equivalent speed mods on the Arrow and Atlas will lose. For
>>example, vref says the 1973 Arrow cruise is 140 knots and the 1973 235
>>cruise is 133 knots.
>
>
> We flight plan 142 knots.



You don't catch, much less pass, any Bonanza at a lousy 142 kts cruise.
That means you might do 145 kts on average, 150 kts on a good day,
although I'll never believe a Cherokee goes that fast straight and level.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
> > not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.
>
> That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.

It's not about speed it's about the landing gear lever.

> Atlas, our fixed-gear Piper Cherokee 235 Pathfinder, will absolutely
> walk away from an Arrow in a head-to-head speed race, (I've never raced
> a Cardinal RG, but I've over-taken older Mooneys and Bonanzas, too) has
> a 1460 pound useful load, and burns that sweet car gas. In every
> measurable way, the Pathfinder is superior to the Arrow, except one --
> fuel burn. With the money you're talking about, that hardly matters.

A pro I'm seeing with the Arrow is the Johnson Arm flap lever, which I
greatly prefer to motorized systems every day. What all of us, and
myself, are forgetting about aircraft with more ponies than 200 hp and
more expensive (as was the case with the new arrow) is the cost of
insurance.

> Do what you want, but IMHO if you've got the kind of money you're
> talking about spending, you'd be crazy not to get a Lancair or a
> Cirrus.

Cirrus and Lancair are great planes... but what I've said a few times
now is try to get parts for them where I am, theres a practicality
portion to my purchase as well, a "happy medium" has to be reached with
an aircraft in Hawai'i, the planes you see around here are VERY limited
because of that reason, primarily to provide parts on hand for many
aircraft, while a Lancair or Cirrus might be waiting on a part for
months. Think of how horrible it is to get a new engine dropped in a
plane in Hawai'i, not only do we pay what you guys pay, but I have to
get the thing shipped here for about $3,000. One of the guys at our
hangar is overhauling the engines on his Chieftain, comes to about
$60,000 each. Just because I can spend doesn't mean I want to create a
black hole for my money.

[[email protected]]

As I said I'm fully aware of this... I already ruled out the new arrow,
so don't worry about that, I'm working on a job with Continental
Micronesia, if I can land that and get enough time I plan on moving on
to Air Tahiti Nui, then I move that plane down there, and I do plan on
maintaining it, the maintenance will be 100% behind the plane in the
environment. The plane WILL be stuck here for life. And yes, it will
get worse, Bora Bora = Salt on the Runway.

In terms of Leaseback, I also said it will be a privelege to memebers
not a right, if they mess up their out of renting it.

The 177 RG is in excellent shape, minus the engine, it is a immensly
well cared for airplane and the owner is an airline manager, the reason
it will be without a radio stack is because it is a GNS 430 system and
I want to replace it, so I had him reduce the cost based on him keeping
the GNS 430. Speaking of gear ups, the only Gear up I've heard of in
the whole time I was here was two guys on a Part 135 Checkride in which
case the gear lever wasn't lowered below the detent on a Chieftain by a
(of all things) 747 pilot with 20,000 hours.

And I do appreciate your advice, as I said already I'm off the 177 and
most likely going with an Arrow, there is a lot to be said for
simplicity (KIS, Keep it Simple), the retract is my preferred choice
because of it's versatility in emergency situations (gear ups on the
ocean would be a nightmare compounded with an ocean landing nightmare
to begin with).

The #1 point is to have a plane, and with my current living situation
(I have to commute to work by air shuttle that I should be flying, lol)
it's more benneficial for me to have my own plane.

SeeAndAvoid wrote:
> When I saw this topic I figured I liked both types and would read on.
> Until I saw "Hawaii" and "club/leaseback". Horrible combination.
> I spend a fair amount of time out there, and I've seen what that salt
> air does to decent airplanes. You want to drop half a mil on something
> that will be eaten alive, and you think it'll last 30 years? It may, but
> it'll probably be worth half or less what it'd be worth anywhere else.
> Those guys you know that have had those airplanes that long, they
> probably have no choice! Double whammy - hard to unload
> corroded airplanes, and in the middle of the Pacific, those airplanes
> are stuck there for life.
> Then the abuse of a club or school, not to mention the ridiculously
> high insurance costs. If you're going after the renter, most newer
> ones will avoid these types if they aren't commercial rated. The
> ones that are, let's say on vacation, may not care for the high
> checkout requirement hourswise when they can get into a C172
> fairly cheap and quick.
> If this is a inter-island quick flight commuter, multiple daily flights
> possibly, you're just begging for a gear-up somewhere. Either
> by pilot error (depending on the experience/familiarity) or the
> poor gear design (this is bottom of the barrel for retractables
> except for maybe the Cutlass), or that dreaded salt air taking
> it's toll - or all of the above. Really going on faith there, and
> I'll say again, I like both of these types, but not for this mission.
> Jay could be on to something, a (mostly) composite airframe
> that is fixed gear. Cirrus SR20 or Diamond Star would fit
> this, or possibly a Liberty XL2. Depending on which, and
> what year, you could build a small fleet with half a mil. Avgas over
> there aint cheap and these are more economical than what
> you have in mind.
> > Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
> > not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.
> I wouldnt use any of those words, but I'll be nice ;)
> That's a whole lot of very capable airplanes you're ruling out. Guess I
> have to ask, what's your #1 point in doing this? To have an airplane
> for your personal use that you occasionally rent out, for tax purposes?
> Or is it the possible profit in the leaseback? Or you being coaxed by
> some guys trying to unload an airplane and get a new sucker to take
> over the leaseback situation - often a real stinker of a situation.
> (no avionics, high time engine, probably high time airframe, likely some
> damage history being rented/clubbed, guaranteed of at least some corrosion
> for $50k? - no favors being done there)
> Either way, with either of these types, forget about a profit. You might
> have the occasional good luck of nabbing a commercial student, but
> overall they'd probably sit - except when you're flying it = no profit.
> Meanwhile, those lowly 172's would be renting 10x as much as
> yours, making those owners a...................profit. You have looked
> into what insurance is, right? For that $70k Cardinal (after engine
> rebuild, and tack on whatever you spend on it) I bet it's at least
> $6k a year on a leaseback.
> Good luck in whatever you decide, proceed with caution. Remember,
> you said any advice is appreciated!
> Chris

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> Um. If Atlas is faster than an Arrow, it has to be because of speed
>>> mods.
>>> Put the equivalent speed mods on the Arrow and Atlas will lose. For
>>> example, vref says the 1973 Arrow cruise is 140 knots and the 1973 235
>>> cruise is 133 knots.
>>
>>
>>
>> We flight plan 142 knots.
>
>
>
>
> You don't catch, much less pass, any Bonanza at a lousy 142 kts cruise.
> That means you might do 145 kts on average, 150 kts on a good day,
> although I'll never believe a Cherokee goes that fast straight and level.

If the Bo was flying at 50% power... :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
>>>not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.
>>
>>That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.
>
>
> It's not about speed it's about the landing gear lever.

What about it?


>>Atlas, our fixed-gear Piper Cherokee 235 Pathfinder, will absolutely
>>walk away from an Arrow in a head-to-head speed race, (I've never raced
>>a Cardinal RG, but I've over-taken older Mooneys and Bonanzas, too) has
>>a 1460 pound useful load, and burns that sweet car gas. In every
>>measurable way, the Pathfinder is superior to the Arrow, except one --
>>fuel burn. With the money you're talking about, that hardly matters.
>
>
> A pro I'm seeing with the Arrow is the Johnson Arm flap lever, which I
> greatly prefer to motorized systems every day. What all of us, and
> myself, are forgetting about aircraft with more ponies than 200 hp and
> more expensive (as was the case with the new arrow) is the cost of
> insurance.

I'm just the opposite. I learned to fly in two C150s of different
vintage. One had manual flaps and the newer one electric. I've always
preferred the electric. The manual flaps is one of the things I most
dislike about the Arrow I now fly. I could put my instrument charts
between the seats of my 182, but in the Arrow there is little room
anywhere for anything and the flap lever takes of valuable real estate.

Different strokes for different folks.

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote:

> When I saw this topic I figured I liked both types and would read on.
> Until I saw "Hawaii" and "club/leaseback". Horrible combination.
> I spend a fair amount of time out there, and I've seen what that salt
> air does to decent airplanes. You want to drop half a mil on something
> that will be eaten alive, and you think it'll last 30 years? It may, but
> it'll probably be worth half or less what it'd be worth anywhere else.
> Those guys you know that have had those airplanes that long, they
> probably have no choice! Double whammy - hard to unload
> corroded airplanes, and in the middle of the Pacific, those airplanes
> are stuck there for life.

Proper anti-corrosion treatment will keep the white powder off. I stress
*proper*. That means taking off all the inspection plates, wing and
empennage tips, etc. and using the right tools and techniques per the mfr's
recommendations.

My airplane has been parked 2 mi. from Mobile Bay for nearly 7 years and has
no corrosion. It gets Corrosion-X'd at every other annual.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> Insurance for a retract can easily be three times that for a similar
> fixed gear.

??

My insurance is $1,400/year on $90k hull. How much would a stiff leg 172
be?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>Insurance for a retract can easily be three times that for a similar
>>fixed gear.
>
>
> ??
>
> My insurance is $1,400/year on $90k hull. How much would a stiff leg 172
> be?

Beats me, ask your insurance company. :-)

My 1967 182 was less than $1,000 a year for liability and hull
insurance. The 1967 Arrow I now fly (owned by a flying club) costs
$4,000 a year for less coverage. My partner and I had to have $1MM
smooth liability as I flew on company business and they required that.
The Arrow has $700/$100 and we can't even get $1MM smooth anymore.


Matt

[Newps]

wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
>>>not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.
>>
>>That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.
>
>
> It's not about speed it's about the landing gear lever.

Which is understandable with a high performance plane. But a Cardinal
or an Arrow? Please. Those are toy planes. There's no prestige in
either of those.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>>
>> You don't catch, much less pass, any Bonanza at a lousy 142 kts
>> cruise. That means you might do 145 kts on average, 150 kts on a good
>> day, although I'll never believe a Cherokee goes that fast straight
>> and level.
>
>
> If the Bo was flying at 50% power... :-)



That would be close. At 45%(19"/2100) I get 130 kts indicated.

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>Insurance for a retract can easily be three times that for a similar
>>fixed gear.
>
>
> ??
>
> My insurance is $1,400/year on $90k hull. How much would a stiff leg 172
> be?
>

It wouldn't be three times. My 67 182 was usually right at $1000 for a
$70K hull. My Bo is $2200 this year with a $90K hull. That's on its
way down as I got the Bo with zero retract time last year. I would
expect the premium to be in the $1800 range next year.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote
>
> My airplane has been parked 2 mi. from Mobile Bay for nearly 7 years and
has
> no corrosion. It gets Corrosion-X'd at every other annual.
>
Tell us more about that. What is it, that you do, on every other annual?
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>> Call me fickle, self-oriented, greedy, snobby, what have you, but I do
>>>> not fly and will not own a fixed-gear plane.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the goofiest thing I've read here in a long time.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not about speed it's about the landing gear lever.
>
>
> Which is understandable with a high performance plane. But a Cardinal
> or an Arrow? Please. Those are toy planes. There's no prestige in
> either of those.

Prestige requires burning kerosene.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> Prestige requires burning kerosene.

Heh. We had a guest this weekend who arrived in a Pilatus. We spoke
at length about the aircraft, but the thing he was most impressed with
was the "economy" of flying a Pilatus, as it "only" cost $565/hour to
operate...

Thus proving that EVERYTHING is relative...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > Prestige requires burning kerosene.
>
> Heh. We had a guest this weekend who arrived in a Pilatus. We spoke
> at length about the aircraft, but the thing he was most impressed with
> was the "economy" of flying a Pilatus, as it "only" cost $565/hour to
> operate...
>
> Thus proving that EVERYTHING is relative...

Yummy!

Have you ever calculated what it costs to operate Atlas, per hour, including
everything?
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Prestige requires burning kerosene.
>
> Heh. We had a guest this weekend who arrived in a Pilatus. We spoke
> at length about the aircraft, but the thing he was most impressed with
> was the "economy" of flying a Pilatus, as it "only" cost $565/hour to
> operate...

hmmmm

>
> Thus proving that EVERYTHING is relative...

What's the per mile cost?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Newps" wrote)
> That would be close. At 45%(19"/2100) I get 130 kts indicated.


What's the fuel burn in that sweet-spot?


Montblack

[Newps]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Newps" wrote)
>
>> That would be close. At 45%(19"/2100) I get 130 kts indicated.
>
>
>
> What's the fuel burn in that sweet-spot?

I burn 8 gph, that's about 50 lean of peak.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

No......certainly not the Cutlass RG. It was introduced after the cutoff
date(I think it was fall of 1978) for the GI bill.

The other three wouldn't exist without the GI bill students. Thousands of
these students got their commercial in the basic three trainers.


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "karl gruber" wrote:
>
>> Both the Arrow and the Cardinal...........and for that matter the Sierra,
>> were produced for ONE reason only. 200HP, retractable gear for commercial
>> students.
>
> BS.
>
> True in the case of the Cutlass RG, perhaps; not true in the case of the
> Cardinal RG.
>
> And what's 200 hp got to do with it?
>
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>

[Dave S]

Newps wrote:
>
> It wouldn't be three times. My 67 182 was usually right at $1000 for a
> $70K hull. My Bo is $2200 this year with a $90K hull. That's on its
> way down as I got the Bo with zero retract time last year. I would
> expect the premium to be in the $1800 range next year.

Congrats on the upgrade.. hope you like it.. I've always liked the
Bonanza ride.. just not the bonanza price/cost of operation/cost of parts..

Dave

[[email protected]]

karl gruber wrote:
> No......certainly not the Cutlass RG. It was introduced after the cutoff
> date(I think it was fall of 1978) for the GI bill.
>
> The other three wouldn't exist without the GI bill students. Thousands of
> these students got their commercial in the basic three trainers.
>


So what you're saying is that a plane that was able to take the abuse
of flight schools for decades while not putting them in the hole would
for some reason be an impractical and uneconomical airplane?

[[email protected]]

Guys... I totally forgot to mention earlier (it has nothing to do with
the decision to buy the plane), but if you guys want to see that
Cardinal RG in action rent the movie Firefly with Kevin Costner... that
is that exact Cardinal RG.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Guys... I totally forgot to mention earlier (it has nothing to do with
> the decision to buy the plane), but if you guys want to see that
> Cardinal RG in action rent the movie Firefly with Kevin Costner... that
> is that exact Cardinal RG.

I mean Dragonfly.

[[email protected]]

"There's no prestige in either of those."

It's like comparing Lincoln to Bentley... both are luxurious and have
smooth rides, but one is superior in countless ways in terms of
performance (Bentley), while the other is vastly superior in terms of
reliability and maintenance expenses (Lincoln).

Theres pride in both, prestige in both.

[Dan Luke]

"Morgans" wrote:

>> My airplane has been parked 2 mi. from Mobile Bay for nearly 7 years and
> has
>> no corrosion. It gets Corrosion-X'd at every other annual.
>>
> Tell us more about that. What is it, that you do, on every other annual?

While the shop has all the covers off to do the usual annual stuff, they use
a long applicator wand to spray a fine mist of the material throughout the
interior metal surfaces of the airplane. It flows out and penetrates into
seams, fasteners, etc.

There is one downside of this treatment: the fluid will weep out of seams in
the airplane for several months and attract dirt, requiring additional
washing.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Newps]

Dave S wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> It wouldn't be three times. My 67 182 was usually right at $1000 for
>> a $70K hull. My Bo is $2200 this year with a $90K hull. That's on
>> its way down as I got the Bo with zero retract time last year. I
>> would expect the premium to be in the $1800 range next year.
>
>
> Congrats on the upgrade.. hope you like it.. I've always liked the
> Bonanza ride.. just not the bonanza price/cost of operation/cost of parts..

I've seen little difference in cost from my 182. Total operating cost
is lower as I burn a lot less gas in the local area.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:59:38 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Dave S wrote:
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It wouldn't be three times. My 67 182 was usually right at $1000 for
>>> a $70K hull. My Bo is $2200 this year with a $90K hull. That's on
>>> its way down as I got the Bo with zero retract time last year. I
>>> would expect the premium to be in the $1800 range next year.
>>
>>
>> Congrats on the upgrade.. hope you like it.. I've always liked the
>> Bonanza ride.. just not the bonanza price/cost of operation/cost of parts..
>
>I've seen little difference in cost from my 182. Total operating cost
>is lower as I burn a lot less gas in the local area.


Having flown from the four main islands, whilst on vacation, you might
consider throwing cross-winds into the equation when you make your
decision.

[Newps]

wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:59:38 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Dave S wrote:
>>
>>>Newps wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It wouldn't be three times. My 67 182 was usually right at $1000 for
>>>>a $70K hull. My Bo is $2200 this year with a $90K hull. That's on
>>>>its way down as I got the Bo with zero retract time last year. I
>>>>would expect the premium to be in the $1800 range next year.
>>>
>>>
>>>Congrats on the upgrade.. hope you like it.. I've always liked the
>>>Bonanza ride.. just not the bonanza price/cost of operation/cost of parts..
>>
>>I've seen little difference in cost from my 182. Total operating cost
>>is lower as I burn a lot less gas in the local area.
>
>
>
> Having flown from the four main islands, whilst on vacation, you might
> consider throwing cross-winds into the equation when you make your
> decision.

What are you talking about?

[john smith]

> > Tell us more about that. What is it, that you do, on every other annual?

> While the shop has all the covers off to do the usual annual stuff, they use
> a long applicator wand to spray a fine mist of the material throughout the
> interior metal surfaces of the airplane. It flows out and penetrates into
> seams, fasteners, etc.
> There is one downside of this treatment: the fluid will weep out of seams in
> the airplane for several months and attract dirt, requiring additional
> washing.

Not to mention the increasing weight and change of W/B each application.

[[email protected]]

> > Having flown from the four main islands, whilst on vacation, you might
> > consider throwing cross-winds into the equation when you make your
> > decision.

Which islands/airports did you fly in to? Theres a few fun ones here.

> What are you talking about?

The fact that our winds are that messed up in Hawai'i, like I said
040@15G35, crosswind component plays a very minor role in my decision
as I've never had a crosswing component in Honolulu or Moloka'i of more
than 10 knots.

[Dan Luke]

"john smith" wrote:


>> There is one downside of this treatment: the fluid will weep out of seams
>> in
>> the airplane for several months and attract dirt, requiring additional
>> washing.
>
> Not to mention the increasing weight and change of W/B each application.

How much?

[john smith]

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> > "john smith" wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> There is one downside of this treatment: the fluid will weep out of
> > >> seams
> > >> in
> > >> the airplane for several months and attract dirt, requiring additional
> > >> washing.
> > >
> > > Not to mention the increasing weight and change of W/B each application.
> >
> > How much?
>
> What is the weight/volume of the contents you apply?
> How many volumes have been applied over the years?

7.1 lbs/gal according to the CorrosionX website.
It also says 0.5 gal for a C172 application.
Round to 3.5 lbs/application.
For every two applications, you lose one gallon of fuel weight.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> "john smith" wrote:
>
>
> >> There is one downside of this treatment: the fluid will weep out of seams
> >> in
> >> the airplane for several months and attract dirt, requiring additional
> >> washing.
> >
> > Not to mention the increasing weight and change of W/B each application.
>
> How much?

What is the weight/volume of the contents you apply?
How many volumes have been applied over the years?

[[email protected]]

You left out that a 182 in comparable condition and equipment will
cost from $30K to 50K more to buy. When I bought my FG 177 9 years ago,
good 182's went for about 85K. How much is that a year in interest,
either paid or lost? At 5% you could buy from $1500 to $2500 of gas.

Newps wrote:
> wrote:
> Also, most RG owners report
> > 140-145 kts cruise @ 75%.
>
>
> Why would anybody buy a Cardinal or Arrow for long term ownership when a
> 182 goes the same speed, costs less to operate and appreciates faster?

[[email protected]]

Aviation consumer had an article on the Cardinals recently. They along
with many others agree that the Cardinal is one of the best looking
singles ever produced. Agreed that beauty is in the eye and all, but a
Cardinal RG in flight with the gear tucked is to me the sexiest looking
single in the air, period. They have easy controls and are about as
much "truck like" as a bicycle. One of the best flying singles too.
Many reviewers call it the Cessna that doesn't fly like a Cessna.

Bud


randall g wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:24:10 -0700, "karl gruber"
> > wrote:
>
> >They are TRAINERS for the GI Bill guys of the 60's and 70's. All these
> >airplanes fly like trucks, have no control harmony to speak of, are not
> >particularly nice looking and mostly worn out.
>
> Where did you get this from??? I have been flying a Cardinal for years
> (and just purchased a Cardinal RG) and they fly wonderfully; far nicer
> than a 172 for instance. Looks are in the eye of the beholder, but I
> think Cardinals are beautiful.
>
>
>
>
> randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
> http://www.telemark.net/randallg
> Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
> http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
> Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[[email protected]]

On 19 Sep 2006 03:40:56 -0700, "
> wrote:

>
>> > Having flown from the four main islands, whilst on vacation, you might
>> > consider throwing cross-winds into the equation when you make your
>> > decision.
>
>Which islands/airports did you fly in to? Theres a few fun ones here.
>

Oahu (DH-2 seaplane & C172), Maui, Kalaupapa, Molokai, Lanai, Kona,
Hilo, Lihue. Done on more than one visit, with Instructor as tour
guide. Lihue was difficult but found ex. CFI doing tours in C206 so
arranged for me to fly, but not take-off or land.

In 2004 I checked out in Oahu and planned a day in Molokai but didn't
like the forecast low cloud and possible CB's so cancelled. Hopefully
I'll make it in 2007 as planning 4 weeks on Oahu and 3 weeks on Maui.

>> What are you talking about?
>
>The fact that our winds are that messed up in Hawai'i, like I said
>040@15G35, crosswind component plays a very minor role in my decision
>as I've never had a crosswing component in Honolulu or Moloka'i of more
>than 10 knots.

It was just a thought after seeing the commercials flying into Maui
fast and reduced flap. First time I ever had turbulence and croswwinds
at the same time. Made me wonder about wing low in low wing aircraft.
Having said that I deliberately tested myself in our Warrior with
~15Kt X-wind.

I guess you are looking at the Cardinal I see on the Moore Air Hawaii
website? That's where I did the BFR & checked out in 2004. Hopefull
check there again along with Maui Aviators.

David
pilot(at)lochaber-physio.co.uk
G-BHJO, Scotland, UK

[Newps]

wrote:

> You left out that a 182 in comparable condition and equipment will
> cost from $30K to 50K more to buy.


Purchase price was irrelavant as the OP had $500K to play around with.



When I bought my FG 177 9 years ago,

He was talking 177 RG's, never a FG.

[Newps]

I had a Cradinal FG for a while. The best thing about it was the roll
rate. Definitely not truck like. Other than that I didn't like it.
For one thing it sat too low to the ground.

wrote:

> Aviation consumer had an article on the Cardinals recently. They along
> with many others agree that the Cardinal is one of the best looking
> singles ever produced. Agreed that beauty is in the eye and all, but a
> Cardinal RG in flight with the gear tucked is to me the sexiest looking
> single in the air, period. They have easy controls and are about as
> much "truck like" as a bicycle. One of the best flying singles too.
> Many reviewers call it the Cessna that doesn't fly like a Cessna.
>

[Dan Luke]

"john smith" wrote:

> For every two applications, you lose one gallon of fuel weight.

If you assume it all stays in the airplane between applications.

The material is somewhat volatile; that's one reason it needs to be
reapplied periodically.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

How much the OP had to spend doesn't affect the 182 vs 177 RG value
comparison, which is what I was addressing.
That I mentioned the FG was not part of the point I was making. I
was pointing out what a 182 costs 9 years ago, and that they are much
more today. Today you can get a good 177 RG for 60K and up. In fact, on
the Cardinal Flyers group the RG owners often complain and wonder why
the prices for RG's is not much more than for a FG. It gets pointed out
to them that that is simply the market forces at work. Pointing out
that for the same or less operating costs, you can buy a 182 that hauls
more, goes the same speed, and has better short field performance shows
why this is true. This is what causes the higher initial cost, since
the 182 is better in many ways.

Bud

Newps wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > You left out that a 182 in comparable condition and equipment will
> > cost from $30K to 50K more to buy.
>
>
> Purchase price was irrelavant as the OP had $500K to play around with.
>
>
>
> When I bought my FG 177 9 years ago,
>
> He was talking 177 RG's, never a FG.

[[email protected]]

How much the OP had to spend doesn't affect the 182 vs 177 RG value
comparison, which is what I was addressing.
That I mentioned the FG was not part of the point I was making. I
was pointing out what a 182 costs 9 years ago, and that they are much
more today. Today you can get a good 177 RG for 60K and up. In fact, on
the Cardinal Flyers group the RG owners often complain and wonder why
the prices for RG's is not much more than for a FG. It gets pointed out
to them that that is simply the market forces at work. Pointing out
that for the same or less operating costs, you can buy a 182 that hauls
more, goes the same speed, and has better short field performance shows
why this is true. This is what causes the higher initial cost, since
the 182 is better in many ways.

Bud

Newps wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > You left out that a 182 in comparable condition and equipment will
> > cost from $30K to 50K more to buy.
>
>
> Purchase price was irrelavant as the OP had $500K to play around with.
>
>
>
> When I bought my FG 177 9 years ago,
>
> He was talking 177 RG's, never a FG.

[Margy Natalie]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Morgans" wrote:
>
>
>>>My airplane has been parked 2 mi. from Mobile Bay for nearly 7 years and
>>
>>has
>>
>>>no corrosion. It gets Corrosion-X'd at every other annual.
>>>
>>
>>Tell us more about that. What is it, that you do, on every other annual?
>
>
> While the shop has all the covers off to do the usual annual stuff, they use
> a long applicator wand to spray a fine mist of the material throughout the
> interior metal surfaces of the airplane. It flows out and penetrates into
> seams, fasteners, etc.
>
> There is one downside of this treatment: the fluid will weep out of seams in
> the airplane for several months and attract dirt, requiring additional
> washing.
>
You know, all our friends with white airplanes complain of this. With
the dark blue we didn't notice it until we REALLY looked for it. We've
repainted a brighter blue and haven't treated it yet, so we don't know
if it will be obvious.

Margy