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

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.