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

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.

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

"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

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?

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

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"

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.

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

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"

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"