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

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

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.

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

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

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

"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

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

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.

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.

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.