Comparing the RV-9A with a Cessna Cardinal RG

[Ed_Wischmeyer]

With essentially all my time over the last half dozen years being in the RV-9A, what's it like to take a cross country in a Cessna Cardinal RG?

With Smokey still not de-sooted and airworthified, a friend gave me a ride from Savannah to Tampa and back yesterday where I was invited to address the Education Committee of the University Aviation Association, talking about the Expanded Envelope Exercises®. (Here's a previous talk on that same subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C2xfFNb1sQ)

* The Cardinal is oh so much easier to get in than the RV-9A! and it has a baggage door, but I just put things on the back seat. TH RV-9A has a shelf over the baggage area that works better than the back seat of the Cessna.
* Roomy!
* On takeoff, it took forever to get in the air, and we climbed at maybe 800 feet per minute at 90 knots or so. In the RV-9A with just me aboard, I see maybe 1500 feet per minute at 110 knots. The Cardinal requires a lot of attention to keep the engine temperatures under control, but in the -9A, 110 knots takes care of it.
* The Cardinal has a much better ride in turbulence. Some of that is high wing, some might be because the seats have springs, not foam, to take the edge off the bumps.
* The RV-9A has an integrated panel with Garmin G3X Touch and GTN650. The Cardinal has two G5s, a big screen but older Garmin 550, an autopilot that had roll but only altitude hold. It seemed that doing anything with the autopilot required twice as many operations as with the newer avionics, and the newer avionics display all kinds of useful things all the time. The Cardinal had foreflight wirelessly tied in the the 550, and that was slick! On the other hand, I've go so much usable screen space that I don't need foreflight.
* On final, the Cardinal can come down like a brick if you choose to do so. I think my old RV-8 with full flaps and the constant speed prop could do the same, but it was my impression (I wasn't flying) that the Cardinal would want a little power but the RV-8 could be more easily landed from a full power off approach. And if you could do that without bouncing, give yourself a big pat on the back.
* This Cardinal had a stall warning system that was tied for worst place ever. An excessively loud voice said, "Stall!, Stall!" It was startling, not warning. (The other worst system says, "Angle, angle, push.")

Tomorrow, Sunday, I'm going for a lesson in a Cessna 172, just as a reminder of what those are like. We're only going to do two landings, not go through the brutal exercise of hand flying IFR. Brutal, that is, after all these year of autopilot.

Even if the RV-9A was flying, I might choose to rent the C172. Why? I soloed in a 172 fifty years ago Sunday.

 

[rmarshall234]

I had a fixed gear Cardinal and they are great airplanes and way underrated. A complete departure from the rest of the Cessna line ( think stabilator ) and actually challenging to land well. Nothing like the 172 you’ll be flying. It is interesting and at the same time very telling…owners and previous owners love the Cardinals and then everyone else seems to have an opinion which is usually negative. Yes, those huge flaps at 40 degrees will allow almost vertical approaches to landing. The strut-less wing with the leading edge moved so far aft allows for great visibility. The first year Cardinal (68) had a different and much thinner wing, I always thought a thin wing Cardinal with all the various other improvements made through the years would become an unbeatable combination. Had the first iteration not been underpowered and challenging to land I think it would have been very successful for Cessna but we will never know.

 

[jbDC9]

With essentially all my time over the last half dozen years being in the RV-9A, what's it like to take a cross country in a Cessna Cardinal RG?

With Smokey still not de-sooted and airworthified, a friend gave me a ride from Savannah to Tampa and back yesterday

Was that Russ MacD? Not that I’m an internet stalker or anything, but I remember names and tail numbers from my early years as a 16 yr old airport bum/ramp rat, which is weird as I can barely remember where I went on my airline work trip last week… but I’d looked up his tail number awhile back on FlightAware.

Tell him I said “hi”… he might remember me (us?) as the teenage redhead twin brothers from Dallas North Airport, bumming rides in his 172 and that same Cardinal.

And to keep on topic comparing Cessnas to RVs, a few years back I flew a C-182RG; what a pig! Slow climb, mediocre cruise speed… but at least it has a bigger cabin than my RV-8. I do like Cardinals though, they’re nice handling ships!

 

[rocketman1988]

Was that Russ MacD? Not that I’m an internet stalker or anything, but I remember names and tail numbers from my early years as a 16 yr old airport bum/ramp rat, which is weird as I can barely remember where I went on my airline work trip last week… but I’d looked up his tail number awhile back on FlightAware.

Tell him I said “hi”… he might remember me (us?) as the teenage redhead twin brothers from Dallas North Airport, bumming rides in his 172 and that same Cardinal.

And to keep on topic comparing Cessnas to RVs, a few years back I flew a C-182RG; what a pig! Slow climb, mediocre cruise speed… but at least it has a bigger cabin than my RV-8. I do like Cardinals though, they’re nice handling ships!

OTOH, that "pig" has been a workhorse for 67 years...respect where respect is due.

Oh, and it wasn't primed, either!

 

[71459]

Best handling single Cessna ever - especially fine during flare/touchdown close to the runway. I loved flying one for 100+ hours. Never understood the negative handing comments. The 172 by comparison is like flying a dump truck.

And of course, the 177RG is one of the most beautiful designs ever produced. Raked windshield, tapered, cantilever wings. A beautiful airplane..

 

[BobTurner]

Another poster hit the nail on the head: the reputation of the 177 series was ruined by the earliest years sales. Lower power engine, fixed pitch prop, gross weight that went over design goal. Some questioned if it could actually pass the faa certification test for takeoff and climb. And then, there was the nasty habit of the stabilizer stalling before the wing on landing with forward cg, dropping the plane on its nose gear. This was fixed by the world’s ugliest A/D. I saw one where a hack saw had been taken to the stabilator, to cut a leading edge slot to keep the flow attached during landing. Later generations upped the HP, changed to CS prop, factory finished leading edge slot in stabilator. These were much better airplanes, but the bad reputation of the earlier ones scared customers away. By all accounts, the RG version, with 200 HP, was a nice airplane. But note, except for fuel burn, it was inferior in every other way to the 182RG, which another poster called ‘a pig’. And of course the 177 (fixed and RG) had 4 seats but were really 3 adult airplanes. My personal ‘ugly’ peeve: Cessna tried to make the earliest versions look like 1969 cars, complete with vent windows and a large glove box on the right!

 

[riobison]

I had a 1969 177A Cardinal 17701194 serial number for 20 yrs until 2005 and then forced into selling it due to................

It was still the thin wing, had the factory 180 HP and fixed pitch prop. I completely restored it with paint, interior, Horton Stol kit and all of the Sobchuk and Maple Leaf Aviation speed mods on it.

This took it from 138 mph plane to 159 mph. To the point it could have used a repitch. But due to the anemic take off and climb performance I left it alone. Note, with the cowl on the Cardinal there was still a few knots left on the table that I never got around to chase.

It was the easiest plane to get into and out of, loads of room in both the front and rear seats, pull the rear seat and 2 mountain bikes would easily fit. Just needed to pull the front wheels off and still lots of room for the camping gear besides the bikes.

No question at least in my mind it was the nicest looking and best handling Cessna ever built. Hot and high density airports you really had to be careful due to poor take off and climb performance. The laminar flow wing didn't help there. But, once in flight it was great to fly with excellant visibility.
Landing wasn't overly difficult but you really had to pay attention to your airspeed, lots of flare and it was very heavy in the pitch.

It certainly needed something like the O390 and a cst speed to make it what it should have been.

Since then I've had an RV 4 180 hp and now into my RV9A with the 160 hp and really enjoying it. But of course I miss the C177 for the room but not the lack of performance.

Maybe the RV15 will be my next and last.

 

[jbDC9]

Man, a coupla you guys are touchy about my earlier "pig" comment; lighten up guys, it's a joke, a figure of speech. I like the 182RG, it was one of the first complex high performance ships that I ever flew... and while the performance is indeed inferior to an RV, it does have that big ol' roomy cabin and will haul lotsa mail over long distances with its big fuel tanks.

There. Y'all happy now?