Heres an interesting thought exercise. Imagine a factory-new Cessna 172 parked next to a newly painted 1969 Cardinal. Then ask a casual observer to guess which one is the newer airplane. We can all but guarantee that the Cardinal will win this contest, hands down.
Although the design is more than three decades old, the Cessna 177 Cardinal-with its racy sloped windshield, wide doors and strutless wings-looks far more modern than the newest Skyhawks coming out of Cessnas Independence, Kansas plant. Yet, sadly, the Cardinal is a poster child for why innovation and audacity in general aviation development has often met dismal results in the market.
Despite high expectations for a design that would usher in new thinking in light aircraft, the Cardinal had a rocky start and was gone from Cessnas inventory a decade after it emerged. Although the Cardinal was intended to be a Skyhawk killer, the venerable 172 outlasted it and continues to be a mainstay in Cessnas current piston aircraft line.
Still, the Cardinal enjoys enthusiastic support among owners for many of the reasons that Cessna thought it would become a hit. And despite its warts and shortfalls, many of which have been rectified, the airplane is an excellent choice for owners who want a bit more performance than the Skyhawk offers without stepping up to an expensive higher-performance single.
Model History
By the time the Cardinal appeared, the Cessna 172 was long in the tooth, having been on the market for 12 years. It was time for something new. When the first Cardinals hit dealers in 1967, buyers were clearly confronted with just that.
Besides being sleeker and strutless, the new model had a stabilator, just like Pipers competing Cherokees did. With the wings placed aft of the main part of the cabin, the pilot sat ahead of the leading edge and this produced better inflight visibility than any of the previous Cessnas had.
The 1968 Cardinal had a fixed-pitch prop and the same engine as the 172: the Lycoming O-320- E2D. The airplane was designed with the 180-HP engine in mind but Cessna had ordered 2000 150-HP engines from Lycoming.
Cessna was so confident that the Cardinal would succeed that the Skyhawk production line was actually shut down in anticipation of the Hawks planned demise. Things didnt work out that way, however.
The 150-HP, fixed-pitch Cardinal looked great but wasnt such a hot flyer. In fact, it had handling problems, especially in the landing flare, where even experienced pilots found themselves running out of elevator authority. And it was underpowered; the airplane simply wouldnt climb well, a shortcoming that buyers wont tolerate. (In those days, new airplanes were still sold to leaseback operations for flight training and a poor climber was a loser on the rental line.)
Cessna produced 1164 Cardinals that first year but word got around about the airplanes faults. The following year, sales slumped, even though other models were selling well. In fact, no more than 250 Cardinals were built in any single year after the airplanes introduction. (A total of 2752 were built, eventually.)
Most of the 1968 Cardinals bad reputation was justified. The wing was a high-performance NACA 6400 series airfoil, the same one used in the Aerostar and Learjet. But that airfoil tends to build up drag quickly at high angles of attack and low speeds, which isn’t a good trait for an airplane flown by low-time, step-up pilots. The stall speed was higher than the Skyhawks, too.
Although the book numbers for stall and rate of climb didnt look bad, they turned out to be wildly optimistic. In the late 1970s, an accident involving an original model 150-HP Cardinal prompted a series of test flights that showed the 177 didnt quite live up to its performance figures. The tests actually showed that the 177 didnt meet all of the FAA certification requirements but because these trials werent conducted by the FAA or Cessna, no official action was taken as a result.
The test pilot measured the gross-weight rate of climb at 560 feet per minute, we’ll short of the manuals stated 670 FPM. Takeoff distances over a 50-foot obstacle were understated as well. The accident in question involved a pilot who supposedly had operated the airplane as described in the manual and wound up clipping the trees at the end of the runway. The tests proved that this was in fact the case-the book was wrong, the pilot followed it and crashed.
Controls, Power
The 1968 Cardinal as originally delivered was quite sensitive on the controls, particularly in the pitch mode. The stabilator could stall in the landing flare, resulting in a sudden loss of tail power and an unexpected plunge of the nosewheel onto the runway.
Porpoising and bounced landings were commonplace. Various studies showed a disproportionately high rate of hard landings and takeoff stall-mush accidents for the early models. To add insult to injury, the Cardinals useful load was less than that of the Skyhawks. No surprise then that a marketing plan which offered an airplane that didnt climb well, was difficult to land and couldnt carry as much as the model it was supposed to replace was doomed. Cessna realized it had made a major gaffe with the Cardinal. It restarted the Skyhawk production line and set to work fixing the Cardinals problems. Under the so-called Cardinal Rule program, it retrofitted leading slots to stabilators on Cardinals already in the field. This fixed the stabilator-stalling problem, although pitch forces remained lighter than average for a Cessna.
The 1969 model (177A) had a 180-HP Lycoming engine, plus there was a 150-pound increase in gross weight to compensate for both the engines increased mass and some shortcomings in the original airplanes useful load. The stabilator slots were incorporated and the stabilator-to-wheel control linkage was changed to improve the pitch characteristics. The nosegear/firewall area was also beefed up to prevent bent metal from bounced landings. This fix was offered as a retrofit to 1968 models via an early bulletin.
Despite the improvements, 1969 sales nose-dived to about 200 units, while Skyhawk sales rebounded to their former league-leading levels. In 1970, Cessna made more major improvements, yielding the 177B. The 6400 series air-foil was changed to a more conventional 2400-series similar to the Skyhawks, and a constant-speed propeller was added for better takeoff/climb performance.
At last, the Cardinal had all the makings of a good airplane. From 1971 on, the Cardinal got only minor changes. In 1973, a 61-gallon fuel capacity became optional, and cowling improvements boosted cruise speed from 139 to 143 MPH. In 1978, a 28-volt electrical system was added.
In 1975, speed went up again, but this was really mostly the result of some creative number crunching by Cessna: The cruise RPM limit was increased so that 75 percent power could be obtained at 10,000 feet instead of at 8000 feet, as before.
At the time, Cessnas marketing department called the Cardinal the fastest 180-HP, fixed-gear airplane in the world. Not true-the Tiger was at least 8 or 9 knots faster at about the same price.
Finally, 1976 brought a new instrument panel. The older panels had a 1960s Buick-style split panel arrangement that did little but rob panel space. The 1976 panel is a more conventional, full-width design.
Throughout this period, the airplane continued to be a slow seller, despite Cessnas successful efforts to fix the original Cardinals quirks. It was the only Cessna single that didnt lead its category in sales. Pipers Cherokee 180/Archer beat it handily, as did the upstart Grumman Tiger.
In 1977, Cessna finally gave up on further changes to the Cardinal. The Hawk XP was introduced-same performance, less attractive, worse handling, noisier, more cramped, much higher fuel consumption and engine maintenance, lower engine reliability and TBO. Such is the way of GA marketing, however.
Meanwhile, Cessna added ARC radios to the standard equipment list and boosted the Cardinals price by about 50 percent. Customers preferred the Hawk XP by a four-to-one margin. Price and competition from Grumman and Piper undoubtedly had a lot to do with the poor sales, but the Cardinals reputation clung to the model like a cheap suit.
In 1978, Cessna made one last-ditch effort to save the Cardinal. The company spruced it up with some fancy interior appointments and radio packages-along with an absurdly high price tag-and called it the Cardinal Classic. Only 79 intrepid souls sprang for the gussied-up airplane.
No surprise here: Average flyaway price of a Cardinal Classic was more than $50,000, compared to $30,000 for a Tiger or under $40,000 for an Archer. But the Classic remained devalued for quite some time. Normally, an airplane depreciates from its new value for eight years before resuming an upward value climb , eventually surpassing its new price.
As of summer 2003, a Cardinal Classic retails for $60,000, a level of appreciation that has deeply trailed inflation. The airplane took about 20 years to regain its original value, which is dismal price performance compared to other models in this or any other class.
But there’s a silver lining in that cloud for potential buyers. Because other models have had price spikes-namely the Archer and the Tiger-the Cardinal represents a better value, based on pure performance alone. With price parity, the buyer can choose the greater comfort of the Cardinal or the speed of the Tiger without paying a premium either way.
Performance
The Cardinals performance is adequate by 1970s standards for 180-HP airplanes but more modern designs best it. Book cruise speeds range from 120 to 130 knots, while the 150-HP 177 is listed at 115 knots. Those numbers fall short of the Grumman Tiger (139 knots) and are abouton par with the Cherokee 180/Archer and better than thepokey Beech Sundowner. New-age designs such as the Diamond Star and Cirrus SR20-still four-place, fixed-gear cruisers like the Cardinal-obviously do better.
Owners report real-world performance reasonably close to book figures, except for the 1968 model. Typical figures: 125 knots on 9 to 10 GPH. The 1968 model, judging from owner reports, is lucky to cruise at 105 knots.
Climb rate is about average for this class of aircraft-again, with the exception of the 1968 airplane, whose owners universally complain about its lethargic climb performance.
Owners typically report useful loads in the 850 to 950-pound range, depending on installed equipment. Thats a bit less than the Cherokee 180 or the Grumman Tiger but perhaps not enough to rule one in favor of the other solely on payload issues.
Assuming a fairly typical 900-pound useful load and 49-gallon tanks, the Cardinal has about 600 pounds for people and bags once the tanks are filled. Thats three FAA-standard people-well, a little less if standard becomes 195 pounds-and 90 pounds of luggage.
If you want to carry four full-size people and 100 pounds of luggage, you’ll be limited to perhaps 20 gallons of fuel-barely enough to fly anywhere safely. Weight limitations make the Cardinal essentially a three-passenger airplane, or at best a two-plus-two with adults and kids aboard, not four lard butts.
With full tanks, the Cardinal has decent but not exceptional range. The 49 gallons usable and typical 9- to 10-GPH fuel flow allow the Cardinal to fly four hours with reserves and cover more than 500 miles. The 60-gallon tanks available on post-1973 models boost endurance by an hour and range by 150 miles, at the expense of 66 pounds of payload.
A typical 60-gallon Cardinal with tanks full can carry just 540 pounds of cabin load. The 1968 150-HP Cardinal (2350 pounds gross) has a gross weight 150 pounds lower than the 177A and 177B. Empty weight is only a bit less, so the 177s equipped useful load may be as low as 750 pounds. Put in four 170-pounders and 70 pounds of luggage and there’s zero-yes zero-left for fuel.
Legally speaking, the 177s converted to the 180 HP constant-speed setup are worse, since useful load cant be legally increased while the new engine/prop package is about 50 pounds heavier. But most pilots of the 180-HP 177s fly as if they have 177As or Bs. From the performance point of view, theyre perfectly safe doing that. (As far as the landing gear and wing spar go, were not so sure.)
Cabin, Ergonomics
One goal Cessna hoped to achieve with the Cardinal was to improve cabin comfort and design over the 172/182 series aircraft and to best the competition. In this regard, it succeeded. The Cardinal cabin is fully 6 inches wider than a Cherokees and puts its sibling Skyhawk to shame.
The baggage compartment is enormous and relatively easy to get to through a dedicated door. As noted, the airplanes wing sits higher and farther back, allowing excellent visibility out of the panoramic windshield. Unlike the other high-wing Cessnas, the pilots vision up and to the side is not blocked by the wing.
To a degree, this gives the pilot some of the best of both worlds-good visibility down and to the side and less high-wing blockage of vision above the airplane. The Cardinals enormous doors offer another benefit: of all airplane models were familiar with, its the easiest to get in and out of. There’s no wing strut to get in the way and the floor sits lower to the ground than other high-wing Cessnas, so the step up is a small one. Tall people, however, will have to duck a bit to get under the low-slung wing.
Those doors require special care, by the way. Owners tell us that a gust of wind can damage the door and surrounding sheet metal when it opens violently. One reader pointed out that with both doors open and the airplane pointed downwind, the doors can act as fairly efficient sails.
Overall, the Cardinal is probably the roomiest four-place airplane made, not counting semi-six-seaters like the Bonanza or Cessna 210. The tradeoff for a big cabin, of course, is speed. The main reason for the Tigers speed advantage over the Cardinal is that the latter has a bigger passenger compartment while the former is tight, with a minimal backseat and smaller frontal area.
Handling
The Cardinal wins praise from owners for its handlingqualities. Despite having lighter control forces than other Cessnas, the airplane makes a fine instrument platform. In truth, the pitch sensitivity and porpoising tendencies of the Cardinal have never really been completely tamed.
Pitch control forces are light (particularly compared to the notoriously ponderous Skyhawk and Skylane) and Skyhawk pilots are sometimes surprised by the responsiveness and pitch authority. On takeoff, the Cardinal must be rotated with firm wheel pressure, at least with only two people in front and flaps up. This is, in part, because the pilot sits we’ll ahead of the wing; all that weight out front has its consequences. Dropping 10 to 15 degrees of flaps for takeoff, however, will require a much less vigorous rotation moment.
In cruise flight, the Cardinal is a steady IFR airplane-if you can get it trimmed out laterally and keep the fuel balanced. Several owners reported gross fuel-flow discrepancies when the fuel selector is on both, with the tendency for fuel to flow from the left wing. Left-right switching every half hour may be necessary to maintain good lateral trim or a few seconds of uncoordinated flight to clear the liquid from tank vent system, which is what causes the imbalance.
Otherwise, the Cardinals fuel system is we’ll designed. There’s a reservoir under the floor, which means that there’s essentially no chance of unporting as the result of maneuvering with low fuel. There is, however, a warning in the handbook about long nose-down descents with low fuel, which tends to run to the front of the wing tanks. The tank vents are cross-connected to the opposite wing and are led through the trailing edge where icing isn’t a concern.
Maintenance, Costs
At least some owners are attracted to the Cardinal because it has a benign maintenance history with few expensive gotchas.
Owners tell us annual inspections typically cost about $700 to $900 for the basic once-over, which is typical for this class of airplane. But this can vary widely. You might have to spend $4000 to bring back a barn dweller to airworthy status. Parts arent a real problem, despite the models relatively low population and age. But its not as easy to find all parts as it might be for the 172/182 series. Some things to watch:
McCauley constant-speed prop inspection. Recommended overhaul is every five years or 1500 hours. Check compliance on any airplane considered for purchase, at least for a prop reseal and inspection within the past five years.
Oil pump gears. Pre-1976 Cardinals should be checked for compliance with AD 75-08-09 on the oil pump gears. The Cardinals engine model was not specifically called out in the vaguely-worded AD and some mechanics may not be aware that the AD applies. Semantic hair-splitting aside, make sure this AD has been done.
Water leaks through the windshield and door. Many owners reported being plagued with leaks. Check the sealant and any water damage. Check owners groups for a simple fix.
That #@%*&# Bendix mag, as one owner put it. The 1975-78 Cardinal came with the notorious Bendix dual magneto. Other aircraft have it, too, and nobody likes it.
Some Cardinals, particularly those in humid coastal areas, have been afflicted with corrosion. See service bulletin SE 80-02 for details. Also, Cardinals built in 1977 and 1978 came with slick polyurethane paint jobs. A nice idea, but unfortunately Cessna failed to Alodine and prime the metal properly and there was a rash of filiform corrosion on painted surfaces. Many, if not most, of these airplanes have been repainted, but be careful nonetheless.
Clunking nosewheels. These can be cured with shims and/or new O-rings. Find a mechanic who knows Cardinals to do the job.
Cracking stabilator balance arm brackets. New steel ones replace the old aluminum ones. Do this during the inspection. Its a half-day job.
One other major maintenance factor: ARC radios. Most Cardinals came with avionics manufactured by Cessnas onetime captive ARC company. Starting in the mid-1970s, the quality of ARC radios began to decline. ARC equipment rated dead last in our avionics owner surveys during that period and there were big shake-ups at the ARC factory at the time. Many owners have replaced part or all of older ARC panels.
There are few onerous ADs on the Cardinal. A couple of recent shotgun ADs (2000-06-01 and 99-27-02) deal with fuel valves and strainers; not a big deal. Another shotgun AD is a big deal, however. Its 98-2-8, which calls for inspection of the crank bore for corrosion on the fixed-pitch airplanes. At the least, its repetitive, and it could mean replacement of the crank. Make sure it has been done.
Mods, Owner Groups
The big mod for the Cardinal is the one that converts the 150-HP model to the 180-HP constant-speed Lycoming. The conversion is quick and easy, basically a bolt-on job, so no surprise that hundreds have been done.
Two STCs are available, one from Avcon Conversions (316-284-2842) and one from Bush (800-752-0748). The two are similar. Both sell STC paperwork and kit parts; you buy an engine and prop elsewhere and hire out the shop to do the job yourself.
The 1968, 177A and B are on the same type certificate and some have upgraded to the later Cessna-selected counterbalanced engine/prop configuration.
Horton Industries (800-835-205) offers a STOL kit for the Cardinal consisting of a leading-edge cuff, conical wing tips and vortex generators on the vertical fin. The above-mentioned Bush also offers a STOL mod for the Cardinal, as does Sierra Industries. Contact Sierra at 830-278-4481 or www.sijet.com.
There’s a burgeoning business in Cardinal speed mods. Canadian Roy Sobchuck came up with most of them and theyre sold by Maple Leaf Aviation (204-728-7618). The mods include a nose strut fairing-claimed speed gain of 8 MPH-tailcone fairing (177A/B only, 7 MPH claimed but seldom seen) exhaust stack fairing, for a 2 MPH gain and a 75-degree drop in engine temperature.
The company also sells landing light covers, cowl cheek fairings, fuel drain fairings, ADF loop covers and wheel pants for which minor speed increases are claimed.
Cardinal owners have a choice of two organizations. The Cessna Pilots Association (www.cessna.org and 805-922-2580) is the biggest overall Cessna group and publishes useful technical info, much of it of interest to other single-engine Cessna owners.
For the true Cardinal fan, we recommend the highly regarded Cardinal Flyers Online, (www.cardinalflyers.com) which has a first-rate Web site and a near daily e-mail newsletter.
Owner Comments
I have owned a 1977 fixed-gear Cessna Cardinal since 1989. Previous airplanes owned were two Skyhawks and a 1980 Skylane. I sold the Skylane in 1986 and rented until I bought the Cardinal. I decided on a Cardinal after reading the monthly AD notices published in Cessna Pilots Association Magazine. I noticed that Cardinal ADs were very rare. After fixing all that was wrong in the early Cardinals, Cessna got it right. The Cardinal airframe is reliable and the Lycoming O-360 is one of the most reliable engines available.
Other strong points: Cardinals have about the same amount of shoulder room as post-1963 Skylanes. Rear seat leg room is huge. My Cardinal has the 60-gallon fuel option, which gives a five to six-hour range.
Despite the myths, Cardinals are easy to fly and land. There are lots of theories about how a Cardinal should be landed, but I land mine just like I did my 172s. It has been said that a full-stall landing cannot be made in a Cardinal, but I do it with every landing. Two doors make entry and exit more convenient than one door and climbing over a wing to ingress and egress. The seats areat just the right height to just back up and sit down.
Its an easy airplane for smaller people and those with infirmities to enter. My brother has had a stroke andhas difficulty getting into a 182 or 210 and its justabout impossible for him to get into a low-wing airplane. But he has no problem withmy Cardinal. Cabin structure appears to be strong, based on evidence from crashes. Visibility is better than any other Cessna single.
Some weak points:Cessna avionics in pre-1978 models. The 1978s had RT-385 navcomms, which tend to be more reliable than the previous navcomms. Manyowners have replaced the early Cessna navcomms, audio panels and transponders with other brands. Cessna ADFs and autopilots, despite a lot of grumbling about them, seem to remain when everything else has been replaced. I started replacing my Cessna avionics within a few months of purchase when they started to fail.
Another weak point that applies to most airplanesfrom the 1960s and 1970s is corrosion. Corrosion treatment is recommended and the main spar carry-through should be checked at each annual inspection for corrosion. Stabilator balance-weight brackets tend to crack and should be inspected regularly after 2000 hours total time. Many have opted to replace them before cracks appear.
The long-range tanks eat into payload, so one must be careful not to load the airplane overgross. The large doors are subject to wind damage if opened whenthe airplane is pointed down wind. Try to avoid this.
When tied down, thepilots door can be opened by high, gusting winds, unless the inside door handle is pushed forward by climbing into the baggage compartment and reaching forward over the seats. (Or the doors can be bungee corded together to prevent damage. -Ed.)
Original Cessnaflush fuel caps eventually begin to leak water. They should be replaced with Cessna umbrella caps, or Monarch caps.
Performance is about what one would expect with a 2500-pound gross weight airplane with 180 HP. Cruise speeds are typically in the 120 to 125-knot range. Rate of climb, except in hot weather, is about 500 to 700 FPM. I often wish for a turbocharger on hot Texas days. A couple of fixed-gearCardinals have been so modified.
Maple Leaf in Canada makes a number of modifications that enhance speed and climb performance, particularly in the 150-HP models. Power Flow makes a low-restriction exhaust that is approved for both the 150 and 180-HP models.
Cardinals tend to garner compliments from people who are not familiar with them. And it doesnt have a name that begins with Sky. Even some who have been around a while have no idea what a Cessna 177 is when I mention what I fly.
I have instructed in my airplane to primary students and since they know no difference, they have no trouble mastering the airplane. I think its no more difficult that a 152for beginning ab initio training.
I sometimes wish for more speed and themost logical choice for an upgrade is a 177RG, perhaps with one of Tornado Alleys turbonormalizers, which have just recently been re-introduced for the Cardinal RG.
By far the most useful organization for owners ofCardinals ofanyiteration is Cardinal Flyers Online, which hasone of the best Web sites of any type club. Keith Peterson is Webmaster andPaul Millner editsthe best digest around, which arrives in my e-mail on an almost daily basis. Itcertainly surpasses the Beech digest which is not edited to any great extent.
Guy Maher, a former Cessna employee with several thousand hours in Cardinals and a CFO member, teaches a Cardinal Operations course that he has taken on the road around the country. The Cessna Pilots Association is another useful organization that has, in the past, held Cardinal systems and operations courses. Any Cardinal owner should be a member of both organizations.
-Larry W. James
Austin, Texas
I purchased my 1977 Cardinal 177B in 1998 with 1300 SMOH. At the time, it was a leaseback to a local flying club, which I had joined because I was interested in Cardinals.Since I liked the way it flew, I made the club an offer and bought it.
Since then, Ive flown it 550 hours and still like it. Performance with the O-360 and constant-speed prop is fine for typical GA flying and certainly exceeds that of the 172, which the Cardinal was intended to replace. From sea-level airports, I typically see climb rates of over 800 FPM when 100 pounds under gross.
At 6500 feet, I get 132 KTAS at 2300 RPM and 23 inches MP.Thats with an 1800-hour SMOH engine with a Powerflow exhaust. Before and after tests suggested that the Powerflow contributes around 4 knots; there are no other speed modifications.
The empty weight is 1609 pounds with a gross of 2500 pounds. With full fuel (49 gallons) the payload is just under 600 pounds. I usually fly without the rear seat so the volume available for baggage is quite spacious.
I have often carried two regular mountain bikes plus lots of camping equipment with no problem. When I transfer the same gear into the back of my Nissan pick-up, Im impressed with how the same stuff easily fits into the airplane.
I also checked to see if I could sleep in the back of the airplane if necessary. I could, but if I needed more room I could un-Velcro the rear bulkhead.
Before I purchased this airplane, I looked at a Cardinal RG but chose the fixed-gear against it for several reasons:
There are a lot more SBs for the RG than the FG.
The RG doesnt have a flat baggage area and so loading may be more difficult; sleeping in back would be impossible.
The fuel-injected 200 HP engine of the RG would be nice but anecdotally Ive heard reaching a trouble-free TBO is less likelyAnother reason I like the Cardinal is the view: its even better than a 172 due to the absence of struts. In addition, the wing is placed further back relative to the pilot, so in turns I can lean forward and see in front of the wing (I have BAS inertial-reel shoulder harnesses; I couldnt do this without releasing the stock fixed shoulder harnesses).
The flight characteristics are quite docile. Like the 172/182, it is stable and is quite suitable for IFR work. Compared to the 172/182, the most noticeable difference is in the landing flare: the large stabilator makes the airplane more sensitive. It doesnt like to touch down before it slows down and can be unforgiving by producing taildragger-like bounces. And like taildraggers, patience is the key: flare and let the airplane slow and land itself.
During a recent coast-to-coast 5000-mile trip, the airplane averaged 14 NM/gallon. During 44 hours of tach time, I used 8.2 GPH; my longest flight was 500 miles, during which I used 35 gallons. I believe that the airframe is relatively clean for the interior volume it provides, contributing to its efficiency.
During this trip, the Cardinal provided great views of the landscape; its an excellent airplane for flightseeing. For this reason, Cardinals are a favorite of aerial photographers.
As for costs, I have experienced the typical new-owner decay in the cost of annuals over the years.
My first annual was $3000, largely due to compliance with the service bulletin recommending replacement of the aluminum stabilator bracket (SEB 89-1). Since then, my annuals have declined to $460, for the last one.
The Lycoming O-360 engine has a good reputation for durability. During the first 1300 hours of operation, my engine was on leaseback to a flying club and so may not have received the most docile handling.
However, at 1800-plus hours, I still have compression in the 70s and my last Blackstone oil analysis included the comment, All wear was we’ll below average for this type of engine…we foundnothing from our test data that would suggest any kind of mechanical problem at 1833 hours on the engine. My engine is equipped with the infamous Bendix dual magneto. Fortunately, it has not caused trouble yet.
Finally, one of the best features of the Cardinal isn’t even part of the airplane: its the tremendous user community represented by the Cardinal Flyers Online.
This is my first airplane and in the four years that Ive owned it, many of my questions have been answered by this group.
Some problems Ive encountered:
The stock Bendix starter occasionally will not engage. Thisproblem can be mitigated by frequent lubing with silicone. I finally replaced the starter with a Skytec.
The stock Cessna over-voltage regulator malfunctioned and turned off the alternator field current. This is a common problem cured by installing a solid-state Zeftronics regulator.
Uneven fuel flow from the two tanks. The 1977 Cardinal has a both position for the fuel selector, but often the fuel drains unevenly, producing an unbalanced condition. Now I just use the minute hand method: if the minute hand is on the right side of the clock, use the right tank, and vice versa.
Prop RPM surging. In 2000, McCauley issued SB223 which included replacement of the governor flyweights.A tip by a CFO reader suggested that the using the old flyweights would cure this problem and it does.
-Jim Wang
via e-mail
Also With This Article
Click here to view “Accidents: Runway-Loss-of-Control Stands Out.”
Click here to view “Resale Value, Payload, and Prices Compared.”
