That’s Sirageldin Sherif’s good-looking 1975 Cardinal RG in the main image. He says passengers love its comfy cabin, plus it handles a wide variety of runways with ease.
For the lower-time step-up pilot comfortable in high-wing Cessnas, the 177RG Cardinal is worth considering. It doesn’t have many bad habits, it’s cheaper to operate than a big-engine 210 Centurion and thanks to wide cabin doors, it’s easy to load passengers and stuff. It carries a decent load and beats the strut-wing retrac 172RG Cutlass in speed and efficiency.
Better yet, Cardinal RGs should be relatively easy to deal with in the shop thanks to a familiar Lycoming 200-HP IO-360 powerplant. But like any retrac, there’s an additional layer of complexity, which means buying one that’s been well-maintained while staying ahead of the maintenance curve and bringing it to techs experienced in working with the landing gear system. Like the rest of the piston-single fleet, values for well-cared-for Cardinals are still strong, so plan on paying top dollar for ones with young engines and modern upgrades.
Right from the start
Aside from the competition—including the Piper Arrow, Mooney M20 and Beechcraft Sierra—adding retractable landing gear to the original 177 Cardinal wasn’t seamless. Introduced in 1968, the Cardinal had a number of well-publicized warts that took a couple of production years to sort out. The lack of power in the original 150-HP fixed-gear Cardinal was solved with an upgrade to 180 HP. The unnerving pulsing in the yoke during a full-flap slip was eventually fixed by adding leading-edge slots in the control surface.
Starting in 1971, the Cardinal RG really was a better airplane from the beginning because it started and stayed with a fuel-injected 200-HP Lycoming IO-360-A1-series engine (and had the leading-edge slots in the stabilator) from the get-go. The bigger engine boosted the gross weight from 2500 to 2800 pounds.
Cessna didn’t win over buyers with the 177RG’s price. At around $32,000 typically equipped ($247,000 in today’s dollar), it was slightly more than the competition. The retrac 177RG got better with time. The 1972 model gained a few knots in cruise and a slightly better climb rate thanks to a new prop, while the landing gear system also gained some improvements, with mechanical switches moving to a more trouble-free magnetic setup. The hydraulic and electrical control systems changed (the latest 1978 models have 28-volt systems), and the fixed cabin steps were dropped. They tended to expose the bottom of the fuselage to even more grief if the aircraft landed with the gear up. Instead, small foot pads were placed on the main gear struts.
In addition, landing and taxi lights were moved from the wing to the nose, a feature that many feel wasn’t an improvement because the higher vibration levels in the cowl shortened the life of cowl-mounted landing lights. Of course, that’s pretty much solved these days with drop-in LED lamps. On the inside, we always found the instrument panel design in early Cardinals to be a bit unusual, though it was intended as a feature for passenger comfort—sitting higher in front of the pilot than the right-seat passenger. That limited the space for more avionics, though Cessna stuck an ADF below the glove box. Cessna ditched that panel design in 1976 in favor of something more traditional, while also simplifying the hydraulics. Production of the Cardinal RG ended after the 1978 model year, with 1366 aircraft built. Unlike many designs, the 177RG didn’t linger on with production trailing off to a trickle; about 100 airplanes were built that last year. However, in 1978, Cessna introduced the larger, more powerful 182 Skylane RG.
Systems
The original fuel system was an unusual (for Cessna) design that had two settings: on and off. This occasionally caused problems, since it’s possible for one tank to empty more quickly than the other. But ingenious Cardinal RG owners have found that this can be resolved in flight with a short but healthy sideslip. The tanks then feed equally for the remainder of the flight. The problem also occurs in later models with left-both-right-off fuel selectors, but here, the fix is simply to switch to the fuller tank for a few minutes.
For the 1977 model, a new fuel selector appeared, giving it commonality with other Cessna singles. It had a more positive detent and was supposed to be more easily maintainable. Through the eight years of its production, the Cardinal had four different landing gear systems, as Cessna strived to correct all its quirks. Major components remained the same but plumbing and controls evolved. The first, most problem-plagued one on the 1971 and 1972 Cardinal RGs was a Rube Goldberg combination of electrical and hydraulic components. Its weakest links were electrically actuated main gear downlocks and mechanical position switches.
By 1974, the hydraulic system was almost completely in control of the gear, although a complex electrical control system remained. There are many stories told about Cardinal gear issues, most of them inaccurate, but perhaps more than any other Cessna, the early Cardinal gear systems benefit from a mechanic with prior Cardinal knowledge. In 1976, Cessna finally got it right, removing all of the electrics from the gear system in favor of fully hydraulic gear using only two switches: a pressure switch to control the hydroelectric gear pump and a squat switch to keep the gear down while on the ground. While any of these gear systems are dependable if properly maintained, 1976 and later Cardinal owners are most likely to report a fully trouble-free ownership experience. Finally, the 24-volt Cessna power pack has proved to be the best of all the gear systems.
Loading, flying them
The Cardinal has a wider cabin than the 172 or 182, low sill height and wide doors, but hang on to the doors when opening them on windy days. The doors also have proved to be leak-prone. Some of the doors fit too tightly, others too loosely, due to either poor quality control in production, subsequent wind damage or both.
The first time you fly a Cardinal, you appreciate the good visibility from the front seats—we think it’s the best of any Cessna. With the seats forward in the flight position, the pilot sits about even with the wing’s leading edge. This allows a view around the wing during maneuvering. The seats themselves could be ordered with vertical height adjusters—a boon to both short and tall pilots—though modern interior upgrades add even more comfort and utility.
The baggage compartment is oddly shaped because Cessna had to put the wheels somewhere and they wound up in the baggage bay. The usual Cessna cavern has a big hump in the middle of it, right next to the baggage door. This sounds worse than it is in practice. The baggage compartment holds a huge volume and Cardinal RG owners capitalize and use the hump as a divider.
It’s tough to load a Cardinal out of CG, and you are more likely to go out the front end of the envelope than the back, especially with heavy front seaters and no weight in the baggage area. In the real world, owners report cruise speeds around 140 to 145 knots at 11 to 12 GPH, or about 135 knots at 9 to 10 GPH. The RG doesn’t get its speed from raw power, so proper rigging is important in obtaining book speeds. Plus, Cessna’s flaps are among the biggest in the business and the Cardinal RG uses them to get respectable short-field performance for a four-place retrac. Landing distance over a 50-foot obstacle is a claimed 1220 feet, shortest in its class.
However, the Cardinal RG’s takeoff performance (takeoff roll: 890 feet, and 1585 feet over an obstacle) falls slightly short of the later fixed-gear Cardinals (750 feet and 1400 feet over the obstacle). While some of this is due to the higher gross weight, another factor is the large nosegear door that sits immediately behind the propeller when the gear is down. Because all three gear legs retract aft, there is a noticeable pitch-trim change during both extension and retraction. On takeoff, experienced owners take advantage of this by letting the aircraft accelerate to the target climb speed and then retracting the gear. The change in CG brings the aircraft into climb attitude with almost no pilot input other than a slight tweak of the pitch trim.
With a more sensitive stabilizer/elevator combination than other Cessnas, plenty of new pilots transitioning from the 172 or 182 to the Cardinal RG learn about pilot induced oscillations. A good checkout with careful attention to the special needs of the stabilator is a must, but once mastered the Cardinal RG is easy to land, even in the wind.
Well-supported
There’s no issue finding good shop support for these Cessnas, made easier thanks to Cardinal Flyers Online (CFO) at www.cardinalflyers.com. With thousands of active members and solid technical leadership, thanks in part to Cardinal expert Paul Millner, CFO is a must-join. Lobby its help during a prebuy, and use its online resources to familiarize yourself with the line. For instance, the 1973 to 1978 Cardinal RG has a couple of notable idiosyncrasies. One is that it uses the infamous Bendix dual magneto that puts two magnetos on a single shaft, making the shaft a potential single-point failure. The dual-mag engines were a subject of Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin NE-06-08, which alerted owners and mechanics to a prop governor hazard. Buyers should also check to see which, if any, of Cessna’s recommended service instructions have been applied to the model being considered. There are at least eight of them that come to mind, including numbers 71-41, 72-26, 73-28, 74-26, 75-25, 76-4, 76-7 and 77-20. Understand that the wing spar could be problematic due to corrosion, and eddy current inspections offer the best clues.
“The Cardinal RG, for a complex plane, is pretty simple to maintain and work on, and the landing gear is simpler than the one on my previous TR182,” Gary Beck told us. “My landing gear issues were due to poor/weak magnets (not pulling the switches as required), a leaking gear handle and some minor adjustments. To start, make sure the mechanic has the correct jack stand pads in the first place as some think the Cardinal RG is similar to the 210’s pads—no! Using the incorrect stand pads can damage the underside of the wing,” Mike Simmons warned. He’s owned his 177RG for 23 years and calls it a solid IFR platform that’s especially capable in crosswinds thanks to a large rudder.
Avionics upgrades increase the value of Cardinal RGs in a big way. A full modern Garmin suite with autopilot, navigators, big-screen EFIS and a new instrument panel flirts with $100,000, so expect to find wide variations in asking prices, especially when the refurb includes a newer engine. Ones with the Tornado Alley turbonormalizing mod (good for 177 knots at 17,500 feet) will fetch higher prices yet.
Last, get an insurance quote before making any deal on a Cardinal RG—it’s easy, but still a complex retrac.
As we perused the 100 most recent Cessna Cardinal RG accidents, we were spring-loaded to pounce on landing gear failures because that’s what people say are the Achilles heel of Cessna retractable singles, right? After all, the hydraulic gear has a backup hand pump, but no backup should a hydraulic line break and the fluid leak out.
Maybe not so much, or maybe Cardinal RG owners have figured out that you have to be assertive when it comes to gear maintenance and replace hydraulic lines before they go bad. We found only four instances in which the pilots couldn’t successfully dangle the Dunlops despite trying.
That’s not bad in comparison with other single retractables, especially when we saw that seven pilots forgot to move the gear handle to the “down” position before alighting on the runway. Not surprisingly, no one was injured in any of the slightly noisier than usual landings.
Landing accidents generally were lower than we expect to see in nosewheel singles—runway loss of control (RLOC) events, including hard landings and an overshot landing, totaled but 10. We think that’s due to the wide stance of the gear and positioning the nose- gear well forward, which reduces the risk of porpoising.
We saw three go-around LOC events, two of which included prematurely retracting all of the flaps at low altitude.
What we did see—and we do not think it is particularly related to the type of airplane—was a lot of maintenance malpractice. There were 32 engine stoppages, of which over half were due to maintenance that was not done or done wrong. Cylinders failed because the attach bolts hadn’t been properly torqued (one of the reasons to never replace a cylinder unless it is truly necessary), prop governors were installed improperly—which resulted in pumping engine oil overboard—fuel injector servos and screens were blocked with various contaminants and rust, and the pistons and cylinders of an engine were so bad the engine wouldn’t make power, leading to the pilot stalling while trying to make a turn after just barely getting off of the runway.
Four of the fatal accidents were first flight after maintenance. Sadly, the pilots violated the basics for those flights: Do a careful preflight, make them day VFR, don’t carry passengers and stay within gliding distance of the airport for at least the first 15 minutes.
Three pilots, with passengers, launched. When their engines quit—fairly early in the flights—they were beyond gliding distance to the airport. On one, there was a large pool of oil under where the pilot had started the engine and where he did the runup. The fourth—with a passenger—didn’t do a careful preflight after a wing replacement. You got it, the ailerons were hooked up backward. After takeoff, they rolled 90 degrees before a wing hit the runway.
Finally, we appreciated the chutzpah of the pilot who decided to fly through a “little puffy cloud” on downwind for landing. It wasn’t so little. Exiting it, he faced a windshield full of mountainside. He pulled up hard and survived the ensuing uphill arrival.
