177RG vs. 182 Fixed gear
Bruce
purchase the plane I want now, rather then purchase a time builder such
as a 152. Assuming of course that I get the neccessary instruction to
be a safe competent pilot, which I intend on doing. I am a low-time
(150 hr) private/instrument pilot. Now my question is: What would your
recommend to purchase a 177RG or for basicly the same price purchase a
182 Fixed Gear. I realize that 75% + time I will be flying the airplane
alone, but would like to take my family or other couples on trips or
outings on a frequent basis. I like the speed of the 177rg and the load
that it carries, and the design of the aircraft. OK, so if you had lets
say $50,000 to $75,000 to purchase an airplane, which one would you
recommend and why? Thanks for all input, and I look forward to your
responses
Bruce Langlois DVM
Dan Arias
When I faced this question I came up with the following reasons to
choose the 177RG over the 182:
Initial cost: The 182 was more expensive than a 177RG, around 33% more.
Operating costs: The 6-cylinder 182 drinks more gas (12-13gph) than the
the 4-cylinder 177RG (9-10gph).
Retract: I wanted to have a complex-retract for training and proficiency
purposes, e.g., getting a commercial ticket. The maintenance costs for
the retract are offset to some extent by the maintenance for the 2 extra
cylinders on the 182.
Feel: The 177RG flies like a sportscar. The 182 flies like a truck.
Style: I think the 177RG looks sexy. On the ramp, the 182 is often
confused with a 172.
--Dan Arias
--
San Jose, California, USA
D.F.S.
> Bruce wrote:
> > This is my second post, all seem to agree with me to go ahead and
> > purchase the plane I want now, rather then purchase a time builder such
> > as a 152. Assuming of course that I get the neccessary instruction to
> > be a safe competent pilot, which I intend on doing. I am a low-time
> > (150 hr) private/instrument pilot. Now my question is: What would your
> > recommend to purchase a 177RG or for basicly the same price purchase a
> > 182 Fixed Gear. I realize that 75% + time I will be flying the airplane
> > alone, but would like to take my family or other couples on trips or
> > outings on a frequent basis. I like the speed of the 177rg and the load
> > that it carries, and the design of the aircraft. OK, so if you had lets
> > say $50,000 to $75,000 to purchase an airplane, which one would you
> > recommend and why? Thanks for all input, and I look forward to your
> > responses
Well, everyone will have an opinion...
> When I faced this question I came up with the following reasons to
> choose the 177RG over the 182:
Several reason I decided on a 182 over older mooneys and a cardinal...
> Initial cost: The 182 was more expensive than a 177RG, around 33% more.
The mooneys are just too small for me, there are other things, but that
was the deciding factor.
> Operating costs: The 6-cylinder 182 drinks more gas (12-13gph) than the
> the 4-cylinder 177RG (9-10gph).
You can get an auto fuel STC for a 182, last I heard there was a couple of
issues with the cardinal STC.
That in itself can cut your gas costs in half.
> Retract: I wanted to have a complex-retract for training and proficiency
> purposes, e.g., getting a commercial ticket. The maintenance costs for
> the retract are offset to some extent by the maintenance for the 2 extra
> cylinders on the 182.
Retract time in and of itself may be a reason to get a retract.
Is that important to you?
It sounds like you HAVE a career and will be flying for personal reasons,
as such ratings in excess of what you have a use for may not be an issue.
You WILL pay more in maint for the retract.
I wanted to be able to use unpaved runways and some back-country strips
retracts were a definite disadvantage.
We looked at a great C-210, we didn't get it for that very reason.
For that matter, you can get older 210s in the lower range of the costs
you list.
They are 4 place planes and most have the struts, but if not compared to
the newer 210s and evaluated on their own merrits, I like them.
I would bet you can get one as cheap or cheaper then a retract cardinal.
I have not seen, and I think research will show it will not cost you more
and may in fact cost less to maintain an O-470 than most any other larger
(> 150 Hp) engine including the ones used in the cardinal.
> Feel: The 177RG flies like a sportscar. The 182 flies like a truck.
TRUE, but trucks and cars have different uses.
A 182 may be about the ultimate S.U.V. behind only a few other planes.
It's like comparing a mazda to a chevy suburban, there are trade-offs
in ease of parking and fuel use, but if you need or WANT a suburban
a compact car in no substitute.
Do you want something to load 4 people and junk into and fly the rocky
mountains?
> Style: I think the 177RG looks sexy. On the ramp, the 182 is often
> confused with a 172.
I would have to agree, I wish cardinals had performance and
capacity in line with how they look, I would have bought one.
Some planes change a lot from model to model and over the years,
182s don't.
Personaly I would ignore the model year alltogether look at airframe
times, engine and prop time along with maint records.
Look at the avionics and instruments.
look at the condition of the plane as a whole.
Marc
Jim Sokoloff
> Style: I think the 177RG looks sexy. On the ramp, the 182 is often
> confused with a 172.
On the ramp yes, on the runway, no... :-)
---Jim
Russ MacDonald
15 years, and still love it. It is faster than most (all??) other 200HP
except the Money, it's faster than a C182, carries around 650 pounds with
full (60 Gal) fuel, has six hour range at 145 knots, flies like a sports car
(for a Cessna), is very easy to get in and out of, is almost impossible to
load out of CG, has great visibility, etc.....
Check out this website for all sorts of additional info:
http://cardinal.mlink.net .
Russ
Dan Arias wrote in message <35DB1F...@concentric.net>...
>Bruce wrote:
Now my question is: What would your
Rod Farlee
>What would your recommend to purchase a 177RG or for basicly the
>same price purchase a 182 Fixed Gear.
Maintenance: My A&P has owned a 177RG for 15 years, and maintains
several others. His comment is that the annuals cost $150/yr more (that's
3 hours labor, for jacking, swinging the gear, inspection, lube), and on
average cost an additional $100-150/yr more in non-routine maintenance
(and that comes every few years, for a powerpack rebuild, hose, turnbuckle,
torque tube, switch, brake swivel fitting, whatever). That's his overall
experience with them.
Insurance: The RG checkout requirement is higher (3 hours vs 1 hour).
The first year rate will be higher and then decline as the pilot gains time
in type. Instrument rating lowers the rates on both. Suggest getting
quotes and comparing.
Useful loads differ little, comparing 1972-76 177 RG (1140#) vs 182
(1169#) book values (real airplanes tend to be heavier than book;
different model years vary). Similar speeds. They carry the same fuel
(60 usable std) but the RG's range is longer. The IO-360 costs less to
overhaul and burns less fuel, while the O-470 runs well on autogas.
The 182 is a better for short and rough fields and has higher prop
clearance for grass. Their handling is quite different.
The Cessna Pilots Association seems to specialize in 182 and 210,
and the Cardinal Club in the 177RG. See:
http://www.cessna.org
http://cardinal.mlink.net
Nothing above might be decisive; fly them both. The Archer, Dakota
and Tiger are competitive airplanes, too. If your spouse might become
interested in flying, she may make the decision for you (did for me!).
- Rod Farlee
Jerry Kurata
size and power of the 182, more speed, and the retract.
Jerry
Happu T182RG owner
Bruce
higher useful load by 300 -350 pounds.
Bruce
the 182 was a 130 knot plane. I guess not a big difference unless you are
going 500 miles or more.
Bruce
Jerry Kurata wrote:
The prices I have seen for a mid 70's 182 are 65-75,000 and 100-125 for the
same year RG. Seems like quite a jump, and i guess Id rather spend the money
on avionics.
D.F.S.
> Useful load: Is that right, I was under the impression that the 182 had a
> higher useful load by 300 -350 pounds.
> Rod Farlee wrote:
> > Useful loads differ little, comparing 1972-76 177 RG (1140#) vs 182
> > (1169#) book values (real airplanes tend to be heavier than book;
> > different model years vary). Similar speeds.
I don't have the numbers off hand for the Cardinal...
I don't know about the "Book" performance and weights on the later 182s,
but mine are dead on, some people better them by a good margin.
According to many accounts, lawsuits, crashes and a logical observation
the book numbers for the cardinal was written by the marketing dept.
There were several high profile crashes where the plane was not overloaded
to any degree and simply didn't preform.
There were several stupid aspects to the Dubroff flying fetus media stunt,
but in the end when a plane loaded 50# over gross simply won't fly at
6000 Ft, the numbers are overstated.
Granted the weather was bad, and they may very well would have been OK if
if it had been CAVU, but that was the final straw, from accounts, the
plane simply wouldn't fly.
If I recall, the last certified weight on my 182 puts it at 1186#.
Just make sure you are comparing reality, "Book" numbers are a game at
times, unfortunately the market rewards streching the figures and
physics kills you if you try to cheat.
Compare the statistics on the planes:
The 182 has a larger wing.
The 177 may have a "Better" airfoil to compensate, I'm no expert.
Cardinals have from 150-200 Hp engines.
I think only some have a CS prop.
The 182 has a Constant speed prop and a 235 Hp engine.
The extra fuel burn people keep bringing up does have its advantages.
They may be trite, but off-hand comments from owners do often
have a basis in reality:
177: "It doesn't preform THAT badly, it is not a 4 place plane for big
people and baggage, but neither is a 172 or mooney. As long as you respect
that it is a good plane."
182: "As long as you can get the doors shut, you are set."
I wouldn't suggest taking that to an extreme, but I do think the numbers
on the 182 are conservative, and the 177 is exagerated.
Look in the Aviation Consumer Used plane book for details.
Marc
jga...@hotmail.com
Bruce <pet...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Speed, I was also under the impression that the 177 was a 140+ knot plane and
> the 182 was a 130 knot plane. I guess not a big difference unless you are
> going 500 miles or more.
>
And if you're going 500 miles the big difference would be about 18 min. Not
much when you really think about it.
A few months ago, Private Pilot magazine did an excellent article about the
"Cost of Speed". It had some very good in-depth evaluations on the
real-world costs and benefits of the extra knots. IIRC they included initial
purchase price, maintenance cost and fuel costs for a number of popular
models. Lots of charts and graphs showing you exactly what you get for the
extra dollars invested in horsepower and retractable gear. One of the keys
to efficiency was fuel capacity and fuel burn. On a long trip, a fast and
thirsty airplane that has to stop for fuel gets blown away by a slower, more
fuel efficient airplane that keeps on flying. Sort of a "Hare and Tortise"
effect. I would highly recommend that you locate a copy of the article. It
had lot's of good info for the prospective buyer.
Good Luck,
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Rod Farlee
>There were several stupid aspects to the Dubroff flying fetus media stunt,
>but in the end when a plane loaded 50# over gross simply won't fly at
>6000 Ft, the numbers are overstated.
Please read two thoughtful analyses of the NTSB report:
http://www.avweb.com/articles/dubroffa.html
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9705.html
and note the comments of other pilots and the NTSB findings of probable
cause. We will never know the exact wind sheer encountered on the edge
of that thunderstorm.
If you believe this scenario would have been safe in a 182, I can post
several NTSB reports of 182 accidents which suggest otherwise. They
differ only in that the Dubroff accident gained high publicity, for reasons
which have nothing to do with the aircraft itself.
May I also invite you to read James Gleick's comments:
http://www.avweb.com/articles/legaleag.html
The suit to which he refers originally named Cessna and Lycoming as
codefendants. They were dropped after the initial discovery phase. If there
were the slighted shread of evidence undercovered to substantiate your
comments, do you think this would have been the case? Do you think
that posting such nonsense does your readers a service?
I have not flown a 150 hp 177, but have heard it said that the POH
takeoff distances are optimistic. (But I have also heard this said of
other aircraft types, when density altitude is not taken into account.)
All I can say is that the later models, the C-177B with 180 hp and
C-177RG with 200 hp, and the C-182 with 230 hp, and the Tiger, perform
exactly per book, as near as I can tell. This agrees with your experience
in your 182. But I have flown all four, and really tried to put them through
their paces, to the limit of what the CFIs would let me (except I didn't find
the Tiger's limits!), have you? If not, do yourself a service and do.
>"Book" numbers are a game at times...
>182: "As long as you can get the doors shut, you are set."
I realize I've cut these out of context, but even in context, to even suggest
that the POH be so readily dismissed is simply foolhardy.
If one wants to better POH performance, keep the airplane light. If one
really wants takeoff performance, fly a 206 and keep it light. Each of
these aircraft represent a compromise between economy in purchase
and operation, and performance. To suggest that one is "better" than
another is at best superficial. They are each successful designs.
>Look in the Aviation Consumer Used plane book for details.
OK, let's do that. Noting that various model years base equipment vary
(and most of the fleet is closer to the high end of the empty wt range):
C-177B, 180 hp, 119-130 ktas, 857-1015 lbs useful load
Archer, 180 hp, 122-125 ktas, 1035-1250 lbs
Tiger, 180 hp, 139 ktas, 950 lbs
C-177RG, 200 hp, 129 ktas, 1093-1170 lbs
Arrow, 200 hp, 144 ktas, 1120-1149 lbs
C-182, 230 hp, 122-124 ktas, 1010-1373 lbs
Dakota, 235 hp, 132-143 ktas, 1321-1450 lbs
It might be noted that there are popular speed mods for the Cardinals.
They are inexpensive and effective. So most are fitted with them and
exceed book cruise by several knots. There are also speed mods for the
other models above, but many mods are far more expensive and I've seen
few that have them.
>If I recall, the last certified weight on my 182 puts it at 1186#.
Did you put the airplane on scales? Do you REALLY know? This is
something people should consider more then they do; "computed" weight
and balance are often fiction. Unintentional overloading surely accounts
for some reports of "non-book" takeoff and climb performance.
Opinions are fine, until they conflict with facts. I can only suggest that
people go fly these airplanes, read the POH, and see. There are other
important considerations in a purchase decision, as flying them quickly
reveals. I can't make this decision for anyone else, nor would I wish to.
All I can do is to point out some facts, and confine my subjective opinions
within the bounds of reality. I sometimes wish others would make even
the most modest effort to do so.
- Rod Farlee
Phil Tannenbaum
also rents space in the same large hangar made it a point to tell me his
C182 was cheaper to insure, only went 25-30 kts slower, used less fuel, and
would never gear-up. So what.
Maybe he can go 1000 nm in only 1 hour extra. Maybe he can go 100 nm in only
10 minutes more. He will spend less money all around. That isn't the point.
If you like to fly, and are willing and able to shuffle assets to accomodate
the toy you want, that is what you should do. Rationalizing anything on the
basis of sanity or economics will not make one a happy aircraft owner *if* the
owner was financially able to buy and maintain what was actually wanted.
Few of us *need* airplanes. Even the thought of flying 6 hours non-stop in
something without cabin service and rest rooms causes *many* spouses to go
ballistic. Even 10 minutes can be really important to a spouse who wanted to
land an hour ago ;)
Flying is usually not a race, it is a way of life. Some like penthouses, others
efficiencies. Some like the security of fixed gears and simplicity, others are
more daring.... it is only your dreams and financeial ability to live them that
you should worry about.
Just my opinion,
PhilT
N9312P
------------------------
From: jga...@hotmail.com
Randy Cooper
out there (albeit with a little higher fuel burn).... any challengers?
Randy Cooper (Houston,tx)
N1417S
Bruce wrote in message <35DB1987...@ix.netcom.com>...
>This is my second post, all seem to agree with me to go ahead and
>purchase the plane I want now, rather then purchase a time builder such
>as a 152. Assuming of course that I get the neccessary instruction to
>be a safe competent pilot, which I intend on doing. I am a low-time
>(150 hr) private/instrument pilot. Now my question is: What would your
>recommend to purchase a 177RG or for basicly the same price purchase a
>182 Fixed Gear. I realize that 75% + time I will be flying the airplane
>alone, but would like to take my family or other couples on trips or
>outings on a frequent basis. I like the speed of the 177rg and the load
>that it carries, and the design of the aircraft. OK, so if you had lets
>say $50,000 to $75,000 to purchase an airplane, which one would you
>recommend and why? Thanks for all input, and I look forward to your
>responses
>
>Bruce Langlois DVM
>
Rod Farlee
>I may be wrong, but I believe my fixed gear C182 can out run any
>Cardinal RG out there (albeit with a little higher fuel burn)....
>any challengers?
Below 6000', might not be able to keep up, even at 4-5 gph higher
fuel consumption. Most 177RGs deliver 143 ktas at 8000' on 10 gph.
Above that, you might; sheer displacement (470 vs 360 cubic inches)
should be able to overcome aerodynamics at the lower indicated
airspeeds at higher altitudes. So weight the odds in your favor by
limiting the challenge to Colorado!
But challenging "any" 177RG is risky; a couple have been turbocharged
and true 179 ktas at FL 250.
With the fixed gear 177, all I can do is suggest CAFE rules? <grin>
- Rod Farlee
J. Neteler
The early models had 225 hp engines that burn 80 octane.
The Debonair is noticeably narrower than a Cardinal but has excellent
handling qualities and a very good safety record.
The only real differences between a C177RG and a B33 are:
1.) Narrower cabin for the B33.
2.) The C177RG has the easiest entry of any GA aircraft.
3.) The C177RG bounces vertically in turbulence whereas the Beech
will yaw horizontally.
4.) Higher fuel burn for the Beech.
5.) Excellent engine access for the Beech during preflight.
6.) Better baggage compartment access for Beech (no hump required
for wheels ala C177RG)
7.) Easier to make good landings in Beech.
8.) Better quality of construction in Beech.
9.) Better panel layout for C177RG. (Standard instrument configurations
and fewer hidden gauges. Fuel and engine monitoring gauges are
behind throw over yoke in Beech)
10.) C177RG will tend to be 10 or more years newer for same money.
I have always kept an open mind when shopping for an aircraft.
Its great to say you want a specific model or type but the reality is
what's availble in your market area. Buy the best aircraft you can with
an eye towards maintenance costs and its eventual resale.
Most GA aircraft fly "about" the same. A check out to make safe flights
can take 10 or more hours depending on insurance requirements.
However, intimate knowledge will take hundreds of flight hours as long
as you are willing to actively learn from each flight.
J. Neteler
D.F.S.
Rod Farlee Writes:
>
>D.F.S. <d...@xmission.xmission.com> writes:
It's really pretty chicken-shit to need to lie and misrepresent what I
said to make a counter-statement.
Short of facts or actual statements to point to?
>
>>"Book" numbers are a game at times...
>>182: "As long as you can get the doors shut, you are set."
>
>I realize I've cut these out of context,
No SHIT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> but even in context, to even suggest that the POH be so readily
> dismissed is simply foolhardy.
I said absolutely nothing of the sort, so YOU lie about what I said
to make a counter statement.
This is what I SAID:
-----------------------
Just make sure you are comparing reality, "Book" numbers are a game at
times, unfortunately the market rewards streching the figures and
physics kills you if you try to cheat.
-----------------------
In case that need clarification:
Book Numbers are often fudged by the marketing Department to make the
plane more "Competetive" compared to other makes and models, often those
models have fudged numbers themselves, hence the "Justification".
Part of the "Game" is the physics of how that plane will fly don't
give a shit what the salesmen think.
Push it too far and people start being killed by such
"Lies"/"Book #s with 'Your Milage May Vary'" added to cover the
corporate butt.
Cessna clearly LIED about the numbers when the cardinal came out.
The report is at the end of the post.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is the second part my actual statement misrepresented above:
---------------------
They may be trite, but off-hand comments from owners do often
have a basis in reality:
177: "It doesn't preform THAT badly, it is not a 4 place plane for big
people and baggage, but neither is a 172 or mooney. As long as you respect
that it is a good plane."
182: "As long as you can get the doors shut, you are set."
I wouldn't suggest taking that to an extreme, but I do think the numbers
on the 182 are conservative, and the 177 is exagerated.
---------------------
At No point did I "Suggest that the POH be readily dismissed"
At No point did I State such a stupid approach to W&B as "If the Doors
shut..."
I did suggest such statements give insight to experience owners
have with planes they fly. They are "Trite Comments" as I stated
and hardly official or recommended procedures.
I did suggest that how careful (or absolutely anal) you need to be to
stay within the "Book" numbers because of severe penalties resulting
from "Overloading" your plane by 3%. Shows how conservative or
"market derived" those numbers are in the first place.
Take 2 planes:
Plane A barely flys after a departure from a field a 7,000' and gross
weight.
Plane B maintains 300'/Minute in the same situation.
The question is, is one over-rated and the other correct or is one
under-rated and the other correct?
Marketing departemnts would say the former, "It DOES Fly".
I would say the latter. "There is too small a margin of safety."
>
>If one wants to better POH performance, keep the airplane light.
How about just to "MEET" POH numbers.
The cardinal tests proved it did not, and in fact did not even meet
basic climb performace requirements for certification!
Not by 20%!
The type of requirement realted to that particular accident.
>if one really wants takeoff performance, fly a 206 and keep it light.
>these aircraft represent a compromise between economy in purchase
>and operation, and performance. To suggest that one is "better" than
>another is at best superficial. They are each successful designs.
Agreed.
I never said otherwise.
I did say choices for the "Best" plane for an individual depend on
needs.
Buying a 177 to fly in Colorado would be a bad choice, even more
so in Idaho or Alaska back-country.
Even if the "Book" climb and Load nmumbers say otherwise.
It may be ok given proper conditions, but the same money would
buy much better choices.
I also said "Book" numbers often don't match reality.
Reality is the only thing that matters on take-off.
>>Look in the Aviation Consumer Used plane book for details.
"Details", as in details of history, tests, owner reports and
most of all the Instrumented testing that shows the original cardinal
numbers are an absolute Crock!
Not Reprinted Mfgr Claims.
>>If I recall, the last certified weight on my 182 puts it at 1186#.
>Did you put the airplane on scales?
SMART ASS! It is higher than you would presume so it is a lie?
No, the IA Did.
Do you REALLY know?
#1 Many known facts to support the claim and no reason to doubt it was
done.
#2 I have copies of 4 official reweighs, they are in close agreement
considering changes in the plane.
#3 I know 2 of the IAs who signed the paperwork personaly, the third
is still in business and certified. I'll accept that.
#4 One still does a good business with his scales in the local
homebuilders crowd.
#5 When compared to factory new weights, the numbers are reasonable
considering modifications.
#6 The sheets I have include all the calculations, individual wheel
weights, fluid weights and corrections.
#7 Those were done on and using Official Cessna forms and procedure
documents which are included.
A bit much for a cocked-up job I think.
> This is
>something people should consider more then they do; "computed" weight
>and balance are often fiction.
I SAID "Certified Weight" You understood that, or you wouldn't have
made the above comments.
Now I have a "Fictional 'Computed' W&B"?
> Unintentional overloading surely accounts
>for some reports of "non-book" takeoff and climb performance.
>
>Opinions are fine, until they conflict with facts.
Sure, and I can back up all statements of FACT I made with facts.
> I can only suggest that people go fly these airplanes, read the POH,
> and see.
If I recall it was MY assertion "Book" numbers often don't match
reality and people should find out the reality instead of presuming
POH numbers as fact, started your tyrade.
>I sometimes wish others would make even the most modest effort to do so.
I find it interesting YOU ignored the refrences and FACTS I pointed to
in my original post.
It is also interesting your refrences on the Dubroff incident included
venomous articles trying to point fingers and scramble to address
the black-eye this gave GA in general, but...
I DIDN'T see a reference to the actual 69 Page NTSB report.
I have that report.
The plane was 84 Lbs or just over THREE PERCENT over gross and wouldn't
FLY.
The fact it is implicit that this plane doesn't preform for shit in
such "Heavy" (3% over Gross) and "High"(6700') conditions is what
pushed this back into pilot error.
Granted there was plenty of stupidity, but a the fact he should have
KNOWN climb performance is tempermental and slow in a cardinal
in such conditions does not mean the plane preformed well.
>We will never know the exact wind sheer encountered on the edge
>of that thunderstorm.
EXACTLY is a matter of definition.
There IS a Doppler Radar Station on that field.
There were records.
They are included in the report.
There is no evidence of severe windshear to slam an unsuspecting
Aircraft into the dirt out of the blue, and none above 300'.
There was evidence of gusts.
Not proof there was NOT somewthing, but the evidence shows a
plane, too slow, too low, barely flying, and 300' agl after almost
3 miles of flight.
(I hope to hell with a running start he got off in less than 1,700'.
Impact was almost 10,000' off the END of the 6,700' paved runway.)
>
>If you believe this scenario would have been safe in a 182, I can post
>several NTSB reports of 182 accidents which suggest otherwise.
What? proof Wind shear can down anything, including "Heavies"?
No Shit.
It would have STILL been stupid.
It still would have been dangerous.
But stuff them, and all the shit they had in a 182 and you would have
been 200# under gross and would have been thru the identified
wind-shear danger zone in a LOT less than 14,000". Consider the
20 Kt headwind documented by doppler radar and the Crab angle.
Probably enough to follow that 414 thru 1,000' AGL or so.
>The suit to which he refers originally named Cessna and Lycoming as
>codefendants. They were dropped after the initial discovery phase. If there
>were the slighted shread of evidence undercovered to substantiate your
>comments, do you think this would have been the case?
Presuming we are still talking about he Dubroff incident...
Yeah, they "Discovered" the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of
1994".
What do you think that law was all about?
It means you can't sue them anymore for stupid pilot stunts just because
THEY have lots of cash and the pilot doesn't.
You think Cessna and Lycoming are going to roll over and set such a
precident after such a hard fought victory, I think NOT.
In reality overstatements as to AC capability are only a minor
part of the cause IMHO anyway.
The Lawers want the easy money and with a determined "Target"
with New Legal protections, they wouldn't have won.
> Do you think that posting such nonsense does your readers a service?
I have facts, you simply twist and distort what I posted by taking
things out of a very clear context and posting retorts to statements
I didn't make.
You may disagree with those facts, but they are hardly random musings.
I looked at and flew a 177B and an RG.
The 177 was for sale and the RG wanted a partner.
I was looking to upgrade from a C-150. I didn't see much improvement.
I WANTED to, I liked the look if the planes, they just didn't
measure up.
In the end I got the 182 for less than the cost of either of the
cardinals. Yes, even my 1/2 of the retract.
>- Rod Farlee
Here Is the report from the Aviation Consumer book I pointed you to
in the First place.
As far as I am concerned it Proves my assertion the book numbers are
overstated.
INCLUDE:
In 1972 in California, a 1968 Cardinal with four people aboard crashed
into a mountain ridge shortly after takeoff from a field with a density
altitude of 5,000 feet. The pilot's survivors filed suit against Cessna,
claiming the airplane did not meet the performance claimed in the
handbook. The plaintiff's attorney in the case hired a professional
test pilot, Mike Antoniou, to precisely measure the Cardinal's
performance under carefully controlled conditions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
More than 100 hours of Flight-testing was done, using sophisticated
performance-measuring equipment. Says Antoniou, "It's very probable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that the instrumentation used in these tests was more extensive than
what Cessna used when it certified the airplane."
The airplane was carefully rigged to Cessna specifications, and all
radio antennas were removed to cut drag.
(Note that extra attention to "Fairness", Biased against reality IMHO
Who has no antennas these days?)
After consultation with Lycoming, it was confirmed that the engine
was putting out its full rated power.
(Fair Here as well)
The tests showed the
Cardinal failed to meet its claimed performance in almost all areas
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and in fact failed to meet minimum FAA certification standards in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
some cases. For example, rate of climb (gross weight, sea level)
was found to be an anemic 560 fpm, compared to the book claim of
^^^ (At Sea level no less)
670 fpm. Flaps-up stall speed was discovered to be as high as 69
mph (at forward c.g.) compared to the handbook claim of 64 mph.
FAA rules require rate of climb (in fpm) to be 10 times higher than the
stall speed (in mph) in the takeoff configuration.
(These inability to climb the expected profile and Higher than
advertised Stall factors are what will kill you quicker then
anything)
Thus, based on the Cardinal's true numbers, it should have had a climb
rate of at least 690 fpm to be certified. It fell short of that
requirement by nearly 20 percent.
^^^^^^^^^^
Airspeed errors also exceeded FAA limits.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Maybe pilot observations are actual speeds, and maybe not)
Antoniou also discovered that the actual takeoff distance over a 50-foot
obstacle at 7,500 feet density altitude and gross weight was 6,500 feet,
not 4,680 feet as the book claimed.
Cruise speed was about seven mph below book, max speed about 10 mph short.
END of INCLUED Article.
My statemnets that the numbers are overstated are based on personal
observations and documented controlled tests.
That source of documentation was refered to in my original post.
Marc
Newps
quickly this was not a plane for me. No performance. I certainly didn't do
anything scientific, didn't have to. If I still lived in the midwest, below 1000
feet msl it would be OK. But I live at 3650 msl, so at 90F the DA is 7000. This
made the Cardinal a 2 place plane. It was very good looking and I immediately
fell in love with the ailerons. No headroom,though. I'm tall from the waist up,
so if you are too, you better sit in one first. My headset always hit the
headliner with the seat at its lowest position. Then I flew the 182, the rest is
history. Very different planes. The Cardinal may be right for you, that's a
decision you have to make. Put the O-470 in the Cardinal and then you've got
something.
Rod Farlee
http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/SEA/96A079.htm
and the full 69-page NTSB accident report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/aar9702.pdf
which requires Adobe Acrobat reader, but includes performance
charts, tables of recorded wind data, and a map.
The NTSB's conclusions have been reviewed by many people,
including Bruce Landsberg of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation,
in the May 1997 issue of "AOPA Pilot", available at:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9705.html
No one else has reached the conclusions you have, nor even
mentions them as a contributing factor. Is this evidence of
a vast conspiracy, or of your imagination or just rhetoric?
D.F.S. <d...@xmission.xmission.com> writes:
>I DIDN'T see a reference to the actual 69 Page NTSB report.
>I have that report.
>The plane was 84 Lbs or just over THREE PERCENT over gross
>and wouldn't FLY....
>>We will never know the exact wind sheer encountered on the edge
>>of that thunderstorm.
>EXACTLY is a matter of definition.
>There IS a Doppler Radar Station on that field.
>There were records.
>They are included in the report.
>There is no evidence of severe windshear to slam an unsuspecting
>Aircraft into the dirt out of the blue, and none above 300'.
>There was evidence of gusts.
The problem is that ANYONE can access the full report at the
address above.
1) The Doppler radar at Cheyenne cannot measure wind shear.
The reflectometry data detect precipitation. It showed heavy
precip of over 3 inches per hour in the precise location where
the aircraft initiated a turn away from the thunderstorm.
2) Digitally wind data on the airport recorded a crosswind,
with gusts to 28 knots.
3) A PIREP of 30-knot wind shear was issued by a Cessna 414
who had just departed on the same track.
4) Lightning strikes were recorded in the immediate vicinity
of the airport.
5) The NTSB concluded that the pilot knowingly departed into the
face of the approaching thunderstorm.
6) The NTSB concluded that the pilot stalled the airplane.
How he may have stalled, and why he even chose to take off,
are the subject of the body of the NTSB report. Both your
"data" and your conclusion that this would have been successful
in a 182, are purely your own conjecture, and are both unwise and
unfounded in my opinion.
The NTSB researched the entire accident scenario in great detail.
Human factors figure high in this scenario. Fatigue, media
attention and itinerary pressure are detailed at great length
in the NTSB report.
Personally, I think the least we owe these three people is to
accurately report how they lost their lives, not to invent a
story to support a preconceived opinion. There is something to
be learned from the facts. We owe them, and ourselves, that.
- Rod Farlee
Rod Farlee
> Book Numbers are often fudged by the marketing Department to make
> the plane more "Competetive" compared to other makes and models,
> often those models have fudged numbers themselves, hence the
> "Justification".
The Cessna 177 was certified under FAR Part 23, which requires much
more extensive performance testing than the 1949-vintage CAR 3 standards
under which older designs, including the Cessna 172 and 182, were
certified. The Approved Flight Manual (POH) requirements of FAR 23.1585
(procedures) and 23.1587 (performance tables) are much more extensive
than they were under CAR 3. FAR 23.21(a) requires proof, in the form of
flight testing. Repeat: proof.
The conspiracy theory you allege is, well, quite imaginative and colorful,
but hardly original after TWA 800, X-files, etc. It needs some aliens.
> Cessna clearly LIED about the numbers when the cardinal came out.
> The report is at the end of the post. ...
>"In 1972 in California, a 1968 Cardinal with four people aboard crashed
>into a mountain ridge shortly after takeoff from a field with a density
>altitude of 5,000 feet. The pilot's survivors filed suit against Cessna,
>claiming the airplane did not meet the performance claimed in the
>handbook. The plaintiff's attorney in the case hired a professional
>test pilot, Mike Antoniou, to precisely measure the Cardinal's
>performance under carefully controlled conditions."
Oh yes, plaintiff's attorney's paid expert witnesses are widely respected
as a source of unbaised, accurate information. Bravo!
I have the "Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide" volume 1, and it
includes nothing of the section you quote. I have the complete Aviation
Consumer review from their February 15, 1995 issue, pages 4 through 12,
nor does it. Can you please verify your source, and give the publication
date please? If they ever printed this "information", why do you suspect
they deleted it from subsequent reviews? Is Aviation Consumer now part
of the vast conspiracy you imagine, along with the FAA and Cessna? Or
did they simply find that it was DISinformation, invented as part of an old
legal confrontation, which you choose to dredge out and promulgate?
Anyway, what you quoted apparently referred to the 1968 Cessna 177.
Again, I'm sorry for interjecting facts into your fantasies, but:
1968 C-177: 150 hp O-320, fixed pitch prop
1969 C-177A: 180 hp O-360, fixed pitch prop
1970-78 C-177B: 180 hp O-360, constant speed prop, new airfoil,
1971-78 C-177RG: 200 hp IO-360, c/s prop, retractable gear.
You must realize that you're painting with a pretty broad brush to use
disinformation on the first, to paint the last two models. (This thread
is entitled "177RG" and Dubroff was in a 177B. Neither is 150 hp.)
It's about like taking one C-172 pilot report, and applying it to a 182RG.
>Presuming we are still talking about he Dubroff incident...
>Yeah, they "Discovered" the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of
>1994".
>What do you think that law was all about?
>It means you can't sue them anymore for stupid pilot stunts just because
>THEY have lots of cash and the pilot doesn't.
The act gives NO PROTECTION whatsover for your conspiracy to falsify
performance tables. That is explicited excluded (see attached). Are you
alleging that Cessna, the FAA, the NTSB, Aviation Consumer, the AOPA
Air Safety Foundation, and even Lisa Hathaway's (Jessica Dubroff's mother)
lawyer are all "co-conspirators", and only you hold the key to the truth?
Your view of reality is interesting. Again, do you think that posting such
nonsense does your readers a service? Sorry, but we can read, too!
- Rod Farlee
Exerpt from the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, at
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/government/PL103298.TXT
"(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply--
(1) if the claimant pleads with specificity the facts necessary to
prove, and proves, that the manufacturer with respect to a type
certificate or airworthiness certificate for, or obligations with respect
to continuing airworthiness of, an aircraft or a component, system,
subassembly, or other part of an aircraft knowingly misrepresented to the
Federal Aviation Admin-
istration, or concealed or withheld from the Federal Aviation
Administration, required information that is material and relevant to the
performance or the maintenance or operation of such aircraft, or the
component, system, subassembly, or other part, that is causally related
to the harm which the claimant allegedly suffered; ..."
Rod Farlee
>No headroom,though. I'm tall from the waist up, so if you are too, you
>better sit in one first. My headset always hit the headliner with the seat
>at its lowest position.
Ah, I see. Cessna articulating seats sit higher, even in their lowest
position,
than the standard fixed seats. You could've swapped out the "high chair"
seats and pocketed a few hundred bucks, rather than swapping airplanes!
>Put the O-470 in the Cardinal and then you've got something.
Well, another nose-heavy hog, I guess? <grin> Put a TSIO-360 in front,
with the boost limited to 225 hp, head for the flight levels, and do about
165 ktas in the fixed gear, or 179 ktas in the retractable gear Cardinal.
That's what a few people have done.
Heavens, even a Cherokee 6 handles better than a 182. Climbs better
with the same load, is roomier, quieter, cheaper to buy or overhaul, and
goes faster burning exactly the same amount of gas (not saying much!).
If you want to blow the doors off a 182RG instead, get the later Lance or
Saratoga. They use a little more runway, not much more if you limit them
to only a 182 load. With 182 prices where they are today, one has many
choices in buying more, for less.
But, to each his own. That's the bottom line. In comparing the 177RG
and 182 fixed gear, as this thread was nominally supposed to (but hasn't),
the choice is between efficiency and power. Neither is the answer for all
needs. They are both successful compromises. To each, his own.
- Rod Farlee
Newps
articulating? What if your about 5 feet tall, like my wife? I would think
you'd be staring the DG dead on. Both my mechanic and I assumed that the
articulating seat included the fixed seats position in its range. As for
engine power 90% of my flying is simply to fly. I'm not going anywhere in
particular. I once climbed to 115 to try and find more tailwind, but the vast
majority of the time I'm at 2000 agl or less, usually a lot less. So I got a
good chuckle about your suggestion to climb to the flight levels. The cost of
gas is cheaper in the 182 than in the 177. I got the mogas STC and it now costs
$13.50 per hour for gas. And mogas is expensive here in MT. If I lived in
Wyoming it would cost less than $11 per hour. As for noise I think my 182 is
alot quieter than either the 177 or 172. However it's irrelevant in any plane
with my Lightspeeds on. Went to Florida this past spring and decided to get
checked out in the Warrior for our annual flight to Key West. That cured me of
low wings. I think they land a little easier, but all this climbing up on the
wings and over the seats, I think not. My hangar mate has a Mooney 201. Good
Lord, they are about an inch and a half wide and three tall. Whatever floats
your boat I guess.
Rod Farlee wrote:
> Newps <ne...@mcn.net> writes:
> >No headroom,though. I'm tall from the waist up, so if you are too, you
> >better sit in one first. My headset always hit the headliner with the seat
> >at its lowest position.
>
> Ah, I see. Cessna articulating seats sit higher, even in their lowest
> position,
> than the standard fixed seats. You could've swapped out the "high chair"
> seats and pocketed a few hundred bucks, rather than swapping airplanes!
>
> >Put the O-470 in the Cardinal and then you've got something.
>
Rod Farlee
>I'm not sure if that makes sense. Why would the fixed seat be lower than
>the articulating? What if your about 5 feet tall, like my wife? I would
think
>you'd be staring the DG dead on. Both my mechanic and I assumed that
>the articulating seat included the fixed seats position in its range.
I agree it doesn't make sense that Cessna didn't build the articulating
seat as low as the fixed seat in the 177s. My wife bought a seat cushion
at Pep Boys to raise her eye level; makes no difference in flight, but she
says it improves her flare.
I imagine it would be more of an issue for her in the 182, which has such
a high instrument panel. I have to crank the seat up in a 182 myself,
and I'm 6'2".
>The cost of gas is cheaper in the 182 than in the 177. I got the mogas
>STC and it now costs $13.50 per hour for gas. And mogas is expensive
>here in MT. If I lived in Wyoming it would cost less than $11 per hour.
Petersen Aviation sells a mogas STC for the 177. On local sightseeing
flights, it burns under 7 gph. It has the same O-320-E2D as the C-172,
which does better on mogas than 100LL.
(I'm still confused as to whether people are talking about the the 177,
177A, 177B, or 177RG in this thread; they all have different engines.
The 177RG does not have a mogas STC, but I've not found mogas for
sale at any airport in Montana. I usually stop at Helena or Kalispell;
both have self-serve 100LL for $1.80, best price I can find out there.)
>As for noise I think my 182 is alot quieter than either the 177 or 172.
The 177 and 172 are quite different from one another in that regard.
>Went to Florida this past spring and decided to get checked out in the
>Warrior for our annual flight to Key West. That cured me of low wings.
>I think they land a little easier, but all this climbing up on the wings and
>over the seats, I think not.
The 177 is the only Cessna you simply walk up to, and sit down in,
like a car. One has to climb up into all other Cessnas.
The various low-wing aircraft also differ from one another in that regard.
The Cherokee 6, which I mentioned, has an enormous rear door, and
one can slip forward between the seats if one prefers to enter that way.
- Rod Farlee
Rod Farlee
D.F.S.
> and the full 69-page NTSB accident report:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/aar9702.pdf
> which requires Adobe Acrobat reader, but includes performance
> charts, tables of recorded wind data, and a map.
> The NTSB's conclusions have been reviewed by many people,
> No one else has reached the conclusions you have, nor even
> mentions them as a contributing factor. Is this evidence of
> a vast conspiracy, or of your imagination or just rhetoric?
Conspiracy my ass, that plane sucks in the situation it was in,
and everyone knows that.
In a more "Correct" vein...
It is implicitly understood this plane was overloaded and is
hardly a good performer anyway in high density altitude and heavy
circumstances.
I made reference to that, it was put back in the pilots lap because
he "Should have known better".
In the end that is true.
Why dwell on that in the report, he exceeded the capability of the plane
therefore it is his fault.
If Cessna overstates the performance and capibility of an Aircraft
and a pilot without experience to show otherwise expects those
numbers to be correct to assure a safe flight and they are not, they share
some of the blame.
> D.F.S. <d...@xmission.xmission.com> writes:
> >I DIDN'T see a reference to the actual 69 Page NTSB report.
> >I have that report.
> >The plane was 84 Lbs or just over THREE PERCENT over gross
> >and wouldn't FLY....
> >>We will never know the exact wind sheer encountered on the edge
> >>of that thunderstorm.
> >EXACTLY is a matter of definition.
> >There IS a Doppler Radar Station on that field.
> >There were records.
> >They are included in the report.
> >There is no evidence of severe windshear to slam an unsuspecting
> >Aircraft into the dirt out of the blue, and none above 300'.
> >There was evidence of gusts.
> The problem is that ANYONE can access the full report at the
> address above.
Good, I presumed nothing less.
I just figured people could find it themselves, it is right on the NTSB
web site.
> 1) The Doppler radar at Cheyenne cannot measure wind shear.
Excuse me?
Section 1.7.1.2 stated:
The nearest Doppler Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 (WSR-88D)
was located on the at the Cheyenne NWS office on the Southern boundry of
the airport. Velocity Data derived from the from the Doppler radar
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
indicated that the wind direction in the airport area around the time of
the accident was from 260 Deg true near the surface and did not shift
substantially thru approx. 350' AGL. The winds were 15-30 Kts.
> The reflectometry data detect precipitation. It showed heavy
> precip of over 3 inches per hour in the precise location where
> the aircraft initiated a turn away from the thunderstorm.
I mav have been as high as 3"/Hr IF it were all liquid, there were reports
some of it was frozen. In the frozen state it has a much higher visibility
to the radar system and in all probability actual precip was lower due
to that effect.
All in all it is has no real impact on performance, 3% IF it was all
liquid, lower if it was part ice pellets.
It does mean there are probably other factors realted to the fact there is
a storm in the area, but the water itself was shown to be minor issue.
it did cut visibility and that may have been a factor.
> 2) Digitally wind data on the airport recorded a crosswind,
> with gusts to 28 knots.
The listed Data Derived from the Doppler radar system, that you
say can't detect air movement?
Evidence is clear this plane stalled, it was not slammed into the
ground by a vertical windshear. At that level ANY vertical flow would
cause horizontal flow at ground level, as if we are not pretty much
talking ground level here anyway.
This was a factor of horizontal airflow With rain in the air that radar
system recorded that data.
Page 18 shows those tables.
Wind increased 10 minutes before the crash, then varied.
looking at the data for the 8 minutes before the crash, the wind speed
varied from 20-23 or 22-28 Kts depending on how the data is averaged in
the charts, 2 minute average or 5 second chunks.
That 28 Kts was TOTAL wind speed, not Crosswind the cross track info
shown in those charts varies from 18-21 and 19-23 as above.
In that time frame, the maximum variation in wind speed was 6 Kts
> 3) A PIREP of 30-knot wind shear was issued by a Cessna 414
> who had just departed on the same track.
Noted, the pilot should have listened.
> 4) Lightning strikes were recorded in the immediate vicinity
> of the airport.
We know there was a nasty storm, that is another indicator.
They were not hit by lightning.
As such what bearing does it have?
Sorta like the reports "Someone once saw him start the plane with a
towbar attached" "Someone had video showing him start than stop
the engine to remove chocks he forgot" "Someone saw him fly below
IFR minimums once"
Prejudicial, but not exactly related to the accident.
They may show previous lack of judgement, bet we already know he was
too tired to be flying, and the facts speak for themselves as to the
wisdom of the flight in question.
> 5) The NTSB concluded that the pilot knowingly departed into the
> face of the approaching thunderstorm.
Stupid.
> 6) The NTSB concluded that the pilot stalled the airplane.
Yup, not "Unknown windshear that slammed his butt into the ground."
He was too heavy, too low, too slow and probably relying on
invalid data if the tests I posted info on are indicitive of later
models of the cardinal AKA, the "TESTS".
Too Heavy... from the tests, BOOK gross weight results in pathetic climb
ability.
Too Low... in addition to overstated load capacity he overloaded that.
the extra is his fault. The result is he simply couldn't climb.
Too Slow... the other factors on the NTSB report push the stall speed
up 5 mph, the "tests" put stall as high as 69 mph this gives a
stall speed of almost 75 MPH and a best-rate-of-climb at 81.
Interesting how that margin of safety matches up with the 6kts
wind speed variation shown in the report.
to top it off he turned downwind.
> How he may have stalled, and why he even chose to take off,
> are the subject of the body of the NTSB report. Both your
> "data" and your conclusion that this would have been successful
> in a 182, are purely your own conjecture, and are both unwise and
> unfounded in my opinion.
I said it would have been stupid, but with the DOCUMENTED wind
speeds and being 200lbs under a conservative gross, instead of
90# over an optimistic one and having a plane with better climb
ability to go with 55 extra HP I think they could have got the
300' necessary to survive.
> The NTSB researched the entire accident scenario in great detail.
> Human factors figure high in this scenario. Fatigue, media
> attention and itinerary pressure are detailed at great length
> in the NTSB report.
Granted, the fact a better plane for the situation might have saved them
doesn't change the fact they overextended themselves in the plane they
DID have.
> Personally, I think the least we owe these three people is to
> accurately report how they lost their lives,
They made many mistakes, people tend to center on the media
aspects, that is wrong and makes it easy to say "Not Me".
Why they were in a hurry and why the "Schedule" was in place is not
an issue.
Don't presume the Media, the fact it was a child or the record attempt,
are real factors.
The condition of the pilot, the weather they flew in, the overloading
and the capability of the aircraft are what killed them.
Replace them with mom, dad and sis in the back seat on the way to
sun-and-fun and they would have been just as dead.
> not to invent a story to support a preconceived opinion.
Nor to ignore the capibility of the plane was a factor in 3 deaths,
because you happen to like it.
The fact remans that plane is a lousy choice for high density altitude
operations.
NO MATTER WHAT THE P.O.H. States!
> There is something to be learned from the facts.
> We owe them, and ourselves, that.
And That lesson sure as hell isn't "Don't make X-C record attempts with
children"
It is know the ability of your AC and don't ask more of it than that.
The KNOW part of that is learn for yourself from YOUR plane, screw the
"Book" numbers if they are optimistic, know the REAL limits.
Some planes at gross weight and 7,000 feet operating from miles of
pavement are not a problem at all, others will scare the hell out of you.
If you expect to cut "screw the book numbers" out of the context of that
sentence and flame me for that don't bother.
Marc
Dylan Smith
> It is implicitly understood this plane was overloaded and is
> hardly a good performer anyway in high density altitude and heavy
> circumstances.
It would likely have got below book values since it is
extremely probable that the pilot didn't lean the mixture
for a high density altitude takeoff.
Had they tried to make the flight in a Hawk-XP it would
have probably ended up the same way.
--
Email: dylan...@hotmail.com
Dylan Smith 1810 Space Park Drive, Houston, TX 77573
Standard disclaimer applies.
D.F.S.
Subject: Re: 177RG vs. 182 Fixed gear
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
References: <6rtpbg$m8j$1...@news.xmission.com> <199808251853...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Organization: XMission Internet http://www.xmission.com
Distribution:
Rod Farlee <rodf...@aol.com> wrote:
> D.F.S. <d...@xmission.xmission.com> writes:
> > Book Numbers are often fudged by the marketing Department to make
> > the plane more "Competetive" compared to other makes and models,
> > often those models have fudged numbers themselves, hence the
> > "Justification".
> The Cessna 177 was certified under FAR Part 23, which requires much
> more extensive performance testing than the 1949-vintage CAR 3 standards
> under which older designs, including the Cessna 172 and 182, were
> certified. The Approved Flight Manual (POH) requirements of FAR 23.1585
> (procedures) and 23.1587 (performance tables) are much more extensive
> than they were under CAR 3. FAR 23.21(a) requires proof, in the form of
> flight testing. Repeat: proof.
I don't give a shit what the "Standards" are.
Companies mess with and manipulate test results all the time.
The laws of physics don't change.
Retesting should show the same results, if they don't one of the tests
are wrong, manipulated or misrepresented.
> > Cessna clearly LIED about the numbers when the cardinal came out.
> > The report is at the end of the post. ...
> >"In 1972 in California, a 1968 Cardinal with four people aboard crashed
> >into a mountain ridge shortly after takeoff from a field with a density
> >altitude of 5,000 feet. The pilot's survivors filed suit against Cessna,
> >claiming the airplane did not meet the performance claimed in the
> >handbook. The plaintiff's attorney in the case hired a professional
> >test pilot, Mike Antoniou, to precisely measure the Cardinal's
> >performance under carefully controlled conditions."
> Oh yes, plaintiff's attorney's paid expert witnesses are widely respected
> as a source of unbaised, accurate information. Bravo!
Just like we should take corporate marketing info at face value?
make them Provide the raw data and let the facts show themselves.
> I have the "Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide" volume 1, and it
> includes nothing of the section you quote. I have the complete Aviation
> Consumer review from their February 15, 1995 issue, pages 4 through 12,
> nor does it. Can you please verify your source, and give the publication
> date please? If they ever printed this "information", why do you suspect
> they deleted it from subsequent reviews? Is Aviation Consumer now part
> of the vast conspiracy you imagine, along with the FAA and Cessna? Or
> did they simply find that it was DISinformation, invented as part of an old
> legal confrontation, which you choose to dredge out and promulgate?
I was going to cut that and just answer the question but the insinuation
and tyrade was so telling.
Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide, expanded third edition
Belvoir Publications, Page 85.
It was scanned and OCRd.
> Anyway, what you quoted apparently referred to the 1968 Cessna 177.
> Again, I'm sorry for interjecting facts into your fantasies, but:
> 1968 C-177: 150 hp O-320, fixed pitch prop
> 1969 C-177A: 180 hp O-360, fixed pitch prop
> 1970-78 C-177B: 180 hp O-360, constant speed prop, new airfoil,
> 1971-78 C-177RG: 200 hp IO-360, c/s prop, retractable gear.
> You must realize that you're painting with a pretty broad brush to use
> disinformation on the first, to paint the last two models.
This thread moved to the subject of cardinals in general.
Most of the fixed gear cardinals ever built were built in those first
2 years, "Before Word got out" as aviation consumer reported it.
First off there are more of the exact model used in the testing than any
other model of cardinal.
Who knows exactly what upgrades those models have seen.
From that standpoint It addresses most cardinals out there.
I'm glad to hear falsification of performance data is something they are
still liable for.
OR I could take YOUR approach and question your sources, motives, validity
or data and a paper trail to PROVE that is the actual law as signed and
you have not pulled it out of context...
What would probably help all of us even more would be to grant them
protection if they come clean and provide raw data from tests run on
ACTUAL planes pulled from the current GA fleet and make sure all
owners get updated, documented and verifiable numbers for planes they
own.
> Are you alleging that Cessna,
I claim Cessna overstated the numbers on a new model of Aircraft.
It is common with a lot of planes out there.
You will probably get laughed at if you actually EXPECT fuel flow, range,
cruise and climb numbers just because the POH says so.
> the FAA, the NTSB,
It was clear the AC was overloaded, even according to cessnas numbers.his
fault end of story.
> Aviation Consumer,
They printed the report I scanned and posted.
> the AOPA Air Safety Foundation,
The AOPA was much more concerned about how this made G.A. look to the
public and the main thrust was to show them how this does not represent
General Aviation as a whole.
"It was a Media stunt with children in situations they are eqpt. to
understand or deal with fully"
In reality it is typical of general aviation accidents.
They were pushing the plane beyond its limits.
They pushed the weather to try and meet some schedule or deadline.
They showed poor judgment.
They were probably concerned about appearances.
They were not skilled in the operational reqmts. of the task at hand.
Poor visibility was probability a contributing factor.
In the end he stalled the plane close to the ground and was unable to
recover.
Pretty God Damn typical if you ask me.
> and even Lisa Hathaway's (Jessica Dubroff's mother)
The story presentd to the public was She and her dead husband killed
Jessica in some publicity stunt for personal gain and fame.
In part that IS true, IMHO, more so in yours it would appear.
I would disappear too.
> and only you hold the key to the truth?
The fact is that plane a poor performer in such situations.
It is understood at the outset, the fact is he should have known and
planned accordingly. That is about the 6th time I've said that.
It is hardly a "Secret" it is so far the other way it is pushed out
of the picture because it is implicit.
One of YOUR favorite articles makes a point of it and how the "Proper
Aircraft (414) makes all the difference"
Truth be known if the weather was a bad as you infer he should have
kept his butt on the ground for another hour like the beech did.
But he was just fine, so it was the "Correct" choice.
Your pretending the performance of the cardinal was no factor won't
change the fact better climb was proven to make all the difference.
> Your view of reality is interesting.
> Again, do you think that posting such nonsense does your readers
> a service?
There is that term again, "Readers".
Readers, That is not a damn newspaper, it is usenet. By definition it
is opinions and general personal conversation.
If you want that "Higher Standard" go read a trade journal.
Unless that publication makes statements you don't like...
Like Aviation Consumer.
Do you think you are doing people a "Service" to suggest they load planes
to gross weights and fly out of high density altitude fields by
basing those decisions on MFGR provided book numbers because they are
unbiased and WILL represent real life performance.
I say trust to some extent but verify, you say anything less than blind
faith you will get those numbers is evidence of delusions of a
Mfgr, FAA, Federal law enforcement "Conspiracy", BS.
Overstatement is so common it is understood to exist and people look
at all performance claims with a jaundiced eye.
That is unfortunate in that it hurts aircraft where the mfgr had
the decency to provide real-world reproducable numbers.
You are going to stand here and say Book numbers represent reality?
> Sorry, but we can read, too!
Comprehension and keeping things in the context presented seems to be
a problem though.
I highly doubt anybody but us gives a shit anymore anyway.
Marc
D.F.S.
> D.F.S. wrote:
> > It is implicitly understood this plane was overloaded and is
> > hardly a good performer anyway in high density altitude and heavy
> > circumstances.
> It would likely have got below book values since it is
> extremely probable that the pilot didn't lean the mixture
> for a high density altitude takeoff.
Hi did not lean it, that was one finding.
Larry Guarcello
same financial situation & buy a cream Cessna 210 loaded to the balls w/
good avionics in a co-ownership arrangement. You'll have the ultimate
(IMHO) cross country machine for the $ & someone to enjoy it with. When
you really get down to it, if you can afford $75,000.00 for an airplane, is
the extra $5 or $6 bucks an hour fuel burn going to keep you from flying?
Not to mention the $15,000.00 in your pocket.........a great headstart on
the additional maintenance and/or overhaul expenses.
Rod Farlee
being constrained by the facts. But you persist in several misstatements
of fact.
1) The "tests" you cite are on a 1968 C-177. Jessica Dubroff was in a
1973 C-177B. They have the following differences: 150 hp vs 180 hp
engines, fixed pitch vs constant speed props, NACA 6400 vs NACA 2400
series airfoils (the C-177B has an airfoil very similar to that of the 172
and 182). Each of these has significant effect on takeoff and climb
performance, and on the low speed and stall characteristics. They are
quite different airplanes. They look similar, but that's about it.
2) Are the "tests" you cited valid? If so, why didn't the plaintiffs prevail?
If so, why has Aviation Consumer deleted all reference to these "tests"
in all their subsequent editions and reviews? If so, why hasn't the NTSB
even asked the FAA to review the certification tests? If they were the
slightest bit relevant to Dubroff's C-177B, why didn't the NTSB mention
them, rather than citing the POH as the source of performance data?
Why was Cessna dropped as a defendant in the Dubroff suit? Might it be
that the "tests" you cited are doubtful validity, and of no relevance to this
model even if they were?
There are two reasons why an aircraft might not achieve book performance.
An aircraft's actual weight might be heavier than it's "certified" weight,
and the density altitude might be higher than the pressure altitude. The
NTSB carefully documented and excluded both of these in the Duboff
accident. But pilots sometimes aren't as careful in considering them
before concluding that the POH is inaccurate, and this goes for any
airplane.
Readers are faced with weighing the credibility of one "expert" witness
paid by a plaintiff's lawyer in one set of "tests" 25 years ago which have
never been reproduced, against that of Cessna, the FAA, the NTSB, the
judge, Aviation Consumer, AOPA Air Safety Foundation, or indeed their
own experience. DFS chooses the former, but few others will.
3) Have you ever stood outside while a thunderstorm producing localized
3 inch/hour precip, approaches? (Multiple lightning strikes in the vicinity
of the airport are cited by the NTSB because they verify the strong vertical
air movement characteristic of a *thunder*storm.)
Microbursts are now well understood. Such a shaft of heavy rain produces
a strong downdraft, often exceeding 2000 fpm. He flew directly into it, then
executed a turn out of it. The direction he turned was downwind and
perpendicular to the Doppler radar site. A Cessna 414 on that track
reported 30 knot gusts, and the storm continued to approach during the
minutes before the Dubroff aircraft arrived there. I reiterate, we can never
know the strength of the downdraft, tailwinds and gusts he encountered.
To dismiss this as the proximate cause, and instead cite dubious and
irrelevant "test" data from a quite different model of aircraft, is completely
misleading. Indeed, to suggest that a 182 or any nonturbocharged single
might have flown into this successfully is sheerest speculation, and is
highly ill advised.
The NTSB report sorts the facts from the fantasies very clearly. They
conclude that the cause of this accident lies in the decisions and actions
of the pilot, not in the airplane.
- Rod Farlee
Rod Farlee
>Hi did not lean it, that was one finding.
The full NTSB analysis of the Dubroff accident is available:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/aar9702.pdf
There are 23 Findings, on pages 50 through 52. This is not
one of them.
The Analysis section, page 38: "It is necessary to lean the
fuel mixture at higher altitudes to allow maximum engine
performance; an over-rich mixture can result in appreciable
loss of power and reduced climb performance capability. The
mixture control knob was found in the full rich (forward)
position at the accident site, thus suggesting that it was in
that position prior to impact, although it is possible that
the knob was out and impact forces moved the knob forward without
bending the rod. The pilot's failure to stop at the end of the
runway before his takeoff roll, which would have been the most
common and appropriate time to adjust fuel/air mixture, further
suggests that he did not properly lean the mixture."
The NTSB does not include this as a Finding, because at least
they are capable of differentiating speculation from fact (as Dylan
did). I encourage others to read the NTSB report and analysis, if
they wish to do the same.
From the NTSB synopsis:
"Probable cause: the pilot-in-command's improper decision to take
off into deteriorating weather conditions (including turbulence,
gusty winds, and an advancing thunderstorm and associated
precipitation) when the airplane was overweight and when the
density altitude was higher than he was accustomed to, resulting
in a stall caused by failure to maintain airspeed. Contributing
to the pilot-in-command's decision to take off was the desire to
adhere to an overly ambitious itinerary, in part because of media
commitments."
http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/SEA/96A079.htm
- Rod Farlee
Jim and Cookie Kent
Thanx for another highly entertaining newsgroup "debate". Marc, you
obviously didn't know Rod's reputation for destroying others who don't have
all their facts straight.
This particular thread was really entertaining for me because I have been
flying my C-177RG for 6 and a half years. I can't remember what Rod flys
off hand, but he's always been an expert on Cardinals. I have flown C-182s
and if you look at aircraft of the same year, time and equipment, you will
spend $20,000 more, carry about the same weight and go slower with a C-182.
It will also fly like a truck compared to the C-177RG and definitely won't
draw the admiring looks either on the ground or in the air that the Cardinal
will. My last 2 annuals have both cost under $1000.00, I've never had a
gear problem, and when I cover the ground at 140+ knots and only burn 9.5
GPH (even less at the service ceiling of 17,300 ft) it's hard to beat.
Anyway, way to go guys, it's been a blast.
====================================================
D.F.S. wrote in message <6s1rt9$i0a$1...@news.xmission.com>...
Rod Farlee
straight.
Ouch!
My apologies. I sure don't wish to "destroy" anyone. Just trying to sift
the facts, from the speculation and opinion. Each has its place, in this
or any other discussion. There are still some statements labelled "fact"
in this thread, which are just opinions, but they're apparent to all I think.
- Rod Farlee
D.F.S.
> Marc & Rod;
> Thanx for another highly entertaining newsgroup "debate". Marc, you
> obviously didn't know Rod's reputation for destroying others who don't have
> all their facts straight.
I've been quite busy the last few days, and am about sick of this shit
anyway.
The fact is rod got pissed because I maligned his favorite plane.
He made several fasle assertions, as soon as I posted a reply he moved on
to another falsehood often based on dishonest tactics of twisting and
taking my statements out of context.
I have not got the time or inclination to continue with someone lacking
basic honesty and decency to no do such things.
I posted my CERTIFIED weight and balance done by a local A&P with scales.
Rod called my a liar because he thought the numbers sounded too high.
I posted comments to show how owners I know view loading and capability
of planes in question.
Rod pulled that out of the clear context it was in an called me stupid for
loading a plane in that way. It was clear and disclaimered in the original
text it was general attitudes, not loading instructions.
I said I thought the numbers on the cardinal were overstated.
I'm hardly the only one to think so, including 3 CARDINAL owners I know.
I posted references, and in the end the full account of testing from
aviation consumer that showed that fact.
You may disagree, but they were instrumented and documented tests that
showed major differences between book numbers and reality.
That plane was not the dubroff plane, that is no secret.
It is also no secret the book numbers increased from those on the tested
plane to the dubroff plane in proportion to power increses on new engines.
if the original numbers are a crock, the increased ones are quite
probably also.
As to the outcome of the legal case in question, this comes back to Rods
tactics.
Rod said "If the Tests were true, why did they loose the case"
The presumption is that he will say they lost, and force the proof they
won back on me as a way to discredit the tests he disagrees with.
I don't have that info, nor do I believe you do.
Rod, YOU made the statement they lost, YOU prove that with verifiable
facts.
Then again since when does liability law represent truth and justice.
Look to the hundreds of clearly pilot error lawsuits that were won against
aircraft and engine mfgrs.
Run it out of gas and sue teledyne, fly IFR into a mountain sue cessna.
Then he pitched a fit when I presented the evidence on the instrumented
tests on the cardinal.
Lots of weeping, wailing and accusations that it MUST have been false
because it has been Purged from aviation consumer because it was clearly
untrue.
I'll tell you a little secret, I don't care that it does not appear in
other issues and publications he may have.
The fact is that version if still in print and is still the one you
will find at your local book store.
The fact you can also order other aviation consumer publications
some published at later dates does not change the fact that my
reference is the version of that book currently in print, and currently
for sale.
Rod stuck to the undocumented, unwarranted and contrary to the official
findings that that plane was slammed into the ground by windshear that
would have forced ANY plane down.
The NTSB report clearly shows an overloaded aircraft in high density
conditions which all observers recognised as being in trouble from
the moment it left the runway.
The pilot was not in a fit condition to fly and did not appear to have
enough experience in high airfield operations.
He was flying in poor visibility conditions with gusty and variable
winds.
He turned downwind while flying too slow in the first place, lost even
more, airspeed and crashed in a VERY typical fashion.
Several observers reports support that finding.
The fact the 414 pilot called gusty variable winds "windshear", does not
make it so.
There is a definition and common understanding of windshear. The NTSB
did not mention windshear in its findings, they DID mention gusty
conditions.
"Gusty" ie. standard, common, conditions you need to recognise and deal
with all the time as pilots.
Not some etheral out-of-the-blue-slam-your-butt-into-the-dirt-without-
warning-windshear.
Funny how he can ignore such findings that show this to be common
accident based on many common errors and conditions to say this is some
sort of supernatural situation. I guess the presumption is it would
be necessary for something like that to crash a cardinal.
Funny how the on the other hand the standard if evidence changes.
evidence shows:
A very tired and distracted pilot.
High density altitudes.
Documented evidence that showed he did not do PROPER runup and in fact
did not even stop before take-off.
Many observer reports that the plane was not performing as it should.
Evidence this pilot had little experience in higher altitude operations.
The fact the mixture was found set to full rich.
The fact the mechanism and knob showed no evidence of impact or outside
factors one would expect from being forced full-rich on impact.
What may constitute legal PROOF and justification for an official
"Finding" notwithstanding. As a pilot with higher altitude field operation
"I" can say on a personal level the evidence tells me he did not
lean the damn engine before departing.
THAT is unfounded "Presumption" to Rod.
Marc
Rod Farlee
>I posted my CERTIFIED weight and balance done by a local A&P with scales.
>Rod called my a liar because he thought the numbers sounded too high.
I did not, and they do not. My, my, you are an emotional one, aren't you?
You chose an ambiguous word, "certified" which is usually a euphemism
for "computed". Only 10% of Cessna's production run of any model were
ever weighed at the factory. I simply posed the question, because the
reason some individual aircraft might not appear to meet POH performance
is that they are heavier than their computed empty weight. If simply asking
the question offended you, I apologize. That was not my intention. But it
is an important question that pilots should ask.
I do not think you are a "liar" or "stupid", statements which you attribute
to me. In fact, I never even use such words, nor "chicken shit", "pissed",
"smartass", etc. I find them unproductive. Besides, you may find that
others discount your comments if you employ such a vocabulary.
>The fact is that version if still in print and is still the one you
>will find at your local book store.
But it isn't. "The Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide" edited by
Andrew B. Douglas, 7th edition (January 1996) is currently in print from
Belvior Publications. It includes the 2/15/95 review. TAB Books still
has the 3rd edition (March 1989) in print. Neither contains the text
you cite. Nor does the out-of-print 5th edition. Might it have come from
the 1st (1981) or 2nd (1985) editions, edited by Weeghman, which are
long out of print? I've asked you to post the edition and date. Why have
you not done so? If these allegations were substantiated, why has the
NTSB and the FAA chosen to disregard them?
>As to the outcome of the legal case in question...
News articles covering the suit filed by Lisa Hathaway (Jessica Dubroff's
mother), in which Cessna and Lycoming were dropped as defendants,
mentioned that Cessna has never lost a suit involving the 177. They have
involving other models, alas. You will find these suits were dropped if
you follow Textron's annual reports. Recent ones are available at
http://www.textron.com under "Wall Street", "Shareholder Information".
Open and resolved liabilities are listed and discussed near the back of
each year's printed annual report.
>Then again since when does liability law represent truth and justice.
That's a particularly good question, since you based your argument on
unverifed allegations, even though no finding or action ever resulted.
[snipping lengthy speculation re Dubroff]
>...THAT is unfounded "Presumption" to Rod.
That is simply not the NTSB's findings. Proclaiming one's speculation
to be "fact" does not make it so. It is an insult to the intelligence of
other pilots, who are quite capable of reading the report for themselves,
as well as of reading AOPA ASF reports, Aviation Safety, Avweb, Flying,
or many other sources, all of which have reviewed the Dubroff accident.
Alas, they neither support nor even agree with your conclusion, though.
These airplanes are what they are; there's no mystery or conspiracy
about Cessnas. There are facts about them, on which we should be
able to agree (unless we invoke conspiracies to hide the facts), and
there are opinions on which we may disagree. But we shouldn't
confuse the two. That serves no useful purpose.
- Rod Farlee
D.F.S.
> I do not think you are a "liar" or "stupid", statements which you attribute
> to me. In fact, I never even use such words, nor "chicken shit", "pissed",
> "smartass", etc. I find them unproductive. Besides, you may find that
> others discount your comments if you employ such a vocabulary.
>
I do expect an honest exchange, even when people disagree.
I would have to admit that is true, I have a foul mouth and you calling
Me a liar when I had evidence to back my statemnets up and had pointed
them out in the first place.
You didn't use that perticular term, but that was exactly the implication.
> >The fact is that version is still in print and is still the one you
> >will find at your local book store.
>
> But it isn't.
YES!, it is, and a trip to www.barnesandnoble.com will prove that.
Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide
Belvoir Publications Belvoir Publications Staff
Retail Price: $27.95
Our Price: $22.36 You Save: $5.59 (20%)
In-Stock: Ships Immediately
Format: Paperback, 3rd ed., 314pp.
ISBN: 0830624414
Publisher: McGraw-Hil
Pub. Date: August 1988
Edition Description: Expanded 3rd ed
> I've asked you to post the edition and date. Why have you not done so?
This comes back to the dishonest tactics you use with the presumption
people will accept your counter statements as retribution of the FACTS.
This is a bare faced lie stated with such force people would presume it
to be true.
When challenged, you will claim it was true, there was no DATE.
I posted the info required to indentify the publication in question.
Remember this?
You replied to it, so you can't can't say it never made it
to your site
>> verify your source, and give the publication
>> date please? If they ever printed this "information", why do you suspect
>> they deleted it from subsequent reviews? Is Aviation Consumer now part
>> of the vast conspiracy you imagine, along with the FAA and Cessna? Or
>> did they simply find that it was DISinformation, invented as part of an old
>> legal confrontation, which you choose to dredge out and promulgate?
>
>I was going to cut that and just answer the question but the insinuation
>and tyrade was so telling.
>Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide, expanded third edition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Belvoir Publications, Page 85.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>It (The account of the instrumented tests showing very large differences
>between Cessna BOOK numbers and instrumented and documented tests done
>under very controlled conditions) was scanned and OCRd.
Anything less than the conditions of the instrumented tests would have
been met by you with contempt because:
the planes are overweight, and that is not accounted for in pilot reports
not being able to meet book numbers.
The pilot has poor form, and just doesn't know how to fly a cardinal
"Correctly"
They are unfounded reports.
people have a thing against cardinals......
Here we have documented scientific tests, that from the report appear to
be very fair. When they remove antennas, weigh the A/C, test the engine
have an expert test pilot run the tests and instrument over 100 hrs of
tests they are doing an honest appraisal.
You simply attact the tests and the fact it does not appear in other
publications or the fact Mizzz Hathaway didn't sue.
Your definition of "Truth and Fact" would appear to be whatever supports
your view.
> >As to the outcome of the legal case in question...
>
> News articles covering the suit filed by Lisa Hathaway (Jessica Dubroff's
> mother), in which Cessna and Lycoming were dropped as defendants,
> mentioned that Cessna has never lost a suit involving the 177.
You will undoubtedly argue semantics, but how many cases were settled?
a large percentage of these cases are paid off and swept under the carpet.
That was pipers vow to try and recover, they would fight every case and
not just roll over and settle.
A "Loss" in court would have been bad publicity and a settlement with
the court records and evidence sealed would neatly close the case and
bury the evidence.
If they had "Lost" the case it would have opened them up to loads of
liability with owners having a good shot at making cessna buy A/C back
and FAA santions not to mention continued liability to this day where
most of the older planes have now been removed from that potential.
> These airplanes are what they are;
Right, and controlled tests will show What They are and how they
preform. no matter what the mfgr and marketing dept claim.
> there's no mystery or conspiracy
> about Cessnas. There are facts about them, on which we should be
> able to agree (unless we invoke conspiracies to hide the facts),
YOU are the only one talking conspiracy!
I provided a record of controlled instrumented tests.
You considered it a conspiracy to provide DISinformation:
> DISinformation, invented as part of an old
> legal confrontation, which you choose to dredge out and promulgate?
The fact is those tests were done, and they showed the book numbers
and capability for the original cardinal were greatly overstated.
The fact those test results don't appear in your reference of choice
hardly make it a conspiracy to bury valid test results or dig up
propaganda that thankfully "They" caught and quelched.
> and there are opinions on which we may disagree. But we shouldn't
> confuse the two. That serves no useful purpose.
The fact my statement the numbers on the cardinal were overstated
and had flown, I admit very little, cardinals myself.
Know owners of cardinals, B and RG models.
Have an account of controlled tests that back that up.
They are just "Opinions" in your book it would appear.
My statements backed by substantiated accounts and tests are just
"Opinion".
Your personal experience as a defacto "Expert" bacause you own a
cardinal, is cast-in-stone fact, right?
Aside from the statemnet about mixture "FINDINGS" all of my opinions
were properly disclaimered as such.
I stand by my statement I am confident he did not set the mixture.
If you can post statements IN CONTEXT caliming opinion as fact,
without extrapolating or twisting have at it.
> - Rod Farlee
Marc
Rod Farlee
from the Dubroff accident:
"The plane was 84 Lbs or just over THREE PERCENT over gross
and wouldn't FLY"
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/aar9702.pdf
Then, presented as food for thought, the following are at least
as accurate. (They're closer to what the NTSB reports, anyway):
A C-182 couldn't even takeoff at sea level without stalling
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/den/89a219.htm
might stall if power is reduced below full after takeoff
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/ftw/87a118.htm
can simply be knocked out of the air by gusts, not windshear
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/atl/87a079.htm
and can't maintain 12,000' in icing for even 2 minutes.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/den/83ams2.htm
A C-182 takeoff can't be aborted successfully from a 3200'
runway in Illinois
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/chi/lnarr_94a247.htm
or even a 4500' paved runway at sea level in California.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/lnarr_94a109.htm
C-182 pitch is so heavy it confuses experienced pilots into
thinking it'll never takeoff
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/nyc/lnarr_98a064.htm
or causes pilots to porpoise until the nose wheel falls off
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/atl/lnarr_95a064.htm
or simply crunch the firewall in a normal landing
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/iad/98a093.htm
or causes them to stall after takeoff
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/mkc/86a188.htm
or during landing,
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/nyc/lnarr_97a113.htm
or both porpoise and stall
FAA 880626040479G 820712048399G and 791128045339G
or even ground-loop!
FAA 860413015859G
Despite a reputation for stability, 182 can enter an inadverant
spin, due to partial panel IMC
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/nyc/85a086.htm
or can be inadvertantly stalled in good VFR.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/chi/90a240.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/chi/94a306.htm
C-182 controls can inexplicably jam, pitch up, stall and crash.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/lnarr_97a139.htm
An Arrow can literally knock a 182 out of the air.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/lnarr_96a098.htm
All equally well-founded conclusions. I mean, they each did
happen, albeit only once! The AOPA Air Safety Foundation review
of the 182 points out other problems pilots have with them. If
we were to count the number of accidents apparently resulting from
carb ice in the 182, we'd have a LONG list. Should one ask why
the FAA hasn't pulled the 182's certification, given this obvious
fault which has caused so many accidents and fatalities?
I don't think so. And I think the safety of each of the Cessna
models is more accurately established from their overall records,
not from single aberrant events dominated by human factors.
Overall, these Cessna models have comparable safety records,
and are safer than other makes. But we can still learn from
these events... if we don't misinterpret them.
People make mistakes, in all models of aircraft, despite their merits.
- Rod Farlee
Rod Farlee
my own speculations regarding performance issues.
The housekeeping:
1) Aviation Consumer's "Used Aircraft Guide" is reissued every 3 years
or so, and is currently in its 7th edition (1996). Belvoir did sell their
copyright of the 3rd edition (1988) to TAB Books (McGraw-Hill), who have
kept this old edition in print at a cheap price. But the newer editions
expand and revise their reviews, and add many additional types of aircraft.
You get what you pay for.
The text DFS quotes is absent (5th edition) or greatly abbreviated (7th
edition). Apparently the various editors have exercised their editorial
judgement on this "information"? It was generated by a paid expert
witness in a lawsuit, which is an adversarial situation. Readers may
exercise their own judgement here, too.
2) Cessna and Lycoming were dropped as defendants in the suit filed
by Lisa Hathaway (Jessica Dubroff's mother). No settlement was made.
This suit was pursued against the estate of CFI/PIC Joe Reid, and was
later settled out of court. This and previous out-of-court settlements are
not matters of public record, have not tested the facts, and may be matters
of expediency. There is nothing to be learned from them.
Cessnas have excellent safety records. The 172, 177 and 182 have
safety records which are statistically indistinguishable over the last
10 to 15 years. I have not checked the 172RG, 177RG and 182RG,
but have been told the same is true of them. Statistical significance
aside, the 150 hp 1968 C-177 did have a higher rate during it's first few
years with pilots having little or no time in type, but is now lower than
the 172. Are pilots better trained in type, and have more experience in
type, today? The number of accidents is too few to be certain, but it
appears so.
Cessna's exposure to liability is more a measure of the number of aircraft
they produced, and of their financial stability, than of their safety record.
3) Did Joe Reid fail to lean the mixture (or check for carb ice) before
takeoff? The NTSB analysis suggests that this is likely. But none of us
were in the aircraft, so none of us, including DFS, know. The pretakeoff
checklist can be done "on the roll". The stock mixture knob slides freely;
it is not a locking vernier knob. It is a heavier knob and rod than the light
ones used in earlier Cessnas. The aircraft stalled and smashed nose first
into the ground, which may easily have closed it. The NTSB has said
about all that can be said on this question: probably, but we don't know.
All we as pilots can learn from this is to follow the checklists...
and try to be sure of our facts.
Performance issues:
1) Cardinals were built in four quite different types, with quite different
performance.
C-177: 150 hp, fixed pitch prop.
C-177A: 180 hp, fixed pitch prop.
C-177B: 180 hp, constant speed prop, thicker airfoil.
C-177RG: 200 hp, c/s prop, retractable gear.
It is misleading to confuse these. They as different from one another
as the Cherokee 140, Archer, and Arrow are, for all the same reasons:
engine, prop, airfoil and gear all differ across the model series.
DFS takes one unverified performance test on a C-177 and infer it
applies to the C-177B or C-177RG. He should take a PA-28-140
test and apply it to a PA-28-181 and PA-28R-201, too. That would be
equally valid, and equally helpful to others.
2) An individual aircraft might not seem to achieve book performance if:
- it's actual weight is higher than it's "book" or "computed" weight,
- the density altitude (temperature) is not taken into account,
- the prop, particularly fixed pitch, is at or below it's minimum diameter,
- the brakes are dragging, an induction hose, air filter or carb heat are
loose, blocked, leaking or collapsing, the engine timing or cam are out
of spec, tires are low, on one mag only, the mixture is overly rich, etc.
All of these are known to happen, and I've experienced most of them.
I've flown in a 177 in which the carb heat flapper valve was stuck on, the
cable flexed, and the pilot never knew where 100 fpm of climb had gone!
But first two of these factors probably account for most reports of "below
book" performance, particularly during takeoff and climb. In my own
experience, if the above are taken into account, the POH performance
tables are accurate in all these models. In addition, one can better them
by installing aftermarket mods, particularly on the earlier models, and
many (about 1/3 today) are so equipped.
3) The 1968 C-177 POH empty weight is very minimally equipped. I would
suggest that owners of this particular model year put their aircraft on
scales and obtain an actual weight and balance. Cessna only weighed
every 10th aircraft off the production line. The forward CG limit may also
be a problem with some individual aircraft and loadings.
The "Cardinal" model (with radios and many other common options) has
a more realistic book weight, as do all later models. After 30 years,
aircraft gain weight through the addition of radios, autopilots, transponders
and encoders, ELTs, strobes, heavier carpeting, interiors, paint, corrosion-
proofing, etc. The 1968 C-177 is particularly susceptible to being above
it's "book" empty weight, which is unusually light, because it contained
none of the above. This is much less true of the 172, 177B, 177RG or 182.
Indeed, one might speculate that the average 1968 C-177 flying today is
60 to 80 lbs heavier than the book weight? This has a significant effect
on their takeoff and climb performance, which is entirely a measure of
excess horsepower, of which it never had a great deal to spare. This
model is comparable to the 172 of that model year; the others are not.
That is why I think generalizations about performance across all these
different models are misleading, at best. The one generalization that can
be made is that over the last 15 years, as pilots have become better
informed, the entire series has risen steeply in value. To borrow a phrase,
"educated consumers are our best customers" applies well to Cardinals.
- Rod Farlee
Michael and MJ Houghton
In article <6smf69$im1$1...@news.xmission.com>,
D.F.S. <d...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>Jim and Cookie Kent <the....@mci2000.com> wrote:
>> Marc & Rod;
>
>> Thanx for another highly entertaining newsgroup "debate". Marc, you
>> obviously didn't know Rod's reputation for destroying others who don't have
>> all their facts straight.
>
>I've been quite busy the last few days, and am about sick of this shit
>anyway.
>The fact is rod got pissed because I maligned his favorite plane.
>
>He made several fasle assertions, as soon as I posted a reply he moved on
>to another falsehood often based on dishonest tactics of twisting and
>taking my statements out of context.
>I have not got the time or inclination to continue with someone lacking
>basic honesty and decency to no do such things.
>
This is a puzzling assertion. It attributes to Rod behavior which I can't
say I've noticed. To the contrary, I have found Rod to be a valuable and
reasonable contributer to the rec.aviation.* newsgroups. The tone of D.F.S.'s
remarks border on hysterical.
[snip]
>
>The NTSB report clearly shows an overloaded aircraft in high density
>conditions which all observers recognised as being in trouble from
>the moment it left the runway.
>The pilot was not in a fit condition to fly and did not appear to have
>enough experience in high airfield operations.
>He was flying in poor visibility conditions with gusty and variable
>winds.
>He turned downwind while flying too slow in the first place, lost even
>more, airspeed and crashed in a VERY typical fashion.
Are you meaning for readers to infer that turning downwind at low speed
is dangerous because you lose airspeed and may stall? I hope my inference
is based on a poor choice of words rather than a deliberate implication.
The alternative casts strong doubt on your understanding of basic
aerodynamic principals sufficient to undermine your credibility.
yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
her...@access.digex.net | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.access.digex.net/~herveus/
D.F.S.
SNIP.
I don't agree 100%, probably 80%, BUT it was honest did not
take my statements out of context, twist them and come back
as a "Rebuttal" to things I didn't say.
I'll accept that and agree to disagree.
Marc
D.F.S.
> >He was flying in poor visibility conditions with gusty and variable
> >winds.
> >He turned downwind while flying too slow in the first place, lost even
> >more, airspeed and crashed in a VERY typical fashion.
> Are you meaning for readers to infer that turning downwind at low speed
> is dangerous because you lose airspeed and may stall? I hope my inference
> is based on a poor choice of words rather than a deliberate implication.
> The alternative casts strong doubt on your understanding of basic
> aerodynamic principals sufficient to undermine your credibility.
Yeah, Probably should have elaborated more but the post was long as is.
The FULL NTSB findings are on the web and pointers were posted.
The final paragraph as to cause was posted by Rod, I figured anyone
interested would read the original, but it was posted.
Finding 15:
The Right Turn into a tailwind may have caused the PIC to misjudge the
margin of safety above stall speed. In addition the pilot may have
increased the airplanes pitch to compensate for perceived decreased
climb rate esp. if the pilot mispercieved the apparent ground speed for
airspeed or if the pilot became disoriented.
The Disorientation factor related back to the first statemenet above
as to visibility.
Finding 17:
The pilot in command Failed to ensure that the airplane maintained
sufficient airspeed during the initial climb and subsequent downwind
turn to ensure an adequate margin above the airplanes stall speed
resulting in a stall and collision with the terrain.
Why he "LOST airspeed" could have been an overt action by the PIC
or...
"SPECULATION" as it is not spelled out in the FINDINGS, although
I feel it is infered heavily and is implicit in the report.
1 We know the wind was gusty.
2 We know he was already too close to stall speed.
3 We have all seen in personal flights and the 414 pilot reported
large airspeed variations over the airfoils in gusty conditions.
4 turning in-line with those winds will increase the impact of those
variations as X-wind components are changed into head/tailwind
components.
With that background, I stand by my statement, although terse I admit:
He turned downwind while flying too slow in the first place, lost even
more, airspeed and crashed in a VERY typical fashion.
> yours,
> Michael
Marc
Newps
because you turn downwind or gain airspeed because you turn upwind. Your
airspeed is unaffected. What changes is your groundspeed. Try this yourself,
pick any altitude and fly in one direction and then fly in the opposite
direction. Did your indicated airspeed change? Of course not. This was the
whole point of turns around a point and S-turns on a road during your private
training, to see the effects of wind on your course over the ground. Go up in
the air and make 360 degree turns, any bank angle. Once stabilized in the turn
your airspeed will remain the same. If you are close to the ground and turn
downwind, especially if the wind is strong, your perception of ground speed is
greater than if you were at altitude. This may have confused the pilot into
thinking his airspeed was increasing. So he pulled back, heard the stall
warning, splat.
D.F.S. wrote:
> Michael and MJ Houghton <her...@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>
> > >He was flying in poor visibility conditions with gusty and variable
> > >winds.
> > >He turned downwind while flying too slow in the first place, lost even
> > >more, airspeed and crashed in a VERY typical fashion.
>
> He turned downwind while flying too slow in the first place, lost even
> more, airspeed and crashed in a VERY typical fashion.
>
> > yours,
> > Michael
>
> Marc
D.F.S.
#1 First re-read the text you quoted, the first statement may have been
unclear, 3 pages of explanation mostly from the NTSB report make it very
clear.
#2 I NEVER ment to infer turning downwind in and of itself caused the
loss of airspeed due to the fact it was "DOWNWIND".
We all know the mechanics of the fact you are "floating" in the airmass
if you will.
A I stated clearly in the post you replied to...
> > 1 We know the wind was gusty.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 2 We know he was already too close to stall speed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 3 We have all seen in personal flights and the 414 pilot reported
> > large airspeed variations over the airfoils in gusty conditions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 4 turning in-line with those winds will increase the impact of those
> > variations as X-wind components are changed into head/tailwind
> > components.
> > Why he "LOST airspeed" could have been an overt action by the PIC
> > or by (subjecting the Aircraft to greater effects of gusty and
variable wind conditions due to the downwind turn)
The turn DID in all probability one way or another due to pilot
misperception or subjecting the plane to different conditions
precipitate the crash.
> Once you're flying, wind direction is irrelavant. You don't lose airspeed
> because you turn downwind or gain airspeed because you turn upwind. Your
> airspeed is unaffected.
You left out one part of very basic information
"IN CONSTANTANT WIND VELOCITY".
The plane has inertia and mass, it will not instantly change speeds with
the air mass. GUSTY and variable winds will increase and decrease much
faster then the speed of the Aircraft resulting in airspeed variations.
They were Reported by the 414 pilot as +/- 15 Kts in this case.
The closer you turn to inline with those gusty winds the greater the
variation of airspeed.
A gust from behind increasing windspeed quickly 15 kts will decrease the
velocity of the flow over your airfoils ~15Kts.
Just as a drop of 15Kts would do the same flying upwind.
These Airspeed variations magnified by turning downwind or upwind as the
case may be are the underlying factors that would kill you if you don't
"Ensure an adequate margin above the airplanes stall speed" to absorb
such variations before falling below stall speed.
See finding 17 also posted before.
> What changes is your groundspeed. Try this yourself,
Snip
> This may have confused the pilot into
> thinking his airspeed was increasing. So he pulled back, heard the stall
> warning, splat.
Precisely the OVERT act I spoke of which is listed in finding 15.
That would be different in an upwind/downwind turn.
> > > >He was flying in poor visibility conditions with gusty and variable
> > > >winds.
> > > >He turned downwind while flying too slow in the first place, lost even
> > > >more, airspeed and crashed in a VERY typical fashion.
> > Yeah, Probably should have elaborated more but the post was long as is.
> > He turned downwind while flying too slow in the first place, lost even
> > more, airspeed and crashed in a VERY typical fashion.
> >
> > Marc
David Ward
To reply, change see.below to davidw
Rod Farlee wrote in message
<199809022336...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Rod's reputation for destroying others who don't have all their facts
>straight.
>
>My apologies. I sure don't wish to "destroy" anyone. Just trying to sift
>the facts, from the speculation and opinion. Each has its place, in this
>or any other discussion. There are still some statements labelled "fact"
>in this thread, which are just opinions, but they're apparent to all I
think.
>- Rod Farlee
This has been a pretty interesting discussion, except for the hysterical
parts !!
I am very interested in the 'worked' C-177RG's that have been mentioned.
What kinds of things can be (and are) done to C-177RG's to make them faster
and climb better:
Bigger engine ??
Turbocharging ??
3-blade props ??
Prices for these things ??? (I guess they're expensive)
What kind of speed and climb numbers can you achieve.
Regards
Dave W
Vincent Endter
> parts !!
>
> I am very interested in the 'worked' C-177RG's that have been mentioned.
>
> What kinds of things can be (and are) done to C-177RG's to make them faster
> and climb better:
>
> Bigger engine ??
No one has done that in the RG unless you count the 10 to 1 piston change (not
recommended).
> Turbocharging ??
Done that. Top speed at 25,000', 180 knots. It's not to comfy at 25,000',
cold and the O2 dries out your sinuses. Typical cruise at 65% in the high
teens is between 150 and 160 knots.
> 3-blade props ??
Lightens you wallet.
> Prices for these things ??? (I guess they're expensive)
The turbo STC is in limbo right now. The last time they installed one it cost
$20,000. The 10 to 1 piston STC is between $2,000 and $3,000. 3 bladed prop
is between $6,500 and $7,500.
> What kind of speed and climb numbers can you achieve.
The turbo give a solid 500 FPM all the way to 25,000'. It does reduce climb
rate under 6,000' though (by about 50 to 75 FPM). After 6,000 you are back
above book. After turbocharging, Leadville looks ridiculously long.
> Regards
> Dave W
Vince