It's been awhile since I've posted an airplane photo, so:
A `77 Cessna Cardinal RG:
You can't see it in the photos, but the airplane has a full set of vortex generators. Apparently, they do work.
Cat Pawtector!
6 hours ago
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.You're here, you've consented. If you don't like it, go read some other goddamn blog. It's not as if you're paying me.
2 comments:
Never understood the appeal of the retractable 172/182 types. After seeing the Rube Goldberg contortions the gear usually takes to retract, I didn't see it as worthwhile.
Course, that's my opinion as a low time, fixed gear guy. However, we very rarely see RG's and Cardinals flying around either. The Cirrus is a very popular bird, thou.
I have a fair amount of time in both the 172 and 182 RGs. If for no other reason, I liked the added complexity, as it gave me a chance to act more like the professional crews I watched from the jump seat on Fam trips.
I also have some Cardinal time. I got checked out in one in '67, fully ten years before the one pictured was built. That was one I didn't get. The performance was about the same as a 172, so what was the point?
Plus, it had a, gasp!, Lycoming engine. in it. Back in those days virtually all (non-radial) Cessna engines were Continentals. It wasn't until years later that Cessna started using Lycomings, too.
Also flew a Cardinal briefly a year or so later with some ZJX guys who had one in a club.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
Post a Comment