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.
The Price is WRONG.
27 minutes ago
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