Retract Retorts As always, I enjoyed reading Aviation Consumers airplane review of bargain retractables in your April 2010 issue. But having owned both an Arrow and Cardinal RG, you represent the especially efficient Cessna 177RG unfairly. In range, for example, you chart the RG range at 500 miles, which must be the original 1972 50-gallon model. The 1973 RG manuals call for 682 miles, while 1974-1975 models with standard 60-gallon tanks show 821 miles range at 75 percent cruise power. This places the 177RG just behind the Bonanza and Debonair in range capability. Your chart should have at least shown this model variation, if not the maximum, since it purported to include optional fuel. In real life, my 60-gallon 1975RG cruises comfortably at 140 to 145 knots at 10 GPH depending on load, for 6 hours without reserve. My 1977 Arrow III (which back in the day sold for a premium over the T-tail IV, due to its more polite runway manners) cruised no better than 135 knots on 12GPH, also for 6 hours thanks to its larger 72-gallon tanks. Even the Piper manual claimed only 143 knots at 11.6 GPH, with a no-reserve range of 810 miles. Ken Towl, I just read your article on bargain retracts and have two nits to pick. There is no way that a Cardinal RG has less range than a more draggy Cutlass RG as indicated in your second bar graph. I suspect that the two were somehow switched. The second slight error that I noticed has to do with the Cardinal RGs engine dash number in the chart on page 31. It should be -A1B6D not -A1B60. Other than that, keep up the good work. I look forward to the Aviation Consumer appearing in my mail box each month. Name withheld To the 363 Cardinal owners who wrote expressing some version of the sentiment, “no #@!$%&* way is my Cardinal that short on range,” we hereby post a groveling and mortifyingly sincere pledge to never again fail to more carefully examine all the fuel tank options. Here is a corrected range chart carefully distilled from actual reader reports. EFB Follow-Up We know articles are space limited, but we would like to stress two critical areas in your well-written article “Tablet-Based 
Via e-mail
Letters: June 2010
As always, I enjoyed reading Aviation Consumers airplane review of bargain retractables in your April 2010 issue. But having owned both an Arrow and Cardinal RG, you represent the especially efficient Cessna 177RG unfairly. In range, for example, you chart the RG range at 500 miles, which must be the original 1972 50-gallon model. The 1973 RG manuals call for 682 miles, while 1974-1975 models with standard 60-gallon tanks show 821 miles range at 75 percent cruise power. This places the 177RG just behind the Bonanza and Debonair in range capability. Your chart should have at least shown this model variation, if not the maximum, since it purported to include optional fuel.