Anybody got one? Seen one? Know of one? Heard of one? Thought about one?

Thanx, Dave.

P.S. - When I Google'd it . . . . I found a bunch of Remote Control pilots, flying RC Cardinals on floats?

You need a wing strut to hold onto if you slip while docking, those things have saved me countless times!

I’ve never heard of a cardinal on floats, seems highly unlikely.

never heard of a Cardinal on floats, and I doubt if they’d have the performance to be very effective in that world.

MTV

I could have this all wrong however I believe the airfoil on the Cardinal is optimized for cruise speed and would/could chew up a lot of lake in it's efforts to get airborne as well as being awkward to handle on the dock without a strut to grab on to, ask any Helio or Found dockhand !!!

The specs I just looked at listed them with a 1000 pounds of useful load and a 750 ground roll that doesnt seem to bad .

I actually was thinking of it as a mini-Helio-Courier and never considered hand-holds as "go / no-go" criteria for a floatplane?

Thanx, Dave.

Ask any dock hand for their thoughts !!!!

Further to the subject under discussion, unless the “engineering” has already been tackled I suspect the cost of that alone will be prohibitive.

BluNosDav wrote:I actually was thinking of it as a mini-Helio-Courier and never considered hand-holds as "go / no-go" criteria for a floatplane?

Thanx, Dave.

A "mini Helio Courier"? Holy guacamole, man, the Cardinal is just about as far removed from ANY similarity to the Helio, with the exception that neither has wing struts.....Otherwise, not even close.

The early Cardinals were equipped with an O-320, 160 hp engine.....and were notably underpowered, even on wheels. Later, they switched to an O-360 at 180 hp, but that doesn't compensate for the airfoil, which as someone noted was optimized for cruise, not STOL.

And, believe me, seaplane ops ARE all about STOL performance. Seaplanes are by their nature heavy, and there's tremendous drag associated with dragging those floats through the water. You need a wing that'll LIFT.

Finally, the Tricycle gear of the Cardinal isn't optimal for rigging for floats. Depending on the float manufacturer, they might attach the float struts to the nose gear attach, in which case you'll have a fairly frail attach point, with a lot of potential for damage in rough water, OR they'll attach to the fuselage near the firewall, which would require significant beef up of that area structurally. Neither is a great solution on a relatively inexpensive airplane.

Cardinal is a nice plane, and good at what it was designed and built to do. But, that's not float flying.

MTV

More to “inform” myself then make a point I did a bit of due diligence and I can now stand firmly behind my earlier assumption, the Cardinal airfoil is laminar and optimized for cruise. It of course provides adequate “lift” for hard, smooth surface departures but will struggle to do the same of water.

That's too bad, because, it sure looked promising during early scale-model testing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drgsqQrHB5U

Thanx, Dave.

mtv wrote:….A "mini Helio Courier"? Holy guacamole, man, the Cardinal is just about as far removed from ANY similarity to the Helio, with the exception that neither has wing struts.....Otherwise, not even close. The early Cardinals were equipped with an O-320, 160 hp engine.....and were notably underpowered, even on wheels. Later, they switched to an O-360 at 180 hp, but that doesn't compensate for the airfoil, which as someone noted was optimized for cruise, not STOL. And, believe me, seaplane ops ARE all about STOL performance. Seaplanes are by their nature heavy, and there's tremendous drag associated with dragging those floats through the water. You need a wing that'll LIFT. ...

My first thoughts also.
I'm curious though about something like a Cessna 195-
not known for being a STOL airplane, seemingly optimized for cruise,
yet I've seen photos of a number of them on floats.
Ditto the Beech 18--
of course, it's load-hauling capabilities make up for some of any downsides.

hotrod180 wrote:

mtv wrote:….A "mini Helio Courier"? Holy guacamole, man, the Cardinal is just about as far removed from ANY similarity to the Helio, with the exception that neither has wing struts.....Otherwise, not even close. The early Cardinals were equipped with an O-320, 160 hp engine.....and were notably underpowered, even on wheels. Later, they switched to an O-360 at 180 hp, but that doesn't compensate for the airfoil, which as someone noted was optimized for cruise, not STOL. And, believe me, seaplane ops ARE all about STOL performance. Seaplanes are by their nature heavy, and there's tremendous drag associated with dragging those floats through the water. You need a wing that'll LIFT. ...

My first thoughts also.
I'm curious though about something like a Cessna 195-
not known for being a STOL airplane, seemingly optimized for cruise,
yet I've seen photos of a number of them on floats.
Ditto the Beech 18--
of course, it's load-hauling capabilities make up for some of any downsides.

The 195 is a decent seaplane. they (or the 190, can’t recall) were used by the military on floats (EDO 3430s).

I’ve never flown one, but watched several operating off water, and they’re not super performers, but they get it done. They have a LOT of wing (similar span to 180/185, but very different planform.). If any down side, those split flaps are generally drag devices, not much lift there.

The 18? Load hauler, and buckets of power. A little technique required around docks.

Ask a dock boy? What are those? Never experienced that phenomenon, always on my own.

MTV

Just to be clear I no one has said that a Cardinal "can't" be a float plane just that it may not be the best use of the design and the efforts required to make it into a float plane may be hard to justify given the other options that exist.

For further enlightenment read this: http://www.skytamer.com/Cessna_177B.html

Cessna eventually recognized the challenges of the NACA 65A015 airfoil and modified it in later models by recontouring the leading edge.

So....that might be a worth a consideration. Getting one rigged on floats tho might be for the very young who'll live long enough to see it fly providing it has the power reserve to accelerate and takeoff below the float's terminal speed due to drag.

Gary

Mapleflt wrote:Just to be clear I no one has said that a Cardinal "can't" be a float plane just that it may not be the best use of the design and the efforts required to make it into a float plane may be hard to justify given the other options that exist.

Most people don't think of the Piper Apache as a floatplane either,
but an outfit in Calif used to have one on floats that they used for multi-sea ratings.
With it's big fat Cubbish airfoil, the Apache can be a surprisingly good performer.

hotrod180 wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:Just to be clear I no one has said that a Cardinal "can't" be a float plane just that it may not be the best use of the design and the efforts required to make it into a float plane may be hard to justify given the other options that exist.

Most people don't think of the Piper Apache as a floatplane either,
but an outfit in Calif used to have one on floats that they used for multi-sea ratings.
With it's big fat Cubbish airfoil, the Apache can be a surprisingly good performer.

I did my multi sea in that airplane, it gave a whole new meaning to the term dog. Mostly the weight of the amphibious floats was holding it back methinks. Unfortunately it is the only one.

Now the Aztec Nomad I’ve always been very curious about. There’s one currently sitting in Renton, I would love give it a try.

Halestorm wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:… it's big fat Cubbish airfoil, the Apache can be a surprisingly good performer.

I did my multi sea in that airplane, it gave a whole new meaning to the term dog. Mostly the weight of the amphibious floats was holding it back methinks. ....

My comment about Apache performance actually was in reference to performance on wheels.
They can take off & land surprisingly short....if you ignore blueline, at least til you're in ground effect.