Pilotage Moto

This is hard to answer because there are so many factors to be considered. First, I don’t necessarily think the Cardinal a bad aircraft at all. They just fly a little differently but are rather roomy and relatively fast for what they are. I just think Cessna tried to create a niche for them when there really was not much of a demand for a “streamlined” Skyhawk.
Any plane can be a lemon depending upon how its flown and maintained. I’ll eat mac and cheese for a month if my plane needs something (well, maybe not for a whole month) but other guys will “tie ‘em together with bailing wire”. Those are the guys you don’t fly with.
I don’t know. The Piper Tomahawk and the Beech Musketeer don’t impress me too much but they can have their place too. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, the worst generally being the loose nut behind the yoke.

It definitely has to be the Piper Traumahawk….I mean the Piper Tomahawk , spins way too easy, and it does not have enough rudder and elevator authority for me. Many swear by them as trainers. I flew one for a total of about 6 hours on a couple of occasions, NEVER AGAIN!!!!
This plane scares me !!!!
If you have a 177 you want to give away…I’ll take it!!!
Fun plane in my opinion….just keep those feet moving, in this plane!!

The worst general aviation airplane is the one that is rarely flown (hanger queen) and poorly maintained. Otherwise each has it’s strengths and weaknesses. Planes get bad reputations for many reasons - but mostly because the pilots flying them did not learn their differences properly.

My choice for worst designs are the light twins. They have so little reserve power and squirrelly handling on one engine that takeoff with an engine failure usually results in a crash. At altitude, the drag caused by having to use opposite rudder to keep the airplane going straight after an engine failure again effectively limits the benefit of two engines. I’m not talking here about the big boys with turbines and lots of HP - I’m talking about two 200 hp engines on an airplane that needs 300 to fly properly.

As to bad reputations based on pilots - witness the Cessna P-210 which has astronomical insurance rates, while the T-210 is considered OK. Too many folks did not properly learn how to use a pressurization system.

Or on the Cessna 210 line prior to 1978, the gear doors got a bad rep - to the point where there is a company (Uvalde) which has an STC to remove them. Another mis-use and system problem. Don’t open the doors above 110 Kts - they bend - then the gear jams. Duh ! But if you do what you are supposed to, you get 5 extra Kts of speed and a bit less noise inside.

The Cardinal got a bad rep because of something which pilots had to do differently - namely learn to fly with a movable elevator when landing, instead of a traditional fixed elevator with a movable trailing edge. Otherwise it was a very fast and economical airplane to operate - but simply cost too much compared to a C172 which it was supposed to replace.

Another bad rep I can also think of is the V-Tail Bonanza - again more an issue with the pilots who exceeded written limitations, than the plane itself. With one less tail surface it was faster (less drag) - but it did have some special qualities.