172 vs 177 vs 182

T

Todd82

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Messages
984
Location
OH
Display Name
Display name:
Todd
For a long time now I've been back and forth about buying my first plane and what to buy. While not trying to start a low wing vs high wing war... I just can't stand 172's. To me they feel less solid than a PA28, and I can't stand the wing strut in my way.

That said, the wife likes high wingers better for sightseeing visibility and doesn't like climbing on the wing to get in, my dad will want to go for rides and I doubt he physically *can* climb on a Piper wing (bad hip), and even I don't really like the idea of only one door on a PA28.

So my questions are...

  • Do fixed gear 177's and/or 182's feel a little more "solid" and fly better in the bumps than a 172?
  • Would a low time guy with all his time in about an 80/20 split between Cherokees and Skyhawks be out of his league buying a 177/182?
  • With a budget of let's say < $60k is a 177/182 *worth buying* even a possibility?
  • How much increased mx $ compared to a 172/PA28?
  • I'm guessing for XC's the 182 increased fuel burn would just about wash out with the increased speed?

Mission profile will be VFR (for now) 200-400nm weekend trips, of course $100 hamburgers and local flights for fun, and eventually banging out an IFR. Will probably be basing on 3500' paved with density alts rarely above 3500', although a 3100' grass runway for basing it is also a possibility. Also typically me + wife will be about 380lb. Possibly another dog in the future (we just lost my last buddy) in the 50lb range, and weekend bags. If it's me + some buddies I'd like to have at least 550lb sometimes.

Thanks.
 
177: Get a some W&B charts and plug in your loads. Some might run out of CG range.
182: Pretty much a no-brainer. You can throttle back a 182 and get 172 MPG. Increased MX is pretty much 2 extra cylinders if you are comparing to a Lycoming 172, not so much if a Continental 172 (O-300, R172K-HawkXP). Plus, a periodic prop inspection.
 
You don't realize the strut is smaller than the whole wing.
you can't see the ground when looking down.
 
Yes, 182s feel more solid, as they should because they are heavier. It is the airplane you are looking for.
 
I don't think you'll find any C182 worth buying at $60K in this market. Im not even sure you'll find many C177 birds at that price. Any of them fit your described mission. I also don't understand the idea that the 172 is any less substantial than a hershey bar PA28, but I have very little time in the Piper vs the C172.
 
Besides the price thing, the 182 definitely will feel more stable. Same wing, higher loading.

Dad is going to have trouble with the step getting in the Cessnas also, most likely. Especially if the 172 or 182 have the proper seat track blocking for rearward movement installed. The seat partially blocks the door opening. Can do without those on the passenger side but have to make darn sure nobody sliding rearward during takeoff because the seat latch was not truly engaged, reaches for the yoke.

Most folk say the Cardinal is as good as it gets for getting in and out with the big doors, but they do have to be watched in high winds from behind — they can sail forward and damage hinges and things.
 
Full disclosure: I own a 180 hp 172N now, but I'm also fond of both the 177 and 182, so I think my bias is minimal.

I just can't stand 172's. To me they feel less solid than a PA28
Click to expand...
I think the reason many people feel that way is that 172s sit higher on springier landing gear. The PA-28 is smaller overall and the wide-track oleo gear is very stiff on the ground. You can easily rock a 172's wing on the ground; but a PA-28 won't budge. It's a function of the landing gear, not any difference in structural integrity between them. Plus, Cessna rudders are connected to the pedals via bungee system that feels loosey-goosey on the ground. The reason for that is to allow the nose gear to center in flight, even when the rudder is deflected. That comes in handy on crosswind landings.

During development, the Cardinal's airframe was proving heavier than anticipated. Cessna engineers did everything they could to reduce weight, including thinner sheet metal in some areas, and lighter-weight hardware. As a result the Cardinal in some ways feels a bit flimsier than a 172. Try 'em both and see.

Do fixed gear 177's and/or 182's feel a little more "solid" and fly better in the bumps than a 172?
Click to expand...
The 182 is heavier and control feel reflects it; definitely more truck-like, especially in pitch. The 177 weighs a little more than a 172 with similar engine, but response in turbulence is about the same. 177 has a stabilator, and it is a bit less stable in pitch. The 177, however, has the nicest roll handling of any single-engine Cessna.

How much increased mx $ compared to a 172/PA28?
Click to expand...
Depends on which Cardinal version you're looking at. The 1968 (150 hp) and 1969 (180 hp) models had fixed-pitch props. 1970 and later (180 hp) had constant-speed props and cowl flaps. All Cardinals and PA-28s have engine-driven and auxiliary fuel pumps; carbureted 172s do not. And with a 182, of course, you have two more cylinders to feed and maintain. And they say "Continental" on them (pre-1997 models).

There are few if any parts in common between the 177 and other Cessnas. The last Cardinal was built 42 years ago, and availability of parts may become an issue with the passage of time.

I'm guessing for XC's the 182 increased fuel burn would just about wash out with the increased speed?
Click to expand...
182's increased speed doesn't come close to washing out the higher fuel burn. Bonanza, maybe; 182, no. You get more mpg with a 172 or 177. On the other hand, the 182's larger fuel capacity may let you skip a fuel stop, saving time and fuel.

even I don't really like the idea of only one door on a PA28
Click to expand...
My dad (who owned my current 172N for 20 years before his passing) suffered greatly from claustrophobia. He had to have a door next to him. Not that he would use it in flight, of course; it just had to be there. He was fine in his Cessnas; but a PA-28 or anything else with a single door on the wrong side would have been a non-starter for him.
 
Last edited:
Todd82 said:
For a long time now I've been back and forth about buying my first plane and what to buy. While not trying to start a low wing vs high wing war... I just can't stand 172's. To me they feel less solid than a PA28, and I can't stand the wing strut in my way.

That said, the wife likes high wingers better for sightseeing visibility and doesn't like climbing on the wing to get in, my dad will want to go for rides and I doubt he physically *can* climb on a Piper wing (bad hip), and even I don't really like the idea of only one door on a PA28.

So my questions are...

  • Do fixed gear 177's and/or 182's feel a little more "solid" and fly better in the bumps than a 172?
  • Would a low time guy with all his time in about an 80/20 split between Cherokees and Skyhawks be out of his league buying a 177/182?
  • With a budget of let's say < $60k is a 177/182 *worth buying* even a possibility?
  • How much increased mx $ compared to a 172/PA28?
  • I'm guessing for XC's the 182 increased fuel burn would just about wash out with the increased speed?

Mission profile will be VFR (for now) 200-400nm weekend trips, of course $100 hamburgers and local flights for fun, and eventually banging out an IFR. Will probably be basing on 3500' paved with density alts rarely above 3500', although a 3100' grass runway for basing it is also a possibility. Also typically me + wife will be about 380lb. Possibly another dog in the future (we just lost my last buddy) in the 50lb range, and weekend bags. If it's me + some buddies I'd like to have at least 550lb sometimes.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You don't like struts. Your passengers want easy in and out. Cardinals are much more solid feeling than 172's and easier to fly as regards holding altitude and heading. The cabin is wider. Headroom can be an issue with tall people. They are desired planes and priced accordingly. $60k to get decent one isn't going to be easy to find. Another downside is they are an 'orphan' plane, haven't been made since 78 and not a lot of them ever were. Finding parts if you need them can be an adventure. I used to have 78 177B.
 
Piper Comanche 250(PA-24-250) perhaps. It is a retract however, and they aren’t made anymore. But low wing Piper product with enough useful load and speed. I’ve seen a lot of odd things crammed in those things with no problem.
 
Pilawt said:
182's increased speed doesn't come close to washing out the higher fuel burn. Bonanza, maybe; 182, no. You get more mpg with a 172 or 177. On the other hand, the 182's larger fuel capacity may let you skip a fuel stop, saving time and fuel.
Click to expand...
Yep, I get about 13mpg, but I can ferry gas with the big (88 usable) tanks, and go a long way. Being able to top off and have 777lbs to play with in the cabin is nice, too.
 
Geosync said:
Piper Comanche 250(PA-24-250) perhaps. It is a retract however, and they aren’t made anymore. But low wing Piper product with enough useful load and speed. I’ve seen a lot of odd things crammed in those things with no problem.
Click to expand...
But why does he need more payload? His typical mission is 400lbs of payload, on rare occasions 550lbs. Even the 172 will do that and still hold a few hours of fuel, right? Not knocking the PA-24, just seems like a big jump. I suppose the PA-24-250 redeeming characteristic is that they could potentially be found for around $60K.
 
Pilawt said:
Full disclosure: I own a 180 hp 172N now, but I'm also fond of both the 177 and 182, so I think my bias is minimal.

......177 has a stabilator, and it is a bit less stable in pitch. The 177, however, has the nicest roll handling of any single-engine Cessna.....
Click to expand...

Agree on the roll. I found holding altitude much easier in my Cardinal and a couple other I've flown. But then the 172's I've flown are Rentals with probably 10,000 hours on them. It's like the trim 'wanders.' Must just be kinda loose.
 
A well equipped and maintained 172 can sell for 60 K lately.
 
frfly172 said:
A well equipped and maintained 172 can sell for 60 K lately.
Click to expand...

Just barely Pre-Covid I know of a pristine restart one with great avionics and a factory new engine with a very low amount of time on it that sold at $200K.

I’m guessing the new owner may not be completely happy about that right now, but some are still up there in the later model years that look like they just rolled out of Wichita and have the maintenance records and upgrades to back it up.
 
This does sound like a mission for a Cardinal. You can get a fairly serviceable fixed gear for around $40k. A lot of the price depends on engine time. A 69 with a 2500 hour engine is probably worth ~15k, but you will need to immediately overhaul the engine for $25k.

Cardinal Flyers is a great owners group and has a lot of ways to work around the parts issues. If seriously considering buying one, the ~$40 annual membership fee will be the best investment you make. They have a ton of good technical information and pre-buying advice.
 
A cardinal seems like the plane for the OP, but are they affected by the AD on cantilever wings as the 210 is or is that AD a very big deal? I have a 172 and bonanza, I love the bonanza but most my passengers prefer the 172 due to the claustrophobic nature of low wings in general and not being able to see downward, and two doors. When Cessna came out with the “omnivision” I thought it was about looks, but passenger do feel less claustrophobic.
 
172 is great for training or short trips with 2 people maybe 3 depending on weight. 177 is a terrific plane if it has the 160 or better 180hp engine. It handles better then 172, but it hasn’t been built since the 70’s and some parts can be challenging to obtain.

182 is the winner of the 3 for range, useful load, speed, interior room. The 182 is the step up plane of these three.
 
Only way to know if you like flying a plane is to find one to rent. Fortunately there are plenty of FBOs and clubs with a 177 or 182 on the line.

182 is one of the all time greats. Unfortunately the price reflects that. Good luck finding one under 100K without major question marks. Good news is you'll get most or all of it back when you sell.
 
Todd82 said:
For a long time now I've been back and forth about buying my first plane and what to buy. While not trying to start a low wing vs high wing war... I just can't stand 172's. To me they feel less solid than a PA28, and I can't stand the wing strut in my way.

That said, the wife likes high wingers better for sightseeing visibility and doesn't like climbing on the wing to get in, my dad will want to go for rides and I doubt he physically *can* climb on a Piper wing (bad hip), and even I don't really like the idea of only one door on a PA28.

So my questions are...

  • Do fixed gear 177's and/or 182's feel a little more "solid" and fly better in the bumps than a 172?
  • Would a low time guy with all his time in about an 80/20 split between Cherokees and Skyhawks be out of his league buying a 177/182?
  • With a budget of let's say < $60k is a 177/182 *worth buying* even a possibility?
  • How much increased mx $ compared to a 172/PA28?
  • I'm guessing for XC's the 182 increased fuel burn would just about wash out with the increased speed?

Mission profile will be VFR (for now) 200-400nm weekend trips, of course $100 hamburgers and local flights for fun, and eventually banging out an IFR. Will probably be basing on 3500' paved with density alts rarely above 3500', although a 3100' grass runway for basing it is also a possibility. Also typically me + wife will be about 380lb. Possibly another dog in the future (we just lost my last buddy) in the 50lb range, and weekend bags. If it's me + some buddies I'd like to have at least 550lb sometimes.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you can't stand the wing strut on a 172 but a 182 might be ok?

To answer some of your questions.
- The 177 is a really nice flying airplane. Well balanced and light on the controls. My Dad has had both a 182 and a 177 and loves them both, but will tell you the 182 handles like a truck and the 177 like a Cadillac.
- I'm sure you would be fine. I had about 100 hours in a PA28-140 before transitioning to the Cardinal and after a couple of hours in it I was good to go.
- You could probably get a nice 68' Cardinal with that budget. Those only have the 150 hp engine so they are a little underpowered but would still easily handle your mission and you can get a mogas stc which is a nice bonus if it's available near you. The later year fixed gear models all have 180 hp which will cost more to buy.
 
I fly my Cardinal regularly. It is very stable and easy to fly with the vortex generators. The large doors are great as long as you keep a hand on them and park into the wind. Otherwise, they will get away and may spring the hinges. I have never had an issue with parts. McFarland keeps the little things in stock and the O-320 engine is the same everywhere. I did have to 3D print a wingtip adapter for my Skybeacon. I guess if I needed a new wing or such that would be a problem. My wife needed the low step until she got both of her knees replaced. She still likes it but doesn't need it. The lack of struts makes it great for taking photos. I took a photog up for some commercial real estate pictures and a TV crew up after the tornadoes a few years back.

That said, alas, we are moving and my plane is for sale....
 
cgrab said:
The large doors are great as long as you keep a hand on them and park into the wind. Otherwise, they will get away and may spring the hinges.
...
That said, alas, we are moving and my plane is for sale....
Click to expand...

There is also a door steward available which buffers the door with a piston. Very handy and not terribly expensive.

And there you go - maybe the OP can buy yours.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
Interesting that you can't stand the wing strut on a 172 but a 182 might be ok?
Click to expand...
That's called a compromise, I hate plenty more about 172's. But if the 182 is as worthy of the cult-like status it has here on POA for everything else ;) I guess I could tolerate struts.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
the 182 handles like a truck and the 177 like a Cadillac.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting choice of comparison cars. I know that Cadillac makes sportier cars now, but at least for me, my mental impression of a Cadillac is what I think the "traditional" image is - a huge land-yacht that rides really nicely but isn't known for quick and nimble handling.

However, being that I have never had the opportunity to drive a 1970's-1980's Cadillac, is my impression incorrect?
 
RussR said:
That's an interesting choice of comparison cars. I know that Cadillac makes sportier cars now, but at least for me, my mental impression of a Cadillac is what I think the "traditional" image is - a huge land-yacht that rides really nicely but isn't known for quick and nimble handling.

However, being that I have never had the opportunity to drive a 1970's-1980's Cadillac, is my impression incorrect?
Click to expand...
I haven't driven an old Caddy so couldn't tell you and I wouldn't call a Cardinal "sporty" either. I suppose the comparison would be that both will allow you to cruise along not terribly fast but very comfortably. Dad's point as someone that has a lot of time in both was that as capable as a 182 is the 177 just flies nicer.
 
I think you have a critical point that to address:

"With a budget of let's say < $60k is a 177/182 *worth buying* even a possibility?"

I don't know of any 182, or 177 that you would want for that money. And you can't stand the 172. Thus the only options I can think of is to find a club with a 182 and rent, or double / triple your budget for a 182.
 
I've been a Cherokee 235 owner for 20 years. While getting in and out is a bit more challenging than a typical Cessna, it is offset by no need for a ladder for refueling and preflight. I had my left hip replaced last summer and was back in the cockpit exactly four weeks later. I'll be getting my right hip done on August 26th... I hope to meet or beat that mark. Given my extensive experience with bad hips, personally I would rather deal with getting in and out of the Piper than regularly using a ladder.
 
I also have a 172N with 180 hp. The majority of my time is in 172's, but I've spent some time in PA-28's (Warriors, Archers and about 25 hours last year in an Arrow). I always felt that the PA-28's seemed to be a little more stable. However, the Cessna's are roomier, and cooler on hot, sunny days. I believe the over-all cost of ownership would be lower in the Cessnas, particularly with wing spar AD in the Pipers.

If you are looking for something with minimal IFR avionics, you are probably going to spend above $60k even for a 172. You might consider finding a partner.
 
I keep thinking about your distaste for 172s. I'm not sure you'll like any Cessna if you don't like 172's. I feel much the same about Cherokees. Just can't stand them. From experience, I know that I also don't like Warriors, Arrows, or Dakotas.
 
I don't hate 172s - they are fine primary trainers. In fact, six months ago when I was looking to purchase an aircraft for myself, I was looking exclusively at 172s. Probably because at that time 100% of my time was spent in 172s. It was all I knew. Then somebody (maybe on PoA, can't remember) that went something like this - As an adult, you wouldn't buy a bike with training wheels, would you?

Point was taken. Why buy an overpriced trainer with a run-out engine and ancient avionics that can barely take two people anywhere uncomfortably slowly? Granted, we did end up with what folks could consider a complex/commercial trainer - the PA-28R-200... but it can my family farther than my bladder can withstand in relative comfort at relatively descent speed in a more stable aircraft with a better engine and better avionics for 20k less than a run-out 172.

So no hate on the 172. It is good for what it is - a trainer. But I can't see spending the money people plunk down for these things for personal use. Totally overpriced.
 
RussR said:
I have never had the opportunity to drive a 1970's-1980's Cadillac, is my impression incorrect?
Click to expand...
WillFly4Food said:
Trust me, you’re not missing much...
Click to expand...
I had a 1970 Coupe deVille. I should have joined the Navy and learned how to park battleships. Then my 1984 SdV was like driving your living room sofa ... especially on the corners. The 1989 SdV was a tremendous improvement all around.

I consider the 172 the Toyota Corolla of the air -- common, competent, unspectacular, economical. I oughta know; I have one of each. :D
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
There is also a door steward available which buffers the door with a piston.
Click to expand...

Most worthless product ever invented. The club 177RG ended up with that ugly piece of crap in it because the votes went that way. The guy who proposed it has since apologized for the stupid idea, but the money was still wasted.
 
Ravioli said:
Most worthless product ever invented. The club 177RG ended up with that ugly piece of crap in it because the votes went that way. The guy who proposed it has since apologized for the stupid idea, but the money was still wasted.
Click to expand...

Really, you don’t like it? I actually appreciate that the door doesn’t get blown away in a wind and slammed against the hinge. I agree that it is a bit of an ugly solution.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Really, you don’t like it? I actually appreciate that the door doesn’t get blown away in a wind and slammed against the hinge. I agree that it is a bit of an ugly solution.
Click to expand...

Really == Yes

You agree it's ugly. And, oh by the way, the damn piston gets in the way of the purpose of those big doors.

Educating the people around your plane correctly is much better than installing crutches. The thing flew from 1977 to 2016 without that stupid thing. Should I think "glad we caught it in time?"
 
Ravioli said:
And, oh by the way, the damn piston gets in the way of the purpose of those big doors.
Click to expand...

How so? I wonder if we are thinking of the same product. Maybe it depends on where it is installed?

Mine is just above where the spring is and I don’t find it gets in the way at all. But I see some images of them mounted above near the top of the door which looks awkward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top