411 0n Cessna 177 Cardnial

[bnt83]

1968 with the 150 HP engine

Huge doors, amazing handling, big fuel tanks, cheap engine (O-320-E2D that's as cheap as they get same engine as the majority of the 4 banger 172s), great visibility, decent ramp appeal, about the same insurance premium as a 172, a lot nicer to work on in many ways for mechanics and avionics installations (typically terrible to fix wing tank leaks if you ever get one, they aren't common but these things aren't young either), good panel layout (most people don't the 2/3 panel but avionics have gotten so compact and integrated its more than enough room). The engine installation is a bit more complex than a 172 as they do have dual fuel pumps and a fuel pressure gauge as mentioned earlier.

If you expect Skyhawk performance with the same loading you won't be disappointed. Pay attention to fuel load, that's part of the reason they got a bad rep. It holds 72 pounds more fuel than the 172 of the same year. The flaps are huge and create a massive amount of drag when fully deployed, this can really bite you easily. I took a friend up that had never flown any cardinal, just Pipers, Debonair, Cessna 208 Caravan and he had no problems at all handling it right off the bat using 2/3 or less flaps getting a good feel for it then using full flaps.

 

[Skibum44]

Oh, you mean the strutless 182. Got it.

If you come across a 182 that could true out at over 160kts let me know. What about the two extra seats in the later models, hardly a strut-less 182, IMO. In my NA 210M, with the IO-550, I flight plan for 160kts @ 17gph 75-100° ROP. 1503lbs useful. Most of my flights are 305NM “A-B” and it’s a legit 2hr plane. Most of my flights on that same route were in my dads 170B (oversized tires and bubble windows), in which the flight took on average about 3.25-3.5 hrs.

I don’t mind the headwinds as much either.
Consider a 20kt headwind.

305NM / 160-20kts = 2hrs 10mins (15mins difference)

305NM / 94-20kts = 4hrs 7mins (52mins difference)

However, the 210 can’t land on the beaches around here like the 170, but it has a different mission.

 

[Rgbeard]

So you're amusing yourself and contributing nothing in the process then. Got it thanks.

Sometimes, the Internet is like that.

 

[Skibum44]

$$$$$$$$$$$

This^^^
You pay a bunch more for a 210 VS Cardinal.
Also the OP was looking for a 150hp without retracts???

 

[bnt83]

lol the 177,177B,177RG are not comparable to a 200 series Cessna and never will be.

 

[Brad Haggett]

1968 with the 150 HP engine

There was one for sale on craigslist in CA (LA area) a few days ago.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

1968 with the 150 HP engine

That's what I fly. The 68' with the O-320 is typically going to be the most affordable in regards to purchase price and you can get a Mogas STC and save on fuel.

Mine does have the powerflow exhaust and that's one mod I would recommend if the one you're looking at doesn't have it already.

 

[EdFred]

If you come across a 182 that could true out at over 160kts let me know. What about the two extra seats in the later models, hardly a strut-less 182, IMO. In my NA 210M, with the IO-550, I flight plan for 160kts @ 17gph 75-100° ROP. 1503lbs useful. Most of my flights are 305NM “A-B” and it’s a legit 2hr plane. Most of my flights on that same route were in my dads 170B (oversized tires and bubble windows), in which the flight took on average about 3.25-3.5 hrs.

I don’t mind the headwinds as much either.
Consider a 20kt headwind.

305NM / 160-20kts = 2hrs 10mins (15mins difference)

305NM / 94-20kts = 4hrs 7mins (52mins difference)

However, the 210 can’t land on the beaches around here like the 170, but it has a different mission.

You do know the difference between literal and figurative, yes?

BTW, Turbo 182RG should/could true out over 160.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

If you come across a 182 that could true out at over 160kts let me know.

If you learn what a joke is let me know.

 

[bnt83]

That's what I fly. The 68' with the O-320 is typically going to be the most affordable in regards to purchase price and you can get a Mogas STC and save on fuel.

Mine does have the powerflow exhaust and that's one mod I would recommend if the one you're looking at doesn't have it already.

You running mogas? Pretty much all I use unless get too far from home.

 

[Ventucky Red]

There was one for sale on craigslist in CA (LA area) a few days ago.

Yeuuupppp

 

[BrianNC]

 

[3393RP]

Years ago I knew a guy with a 177B. Sometimes he used the stabilator trim to flare while landing. I never questioned him about it, now I wondering if anyone else has done this. Comments?

 

[AdamZ]

1) Listen to Brian
2) Join Cardinal Flyers Online.
Love Love Love the Cardinal as others said I'd try for a 180 hp or if you can spare the coin an RG!

 

[Kansas Flyer]

You running mogas? Pretty much all I use unless get too far from home.

I use mogas almost exclusively. I only buy 100LL if i'm on a xcountry and nobody around has mogas.

 

[cgrab]

Before I bought my 68 with 150hp, I spent a lot of time on Cradinalflyers. That is truly where all the knowledge on Cardinals resides. I learned enough to do my own prebuy on three planes and rejected the first two. Still have it, and since I installed fence all day today, I'm going to fly tomorrow. I took out the back seat and insure it as a 2-seater (about $650/yr). I also got the mogas STC but 100ll prices are staying low so I don't mind the cost over the hassle.

 

[cgrab]

When I took my instruction in my new plane the instructor, who had been giving the previous owner his check rides, told me that I had a high performance wing with a low performance engine (150 hp) so I keep about 1000 rpm on the engine until just before touchdown and that keeps the nose up.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Thanks everyone for your help here... Cardinal Flyers look like a great place for additional info....

 

[Kansas Flyer]

When I took my instruction in my new plane the instructor, who had been giving the previous owner his check rides, told me that I had a high performance wing with a low performance engine (150 hp) so I keep about 1000 rpm on the engine until just before touchdown and that keeps the nose up.

I do the same and it seems to be easier to make a smooth touchdown that way. I also only use half flaps most of the time unless I want to really land short.

 

[Pilawt]

keep about 1000 rpm on the engine until just before touchdown and that keeps the nose up.

That skosh of power especially helps in a Cardinal when the CG is near the forward limit with flaps down. With the wing mounted so far aft (getting the main spar carrythrough behind the pilot's head), it has a forward CG limit that is unusually far forward -- only 5% aft of the mean aerodynamic chord. By comparison a 172's forward CG limit is about 15.5% MAC. And that's why the Cardinal needed a stabilator for greater pitch authority in the flare.