Cessna 177RG Cardinal

[wheaties]

Since y'all are talking Cardinals, what's the ceiling on value of a Cardinal RG? My BIL is looking at a nice example, and it is priced as such. What's the top of the market for these airplanes?

Right now there is a premium for 172 and 182. This has had the effect of pushing up values for 177 and, ironically, Dakotas. The "value" play of a 177 are the 68s which are woefully under powered. The premium is commanded by the '79 whose gear retract faster due to the higher voltage of the model (24v vs 12v.)

I looked at these and they are a catch, provided yiu get a decent pre-buy.

 

[Lowflynjack]

@pigpenracing I took a look at it when you flew into T74 one day. Very, very nice! I'm supposed to do a cover shot for Bonanza society sometime in the next few months. Waiting on a Bo to get a new paint job. I think I could get in with them and Mooney, but sometimes I struggle to stay up with the demands of Cessna and Piper and I put off things like my friend's Staggerwing.... deadlines suck!!

 

[azure]

Right now there is a premium for 172 and 182. This has had the effect of pushing up values for 177 and, ironically, Dakotas. The "value" play of a 177 are the 68s which are woefully under powered. The premium is commanded by the '78 whose gear retract faster due to the higher voltage of the model (24v vs 12v.)

I looked at these and they are a catch, provided yiu get a decent pre-buy.

FTFY... the last model year for the Cardinal RG was 1978.

 

[jsstevens]

FTFY... the last model year for the Cardinal RG was 1978.

That's why the 79's are so expensive.

 

[azure]

That's why the 79's are so expensive.

Yep - they were made with unobtainium.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Yep - they were made with unobtainium.

I work in a highly secured factory. I walked through the metal detector the other day and it beeped because I have a new hip made of titanium. I told the new guard I had a new hip. The next step is for him to get out the wand and scan that area. I pointed to my hip and as he wanded me, the wand didn't beep. I told him it was made out of unobtainium and he seriously told me the wand wouldn't pick that up!

 

[jsstevens]

Yep - they were made with unobtainium.

Whereas the Piper PA-24 is only partly made of unobtanium. Cessna was SO ahead of their time with the Cardinal.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

I think just under 200k is the top right now.

Since y'all are talking Cardinals, what's the ceiling on value of a Cardinal RG? My BIL is looking at a nice example, and it is priced as such. What's the top of the market for these airplanes?

 

[wheaties]

That's why the 79's are so expensive.

I walked into that one, didn't I...

 

[JohnAJohnson]

When 172s are discussed, no one mentions how unsafe they are on a runway shorter than 5000' or how underpowered they are, yet every time the 68 Cardinal is discussed, this comes up. The 68 177 vs the 68 172 would be a fair and interesting comparison.

 

[Pilawt]

When 172s are discussed, no one mentions how unsafe they are on a runway shorter than 5000' or how underpowered they are, yet every time the 68 Cardinal is discussed, this comes up. The 68 177 vs the 68 172 would be a fair and interesting comparison.

Part of the issue is the 177’s cavernous interior, with ample opportunity to overload if one played fast and loose with the W&B. And the performance charts in the original 177 owners manual were a bit ... um, optimistic.

 

[ktup-flyer]

When 172s are discussed, no one mentions how unsafe they are on a runway shorter than 5000' or how underpowered they are, yet every time the 68 Cardinal is discussed, this comes up. The 68 177 vs the 68 172 would be a fair and interesting comparison.

A 172 gets used for training and a 177 doesn't. That's the difference

 

[Pilawt]

Add to the mix that the ‘68 and ‘69 Cardinals had an airfoil that gets really draggy at high AOA - like when the pilot tries to haul it off the ground and climb before it’s really ready. The 210G (and later) Centurions have the same wing planform and airfoil, but they have enough power to get through that high-drag condition quickly. The 172’s airfoil is more tolerant of ham-fisted operation in that flight regime.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

I just flew my instructors 177RG and had the rear baggage door open on takeoff. Got real windy inside. I am used to my own 150 and do a lot of hand flying without fiddling with trim so I think I handled the quick shift from takeoff to landing well, but the landing was rushed and poor since I only have 3 landings in this model so far. Just a different feel on round out and rudder. Managed to get it back down on the ground without dropping the oil, towbar, or tools on the class delta airport. Controller easily cleared an immediate landing on the crossing runway with a 270.

Not that it really helps the discussion at all. But this plane is what I am using for my 10 complex hours for commercial. Basically get to tag along for brunch trips. I got a sweet deal.

 

[deyoung]

This started me thinking... always dangerous, that.

How comparable is an upgrade 177RG --> 210 (G or later) vs., say 180HP Arrow --> Cherokee-6/300?

Roughly, of course.

 

[Jozment]

Great Pictures, I love the Cardinal so much, I have two of them. A 1968 FG purchased in 1990 and a 1973 RG just purchased this January and took it to Oshkosh.

If your interested in moving the older model, I know someone who might’ve interested.

 

[c177tx]

If your interested in moving the older model, I know someone who might’ve interested.

Plan on passing the FG down to my grandson for now. But thanks for the offer

 

[Lowflynjack]

And the final result!

And they also used photos in a couple of other sections of the magazine.

 

[N1120A]

The 200 HP 177RG is probably the best light GA product from a pilot's flying machine perspective Cessna ever made. Superior handling, excellent speed, economical and all that comfort.

This started me thinking... always dangerous, that.

How comparable is an upgrade 177RG --> 210 (G or later) vs., say 180HP Arrow --> Cherokee-6/300?

Roughly, of course.

The 180 HP Arrow is similarly underpowered to a 150 HP Cardinal RG. Also, a Cherokee 6 isn't really faster than a 200 HP Cardinal, but burns a lot more gas to lift better. You might want to compare a Lance or Saratoga in this situation.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

When 172s are discussed, no one mentions how unsafe they are on a runway shorter than 5000' or how underpowered they are, yet every time the 68 Cardinal is discussed, this comes up. The 68 177 vs the 68 172 would be a fair and interesting comparison.

I don't think they're unsafe on shorter runways, I operate mine of a 2200' grass strip routinely (not at gross). The empty weight of a 68' Card is about 100 lbs heavier than a 172 so there is definitely some truth to them being underpowered. I could also see what Pilawt said about the airfoil being a factor, try to pull her off too soon and she will mush along right into the trees.

 

[GaryV]

Jack
You sure make the plane look good! Great photos as always.
Gary

 

[jonvcaples]

Excellent photos of a beautiful machine! Congrats to all involved!

 

[BigBadLou]

Gorgeous airplane, can't agree more.
I especially like the picture above the fluffy cloud cover.
Well done, Jack, as usual!

 

[bnt83]

I wouldn't fly in a 1968- 150hp Cardinal with four people unless it was a 5000' paved runway with no obstructions, even then I'd probably pass.

How many 150/160 horse 172s will hold 4 people with a reasonable amount of gas?

Just flew a 150 horse 177, 3 real sized adults, ~30 pounds of gear and 192 pounds of fuel 91F OAT on the ground at 1200 MSL elevation, did fine for being a big 150 horse airplane about 30 pounds under gross with a 4000k foot density altitude.



https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N2221Y/history/20190912/0019Z/KLNK/KLNK/tracklog

There aren't any 150/160 horse airplanes that I know of that are great 4 place airplanes. None of the 177/RG are great 4 place airplanes either, 180 or 200 horse versions, just don't have the useful load to be.

 

[hindsight2020]

None of the 177/RG are great 4 place airplanes, just don't have the useful load to be.

Indeed. And those which do have the useful for it don't have the volumetrics for it either (cherokee -235 and -236 for instance). Cirrus really hit the spot when it comes to properly mating automotive volumetrics with sufficient horsepower, at least in the -22. Tecnam really misfired by putting a piddly O-360/390 on it's P2010. The incremental cost of a parallel valve -540 is nothing compared to the unobtanium 390 cylinder kits. Summer climb rates down here in TX are awful with the four bangers and any kind of family load.

 

[CJones]

None of the 177/RG are great 4 place airplanes either, 180 or 200 horse versions, just don't have the useful load to be.

My family used the club's 177RG for weekend trips for a few years. We would fuel to the tabs, my sister and mom learned not to pack like they were leaving for a month, and we did fine going from eastern Iowa to north Alabama non-stop for Thanksgiving and Christmas for several years. For a tall guy like myself, it's one of the most comfortable certified planes I've flown.

 

[GaryV]

With 60 gallons of fuel I have 676 lbs. available. That gets me 6 hours flight time (5 plus 1 hour reserve) at 165 mph.TAS. My wife and I, plus all she wants to take, can comfortably make Nashville non-stop from the Houston area.

For AngleFlights, I regularly fly with 40 gallons, two passengers, and the stuff I want to carry, plus the stuff the people carry on the missions. That’s 3 hours plus reserves, so I can comfortably make Oklahoma City from the Houston area, and 3 hours is about the most I’d want to make an AngleFlight passenger fly. My wife and I plus another couple with weekend baggage can make New Orleans with a 1 hour reserve.

That’s pretty good for a comfortable ‘4’ seater, with easy access, and that flies fast on 10 GPH or less.

The missions I’d planned while searching for a plane were 90% solo or just with my wife, 8% 3 souls on board for flights under 400 miles, 2% my wife and I plus another couple for short flights of up to 300 miles. The mission would include at least one trip a year of at least 1500 miles one way with my wife and would require single pilot IFR when needed. For single pilot IFR I wanted at least a single axis autopilot, and because the 1956 172 I started with cruised at 110 mph. I wanted the new plane to cruise at a minimum of 150 mph.

I’m 6’ 4” and average around 250 lbs. so my fitting comfortably limited my choices pretty significantly. Of the major certified planes that I could buy for less than $100,000 my size really meant I needed a Cessna. I didn’t fit in any of the other singles I checked out except a Mooney and the Mooney was too narrow for my wife and I to fly side be side comfortably.

The Cardinal RG ticks all the boxes I listed.

Gary