Cessna 182 vs 177

[Pascal Forget]

I prefer the visibility out of the 177b. You say you want to keep the airplane 15-20 years? Then these might matter to you:

An overhaul might be in your future. 177b has a 4 cylinder engine, 182 a 6 cylinder engine. Overhauling the engine of the 177b will be cheaper.

Some 177bs have had some corrosion problems, especially important to check when you live in a wet part of the country or close to the ocean.

Check out cardinalflyers.com.

 

[ktup-flyer]

Here's a decent looking one https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...2H+SKYLANE&listing_id=2312223&s-type=aircraft

 

[Cardinalguy]

• I love my 177B, great visibility, good fuel burn, ease of entry, feels nimble on the controls. It has enough power for me and one or two passengers and I'm at 7k feet home field elevation. Plus it's different enough that we get a lot of attention on the ramp, which isn't always a good thing...

 

[TigerGene]

Why not a Grumman AA5B Tiger?

In your price range, as fast or faster than both the Cardinal and the C182. Lower fuel burn than the 182 and with a longer 2000 Hr TBO. I cruise at 135 to 137 Knots true and 10 to 10.5 gallons per hour.

If you live in the South do not discount the luxury of a sliding canopy! Ground ops and long climbs to cooler altitudes are much nicer with the canopy open and a 180 hp fan in front! The canopy also pays dividends in incredible inflight visibility and easy entry and exit. Fold the back seat down and you have a cargo area over 6 ft long! Back seat leg room is amazing for a plane of this size.

Finally, very reasonable maintenance with a dirt simple airframe and the best engine in the business, the Lyc O-360!

I paid 50K for mine 3 years ago with 350 hours and 4 years on the engine, Stec 30 autopilot with altitude hold, IFR GPS, fresh interior and good paint. Been on several trips over 1000 nm and can attest to the comfort and reliability of the aircraft.

 

[Eric Gleason]

What rate of climb do you get in the Tiger with ~500 pounds of people and bags, and how much range does that leave you in fuel?

 

[TigerGene]

My Tiger weighs 1503 lbs, gross weight is 2400 lbs. 500 lbs of people and bags means I can take off with full fuel, 51 gallons, and be almost 100 lbs under gross weight.

Initial rate of clumb at sea level on a standard day at that weight is 850 ft per minute, at 6000 ft the rate of climb drops to 600 ft per minute. At 8000 ft 70% power is 10.2 gph at 136 knots true so you will have 5 hours to dry tanks. Allow 30 min reserve so 4-1/2 hours at 136 knots gives you a range of 612 nautical miles. Of course if you pull the power back to 65% power you can expect a fuel burn of 9,6 gph and 131 knots true which results in 5.3 hours to dry tanks and 628 nm range with a 30 min reserve.

Having said all of that, at 62 years of age I find I like to land after 3-1/2 to 4 hours for a potty break and a sandwich. My wife agrees.

I live in East Texas and fly to Norfolk Virginia to visit my son, Denver to visit inlaws and am planning a trip to California to visit my family. I find the Grumman to be an excellent, budget travelling machine. I often fly IFR and find it well suited for the task although I do have relatively high personal minimums, it is a single engine aircraft after all.

The Tiger will keep up with older C model Mooneys and C182s but without the maintenance expense of constant speed props and retractable gear, nevermind the insurance, which in my case runs just under $500 per year. For a certified aircraft it is very efficient.

 

[BigBadLou]

We had to go through the same exercise as you. Wife likes high-wings so 177 or 182 were our options.
The 177 has great huge doors and easy access to the big back seat. Very wide cabin too, didn't feel as cramped as 172s.
But if you want to go fast, I would strongly recommend against the FG version. There are 172s out there that will outclimb and outcruise a 177FG. Now, if you went to RG, you'd be talking meaningful speed gains at the same burn as a 172.

As far as performance comparison, a 182 will surely outclimb a 177 simply due to its bigger engine. But it will logically cost you extra fuel.

Realistically, I'd say keep your eyes open for either model. And if you find one that you really love, you might not care about the other one. It's all about luck of the draw.

 

[Eric Gleason]

My Tiger weighs 1503 lbs, gross weight is 2400 lbs. 500 lbs of people and bags means I can take off with full fuel, 51 gallons, and be almost 100 lbs under gross weight.

Initial rate of clumb at sea level on a standard day at that weight is 850 ft per minute, at 6000 ft the rate of climb drops to 600 ft per minute. At 8000 ft 70% power is 10.2 gph at 136 knots true so you will have 5 hours to dry tanks. Allow 30 min reserve so 4-1/2 hours at 136 knots gives you a range of 612 nautical miles. Of course if you pull the power back to 65% power you can expect a fuel burn of 9,6 gph and 131 knots true which results in 5.3 hours to dry tanks and 628 nm range with a 30 min reserve.

Having said all of that, at 62 years of age I find I like to land after 3-1/2 to 4 hours for a potty break and a sandwich. My wife agrees.

I live in East Texas and fly to Norfolk Virginia to visit my son, Denver to visit inlaws and am planning a trip to California to visit my family. I find the Grumman to be an excellent, budget travelling machine. I often fly IFR and find it well suited for the task although I do have relatively high personal minimums, it is a single engine aircraft after all.

The Tiger will keep up with older C model Mooneys and C182s but without the maintenance expense of constant speed props and retractable gear, nevermind the insurance, which in my case runs just under $500 per year. For a certified aircraft it is very efficient.

Those are really great numbers. I wish there were more of these on the market!

How's the CG range? Is it as easy to manage as a 182, or can you find yourself out of CG pretty easily?

 

[kurttruk]

How does a io-390 equipped 177 compare?

 

[bnt83]

How does a io-390 equipped 177 compare?

io390 alone is freaking expensive, replacement cylinders are twice the price of 320&360 cylinders (I wouldn't buy one)

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=143205

Edit: Cylinders came down in price but research other parts, like a $10k crankshaft. http://www.airpowerinc.com/productcart/pc/prodpartsv.asp?catid=3&subcat=97&mfgid=tl&prodid=12030

Might as well fly a 6 banger at those prices.

 

[labbadabba]

How does a io-390 equipped 177 compare?

Expensive.

 

[TigerGene]

Those are really great numbers. I wish there were more of these on the market!

How's the CG range? Is it as easy to manage as a 182, or can you find yourself out of CG pretty easily?

CG is rarely a problem. Usually only a factor when flying with seats full. Put the gents in the front and ladies in the back and usually no problem.

 

[BigBadLou]

CG is rarely a problem. Usually only a factor when flying with seats full. Put the gents in the front and ladies in the back and usually no problem.

FWIW, the CG on the 177 is pretty much opposite and can be tricky due to the wing location farther back than other airframes. It aids greatly in visibility but you gotta be careful when all load it up front, she will be nose heavy. With full fuel and full dudes in the front (realistic 200lb/seat), you need some heavy ballast in the baggage compartment #2.

 

[Pilawt]

FWIW, the CG on the 177 is pretty much opposite and can be tricky due to the wing location farther back than other airframes. It aids greatly in visibility but you gotta be careful when all load it up front, she will be nose heavy. With full fuel and full dudes in the front (realistic 200lb/seat), you need some heavy ballast in the baggage compartment #2.

That's why the Cardinal has an un-Cessna-like stabilator. It needed a lot of pitch authority for a full-stall landing with full flap and forward CG (5% of mean aerodynamic chord, compared to 15% in the C-172).

 

[BigBadLou]

That's why the Cardinal has an un-Cessna-like stabilator. It needed a lot of pitch authority for a full-stall landing with full flap and forward CG (5% of mean aerodynamic chord, compared to 15% in the C-172).

I grew up on Cherokees so a full stabilator is no surprise to me, I actually like it.

 

[jesse]

More horsepower is more better. Imo a 177 is more comparable to a 172 than a 182.

It’d be rare that a guy would be flying a 182 and would think “I wish i were in the 177”. Meanwhile, there are times where a guy with a 177 might wish it were a 182.

 

[Ryan Harris]

Sounds like everyone is point towards a buy-once and cry once. Doing more reading, the 182 fuel burn is not as bad as thought compared to the 177. Still on the fence, thanks to all for the input.

 

[denverpilot]

Sounds like everyone is point towards a buy-once and cry once. Doing more reading, the 182 fuel burn is not as bad as thought compared to the 177. Still on the fence, thanks to all for the input.

It depends a lot on if you stay down low or climb it. We average 11.5 gal/hr taking off from essentially 6000’ MSL and always being higher for the most part. But we have seen fuel burns in excess of 15 gal/hr at or near sea level and flying below 3500’ MSL.

The sweet spot seems to be around 8000-10000 for fuel burn and reasonable TAS in ours unless there’s a ripping tailwind up high and we feel like dragging the O2 bottle along.

Lately I haven’t been in any hurry so I’ve been pulling the prop back further and flying it slower in cruise which yielded a monthly average of 10.5 gal/hr for losing about 10 knots.

 

[TigerGene]

Don’t forget the C182 has 6 cylinders and a shorter TBO (than lyc powered aircraft) plus it is quite common to perform a top overhaul well before TBO.

Operating expenses will likely be a bit higher on the 182 than any aircraft with a 4 cylinder lycoming and a 2000 hr TBO..

It would be interesting to compare the all in operating expenses of a C172RG and a C182.

 

[hindsight2020]

It would be interesting to compare the all in operating expenses of a C172RG and a C182.

They're identical class aircraft in the cost realm. My Arrow is in the same boat. All in circa 9-10K/yr airplanes per 100 hours. Difference will be a trade between climb rate, useful load, fuel mileage and differential mx costs as a function of the systems one has that the other one doesn't (different engines, retract vs fixed, bladders vs integral et al). The more miles per year you fly, the bigger the penalty on the fuel economy on the 182. If you fly less than 50 hours a year, you're looking at a cheaper experience with the 182, and I say that as a Lyco favoring owner mind you. OPex is not the inflection point people believe it is wrt these samples. Personally, I would go with an older and cheaper 182 and put modern speed pants and a garmin 400W or 430W. That ought to last you a decade plus of enjoyment without much mission creep ceilings.

 

[denverpilot]

Don’t forget the C182 has 6 cylinders and a shorter TBO (than lyc powered aircraft) plus it is quite common to perform a top overhaul well before TBO.

Operating expenses will likely be a bit higher on the 182 than any aircraft with a 4 cylinder lycoming and a 2000 hr TBO..

It would be interesting to compare the all in operating expenses of a C172RG and a C182.

The 182Q with the O-470U has a 2000 hour TBO.

Our 182P with an O-470S kinda fits your mold, someone misflew the engine badly and it needed top work at around 200 SNEW.

It hasn’t needed top work ever since. We’re about 200 from the 1500 TBO now. I suspect we’ll fly it well beyond TBO and watch for it telling us when it’s time. They usually speak loudly when it is.

The tales of needing top work aren’t as prevalent amongst other O-470 owners as it once was. People tend to treat engines better these days. When shade tree cylinder replacements and overhauls were half the price they are today, people just shoved everything forward and went for “full rental power” all the time, even when they owned it.

As engines have slowly become half of the entire value of the aircraft, people started paying attention to engine operation more.

Upgrading to a P.Ponk conversion at rebuild time is the common way to gain a 2000 hour TBO after an O-470 says it wants a break. And (arguably) another 50 HP or so at sea level. Quite a few 182s on the market with that already done.

O-470 is a pretty non-fussy engine overall. People do abuse them however or sometimes get caught up in the horrid metallurgy problems of the cylinder replacement world that plagued everyone for over a decade. But the bad old days of top-overhauls slowly went away as Continental fixed things about the design. Generally the later the letter model of O-470, the more of those little things that plagued the valve train were addressed.

And of course... You can make a 4-banger Lyc as expensive as a good rebuild on an O-470. Just buy one in the factory crate. (I know someone who wanted that and wrote a $40,000 check.)

Just depends on what you want.

 

[PPC1052]

There are 172s out there that will outclimb and outcruise a 177FG.

I am skeptical of that claim with respect to any fixed gear version of the 172 compared to any version of the 177 equipped with the 180HP engine.

 

[Pilawt]

There are 172s out there that will outclimb and outcruise a 177FG.

I am skeptical of that claim with respect to any fixed gear version of the 172 compared to any version of the 177 equipped with the 180HP engine.

Lou is correct. He has flown in a 180 hp 172N that will outclimb and outcruise most 177A/Bs.

 

[PPC1052]

Lou is correct. He has flown in a 180 hp 172N that will outclimb and outcruise most 177A/Bs.

I am no expert on the various types of 172s and the performance of each version. So, I admit to a large level of ignorance. But, in that instance, are we comparing a stock 172N to a stock 177A/B?

 

[Pilawt]

I am no expert on the various types of 172s and the performance of each version. So, I admit to a large level of ignorance. But, in that instance, are we comparing a stock 172N to a stock 177A/B?

The airplane mentioned (mine) is a 1978 172N with Air Plains STC 180 hp O-360-A4M, fixed-pitch prop, and Power Flow exhaust, Maple Leaf exhaust fairing and flap gap seals. It's a couple of knots faster in cruise, and climbs better, than 180 hp Cardinals I've flown, including the '76 177B I regularly flew in a flying club in the 1990s.

But for apples to apples, there is the stock Model 172Q (1983-85) with the same 180 hp engine as the Air Plains STC, and fixed-pitch prop; also the Model R172K Hawk XP (1977-81), with 6-cylinder, fuel-injected Continental IO-360 de-rated to 195 hp and constant-speed prop.

The 177 has many virtues -- roomy cabin with easy access, good visibility, nice handling. But its performance was not enough to unseat its strutted stablemate. The Cardinal's wider fuselage cross-section and heavier airframe weight largely offset the benefit of the cantilever wing.

In the late 1960s Cessna also expected to replace the dowager 182 with a snazzy new Model 187 that looked much like a beefed-up Cardinal. Again, performance in flight testing was disappointing, and the project was abandoned. They also tried a strutless cantilever wing on a legacy 182 airframe -- same result.

 

[asicer]

Again, performance in flight testing was disappointing, and the project was abandoned. They also tried a strutless cantilever wing on a legacy 182 airframe -- same result.

Isn't this sort of the 210 in a roundabout way?

 

[Pilawt]

Isn't this sort of the 210 in a roundabout way?

In a roundabout fixed-gear way, I guess. Cessna engineer Bill Thompson wrote of the experimental strutless 182M, “[T]he weight increase nullified any potential overall performance gains and the forecasted higher manufacturing cost prompted the termination of this program.”

Even on the 210, the strutless wing is more flash than dash. Compare the last strutted model, the 1966 210F, with the ‘67 210G. The strutless 210G is 2 mph faster, but 100 pounds heavier empty, 5-7 mph higher stall speed, and lower climb rate and service ceiling. But it looks nice.

 

[Phil S.]

Just went through a similar exercise in upgrading, in our case the 182 won. If the choices are between 177 & 182, you can’t make a bad choice (provided you do an adequate pre-purchase inspection) and you can afford the additional service, operating costs, insurance etc. Good luck

 

[N1120A]

If you want a low wing, which is what your original post said, you should really consider getting a Grumman AA5B. An AG5B would be a little expensive, but the AA5B would fit the bill. Also consider a Piper Arrow. Yes, they are retracts but they are so common that the expense shouldn't be bad. They are fast enough and very fuel efficient. A Mooney F might also fit your bill.

 

[asicer]

If you want a low wing, which is what your original post said, you should really consider getting a Grumman AA5B.

See post #9

 

[Kansas Flyer]

Is being able to burn Mogas an issue for you? The Peterson STC does not cover the 180 hp Cardinal and I haven't heard of another STC that covers it.

I fly a 68' Cardinal with a powerflow exhaust which helps the climb performance quite a bit. It won't keep up with a 182 but the performance is adequate for a flatlander and you should be able to find a nice example easily within your stated budget. Having an O-360 seems to bump the asking price up by at least 10-15k from what i've seen.