Cessna 182 vs 177

R

Ryan Harris

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 19, 2017
Messages
18
Display Name
Display name:
rcharris
Sorry for the not-another-airplane comparison thread. Looking for advice on a better suited aircraft for my mission. Right now flying about 5-10 hours per month in a Grumman AA1. I'd like to upgrade and the spouse wants a low-wing aircraft. Mission is IFR/VFR with 2-4 hour trips on the east coast, looking at a budget of $50-60K. Preference is fixed gear for lower maintenance costs. We rarely would take a 3rd passenger so 2+ baggage is the primary mission.

From the looks of it, it seems like a 180 HP Cardinal 177B or an older 182 would be the tradeoff. Not sure what's better from performance cost standpoint, each airplane seems to have a solid following.
 
Either would be fine for your mission, BUT the wife wants a low wing!
 
That. Why on earth are u even thinking of high wing when she clearly wants the better version? U think she won’t notice or what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've just got back from a run down the east coast and back in my 177RG. There was a 182 following the same route of flight for one of the legs and we appeared reasonably matched in speed/performance with the RG being just fractionally faster.

Personally I prefer the 177 for the sportier look, better cabin access and better all round visibility from the front seats. Having spent 6 hours in the air today, it is perfectly comfortable for a 2-4 hour flight.
 
Here is where ya need to be
Does your mission better, smoother, with less gas and maintenance than either the 177 or the 182
CESSNA 170B
 
Ryan Harris said:
Sorry for the not-another-airplane comparison thread. Looking for advice on a better suited aircraft for my mission. Right now flying about 5-10 hours per month in a Grumman AA1. I'd like to upgrade and the spouse wants a low-wing aircraft. Mission is IFR/VFR with 2-4 hour trips on the east coast, looking at a budget of $50-60K. Preference is fixed gear for lower maintenance costs. We rarely would take a 3rd passenger so 2+ baggage is the primary mission.

From the looks of it, it seems like a 180 HP Cardinal 177B or an older 182 would be the tradeoff. Not sure what's better from performance cost standpoint, each airplane seems to have a solid following.
Click to expand...

So I take it you don't really want her flying with you....or are you trying to convice her that sight seeing is fun and the view of the top of the wing never changes?
 
Posting when tired is dangerous. Sorry, to correct the previous post, the wife wants only a high wing airplane for ease of entry/exit. Trust me, i'd rather have the low wing but i'd much rather have a flying companion. Seems like for the 2+ cargo mission the 177 is a better aircraft?
 
I love the 182, but if the Cardinal meets the mission, I'd go for that. One of, if not the best cabin in the single engine business and burns less gas than the 182.
 
Ryan Harris said:
Sorry for the not-another-airplane comparison thread. Looking for advice on a better suited aircraft for my mission. Right now flying about 5-10 hours per month in a Grumman AA1. I'd like to upgrade and the spouse wants a low-wing aircraft. Mission is IFR/VFR with 2-4 hour trips on the east coast, looking at a budget of $50-60K. Preference is fixed gear for lower maintenance costs. We rarely would take a 3rd passenger so 2+ baggage is the primary mission.

From the looks of it, it seems like a 180 HP Cardinal 177B or an older 182 would be the tradeoff. Not sure what's better from performance cost standpoint, each airplane seems to have a solid following.
Click to expand...

I like the bladder fuel tanks in the 182 over the wet wing fuel tanks of the 177 series. I like the Lycoming engines in the 177 over the continentals in the 182, assuming the 177B doesn't have the dual magneto, which is expensive to get ride of, basically requires a different engine.

I love the power, sound, and fresh air vents in the 182. I hate that the front seat tracks are about two inches too short and make it a bit harder to get into and out of the front seats than the 177 series.



I think the cowl flaps on the 182 series are a lot better than the 177B (177 doesn't have them at all).

The 182s generally have more instrument panel space than most of the 177 series, its not really a big deal anymore as avionics have gotten much more integrated but its still something to consider. I'd guess that only 15% of the 177 series has a full instrument panel.

Dad has a 182H (1968) and I've got the 1968 177. A friend has a 1976 177B. I have been flying/working on both 177/B for many years and the 182 for a couple years now. They all have pluses and minuses. Generally I think the 177 series is easier to work on except those damn fuel tanks.

A 182 is gonna be a lot better airplane in higher altitudes like Colorado, Arizona etc and should be able to climb faster and get you out of the heat quicker.
 
Ryan Harris said:
Seems like for the 2+ cargo mission the 177 is a better aircraft?
Click to expand...

I don't know that I would say that, but I personally chose the 177B because it is more economical, both to buy, and in fuel burn/maintenance. It does give up airspeed. But on most trips it's not that big of a deal. Also, I am flying in the Midwest, so I don't have to worry about mountain flying.


The cabin is wide (every bit as wide as a 182) and comfortable, and because the doors swing wide with no side strut, it's easy to get in and out.
 
bnt83 said:
I'd guess that only 15% of the 177 series has a full instrument panel.
Click to expand...
Not sure on the percentages, but I think it's 1976 and later that have the full instrument panel. Mine's a 76 and it has the full panel.
 
PPC1052 said:
Not sure on the percentages, but I think it's 1976 and later that have the full instrument panel. Mine's a 76 and it has the full panel.
Click to expand...

Right, about 430 177B fixed gears were built with the full panel. They built 1160ish alone of model year 1968.

The 177RG is similar, only the last couple year models have the full panel.

Pretty sure the larger panel with center radio stacks came to the 182 in 1962, though the standard T layout didn't show up till 1968.
upload_2018-4-13_7-37-15.png
upload_2018-4-13_7-36-37.png
 
Last edited:
I've seen the arguments over and over. The answer is simple. Get the Skylane.
 
steingar said:
I've seen the arguments over and over. The answer is simple. Get the Skylane.
Click to expand...

Its pretty easy to feel that way. Especially if you want the latest and greatest avionics. The 182 line will almost always get the new autopilot, engine, parachute STCs before the 177 series.
 
I agree with Steingar. Flown both.
IMO, the 182 might be the best all-around single piston plane ever built. It will probably be my retirement plane.​
 
Artimas said:
I agree with Steingar. Flown both.
IMO, the 182 might be the best all-around single piston plane ever built. It will probably be my retirement plane.​
Click to expand...

I love that the thing holds 80 gallons of <$3 a gallon mogas. Goes a long ways on that.

The 68 177 holds 48 gallons of <$3 a gallon mogas, easily fly 5 hours straight with 10 gallons left. (I miss the constant speed prop of the 182 in turbulence tho)

182s are awesome personal airplanes. The 150 horse 177 feels more like spacious moped in comparison but I do enjoy it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Resale (value, market availability)
Parts availability (used & aftermarket)
Current & future STCs (look at list of existing; think about autopilots, instruments, etc.)

177 or 182?
 
When I was looking for high wings, I was told to look at 177 and 182's. The advice I got was to search for both and when the best fit showed up buy that one. They are similar enough that unless you are dead set on a 177 or a 182, just find the best version you can afford of whichever you find first.
 
Man, I love both planes.

The 177 line is among the best looking GA aircraft built - and the cabin is very comfortable. It is the easiest to get into and out of, bar none.

The 182 is a better performer (but burns more gas).

I would probably choose the 182, if for no other reason than the better climb rate. But if you get a good version of either, you're unlikely to be disappointed.

Until you fly a Bonanza. Then, you'll want a Bonanza.
 
PPC1052 said:
Not sure on the percentages, but I think it's 1976 and later that have the full instrument panel. Mine's a 76 and it has the full panel.
Click to expand...
The pre-1976 Cardinal panel design was sort of form over function. Though as mentioned above, modern avionics are more compact than those available when these airplanes are new, and there should be enough room for anything you'd reasonably want. (1974 C-177B panel below)

Screen Shot 2018-04-13 at 7.40.47 AM.png

The 1976 and later Cardinal panels filled in the space in the upper right above the glove box, providing room for another box and another full-size instrument.

Screen Shot 2018-04-13 at 7.41.00 AM.png
 
ktup-flyer said:
You can get a lot nicer 177B for $60k than you can 182, assuming you can find one
Click to expand...
@Ryan Harris - I didn't see you budget, giving that info would probably help?

We looked at Cardinals with a few nice ones in the $55K-$60K range. We also worked a lot of W&B and the 182 just kept giving margins we liked, not to mention the climb rate in summer, etc. We eventually found a 1900hr 182 for $60K and our decision was made. The 182 has a 1990's panel (dual KX155's, DME, Decent audio panel) so no GPS RNAV for us. But we were okay with that.

If you are tall, the Cardinal will eventually leave its mark on your forehead :) But man do Cardinals look nice. Plus easy to get into.
 
Just adding another opinion... Either option will fit your stated mission. If it was me, I would decide on a budget (both purchase and operational) and look at the market and decide which model is going to fit your needs best. There is a LOT to like about the cardinal, but I found it to be a bit of a dog in climb performance. Back east that is probably not a big concern.

Do you have any experience in either type? Before buying I would definitely look at getting some experience in both models so you can decide...
 
Our flying club once had a nice 182 with long range tanks. While I always liked the styling of the 177, when it came to short fields and heavy loads, the 182 was hard to beat. Of course expense comes into play if one goes for retractable gear on either the 182 or 177. If conventional non retractable gear, the 182 would probably be the better short field, heavy lifter. With RG the 182RG is probably more expensive than the 177RG but again will deal with a heavier load. But in the final analysis, it will probably come down to a specific aircraft, avionics and sticker price. No bad choices here.
 
idahoflier said:
There is a LOT to like about the cardinal, but I found it to be a bit of a dog in climb performance. Back east that is probably not a big concern.
Click to expand...
Is that opinion based on experience with all versions, or just one? Given the various versions and engines, I would anticipate that the climb performance would vary by type. That being said, my experience is only with the 177B(180HP O-360 constant speed prop), and one flight in an RG (200 HP IO-360), and only in the midwest, but I have not noticed any problems with climb performance.
 
The 182 I flew had fixed gear as well as the Cardinal and I admit it was a few years ago. I would probably still prefer the 182 out west at the higher field elevations. But that would be my opinion and should not deter you from looking at more recent aircraft performance data for take off, climb, etc. at gross weights.
 
Appreciate everyone posting a response, I can add that high altitudes are really not a factor here given we are Virginia flatlanders, most we would be looking at is 4 hour trips from VA to KY or longer trips to FL. No high altitude out west ops planned. I'm not super enamored with any RG options due to the upkeep even if it buys speed. Leaning towards the 177 but I am having a hard time understanding the pricing and value of the cardinals, it seems like I can buy a comparable early 182 that's mid-time with similar older avionics for the price of a 177 with the same avionics. A big factor is something we can keep for 15-20 years and keep on flying, which points me to a 182. However, our mission is really 2 people + baggage which is 177 territory, and the 177 is much easier to get in and out of. Budget is 45-55K most likely with a focus on lower operating costs (O-360 vs the O-470) given we mostly are 2 up with luggage..
 
Tom-D said:
Here is where ya need to be
Does your mission better, smoother, with less gas and maintenance than either the 177 or the 182
CESSNA 170B
Click to expand...
Except for the IFR part. And the speed. And, I wonder if “have logs during my ownership” is another way of saying “missing logs for most of aircraft history”.
 
Ryan Harris said:
Appreciate everyone posting a response, I can add that high altitudes are really not a factor here given we are Virginia flatlanders, most we would be looking at is 4 hour trips from VA to KY or longer trips to FL. No high altitude out west ops planned. I'm not super enamored with any RG options due to the upkeep even if it buys speed. Leaning towards the 177 but I am having a hard time understanding the pricing and value of the cardinals, it seems like I can buy a comparable early 182 that's mid-time with similar older avionics for the price of a 177 with the same avionics. A big factor is something we can keep for 15-20 years and keep on flying, which points me to a 182. However, our mission is really 2 people + baggage which is 177 territory, and the 177 is much easier to get in and out of. Budget is 45-55K most likely with a focus on lower operating costs (O-360 vs the O-470) given we mostly are 2 up with luggage..
Click to expand...

What is the average weight you think is going to be in the cabin? I use to think about 177's until I found out what the useful load is like? Be careful because some of the 177's have the 150HP engine and they are under powered.

So I say 182, Faster, better useful load, can bring friends with you and easy to maintain. Especially if you are planning on having the airplane for over 20 years you will eventually get tired of the 177....In my opinion.
 
Obviously many people have bought 177's and are completely happy. I am willing to bet a decent number of them have wondered if a 182 would have been a better choice on those days they did want to fly 4 people or haul more stuff.

On the flip side, I wouldn't think there are many/any 182 owners doubting they made the right choice and are wondering specifically about a 177 vs anything else which costs less to maintain and fly. So I am pretty sure if you could stretch into the 182 you would be far less likely to doubt your choice and upsize again which is also expensive.

But @Ryan Harris also indicated a budget of 45-55K which will be tough to find a 182.

How about a 172/180hp. A cheaper prop to maintain, might find a better equipped version. Just not the cabin width and doors of the cardinal but maybe the interior will be nicer too for that price.
 
Salty said:
Except for the IFR part. And the speed. And, I wonder if “have logs during my ownership” is another way of saying “missing logs for most of aircraft history”.
Click to expand...
Missing logs, doesn't mean a thing, it is what material condition the aircraft is in right now. I don't give a rat's patoot about what some one did in the past, It matters not if the aircraft was wrecked years ago, as long as it is correctly repaired and flys correctly.
Those who believe that what some wrote in the book ten years ago, is simply looking for an excuse not to buy.
 
Be careful of the weight and balance. I looked at buying into a C177 partnership and my CFI and I would put the CG out of the envelope. OK, we are both big guys but it is something to check carefully before you get serious about the C177. How many sand bags do you want to haul around?

-Skip
 
Tom-D said:
Missing logs, doesn't mean a thing, it is what material condition the aircraft is in right now. I don't give a rat's patoot about what some one did in the past, It matters not if the aircraft was wrecked years ago, as long as it is correctly repaired and flys correctly.
Those who believe that what some wrote in the book ten years ago, is simply looking for an excuse not to buy.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, but we're a captive audience in resale. As long as one agrees to eat that opportunity cost, then absolutely I would fly with incomplete airframe logs. The problem arises when you go out there in the market and see folks advertising airplanes with missing logs and they want within 10% of median asking price from the cherries for them. It's an absolute broken dream land of emotional sellers out peddling their belated mx junk out there. Mind you, that's not a jab, I strive in flying "junk", and I have no compunction asking what I think that junk is worth to me, which is always taken as low balling their ##es to them. But at some point their constant and tired indignation gets more hassle than it's worth. These people need a therapist on loss and how to move on productively more than they need to be advertising an airplanes for sale. :D
 
I only flew in 177RG as a passenger, but I was seriously disappointed: it's unbelievably cramped inside. The only airplanes that were worse: Liberty XL2, CZAW PiperSport, Piper Comanche. I flew 182RG a little bit and it was very nice. I actually thought about buying one before I got the Mooney - the speeds are very much comparable to a Tiger and snapping on the heels of my M20E. I cannot understand why 177B commands the prices that it does, seems like all around poorly conceived airplane to me.
P.S. I don't think 182 is any harder to board or exit. But I'm 6'5" with 36" inseam.
 
Maybe I can add another second hand data point.

Right as I was finishing up my PPL, my CFI starting training someone in a Cardinal. After several flights I asked him what he thought. As I recall, it was the power (climb especially) was notable. And then he made one other comment that I did not expect at all...he said that it feels weird. I asked more and he said it was because he felt so laid back and the windshield swept back so much farther over his head compared to the more upright position of the 172/182. I don't think this was a bad thing, I bet some love it. But he said for him it was weird seating position and was hard for him to adjust too. So maybe if the OP is coming from a 172 the seating position might be "different" enough to make sure first.
 
Not a 182 fan - fuel hogs, poor vis; comfy enough, though. Just a few flights in a Cardinal, and found the vis superior, as well as ease of entry.
 
182 feels heavy and substantial; Cardinal not so much. During development it became apparent that the 177 airframe would weigh more than expected, so Cessna engineers resorted to thinner aluminum skins in places, and some lighter hardware.

182’s heaviness carries over into its handling, especially in pitch. The Cardinal’s stabilator makes it lighter and more responsive in pitch; and it has the nicest roll response of any high-wing Cessna.

As mentioned above, the visibility from a Cardinal is much better than from a 182.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top