Flew a C177R Cardinal Yesterday for the First Time

Kansas Flyer said:
Does your 68' have a powerflow?
Click to expand...

No powerflow...pretty much stock but I did get a lightweight starter this year. Never had an issue with the CG, I do carry a few tools and oil and the RG battery is a couple of pounds heavier than the original.
 
IK04 said:
Yeah, the 180HP fixed gear Cardinals are dogs
Click to expand...

That hasn't been my experience, I guess it depends on what you're comparing it too.

I moved up from a 160HP (RAM STC) 172M with 2300 lb gross weight and 38 gallon fuel tanks. (I've also flown 180 HP 172's, 182's, PA28's, & a V35 Bonanza) In the summertime in the 172M (90F-100F) with two onboard, full fuel, and a weeks worth of baggage the best I could do was 118 TAS at 9-9.5 GPH and climb speed would drop below 500 FPM by the time we got to around 4,000'.

In my 180 HP Fixed Gear Cardinal with 60 gallons of fuel and 2500 lb gross weight and the same loading and summertime conditions I regularly see 128-129 TAS at 10.5 GPH and can maintain at least 500 FPM up to about 6,000' and at least 300 FPM up to 8,000'-9,000' where I usually cruise. (With the 172 I didn't bother trying to climb above 6,000' in the summer)

The performance certainly doesn't compare to a 177RG or a 182 but for the combination of performance, looks, cabin space, visibility, and ease of ingress/egress we're sure happy with it.
 
I'd really like to fly a 177RG at some point. There's one at an airport near me, if a good example had come along when I was 182 shopping last year I very well might've bought one. Seems like a great little cross country aircraft.
 
There is a semi-abandoned 177RG sitting on the ramp at a small airport near me. I was told it belongs to a Doctor and he doesn't fly it much any more and it is out of annual...

I'll keep an eye on it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
IK04 said:
There is a semi-abandoned 177RG sitting on the ramp at a small airport near me. I was told it belongs to a Doctor and he doesn't fly it much any more and it is out of annual...

I'll keep an eye on it...
Click to expand...
Down at Llano, or another one?
 
I owned a 177B for ten years and have owned a 177RG for the last six months. Loved the B and only had a problem with forward CG when I took my 320 pound friend for a ride. And then, I'd make sure I didn't have more than 30 gallons in the tanks and then it was within the envelope. Changing to a Sky-tec starter (10 pounds lighter) allowed 38 gallons in the same scenario. The W&B is easily manageable, and the RG looks to be at least as accommodating. I saw 126 (easy to do) - 130 (rare, must have a really aft CG) knots true on 10 gallons of gas in the B, and I see 145-149 knots true on 10.5 gallons of gas in the RG. I don't know if I've ever taken off in the RG and not seen at least a 1000'/min climb, but the B wasn't that good of a climber. Cold days when light, sure, 1000-1100'/min, but otherwise, 600-800' was more like it. Hot and heavy, it was lucky to hit 500'/min. I miss the B for its simplicity, but love the RG for its speed.
 
As I contemplate an upgrade between an oldish 177 and an even older 182, this commentary is great to read! My buddy who has never owned anything but a 152 is in another state with his A&P as I write this about to do a prebuy tomorrow on a 180 FG 177. Fingers crossed it's a keeper and he flies it home Sunday.

My wife has expressed an interest in more elbow room and speed so I'm weighing my options and keeping an eye on TAP & Barnstormers. I was one of those who, as an inexperienced new PP, bounced a 177 twice and went around before getting my speed on book and landing properly. It spooked me at the time but I've always said the Cardinal and I have some unfinished business. All this talk makes me want to own one!
 
Lynn Dixon said:
...
I might be a bit biased though....I do love this airplane:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/A4rPPLngESZ87Gua6
Click to expand...

What a beauty! I've always lusted after a 177, especially an RG. Got my first and only ride in one many years ago when we took our Stinson to FL. Had to detour to Ocala because of nasty storms outside of Orlando. While Pete was finding a place to hangar the Stinson, I found a Cardinal out on the ramp. Owner showed up and asked if I wanted to fly it. You have to ask???? wooo hooo! It was an awesome 40 minutes. lol.
 
iflyvfr said:
As I contemplate an upgrade between an oldish 177 and an even older 182, this commentary is great to read! My buddy who has never owned anything but a 152 is in another state with his A&P as I write this about to do a prebuy tomorrow on a 180 FG 177. Fingers crossed it's a keeper and he flies it home Sunday.

My wife has expressed an interest in more elbow room and speed so I'm weighing my options and keeping an eye on TAP & Barnstormers. I was one of those who, as an inexperienced new PP, bounced a 177 twice and went around before getting my speed on book and landing properly. It spooked me at the time but I've always said the Cardinal and I have some unfinished business. All this talk makes me want to own one!
Click to expand...
do-it-emperor-palpatine-meme.jpg
 
I’ve been told to stay away from the 177Rg and find a decent FG due to maintenance- the extra speed (And climb?) for this model seems worth it, but that depends completely on the $$$

What’s your experience been?

135 on 7gph is great

Lynn Dixon said:
I absolutely love my 177 RG Cardinal. There is no other airplane I would rather have. The RG is quite a bit faster than the fixed gear models, and has a max gross of 2800. I have 978 lbs useful in mine,
and I can carry 60 gallons of fuel. She flies fast and efficient. Heres a photo of my panel in flight:
ZS5NbfHzYeMXWftB7


https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZS5NbfHzYeMXWftB7

I'm at 4500, with power pulled back to 22 squared. She's trued out at about 145 MPH and burning 7 GPH and thats running very rich. You can see by the EGT, I haven't leaned it out in this photo. I wasn't 100% sure of that EGT gauge, and I was going pretty easy on leaning it since it was still farily new to me at the time.

Having said that, I get better than book numbers by a little bit. She has a powerflow and one of those fancy challenger air filters. I also run a three blade prop. I have been able to do 170 MPH true at about 10 to 10.5 GPH in this bird at about 24 squared.

This airplane fits my little families mission profiles perfectly. Having nearly 1000lbs useful load and the flexibility of 60 gallon tanks in a slippery and powerful airplane is something I never thought I'd find. My wife, daughter, and myself can all load up in the plane with plenty of bags for our trip and tanker fuel for safety and still not be at max gross, and we do it all COMFORTABLY. This is the only airplane I have ever felt comfortable, with plenty of elbow and shoulder room in. She doesn't even have the best paint job (its getting a bit rough), but I still get lots of compliments and comments just about every where I go. People seem to be drawn to them because you hardly ever see the Cardinal RG's anymore. And this thing looks soooo sexy in the air too :)

I might be a bit biased though....I do love this airplane:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/A4rPPLngESZ87Gua6
Click to expand...
 
Don’t worry about the purchase price the real question is can you afford an operating budget and an occasional $5-10k bill. We put north of 500 hours on the Cardinals in my crew per year and things do break and prices are getting expensive for the rarer parts. If you only fly 40 hours a year you weren’t as likely to run into those issues but of course you do have things that tend to last longer when they’re operating more frequently. I’m maintaining 2 RGs for my boss and he runs one as well so we see more averages and issues than most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
RyanShort1 said:
Don’t worry about the purchase price the real question is can you afford an operating budget and an occasional $5-10k bill. We put north of 500 hours on the Cardinals in my crew per year and things do break and prices are getting expensive for the rarer parts. If you only fly 40 hours a year you weren’t as likely to run into those issues but of course you do have things that tend to last longer when they’re operating more frequently. I’m maintaining 2 RGs for my boss and he runs one as well so we see more averages and issues than most.
Click to expand...

I will be in the market here in a couple years and the 182/177 RGs are both on the short list. What are the parts you're finding are scarce when you go looking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
I've got 200 hours in a 1977 FG Cardinal. 180 horse, slotted stabilator, 60 gallon long range tanks. It flew like a dream, and also looked really cool just sitting still. I really wish I still had access to it. The only issue with it in a club setting was making sure the pilot who had it before you didn't fill the tanks all the way if you were planning to fly with 3 or 4 people.
 
Scott Mitchell said:
I’ve been told to stay away from the 177Rg and find a decent FG due to maintenance- the extra speed (And climb?) for this model seems worth it, but that depends completely on the $$$
Click to expand...

Price insurance for anything RG. I'll stick with FG insurance premiums.
 
Pugs said:
I will be in the market here in a couple years and the 182/177 RGs are both on the short list. What are the parts you're finding are scarce when you go looking?
Click to expand...

An FG Cardinal owner here (1971 177B). We've owned our plane for a couple years now and fly about 100 hrs per year. No issue finding parts (so far). The only thing to be aware of is the Cessna service bulletin on the spar... other than that, Cardinals are no more hassle than any other small plane from a maintenance standpoint.
 
I enjoyed my long ago time in the 177RG (N1967Q and N34480)...not much, only about 16 hours total as a renter, so I can't speak to much, especially maintenance items and such...
except to say I seem to recall some issues with the large entry doors being caught in the wind while loading and unloading...maybe some hinge damage issues ?

I recall the thing feeling very slow/heavy in the climb out...I remember it performing better than it felt....
and not that it ever mattered to me when flying, but I always hated the way they look with the gear in transit on departure.....

overall I liked them a lot!
I never had the pleasure of flying a fixed gear version....
 
Scott Mitchell said:
Can I have an example for a high time pilot?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you consider high time but when I was shopping for a Cardinal I got insurance quotes for the FG and the RG.

At the time I had approximately 1,000 total hours, 35 in RG, 80 in constant speed, and 0 in make/model and I was quoted $1200 for the FG and $2500 for the RG.

Now after putting over 500 hours on my FG in the last 4.5 years my insurance is down to $879. I think it’s reasonable to assume that if I’d bought an RG the rate would’ve dropped proportionally as I logged more RG time and would be somewhere around $1800 today. (Still more than double the FG insurance cost)
 
Scott Mitchell said:
Ok-
Put it into real terms- what’s the difference in maintenance and overall operating cost RG vs FG?
Click to expand...

Assuming two equal planes? The cost of a gear swing at annual.

My clubs has two 182s - A 1981 182RG and 2000 182S. Maintenance wise not a big difference in costs at all. The RG is perhaps a bit higher but just because it's 20 years older. Both get flown by a wide variety of pilots. The gear on the RG has had zero issues.
 
What kind of payload are you guys realistically getting in your 177’s? Is it a true 4 person plane? I thought it was more 3 person and 4 with less fuel type plane.
 
Jeff Creamer said:
What kind of payload are you guys realistically getting in your 177’s? Is it a true 4 person plane? I thought it was more 3 person and 4 with less fuel type plane.
Click to expand...

All good airplanes have large fuel tanks that let you choose fuel endurance or cabin load...

177s hold 48 gallons minimum which is .32 gallons of fuel per horsepower for the 1968 model, essentially 6.4 hours +/- of fuel with no reserve. No one would want to sit in these for more than 3 hours straight with 4 adults on board....
 
Jeff Creamer said:
What kind of payload are you guys realistically getting in your 177’s? Is it a true 4 person plane? I thought it was more 3 person and 4 with less fuel type plane.
Click to expand...

Payload for my 1976 FG with 60 gal long range tanks filled halfway (30 gal) is 685 lbs. That’s enough to take four people with an average weight of 170 lbs for a $100 hamburger or sightseeing for a couple of hours.

Payload with fuel to the bottom of the fill necks (about 40 gal) is 625 lbs and enough take three people with an average weight of 175 lbs on a short XC with a 25 lb overnight bag each for a weekend getaway.

Payload with full tanks (60 gal) is 505 lbs and will take two people with an average weight of 175 lbs and three 50 lb bags on a long XC for a 1-2 week vacation.

The best way I’ve heard it put was, 2 people with a weeks worth of luggage, 3 people with overnight bags, or 4 people with a toothbrush.

Payload isn't dramatically higher than some of the older 172's like the P model, but the cabin room, ease of ingress/egress, visibility, and the few extra knots sure are sure nice extras.
 
Pugs said:
Assuming two equal planes? The cost of a gear swing at annual.

My clubs has two 182s - A 1981 182RG and 2000 182S. Maintenance wise not a big difference in costs at all. The RG is perhaps a bit higher but just because it's 20 years older. Both get flown by a wide variety of pilots. The gear on the RG has had zero issues.
Click to expand...
Zero issues - unless - your mechanics aren't up to speed. I test flew one RG (that we didn't buy) that had had TWO nose gear collapses because of MX errors. That can get expensive on engines and make insurance difficult in a hurry. Also had one gear-up personally due to the failure of a hydraulic line.
 
bnt83 said:
All good airplanes have large fuel tanks that let you choose fuel endurance or cabin load...

177s hold 48 gallons minimum which is .32 gallons of fuel per horsepower for the 1968 model, essentially 6.4 hours +/- of fuel with no reserve. No one would want to sit in these for more than 3 hours straight with 4 adults on board....
Click to expand...

No experience with a 177, but I'd like to. Our club has a 172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp upgrade. 50 gal in long range tanks. Club rules are to put a plan away with full tanks, but with the 180 hp upgrade that still allows about 755 pounds in the cabin with full tanks. It wouldn't be a 4 seats full and full fuel with 4 adults who weigh as much as my wife and I do, but close. At 8.3 gal/hr (cruise burn according to the charts) that's 6 hours of fuel to tanks dry. Given 3 hours of comfort before a potty stop, I don't worry about running out of gas, and in 20 years have never come close. Sounds like the 188 would be similar.
 
av8orDave said:
The only thing to be aware of is the Cessna service bulletin on the spar... other than that, Cardinals are no more hassle than any other small plane from a maintenance standpoint.
Click to expand...

you mean other than the shooting...
 
Bonchie said:
Why the heck did Cessna not keep making these?
Click to expand...

Cessna's original intent was the Cardinal would replace the Skyhawk as their basic recreational GA plane. Bigger, more comfortable, more aerodynamic, better ergonomics, etc.

Sales for the first year in 1968 beat all expectations, then plummeted. Cessna under powered the 68 model with O-320 at 150HP. Eventually the plane received a 180HP engine but it was too late as the plane developed a poor reputation for load & speed performance. Though Cessna tried, they could never overcome the buzz from the launch year model performance issues.

The anticipated segue from 172 to 177 never materialized.

Especially as the Cardinal moved into the 70's it was a terrific plans with a very loyal following to this day. May of the 68 models have upgraded engines.

I like the 180HP C177 Cardinal in nearly every way, for me the headroom is low to account for the the thicker carry-through wing spar.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
All good airplanes have large fuel tanks that let you choose fuel endurance or cabin load...
Click to expand...
This. I've always felt that if you showed me a plane that could fill the tanks and the seats, I'd show you a plane that needed bigger tanks or more seats.
 
NordicDave said:
Cessna's original intent was the Cardinal would replace the Skyhawk as their basic recreational GA plane. Bigger, more comfortable, more aerodynamic, better ergonomics, etc.

Sales for the first year in 1968 beat all expectations, then plummeted. Cessna under powered the 68 model with O-320 at 150HP. Eventually the plane received a 180HP engine but it was too late as the plane developed a poor reputation for load & speed performance. Though Cessna tried, they could never overcome the buzz from the launch year model performance issues.

The anticipated segue from 172 to 177 never materialized.

Especially as the Cardinal moved into the 70's it was a terrific plans with a very loyal following to this day. May of the 68 models have upgraded engines.

I like the 180HP C177 Cardinal in nearly every way, for me the headroom is low to account for the the thicker carry-through wing spar.
Click to expand...
All that, and the Cardinal was considerably more expensive to build.
 
Pilawt said:
All that, and the Cardinal was considerably more expensive to build.
Click to expand...

Based on some first hand inside information I received from a Cessna representative, the Cardinals were sold with nearly zero or slightly negative cost return. That cantilever wing ate up materials and man hours...
 
IK04 said:
Based on some first hand inside information I received from a Cessna representative, the Cardinals were sold with nearly zero or slightly negative cost return. That cantilever wing ate up materials and man hours...
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I still enjoy and benefit from their donation 51 years later.
 
As I recall back when we were trying to find a Cardinal to buy, one of the primary problems with the 68 model was that folks wanted and did fly it like a 172, especially on takeoff and landing. I have heard that if it was flown as it was designed, takeoff performance was acceptable in most instances. I would still like to have one, but our mission no longer justifies it. They are a little on the expensive side, but if you join and spend some time on the CFO Online site, there are a lot of folks there that love them. Maybe they are worth the extra dollars ?
 
I’m an airline pilot 15kTT. 1200 hours in Cessnas and about 500 in RG’s mostly in 210’s but 150+ in 172&182RGs. Just don’t know how much that translates to lower insurance $.


QUOTE="Dbarbee, post: 3033143, member: 24477"]I’m not sure what you consider high time but when I was shopping for a Cardinal I got insurance quotes for the FG and the RG.

At the time I had approximately 1,000 total hours, 35 in RG, 80 in constant speed, and 0 in make/model and I was quoted $1200 for the FG and $2500 for the RG.

Now after putting over 500 hours on my FG in the last 4.5 years my insurance is down to $879. I think it’s reasonable to assume that if I’d bought an RG the rate would’ve dropped proportionally as I logged more RG time and would be somewhere around $1800 today. (Still more than double the FG insurance cost)[/QUOTE]
 
Juliet Hotel said:
This. I've always felt that if you showed me a plane that could fill the tanks and the seats, I'd show you a plane that needed bigger tanks or more seats.
Click to expand...


210 can, unless your friends are all fat. Then get new friends who are good and fit, instead of replacing the plane. Lots of range, and just put the smallest people in the back. Five hours flying will leave you with reserve fuel.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Same performance of an Arrow, without having to endure the vitriolic hatred the Arrow garners. The Arrow is a more spirited climber btw, but don't let facts get in the way of a good scapegoat. Where the Cardinal shines is the ingress/egress. Truly transformative. I would still prefer a 182 if Lycoming equipped (not the RG, gear costs are a non-starter). I don't believe the 177RG suffers from the cracking and unobtanium part cost woes the 182RG does.

As to the 390? Um, no. 4K for cylinder assemblies is just no. Maybe when continental releases their clone cylinders for it, now that they're doing the Prime cylinder and engines thing (aka the Titan purchase).
Click to expand...


The Arrow is a phone booth with its tiny interior. The Cardinal’s cabin is wider than that of a 182 and far more rear seat legroom. The Cardinal has the best cockpit visibility of any airplane in its class, it is almost a bubble canopy, especially compared to the strutted Cessnas, with their nuclear submarine like visibility.

The Cardinal has a Cherokee style horizontal stab, so it is Piper like in the landing flare, but with far less drag.
 
Our FBO just purchased a 177 RG to replace their Arrow III that failed inspection for the wing spar AD. Looks like a step up in all areas so I am pretty excited to get checked out. Nice ramp appeal as well, sharp looking plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top