The Cardinals (FG and retract) were nice airplanes, but victims of economic and production realities.
In the early 1960s the 172 was still selling well, but the (comparatively) sleek new Cherokee was proving to be a hit. Somewhere in Cessna upper management it was decided that the 1967 172H would be the last year for the "clunky" strutted design, to be replaced with a modern new Model "172J" for 1968. The thinking likely went something like this:
First requirement for the 172J: No wing struts, so the competitors can't mock our old-fashioned look in their ads. That means a carry-through spar structure in the upper cabin. That's heavier than a strutted construction going out the gate. So where do we put the spar? It has to be at or near the thickest part of the wing. The low-wing guys have it easy; they just run it under the seats. But put a strutless wing on a 172, and the maximum airfoil thickness, and thus the spar carry-through, is right where the pilot's head is. So we have to somehow move that spar aft, where the bulge in the cabin ceiling will be out of the way. How to do that?
First, we can use one of those NACA 6-series "laminar flow" airfoils, like the Cherokees, Comanches and Mooneys. The maximum thickness is further aft than on the 172's old reliable 2412. So the 172J won't have the same slow flight, stall and short-field qualities as the strutted model. But hey, all the competitors' ads say "laminar flow" is faster. But we know that though it reduces drag some on something like a P-51 or maybe even a Centurion, it doesn't make much of a difference on a typical low-power bugsmasher with imprecise production tolerances and oilcanning, lightweight skins.
Next we have to move that wing as far aft as we can, resulting in a forward CG of only 5% of mean aerodynamic chord, much further forward than a legacy 172. Our customers like big flaps, so we're gonna need a LOT of pitch authority to land tail-low with full flap and that forward CG. That means a long tail arm (more weight) and a stabilator (more weight and complexity, not to mention different handling qualities).
This thing is starting to take shape, and it looks slick. It's obviously going to be much different from the old 172, so the model number gets changed to 177.
Now with the wing (and fuel tanks) so low and so far aft, we can't count on gravity to deliver adequate fuel pressure to the engine in extreme nose-up attitudes. So add engine-driven and auxiliary electric fuel pumps and a header tank (more weight and complexity).
Flight tests show we need more lateral stability, so make the vertical tail taller (more weight).
The weight is adding up alarmingly, so we choose to go with thinner skins and lighter components in places. Still, it's about 150 pounds heavier than a 172H. And it's more expensive and labor-intensive to build than a 172. But 2,000 150 hp O-320-E2As have already been delivered from Lycoming, with an option for 2,000 more, so by cracky, we're gonna use 'em. To hedge our bet, though, we'll keep the strutted 172 line going and convert that old relic to the Lycoming engine, too.
As mentioned above, some pilots had trouble adjusting to the 177's "different" handling (I got checked out in a brand new '68 Cardinal the day I got my private pilot license and flew my first few x-c trips in it -- never had a problem with it). The '69 model had modifications to the stabilator and pitch control linkage to tame handling in the flare, and Cessna paid for all '68s in the field to be retrofitted with the modification -- but too late to overcome a bad reputation.
Now fast forward to the mid 1970s. The Cardinal has gotten a bigger engine and some aerodynamic makeovers, but 177B sales are lagging, while Lycoming-powered, strutted 172s keep tooling along. The 177B Cardinal has been filling a gap in the catalog between the 172 and 182, but not cost-effectively. So the company finally decides to pull the plug and replace the Cardinal with a big-engine 172, an Americanized version of the French-built 210 hp FR172 Reims Rocket. The "Plane of The '70s" did not survive its decade. Likewise the 177RG -- sales of 172s and 182s were going strong, but 177RG sales were declining each year. It didn't make sense to keep the line open for what had become an "orphan" design with no commonality with its stablemates. The last Cardinals were built in 1978.
In 1968 Cessna also flew a prototype of a Model 187, a larger, Cardinal-like replacement for the 182. Performance was not significantly improved over the old reliable 182, and the 187 project was canceled. They also tried an experimental Model 182M, putting a cantilever wing on a legacy 182 airframe. Again, increased weight and production cost made it unfeasible.
None of this is to knock the Cardinal, an airplane I really like. But it just goes to show that changes in design philosophy result in many unexpected consequences. Often, especially in this class of airplane, "clunky" works.
We have had 500 lbs of people in the front seat of ours with nothing but a tool kit, tie downs and some oil in the back with no problem at all.
