Good deal on a Cardinal in Houston

MAKG1 said:
150 HP is rather weak for that airplane. They are real nice with 200.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am not crazy about the 320. The TB9 had a 320 and it could be a bit lethargic in the summer.
 
One VOR has rectilinear glide slope.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Not too shabby, I'd want a higher power RG if I were going the 177 route.

Looks like the owner JUST got his PPL too
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
The whole needle moves up/down instead of being pinned on one side and moving in an arc.
Click to expand...

Not sure that changes things that much, ether way thanks, I never heard that before.
 
Check the useful load and particularly the w&b. C177s are nose heavy and two in front may result in a CG out of the envelope. But then my friends and I are big...

-Skip
 
Would make a good time builder. I would prefer one with the bigger motor.
 
I like flying the Cardinals with the 68 wing. One I fly is the 68 model with a STC 0-360 and a constant speed prop. It pulls away from the B Model cardinals with the same engine, the 68 wing is faster.

I fly with full tanks, 3 adults and baggage. I come in right at max weight and cruise at 120 knots at 7500.

Here is a pic of a couple Cardinals I fly. 6WT is a B model, the blue one is a 68 with the STC'd 0-360

 
Last edited:
Luvrv8 said:
I like flying the Cardinals with the 68 wing. One I fly is the 68 model with a STC 0-360 and a constant speed prop. It pulls away from the B Model cardinals with the same engine, the 68 wing is faster.

I fly with full tanks, 3 adults and baggage. I come in right at max weight and cruise at 120 knots at 7500.

Here is a pic of a couple Cardinals I fly. 6WT is a B model, the blue one is a 68 with the STC'd 0-360
Click to expand...

Can you STC the IO-360 on it?
 
Henning said:
Houston is like Florida, not N-Texas, you have to look carefully for corrosion.
Click to expand...
We're far enough inland that most other things don't easily rust. It's humid, but fortunately not salty. It's not Galveston or Bay City lol
 
Only thing "wrong" with the 68 Cardinal was they built them with considerably larger fuel tanks than the 172, so you actually must be smart and pay attention when loading them. I don't care to lug around 6 hours of gas everywhere I go.
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
Yeah, I am not crazy about the 320. The TB9 had a 320 and it could be a bit lethargic in the summer.
Click to expand...

In a cardinal, I'd rather have the 320 and burn autogas. With 48 usable you can go a long ways full of autogas before succumbing to buying local (away from base) blue gas.
 
Here's an RG for $25k. From the Cardinal Flyer's Classified Section:

For Sale: 1976 Cardinal RGII
blank.gif
blank.gif

Description: TTAF 3425. SMOH 1476. Annual 11/6/2015. PS ENG. 7000MS Audio Panel. JPI 700 Engine Monitor. GAMI injectors. Cessna A/P. II Morrow GPS. SRA Compass. MX300 Nav/Comms. 1/4" Tinted W/S. Tinted windows, all new within last year and 1/2. Runs and flies great. Needs repainting.
blank.gif

Price: $25K
blank.gif

Location: Williamstown, NJ USA
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Here's an RG for $25k. From the Cardinal Flyer's Classified Section:

For Sale: 1976 Cardinal RGII
blank.gif
blank.gif

Description: TTAF 3425. SMOH 1476. Annual 11/6/2015. PS ENG. 7000MS Audio Panel. JPI 700 Engine Monitor. GAMI injectors. Cessna A/P. II Morrow GPS. SRA Compass. MX300 Nav/Comms. 1/4" Tinted W/S. Tinted windows, all new within last year and 1/2. Runs and flies great. Needs repainting.
blank.gif

Price: $25K
blank.gif

Location: Williamstown, NJ USA
Click to expand...

Cheap RGs typically have old if not downright junk radios in them.
 
MAKG1 said:
150 HP is rather weak for that airplane. They are real nice with 200.
Click to expand...

The 150 horse 177, is a better two place aircraft than the 150 horse 172. both are not good at 4 people.

both work very well as 2 place and bags.
 
bnt83 said:
Cheap RGs typically have old if not downright junk radios in them.
Click to expand...

That's true, but he says he's got MX300s in it. I have one in my fixed gear and have been very happy with it. With GAMI injectors, JPI 700, autopilot, and the II Morrow GPS (could be a flybuddy, or a gx55, but it is a panel mount), it ain't no G600 Garmin suite, but for $25k it should certainly be adequate. Throw a $10k paint job on it, dump one of the MX300s and II Morrow GPS and add a GNS430W (net shouldn't be more than $6k or so), and you're still only at $41k for a good looking, late model, mid time Cardinal RG with fine avionics.
 
Tom-D said:
The 150 horse 177, is a better two place aircraft than the 150 horse 172. both are not good at 4 people.

both work very well as 2 place and bags.
Click to expand...

Took the back seat out last year and crammed my folding wheelchair, a big folding walker, a weeks cloths for two people, coats, laptop/bag/iPad, flight bag/iPad/fire extinguisher/etc, cooler full of food and drinks, 4 quarts of extra oil, a 30 pound dog and his food and supplies for 10 days and 48 gallons of $2 Mogas. We flew one 5 hour leg and decided to stop for gas and it only took 38 gallons.
 
Been looking at a partnership on a 177, but this is making me think $15k for a one-third interest is a little high for something that still has the original radios and avionics.
 
Ha, as soon as I read the title of the thread I knew it was a '68. They sell at a considerable discount compared to the other Cardinals. Definitely not a performance aircraft.
 
bnt83 said:
In a cardinal, I'd rather have the 320 and burn autogas. With 48 usable you can go a long ways full of autogas before succumbing to buying local (away from base) blue gas.
Click to expand...

Why can't you burn auto gas with an O-360?
 
Henning said:
Why can't you burn auto gas with an O-360?
Click to expand...

Was never STC'ed. Most of them were shipped with O360-A1F6D which I think has a higher comp ratio than the Cherokee 180s with Mogas STCs

Or it was just never persued:dunno:
 
Pilawt said:
Petersen's website indicates STC is available for C177/O-360-A1F6D, 91 octane minimum.
Click to expand...

I thought he had one. I was going to see about putting one on the 310 and he offered up his fuel heater rig to try. He told me, "Give it a shot if you want. If it makes the test flights with no problem, it's an easy STC. if it doesn't make it the first time, it's usually not worth it.
 
mkosmo said:
We're far enough inland that most other things don't easily rust. It's humid, but fortunately not salty. It's not Galveston or Bay City lol
Click to expand...

With the Cardinal, you don't need salt. Just moisture. And the moisture can come from humidity, or from the occupants when the weather is cooler. The water vapor from their breathing gets into the ceiling and condenses on the spar carrythrough. Along that carrythrough are the CAT hoses that bring fresh air to the overhead vents. That CAT hose has steel wire in it, and the hose chafes on the spar and the steel contacts the aluminum and now we get serious corrosion at those contact areas and other forms of corrosion all along the rest of the spar. The headliner must come out for a good look. I spent at least two weeks dressing out the corrosion pitting from such a spar and then mapping the entire affected areas into quarter-inch squares so the NDI guy could take UTM measurements to be submitted to Cessna, who ran it through engineering to see if there was enough material remaining for safety. This is serious cost and can easily trash the airplane. A new carrythrough is something like $30K and it's not quick and easy to replace.

The corrosion problem also affects the fuel tank vent lines across the cabin roof. They were seeping fuel in this airplane.

http://www.cardinalflyers.com/tech/info/sparduct.php


Pages 27 through 31 of this one:

http://www.leggataviation.com/Cessna Single Engine Safety Initiative.pdf
 
mkosmo said:
We're far enough inland that most other things don't easily rust. It's humid, but fortunately not salty. It's not Galveston or Bay City lol
Click to expand...

Humidity + Smog = Electrolysis, and Cardinals have known issues, expensive ones.
 
Dan Thomas said:
With the Cardinal, you don't need salt. Just moisture. And the moisture can come from humidity, or from the occupants when the weather is cooler. The water vapor from their breathing gets into the ceiling and condenses on the spar carrythrough. Along that carrythrough are the CAT hoses that bring fresh air to the overhead vents. That CAT hose has steel wire in it, and the hose chafes on the spar and the steel contacts the aluminum and now we get serious corrosion at those contact areas and other forms of corrosion all along the rest of the spar. The headliner must come out for a good look. I spent at least two weeks dressing out the corrosion pitting from such a spar and then mapping the entire affected areas into quarter-inch squares so the NDI guy could take UTM measurements to be submitted to Cessna, who ran it through engineering to see if there was enough material remaining for safety. This is serious cost and can easily trash the airplane. A new carrythrough is something like $30K and it's not quick and easy to replace.

The corrosion problem also affects the fuel tank vent lines across the cabin roof. They were seeping fuel in this airplane.

http://www.cardinalflyers.com/tech/info/sparduct.php


Pages 27 through 31 of this one:

http://www.leggataviation.com/Cessna Single Engine Safety Initiative.pdf
Click to expand...

The black CAT ventilation tubing is the worst. Any airplane that has them is going to have corrosion from them. Just hope it's not critical structure.
 
bnt83 said:
Was never STC'ed. Most of them were shipped with O360-A1F6D which I think has a higher comp ratio than the Cherokee 180s with Mogas STCs

Or it was just never persued:dunno:
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the O360-A1F6D is STC'd and the 177 is STC'd, but the 177B is not. However, the 177B (with stock O360-A1F6D) has been certified to use 91UL in Europe, which should transfer here when 91UL becomes available.
 
150 hp Cardinal is fine, as long as its limitations are respected. It's comfortable, handles well (different from a 172), it has great visibility, and entry-exit ease is the best in the industry. It probably has the nicest feel in roll of any single-engine Cessna. The '68s initially had some issues with tailplane stalls in the flare, but the '69 model added stabilator slots that fixed that issue, and virtually all '68s were retrofitted.

The cabin and baggage area are huge, but filling them is asking for trouble. The book takeoff and climb performance figures are pure fantasy. Take them with a whole shaker of salt. Don't try to haul it into the air prematurely -- that "laminar flow" airfoil builds up a load of drag at high AOA and low speed (the recontoured leading edge of the 177B fixed that). Strutless C-210s have the same airfoil, but they have the horsepower to better charge through that high-drag condition and accelerate to a normal climb.

The C-177 airframe turned out to be heavier than expected, so Cessna engineers had to shed pounds from it wherever they could. Thus you'll find thin sheet metal skins and flimsy hardware in places. Oh, and be very careful opening those big doors if parked facing downwind!

But if you find a good one, and you don't need to haul a big load out of short/high airfields, it can be a good, economical choice. There are a lot of them out there. The 150 hp version was built only in the 1968 model year, but Cessna anticipated such a huge demand that year, that the '68 production run accounted for over 42% of all fixed-gear Cardinals built.

cessna_177.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bryan.... If/when you are ready to pursue Cardinals as your aircraft, I know someone who is well respected in the Cardinal community as THE one to work with to buy or sell a C177 (Guy Maher if anyone's curious). He will help you find one that meets both budget and desired equipment, and assist in getting the inspections done at a well respected Cardinal maintenance shop.
 
And I also have some reference material from one of Guy's Cardinal Operations seminars I can loan you.
 
Pilawt said:
Here's the context ... Cessna ad, November 1967:

C-177%252520ad%2525206711_02.jpg
Click to expand...

I had a Volkswagen in that era. I couldn't afford a Cardinal. Could afford one even less, now, especially after seeing what I did in that one I spent weeks cleaning up. Lots of other snags in that airplane, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top