Question on if the C-177 is a good plane?

R

riff42

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
riff42
I hope this is a good place to post this, there didn't seem to be another topic board to post.

So. The wife is insisting on a 4 seater, high wing airplane for me to purchase. I ain't rich, so an older 172 type trike will have to be the one. I recently looked at 177s, and we both fell in love with the look, and the price.
However, who's ever HEARD of a 177? I know there are about 1.234 million 172 and 182s out there, and that is the most popular 4-seat Cessna. But is the 177 just as good as the 172? Is there any inherent "stay FAR away from that one, boy" issues I should look for?

Where else can I ask this, among Cessna owners (though, I would think they would be bias?).....I saw one Cessna 177 website, but were asking to pay, just to get any information about the plane. EEP! No thanks.
 
172s are not a good value (overpriced). A 177 can be a very good airplane, just learn the history and quirks of the type before you buy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
177s are great airplanes. A B model is a better buy of the airplane. A few owners on here, so they'll be along shortly. I'd rather have a 177 than a 172 for sure for numerous reasons.

Paging @Ravioli
 
riff42 said:
I hope this is a good place to post this, there didn't seem to be another topic board to post.

So. The wife is insisting on a 4 seater, high wing airplane for me to purchase. I ain't rich, so an older 172 type trike will have to be the one. I recently looked at 177s, and we both fell in love with the look, and the price.
However, who's ever HEARD of a 177? I know there are about 1.234 million 172 and 182s out there, and that is the most popular 4-seat Cessna. But is the 177 just as good as the 172? Is there any inherent "stay FAR away from that one, boy" issues I should look for?

Where else can I ask this, among Cessna owners (though, I would think they would be bias?).....I saw one Cessna 177 website, but were asking to pay, just to get any information about the plane. EEP! No thanks.
Click to expand...

The 1968 177 with a 150 horse is better than a 172 IMHO. They hold more fuel so will be heaver when full of gas. If you don't need 5+ hours of gas, don't fill the fuel tanks.

Load a 150 horse 177 the same as a 172 (including fuel) they will perform about the same, if not better.

Finding one worth buying, in any model airplane can be a challenge.

The 177B has a lot more expensive parts attached to it, the prop, prop governor etc. It would be really tough for me to buy one with a dual magneto, especially if a long term owner that ends up overhauling or replacing the engine at some point.

I forgot to mention the 1968 with regular pistons (150 horse engine) can run on regular 87 octane ethanol-free gas. Its a sweet plane to putt around $20 in gas.
 
Last edited:
Geez, we all wanted a Cardinal back in the day. No strut, and you could see upwards better due to the windshield angle and wing placement. It's too bad they weren't faster (although an RG isn't bad.)
 
Just be careful of the weight and balance. The designer moved the wing back, making the plane very sensitive to weight up front. You may need a FAA/PMA Sand Bag in the baggage compartment.

-Skip
 
riff42 said:
However, who's ever HEARD of a 177?
Click to expand...
Me. There are lots here. I know two people who own them. They are great. Quicker than the 172, and nice big cabin. Buy one.
 
Cardinals are nice. Well known. There is an owner group where you can get a lot of information. Others with knowledge will surely post here.

I thought the 1st versions were under powered?
 
You need to stay away from the Cardinal and leave them for us photo guys... /Sarcasm

No, if flown properly they are great airplanes. They don't handle quite like a 172, so don't abuse them.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
I thought the 1st versions were under powered?
Click to expand...
The initial 1968 model had the 150 hp O-320 engine. If the owner's mission is to fill the big cabin and/or fly from short or high-elevation fields, then yes, it's underpowered. But if it's operated as a two-to-three-seat family cruiser in the lower elevations, it can be an economical, comfortable choice.

The 1969 Model 177A had a 180 hp O-360 engine, and the later 177B (1970-78) had a constant-speed propeller, cowl flaps and recontoured wing leading edge for more docile low-speed handling and lower drag at high angles of attack.

Though the Cardinal was in production from 1968 through 1978, sales dwindled after the first year, so the initial 1968 model accounted for over 35% of all Cardinals built.
 
@riff42 - There's a nice 1975 Cardinal (B) about 3 hangars down from me. Gorgeous plane! Those big doors are 95% blessing and about 5% curse...don't let the wind catch them and rip them open. If door stewards in the Cardinals were made by the same guy at factory as the ones in our 182...well they're pretty fragile. The wing is rather low so you might gash your head a time or two getting used to it (like any high wing except the big tail draggers). I thought my friend indicated that some AD work regarding the elevator was required?

Maybe the first question is: Will it always just be you two and at your combined weight? Or it will be you 2 and kids or other couples?

The other question is your typical DA and runway length?

Last question: what is your budget?
 
I like the 177; nice looking, good visibility, big doors and big cabin. When I was shopping, they were unfortunately disqualified for me because the useful load was too low. Nice airplane though if that's not an issue for you!

If your wife is insisting on 4 seats though, you want to clarify whether she's insisting on having the option of filling them with 4 adults. If so, a 172 might not work for you either, depending on the details and the kind of flights you want to do.
 
deyoung said:
I like the 177; nice looking, good visibility, big doors and big cabin. When I was shopping, they were unfortunately disqualified for me because the useful load was too low. Nice airplane though if that's not an issue for you!

If your wife is insisting on 4 seats though, you want to clarify whether she's insisting on having the option of filling them with 4 adults. If so, a 172 might not work for you either, depending on the details and the kind of flights you want to do.
Click to expand...
We looked very seriously at Cardinals but your comment above is what prompted me to post and why we bought a Skylane over the Cardinal.

To me the Cardinal is a awesome couples airplane. Full family and/or lots of all seats filled flights will be a challenge in many cases.

I would suggest pulling a Cardinal POH off the web, enter the WB formula into a spreadsheet and work some examples relevant to you before you buy. At least you'll know in advance what weight/fuel limits you'll be dealing with.
 
Agreed, the Cardinal is a nice small step-up from a 172. But it is not a 182.
When you ask pilots, you are likely to hear either strong love or strong hate of the 177.

As others pointed out, look at the W&B envelope before you commit. It will provide a lot of answers about how you can fly the Cardinal.

The RG is a nice option if you want extra speed but make sure you get a later year model because the earlier years are known for gear trouble. Most of the trouble comes from the electric motors.
In the later hydraulic gear, if the electric pump fails, you can easily (no exaggeration here) pump down the gear with the emergency gear extension handle between the seats. "Easily" is meant as comparison of simple stroking of a handle vs having to set the autopilot and contort oneself to reach a crank behind the pilot's seat, for example. (not ragging on any specific airplanes, merely comparing systems)

The visibility with the wing farther back is very useful, however the W&B suffers a bit with full fuel and two adults in the front. Just make sure you have plenty of weight in the baggage compartment and you should fit within the envelope.
And the lack of struts allows for large "barn" doors that make access to the inside a dream-come-true. I've climbed into and out of a lot of 172 and 182 and frankly, the Cardinal just shows that yes, it can be done right. Leg room in the back seat is also better than any 172 or 182 I've seen (I haven't seen them all). I guess the 177 designers made that a high priority. Or maybe they moved the back seat back for CG purposes, I don't know. Either way, plenty of legroom in the back.

Performance isn't anything to write home about if you're used to 182s with the gas-guzzling 6-cylinder. Climb rates at full gross don't exceed 1,000fpm.
But economy is where the 177 shines. Pull her back in cruise and see 7-8 gph. But of course you won't make the book TAS numbers. For that, you need to bump the rpm to 2,500, IIRC. Which drinks more gas but you'll see the promised 145KTAS.

There are some Cardinal experts out there. If you get serious about one, let us know. I could put you in contact with some mechanics who know them inside out.
 
BigBadLou said:
The RG is a nice option if you want extra speed but make sure you get a later year model because the earlier years are known for gear trouble. Most of the trouble comes from the electric motors. In the later hydraulic gear, if the electric pump fails, you can easily (no exaggeration here) pump down the gear with the emergency gear extension handle between the seats. "Easily" is meant as comparison of simple stroking of a handle vs having to set the autopilot and contort oneself to reach a crank behind the pilot's seat, for example. (not ragging on any specific airplanes, merely comparing systems)

There are some Cardinal experts out there. If you get serious about one, let us know. I could put you in contact with some mechanics who know them inside out.
Click to expand...
If you buy and RG and the wear / age parts on the hydraulic gear system haven't been replaced in the last X years per the manufacturer's recommendation, seriously consider having a good Cardinal mechanic replace them. I know, I know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but it's a lot cheaper to have good seals and valves than a repair AFTER that stuff fails and you lose hydraulic pressure and can't pump it down, either.
 
I'd definitely consider owning a 177 rather than a 172.
 
mscard88 said:
Paging @Ravioli
Click to expand...
AggieMike88 said:
@BigBadLou and @Ravioli both have lots of experience with C177's
Click to expand...
BigBadLou said:
Agreed, the Cardinal is a nice small step-up from a 172. But it is not a 182.
When you ask pilots, you are likely to hear either strong love or strong hate of the 177.
Click to expand...

My ears are ringing!

I have a couple hundred hours in the 177RG. Probably less than ten hours in the stiff legged cousin.

Probably the least important consideration for an aircraft purpose is what others know about the plane. It's what you know about them!

Best place to educate yourself on this type is http://www.cardinalflyers.com/home/_home.php
 
No, get a PA24, or C210, or S108, or C170, lots of options and a 177 wouldn’t be in my list, only benifit IMO to the 177 would be for a camera ship due to the lack of struts.
 
Last edited:
There are two very well known soft spots in a 177, the doors are huge, makes it easy to enter and exit, but the big doors are also prone to getting blowed beyond their hinge limit, and ripping out their door post.
Secondly, their center wing carry thru is a huge aluminum casting, and is prone to inter-granular corrosion.

both are very expensive repairs
 
As a A&P/IA I love it and others have sent their kids to college fixing them, my favorite was the RG a real money maker with the proximity switches Cessna used. Loved the one at NAS Alameda flying club worked on it and flew it a lot great plane and good IFR stable platform.
 
Cardinal pros and cons:

Pro:
Roomy cabin in all dimensions (except headroom not quite as good as a 172).
Easiest cabin access this side of a Breezy.
Excellent visibility for a high-wing airplane.
Nice, responsive handling, especially in roll.
Nice-looking airplane.

Con:
Heavier airframe than a 172, despite use of some thinner skins and lighter-weight components -- some parts can seem flimsy.
More complex fuel system than a legacy 172, with engine-driven and electric auxiliary fuel pumps and a header tank.
Some pilots don't like the responsive pitch control, especially in the flare. It's not "bad" -- just different from a 172.
Higher stall speeds than comparable 172.
Take published owners manual performance with a grain of salt, especially in the early models.
177 and 177A (1968-69) airfoil builds up drag at high angles of attack.
Few components in common with other legacy Cessnas.
The last Cardinal was built 40 years ago ...

177B (1970-78) has constant-speed prop and cowl flaps ... whether that's a pro or con is up to you.
 
I fly a 1968 Cardinal with a 150hp engine. As has been said, if you want to know anything about a 177 go to cardinalflyers.com.
A few things about my plane: when I checked out in the plane, the instructor said I had a high performance airplane with a low performance engine. Per his advice, I carry about 1100 rpms to just before touchdown to keep the nose up.
I have removed the back seat to reduce insurance and weight and to accommodate my dog crate.
You have to push the plane by yourself, no struts, no place to help.
The viability and comfort are the best of any plane-the vent windows cool the plane as soon as the engine starts no matter the heat. No sticky elbows with the copilot.
I run lean of peak at about 7.5 gph at 105 knots.
Finally, I looked at several Cardinals before I bought mine (CFO has a real good pre-buy inspection checklist) the wing spar carry though is the heart of the plane and must be inspected carefully and be in good shape if you plan to buy. Take down the whole headliner not just the inspection port.
 
riff42 said:
The wife is insisting on a 4 seater, high wing airplane for me to purchase. I ain't rich, so an older 172 type trike will have to be the one. .
Click to expand...
If you want a 4 seat Cessna that will do every thing better than a 177 find a 175 that has been converted a 180 horse Lycoming 0-360. at half the cost.

Like this

1960 CESSNA 175A
 
I owned a 1976 177RG for a few years and put about 200 hours on it, so I have a little to contribute for anyone considering the RG version.

Compared to a 172, the thing is a Cadillac. It’s a fantastic cross country airplane, at least for missions not involving anything really over 12,000 feet. With 200 HP it is fairly well powered but if you plan on carrying 4 adults I would forget it and get something more powerful. It’s spacious, with a cabin as wide as a 182 or 210 but the more limited weight carrying ability means you really need to think twice about using the back seats. I can’t imagine recommending anyone fly this model airframe with the 150 or 180HP versions.

As others have pointed out, it is a fuel miser but heavy on maintenance with the RG systems.

I ended up selling mine after an engine failure and forced landing on a freeway. Can attest it glides well. Now saving up $$ for a Cirrus
 
I almost bought a 177 until I found out the windows don't open!
I always have the windows open on the 172 and 140.....
If I feel like being in a oven I pull the V35B out.
I'm in Texas though and it has been 100-104 lately!
 
I have a 70 177b and love it. Training in 152 then 172, dad had a 182 for several years. The stabilator Flys a little different, it is heavy and docile at cruise speed but gets really light and powerful at low speed. It's easy to overfly the plane until you get the feel for it. It took a few t&g sessions to get it. I had to get used to using my wrist instead of my elbow. I hope that makes sense.
 
pigpenracing said:
I almost bought a 177 until I found out the windows don't open!
I always have the windows open on the 172 and 140.....
If I feel like being in a oven I pull the V35B out.
I'm in Texas though and it has been 100-104 lately!
Click to expand...
Mine opens... :D I think I have close to 1600 hours of logged Cardinal time - which is actually low because I don't log every single hour that we do photo missions.
 
Ryanb said:
I’ve heard of them before. There’s one in our hangar actually. Seems like a good bird and the owner is happy with it.
Click to expand...

I had 2 of them, both B models. They were great airplanes, pretty quick, faster than a 172. Cabin was so large it’s easy to overload them. Entry doors were very big. Good stable instrument platform. All things being equal, the Cardinal is the better choice


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
cgrab said:
I fly a 1968 Cardinal with a 150hp engine. As has been said, if you want to know anything about a 177 go to cardinalflyers.com.
A few things about my plane: when I checked out in the plane, the instructor said I had a high performance airplane with a low performance engine. Per his advice, I carry about 1100 rpms to just before touchdown to keep the nose up.
I have removed the back seat to reduce insurance and weight and to accommodate my dog crate.
You have to push the plane by yourself, no struts, no place to help.
The viability and comfort are the best of any plane-the vent windows cool the plane as soon as the engine starts no matter the heat. No sticky elbows with the copilot.
I run lean of peak at about 7.5 gph at 105 knots.
Finally, I looked at several Cardinals before I bought mine (CFO has a real good pre-buy inspection checklist) the wing spar carry though is the heart of the plane and must be inspected carefully and be in good shape if you plan to buy. Take down the whole headliner not just the inspection port.
Click to expand...

As far as pushing back goes, there’s a retractable cross bar in the rear of the fuselage, in front of the stabilator that you use for easy pushing or pulling. Don’t need struts


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
riff42 said:
.....I saw one Cessna 177 website, but were asking to pay, just to get any information about the plane. EEP! No thanks.
Click to expand...

If you're serious about actually buying any make and model, joining the respective owner's group is usually well worth the relatively low cost - the amount of specific knowledge and information in those groups is a gold mine.
 
Polarisguy said:
As far as pushing back goes, there’s a retractable cross bar in the rear of the fuselage, in front of the stabilator that you use for easy pushing or pulling. Don’t need struts
Click to expand...

Not on the 1968, but it would be nice.
 
I've got a bunch of time in 177RGs. They are awesome airplanes and my favorite single engine Cessna.

Much better performance than any 172. Easier for pax to get in and out of. Much better handling than any other single engine Cessna (the 177RG handles a lot more like a Bonanza).

Downsides:
- Lack of the wing strut means you need a ladder to check the fuel. Can be problematic at some cross-country airports, but not insurmountable.
- Need to be careful with the doors when it is windy (the large doors can get caught by the wind and get damaged if you aren't careful.
- Need to be more careful on landing with the nose wheel than a 172. It wants to drop and you can damage the nose gear if you let it.

But, all of those can be mitigated/controlled. Not reasons to avoid the airplane. Only reason I never owned a 177RG was it couldn't carry my family of 4 and luggage. If I wanted a personal IFR traveling machine, I'd definitely consider a 177RG.
 
I've been flying our club 177b for over twenty years and have around 500 hrs in it. It's been a great plane, no major problems.
We get around 120 kts on 10 gph. Useful load of 550lbs with full fuel, standard 50gal tanks.
Does have vent windows on each side that let in plenty of cool air. Landing flare is a little touchy with the large stabilator, but you get use to it.
Can do slips with flaps extended, comes in handy some times. Nice looking plane and you don't see a million of them like you do with cherokees and strut wing cessnas
 
Why does the wife insist on a high wing?
 
pigpenracing said:
I almost bought a 177 until I found out the windows don't open!
I always have the windows open on the 172 and 140.....
If I feel like being in a oven I pull the V35B out.
I'm in Texas though and it has been 100-104 lately!
Click to expand...
There are triangular windows that do open and will direct a ton of air into the cabin as soon as you start the engine. They can also be opened in flight up to 120 kts which keeps things cooler than most light singles and its asking a lot for my 68' to exceed 120 so I just open them and leave em :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top