Of all of the light single-engine planes that I've flown, the Cessna Cardinal RG was my favorite. The biggest concern that I would have in purchasing one is the wing spar corrosion issue. But with their nice flying characteristics and outstanding visibility, they remain the best looking single that Cessna ever built.
Did fly the 177 180 hp constant speed prop, a first for me,fixed gear on lease back and it was my favorite plane to fly. Took it from Santa Monica CA to Pismo Beach CA to tent camp with my girl friend many times. That was back in 1977 a fun plane to fly. And the all flying horizontal elevator is so powerful a flare in landing was a done deal. Many flights in this model airplane and the big doors and the only Cessna you sat in front of the wing and no strut.
These airplanes can do everything a 210 can do with a "IO-390" upgrade at half the cost, same cruise speed burnin a lot less gas. Love these self contained avionics packages, they dont have 150 extra lbs of stupid boxes like the G1000 nonsense that no one realizes comes packed in the tail to run those giant flat panel displays. You can do an interior upgrade on this plane and still have a plane thats much nicer and half the cost of a much newer thingy. Those big doors make it really easy to get foldup bikes in the back seat too, I can get two side by side back there much easier than a 172/182/210. This airplane has so much potential to be much better and faster than it originally was people just have no idea.
I flew a 177B fixed gear doing pipeline patrol for about 1000 hrs.... most fun I've ever had in a recip airplane...patrol was done at 250 ft or so and 130 kts...every turn was a wingover :) It had lots of flap and easily made it in and out of the dirt strips the oil companies or company provided... range was awesome as well... I'd LUV to own one..even more fun to fly than a 210
I owned a 1976 C177RG1020 for nine years and think that it was an excellent airplane. I could fly from KWHP to KDCA in three fuel stops. The only recurring problem that I observed in the RG was leakage around the fuel filler O rings.
I loved my 74 RG. Flew real nice and gave me few problems. Not as fast as I expected, but just fine given the cost. I recommend the plan to anybody looking for an inexpensive complex plane.
I think it's an absolutely a beautiful plane. Never flown one but would love too. Kinda reminds me of a miniature version of the Caravan. I believe most of the bad rap came from the takeoff and landing because it had a tendency to tail stall.
Oh, that's one beautiful 177 Cessna Cardinal featured in this video, and the footage/narration/presentation...top notch! Hoping more videos like this. If so, will for sure subscribe. Thanks and Happy/Safe Flying!
One more bit of elegance from a biologists perspective: looking at those rear wheels retract, it actually looks like the way a bird retracts their legs when they're flying. Elegant design, follows biology.
Having plenty of hours in the 177rg I have to agree with all of your statements . . .however they are much more complicated to start than a 172 or 182, and due to the "complex" nature of the bird they are way much more to insure! The 177rg remains one of my favorite airplanes to this day!
@@wms1650 The older Cardinal's had a 150 hp engine, straight legs, fixed pitch prop and do fly like a 172 (I guess, never flown one of them), but they are a beautiful airplane with no wing struts, large entry doors, and should be economical to fly. The Cardinal's I flew (about 300 hrs worth) had a 200 hp engine, constant speed prop, and retractable landing gear (complex high performance). To start it you need to bring in the mixture as you crank the engine until the engine starts. Difficult I guess compared to starting a 172, but it does becoe second nature. Tailwinds!
@@randylavine3003 Actually, no, per the POH you leave the mixture out until it starts. They start just fine, although some people take some time to get used to the usual injected engine starting process...
Dear Avemco and Santa Claus: Please provide the same hull insurance premiums for the 177RG as well as the 177 fixed gear. And dear Chinese owners of Textron: please assemble in China so we here in The States can afford one!
Love #4. Plus, get the constant speed prop in action and the aircraft is sooo quiet inside. I am glad our club has one. I am so used to a 172 landing that landing a 177 is a little different for sure. Thanks for all the reasons. It definitely has a speed advantage. I love it.
Great video, and very beautiful plane... But I've always thought that the great retraction system on these high-wing Cessnas does not inspire any confidence.
My favourite Cessna on the single engine range. From me it’s the little coupé of the Cessna.. only check that cantilever bar above your head or corrosion.
Two things I would change. Had a gear up in a RG when the hydraulic line to the front gear retract cylinder blew in flight. Constant pressure is required in the system to hold it in the retracted position and the hydraulic fluid is shared for both up and down so all the fluid was pumped overboard trying to hold the gear up and nothing left to lower the gear. Can't we do better? Second those big doors need better latches because the rods that connect the door latch handle will just bend if the locking bolt is not aligned right, leading to pop opens and frightened passengers! About the video it is worth a mention that the cargo area in that plane was greatly reduced by the wheel well bump. A straight leg model almost has too much cargo space! It's like it want's to be overloaded. You need to be careful in doing your weight and balance!
almost pathetic watching the result of this hydraulic logic routing. It would not have been that hard to sequence them better. Does the 210 do the same thing?
Cessna should really reintroduce this as the all new 172 Skyhawk, offer the Jet A power-plant as an option, a turbo Jet A as an option with pressurized cabin and make T-handle throttle standard. Still very modern looking, among all of the other benefits.
It's funny, the last few days I've been promoting the return of the Cardinal RG. Cessna needs to get back into the complex training market, and offer a retractable, constant speed, four seat airplane, and the Cardinal ticks all the boxes. But, that's not to say that it couldn't be made better, and honestly, I think it can. 1. The basic airframe should remain the same, no doubt, but the engine needs a little help. Add another 30 cubic inches to it and stuff the nose with an IO-390. I believe Textron already owns the STC for that, so nothing to pay out. 2. A little airflow management wouldn't hurt any. LoPresti made the Cowlabunga cowl for the Cardinal. They don't produce it any more, Textron could buy the STC and the molds from them and integrate that onto the front of the Cardinal. Wouldn't really cost anything more than what they have now. 3. More power is always great, and the IO-390 should add at least 10-15 useable horsepower, but get another 5-10% by installing a Power Flow exhaust system on it, one that's designed for better exhaust gas management. 4. Obviously, we're in 2019 now, so if indeed Cessna were to reintroduce this airplane, we'd need modern day avionics. For the training aspect, a Garmin G3X Touch, a GTN-750, and a GNX-375 with ADS-B In and Out, and a choice of panel mount or remote mount audio panel. GFC-500 as an option! Offer a 'step up' package with a G500TXi, the GFC500 as standard, and replace the GNX-375 with a GTN 650 and a remote transponder. A base model airplane would be competitive with the Piper Arrow, and a bit faster, too. As the step up model, more for personal/family/business flights, a leather and alcantra interior, more luxurious appointments, maybe a little better sound proofing would be welcome. Also, for the step up model, the option of Tornade Alley's Turbonormalizing kit, as factory installed for higher and faster. Yeah, Cessna needs to bring the Cardinal RG back.
You need a reality check ! That's what Cessna did back in 71. Could not sell it. 15 hp will do nothing except drive the cost up, turbo, pressurize . glass. garmin all the bells & whistles ? Now you are in 210 cost ! To be sure it would be a fun plane ? I believe mooney would eat it alive. maybe. So how much for this dream liner ?
@@pauleyplay back in 1971, Cessna offered a lot more options. Today, they don't offer that much. Sure, it would cost more than what it did in 1977, the last year it was offered, but then again the Skyhawk and the Skylane also cost more. I suspect it would slot in just about the cost of a Skylane, or even a little less, for the normally aspirated version.
@@pauleyplay which mooney? the Ultra, or all the other ones with that stupid cargo door you cant put anything into except catch falling objects from the sky cause thats where its aimed at. Walk up to a Mooney and right away you realize your standing next to a little torpedo with wings on it that has no useful load, so whatever its eating is a waste of money.
@@tropicthndr I do agree with everything you say about the mooney. My teen years were spent in a m20A. Hard to work on, cramped. Most of all none of them are not as fast as advertised ! I was guessing what would compete with your dream plane ? I refuse to believe or understand new plane prices. Yes you are correct again a ultra could compete. At a unbelievable price ! I like your falling objects door !
they did the 1977/8 with a turbo and a 3 blade prop, but by that time CESSNA had close the 177 program and it was the end of what could have been a brilliant aircraft. Cessna had a 150, 172, 182, the market department decided they had no room in the line up for the 177. so the market department killed it off, using all the bad press from the 1967/8 aircraft at the start, but bring a new aircraft to the market and you should expect teething problems, but the public expected it the fly like a 172 but it a more complicated aircraft then the 172, please do not think I am have a pop at the 172, I love the simplicity and good manners of our 172, but I love my 177 RG must more. it as the 200BHP injected engine in it with a constant speed prop.
they did the 1977/8 with a turbo and a 3 blade pr, but by that time CESSNA had close the 177 program and it was the end of what could have been a brilliant aircraft. Cessna had a 150,172, 182, the market department decided they had no room in the lineup for the 177. so the market department killed it off, using all the bad press from the 1967/8 aircraft at the start, but bring a new aircraft to the market and you should expect teething problems, but the public expected it the fly like a 172 but it a more complicated aircraft then the 172, please do not think I am have a pop at the 172, I love the simplicity and good manners of our 172, but I love my 177 RG must more. it as the 200BHP injected engine in it with a constant speed pro.
graham thompson Yeah I half expect people expected the same from the 175. Another 172 ish airplane but with the geared motor it just wasn’t. If I lived in the lower 48, I’d consider a cardinal.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
It is a beautiful machine and its design seems to make a lot of sense. I wonder why it hasn´t been a commercial success ! Can you tell us why ?
They got a bad impression initially because the first models were underpowered (150 hp). Additionally, they were marketed to C-172 pilots, but the Cardinal lands differently. (Very pitch sensitive) C-172 pilots were flaring it like a C-172 and that led to landing accidents, which didn't help the brand. This added with all the other intense competition from other manufactures in the 1970s led to the demise of the Cardinal. Too bad:(
To add to James' answer, they were more expensive to build (for example, all the fuselage panels are curved...) and the market wanted more Cessnas like the ones they were used to. The Cardinal is simply different, although those of us who have them think better... but it made it harder for dealers to understand them, which led to it being replaced in 1979 by an airplane which is smaller inside, slower and noisier. But Cessna sold a lot of them!
Very funny.... I own a 177RG, it's the simplest aircraft in our fleet. There is absolutely nothing difficult about it. As it's a single engine, 4 cylinder, 4 seat, general aviation aircraft with excellent access under the cowl and everywhere else. I think you meant to say the "M" word... By the way, our Gulfstream G650ER is a complex, fly by wire, mesh network, Rolls Royce powered, mechanical monster. If your mechanic can't deal with a Cardinal, he has no business working on any aircraft.
@@themechanic568 I guess so. It sounds like it would just be a bolt-on sort of deal as its a similar engine just with a higher HP output. Although I'm not an A&P mechanic (but intend on getting an A&P to do my own maintenance when I buy a plane in the future) and don't have anywhere near the resources yet to do something like that. Maybe in the distant future.
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC All those things are nice. What do you think the price tag would be on a plane, i liked to, but it didn't sell that well. Have a lot of hours in the retractable model and had lots of fun. If they would refine it, it would be great. Probably by that time,$900K airplane for sure.
I owned a 1977 177B until my wife flew in a 182 with me. If you want to have C177 fuel flow & speed just slow the C182 down. There isn't any substitute for more horsepower when you need it. There is a reason C177's failed in the marketplace and C182s are still being built.
Great to hear you're enjoying your 182, that's a fine airplane. Personally I like the wider cabin and lower operating costs of my 177RG, but there is room for each of us to enjoy something different! As for why Cardinals were dropped, they were more expensive to build and the higher price put them into a different category with different competition. Cessna always built great simple airplanes, and the market was used to them, liked them and wanted more!
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC I think he is referring to a Chevy V8 engine called an LS3. It is a lot of horsepower and, unfortunately, a lot of weight. I think it would throw off the CG and make it not very fun to fly. Also, It would likely have it bumping into VNE before any real advantage was gained. It would probably climb like a F-15 but that would probably be the only flight characteristic that would be enhanced. Not to mention, it would be experimental with no hope of an STC, given the low production numbers of the Cardinal. IMHO.
Al true what you say. However I remember when the cardinal came out. We all thought it is heavy & just did not fly well. Not a bad plane just not a172 replace. Cessna tried hard to sell it. nobody was buying.
@@cardinalflyer Don't remember ? I was the test pilot at Alphin aircraft in 67. What a shop. Largest rebuilder on the east coast. I flew everything with wings & got paid to do it ! Dream job. I flew brand new cardnials. Yes I agree the RG was the best of all, just saying Cessna could not sell them. Very crowed market at the time & prices were soaring.
Okay you convinced me. I just wished I had someplace to go so i could use one. LOL I owned a Piper Warrior for a couple years. All l ever did with it was fly 150 miles to get a hamburger for lunch then fly back.
You might be more interested in the two-blade Hartzell top prop. They make it in metal or composite. Their composite 2 blade is lighter and slightly faster. Usually 3 blade props accelerate better, climb better, decelerate better, are heavier, cruise slower and some people prefer the sound and the look.
Mine is a 73 RG. Not gutless, 200 hp and honest cruise at 8000’ of 140kts using 10+gph. Useful load of 1030 pounds and full tanks of 60 gallons. A joy to fly.
I did multiple internet searches and could not find this! I found a musician/artist from New Mexico whose name is spelled slightly differently. His name is Terry Allen. But I couldn't find any poems or songs written by him that were entitled "Up There". Then suddenly, I noticed your TH-cam "handle" and thought... Oh. Maybe HE is the Terry Allan of whom he speaks. Doh! Is it a poem? A song? Is there more to it? I loved what you posted! Thanks @Allan62T !
@@Zelig2Cents Well thank you very much!.yes I am the author of an unfinished book entitled up there and I thank you for going through such pains to find out the facts if you want and you give me your email address I will send you the intro and first four chapters of my beautiful book ... Don't EVER forget Jesus loves you and I kind of like your little bit.
when Jesus was born, a new star in sky He soon began to preach, then to the Cross he died.. All along the way, HE taught us what the word. Butt the devil's demise is eminent, though still very disturbed.!
It's a pretty aircraft, but the claim of taking one's family plus camping gear to Oshkosh assumes a pretty small family. At 1035 lbs., useful in a C177 RG is not that much better than a C172. Compare with a PA28-R200 which has 1,120 lbs. Or compare the C177A (180 hp) which has 1,060 lbs useful, and the PA28-180 with 100 lbs more at 1,160 lbs useful. I do agree Cardinals are nice and roomy, and those huge doors are great for getting in and out, except (as the narrator said) if you open them when the wind is from behind. Is it just me, or did the retract and extension cycle on the C177RG shown seem as though it needs some tuning? The C172RG (ZS-KDC) that I flew many years ago had a much smoother gear cycle.
Absolutely not. That old junk isn't worth.. Wait. I was just watching Juan Brown's clip on the "ALL NEW, FOR '22, 172!" Nevermind. There's a 200 hp C-177 for sale that is absolutely pristine. Metallic maroon in color. My desk models aren't anywhere close to that clean. The C-177 has always been my favorite. When Cessna finally got it right, they decided to cease production. A decent IFR and commercial training platform, a solid cross country cruiser, and a great passenger comfort compartment, the 177 is just plain family fun. What a true C-172 Reno racer, if one were ever built, would look like. All for a lot less than a $.5mil all new for '22 172. With the cash left over, you could operate the 177 for 15 years or more.
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC main spar inspections. After the current issues with with the cantilever wing design, inspections, corrosion protection, and a possible retrofit may be coming. Still great aircraft, I love them both, but man was I shocked to see Cessna have similar issues as the Pa-28 showed in the Daytona incident. Oddly enough, the DPE from that flight signed me off on my multi commercial way back when.
I'm so tired of hearing about the corrosion spar issues. It's not rocket science. Inspect and if you don't find anything the put some AV8 on the pig and move along.
No, not really. If you join the Cardinal Flyers we work with various sources to make sure they don't leave us out of their plans. And we know a lot about alternate sources and solutions. Right now I'm not aware of anything that we can't get...
This is from an article entitled “Unfairly Maligned Airplanes” I’m not sure who the author is. /////////////////// The Cessna Cardinal Cessna 177 Cardinal Admit it. You look at a Cardinal -- especially a 1968 model, the first year of production -- and the reaction is to say, "Underpowered." On top of that, you might have a memory of someone saying it had twitchy controls. Those are the two accusations that unfairly dogged the Cardinal line throughout its production history. Only in the last few years has the word gotten out just how far ahead of its time the Cardinal was and what a great personal airplane it is -- and the used prices now reflect that reality. Nevertheless, the old labels are difficult to shed, and get repeated by those who don't know any better, as they hang around the airport and solemnly pass on knowledge they don't possess. I certainly admit that there have been times when flying, no matter what airplane I was in, that I wished it had more power. However, it sure seems to me that when a particular model airplane out-climbs and out-runs another model airplane that has precisely the same engine and is similar size, claiming that the former is underpowered is a rank distortion of the truth. And, if you don't read the manual for an airplane, proceed to load it well above gross weight, select an airspeed for climb that is 10 mph below Vy, and then don't understand why it climbs poorly, perhaps the fault might not lie with the airplane. Few people now recall that Cessna started building airplanes in 1927 and didn't put a wing strut on any of them until the 120/140 series at the end of World War II. By the mid-1960s there was some feeling at Cessna that it was time to go back to the cleaner lines it had been known for with its slick airplanes of the mid-1930s. Step one was to create a cantilever wing for its top-of-the-line single, the 210. Flight testing was completed and the change was introduced for the 1967 model year. The airplane was a great success. The next logical step was to create a cleaner version of its best seller, the Cessna 172. For the 1968 model year, the 145-hp 172 would cease to exist and the clean-sheet Model 177 Cardinal would take its place. (The 172 had a six-cylinder, 145-hp, Continental engine from its inception through 1967.) Cessna decided to go with a lighter-weight, four-cylinder, Lycoming engine that produced 5 more horsepower for the 177. The 210 wing was lightened slightly for the smaller 177. The resulting Cardinal was far sleeker than the 172, had a wider cabin than even the 182, and a wider, tougher landing gear. Plus, to compete with the Piper Cherokee and Beech Musketeer, the 177 had a stabilator rather than a horizontal-stabilizer/elevator combination. The benefit of the stabilator was reduced weight and drag. The Cardinal was an airplane that just plain looked fast. Testing had gone so well that plans were being made to replace the Cessna 182 with a cantilever-wing Model 187 in model year 1969. Once the Cardinal was in the hands of owners and renters, however, serious problems arose. Because of the complexity of the airframe, with its compound curves, the 177 was heavier than the 172, so it had less useful load -- but no one seemed to read the owner's manual to figure that out. (No POHs in those days.) It had four seats, so pilots put four people in the airplane. The 177 had nearly 10 gallons more usable fuel than the 172, and pilots filled the tanks along with putting four people in the airplane. With full fuel and four adults, a Cardinal was way over gross. Vy was about 10 mph faster than in the 172, but pilots flew it at 172 speeds. Rather than read the manual, pilots howled about lack of climb performance and whined mightily that the airplane was underpowered; after all, it couldn't be their fault. Cessna had mistakenly figured that pilots would load their airplanes per the owner's manual. It was one of two errors the company made in assessing real-world behavior of private pilots. The second error was to overestimate their skill once in the airplane, because they made the controls noticeably lighter and more effective than the 172. The ailerons and rudder for the 177 were light and very effective; a 177 can handle some pretty incredible crosswinds. To harmonize with the ailerons and rudder, the stabilator was made light and effective. The number of degrees of deflection of a stabilator per inch of movement of a control wheel, as well as the force involved, is a decision made jointly by test pilots and engineers during development of any new airplane. Once the effectiveness of the stabilator was set to match the other controls on the Cardinal, it turned out that a significant number of pilots could not cope with a pitch control that remained effective at low speeds. Those pilots were used to making fairly large control inputs when coming down final in airplanes that were not particularly responsive in pitch at approach speeds. When those same pilots got to yanking and shoving on the Cardinal's wheel, the airplane responded. Right now. Pilots overcontrolled in the flare and broke nosewheels off with alacrity. In fact, a prospective buyer of a Cardinal is always warned to check the condition of the nose gear and firewall-attach area. With the "underpowered" complaints from the field, as well as the cry to bring back the old, familiar boot that was known and loved, Cessna decided to resurrect the 172 in the second half of 1968. The 150-hp engines that were going to go into the Cardinal were diverted to a new model 172. The 172 went on to be the largest selling civilian airplane in history, largely because it will tolerate astonishing levels of abuse from those who may not have kept their skills up to snuff. Cessna looked at the market and decided that, because it didn't have an airplane in the 180-hp niche and both Piper and Beechcraft did, the logical thing would be to bow to uninformed public pressure (gee, that would have to be a first) and bump the power of the Cardinal to 180 hp. It did so. (Even with 180 hp, there are some who still insist the Cardinal was underpowered.) What has always struck me as interesting is that if you take a 1968 177 with 150 hp and a 1968 172 with 150 hp, load each to gross weight, and then take off side by side (this has been done and carefully documented and published), the 177 will out-climb the 172. With full fuel in each, the 172 will hold more weight in the cabin; however, the occupants will be squeezed together tighter than in the 177. Once in level flight -- even with the bigger cabin -- at every power setting the 177 is always at least one knot faster than the 172. Yet the 177 got the rep for being underpowered. Cessna did change the gearing of the stabilator in 1969 and again in 1970, each time slightly increasing the force required for pitch change and decreasing the amount of deflection per inch of travel. However, the claim of "twitchy" control in pitch did not go away until the introduction of the Grumman American Traveler, Cheetah and Tiger, each of which had deliciously quick controls and were even more responsive in pitch than the Cardinal. For the good pilot, the airplanes are a joy to fly; however, and not surprisingly, they are also subject to a high rate of pilot-induced oscillation landing accidents and -- guess what? -- broken nosewheels. If you get a chance to fly -- or better yet, to own -- a Cardinal, grab it. It was ahead of its time, efficient and capable, and it truly rewards a good pilot who will not overload it and caresses the controls rather than manhandling them.
I took some lessons in a 152 and it was ok I guess till she started with the emergency training. I quit. I thought I was going to shit my pants! Which actually is a real thing with rough landings and survivable crashes that don't turn everyone to bloody hamburger. That thing just gave me the creeps more and more with each lesson. Sorry. But they're just such scrawny tin can hunks of shit that fly somehow. It's like being a giant moth that could disintegrate at any second, or a giant fly swatter would get you. Stressful as hell. But put me on any race track, and I'm like a duck in water. Sports cars and vintage race bikes are a blast! No fear whatsoever. So I'm not a total pussy. I just couldn't stand that there was nothing under my ass! But what I really hated were quick turns that felt like you were going to fall out! And that mechanical stall alarm that sounds like a demonic baby crying. And of course the blender like prop spinning three feet from your face that would easily turn you into juice wasn't too relaxing either. I hate those damn things. Definitely not for everyone. Safest way to travel, Deadliest way to crash! I always say. No dis fly gang, I wish you all the fun and safety in the world! But my balls are needed elsewhere.
Of all of the light single-engine planes that I've flown, the Cessna Cardinal RG was my favorite. The biggest concern that I would have in purchasing one is the wing spar corrosion issue. But with their nice flying characteristics and outstanding visibility, they remain the best looking single that Cessna ever built.
That sounds expensive and dangerous.
Did fly the 177 180 hp constant speed prop, a first for me,fixed gear on lease back and it was my favorite plane to fly. Took it from Santa Monica CA to Pismo Beach CA to tent camp with my girl friend many times. That was back in 1977 a fun plane to fly. And the all flying horizontal elevator is so powerful a flare in landing was a done deal. Many flights in this model airplane and the big doors and the only Cessna you sat in front of the wing and no strut.
Oh well fantastic!
Always enjoy seeing fellow Cardinal pilots on adventures! Keep them coming.
These airplanes can do everything a 210 can do with a "IO-390" upgrade at half the cost, same cruise speed burnin a lot less gas. Love these self contained avionics packages, they dont have 150 extra lbs of stupid boxes like the G1000 nonsense that no one realizes comes packed in the tail to run those giant flat panel displays. You can do an interior upgrade on this plane and still have a plane thats much nicer and half the cost of a much newer thingy. Those big doors make it really easy to get foldup bikes in the back seat too, I can get two side by side back there much easier than a 172/182/210. This airplane has so much potential to be much better and faster than it originally was people just have no idea.
OMG I love that panel mount for Ipad mini!!!
I never could figure out why I liked flying a Cardinal so much. I just love that aircraft.
Me too.
Me either.
I like the landing gear clip at the end of the video. The hanger amplifies the sound.
I've had my 73 rg for 2 years and I love it more than the 182rg I use to fly. Great plane.
The beautiest plane Cesnna created! up to date, clean design, I love it!
🤣
Nice review. I've owned my 177RG for 12 years now. It's never let me down. Thanks for the heads up on the ipad mount.
Never got a fly an RG but did fly one with 180 HP and a constant-speed prop. It was my introduction to a "complex" aircraft. It was a delight.
Cool, most people who get to fly these things love them!
I flew a 177B fixed gear doing pipeline patrol for about 1000 hrs.... most fun I've ever had in a recip airplane...patrol was done at 250 ft or so and 130 kts...every turn was a wingover :) It had lots of flap and easily made it in and out of the dirt strips the oil companies or company provided... range was awesome as well... I'd LUV to own one..even more fun to fly than a 210
1000 hours in a Cardinal!!!!! Thats fantastic! Cool
Very interesting plane that I didn't know much about....very weird landing gear action
I fly a Fixed Gear cardinal and absolutely love it! Great video highlighting the key features!
Awesome! Thanks!
Nice job capturing the Cardinal with your excellent photography, James. You have a very nice Cardinal!
Thanks Keith!! I can't wait to see your Cardinal!
I owned a 1976 C177RG1020 for nine years and think that it was an excellent airplane. I could fly from KWHP to KDCA in three fuel stops. The only recurring problem that I observed in the RG was leakage around the fuel filler O rings.
Awesome, mine leaks a bit around the fuel cap O rings too
I loved my 74 RG. Flew real nice and gave me few problems. Not as fast as I expected, but just fine given the cost. I recommend the plan to anybody looking for an inexpensive complex plane.
I think it's an absolutely a beautiful plane. Never flown one but would love too. Kinda reminds me of a miniature version of the Caravan. I believe most of the bad rap came from the takeoff and landing because it had a tendency to tail stall.
The "whale tail" stabilator helped a lot with the landings. 200 horsepower conversions really wake them up.
Oh, that's one beautiful 177 Cessna Cardinal featured in this video, and the footage/narration/presentation...top notch! Hoping more videos like this. If so, will for sure subscribe. Thanks and Happy/Safe Flying!
Thanks for opening my eyes to this beautiful aircraft. I just wish they flew a little faster. It was a great video.
Thanks, yeah, an extra 15kts would be awesome. (I'm saving up for the turbo-normalized engine:)
One more bit of elegance from a biologists perspective: looking at those rear wheels retract, it actually looks like the way a bird retracts their legs when they're flying. Elegant design, follows biology.
Interesting, I never knew that. Most excellent perspective, thanks!
Having plenty of hours in the 177rg I have to agree with all of your statements . . .however they are much more complicated to start than a 172 or 182, and due to the "complex" nature of the bird they are way much more to insure! The 177rg remains one of my favorite airplanes to this day!
Randy, Why are they difficult to start? I thought they had the same engine as the 172
@@wms1650 The older Cardinal's had a 150 hp engine, straight legs, fixed pitch prop and do fly like a 172 (I guess, never flown one of them), but they are a beautiful airplane with no wing struts, large entry doors, and should be economical to fly. The Cardinal's I flew (about 300 hrs worth) had a 200 hp engine, constant speed prop, and retractable landing gear (complex high performance). To start it you need to bring in the mixture as you crank the engine until the engine starts. Difficult I guess compared to starting a 172, but it does becoe second nature. Tailwinds!
@@randylavine3003 Actually, no, per the POH you leave the mixture out until it starts. They start just fine, although some people take some time to get used to the usual injected engine starting process...
Dear Avemco and Santa Claus: Please provide the same hull insurance premiums for the 177RG as well as the 177 fixed gear. And dear Chinese owners of Textron: please assemble in China so we here in The States can afford one!
Good overview! Confirming my thoughts on the airplane.
Thanks
Love #4. Plus, get the constant speed prop in action and the aircraft is sooo quiet inside. I am glad our club has one. I am so used to a 172 landing that landing a 177 is a little different for sure. Thanks for all the reasons. It definitely has a speed advantage. I love it.
Thanks!!
Thanks!
10 reasons?? I only need one. I frigging LOVE this plane.
Beautiful plane. Being in Minnesota it would bring a lot of more remote locations just that much closer :)
thank you!
Love the cardinal.
thanks
Gorgeous Plane!
Great video, and very beautiful plane... But I've always thought that the great retraction system on these high-wing Cessnas does not inspire any confidence.
ha, thanks! Yeah, its funny how the landing gear looks:)
My favourite Cessna on the single engine range.
From me it’s the little coupé of the Cessna.. only check that cantilever bar above your head or corrosion.
That could really do with an accumilator in the landing gear system. Would make it smooth going each way.
Two things I would change.
Had a gear up in a RG when the hydraulic line to the front gear retract cylinder blew in flight. Constant pressure is required in the system to hold it in the retracted position and the hydraulic fluid is shared for both up and down so all the fluid was pumped overboard trying to hold the gear up and nothing left to lower the gear. Can't we do better?
Second those big doors need better latches because the rods that connect the door latch handle will just bend if the locking bolt is not aligned right, leading to pop opens and frightened passengers!
About the video it is worth a mention that the cargo area in that plane was greatly reduced by the wheel well bump. A straight leg model almost has too much cargo space! It's like it want's to be overloaded. You need to be careful in doing your weight and balance!
That gear retract was not exactly confidence inspiring
LOL, it cracks me up every time I see it retract:)
hydraulic fluid I assume has to get all balanced out?
My FG always works!
Gotta love the drop linkage on the droopy legged Cessna
almost pathetic watching the result of this hydraulic logic routing. It would not have been that hard to sequence them better. Does the 210 do the same thing?
Cessna should really reintroduce this as the all new 172 Skyhawk, offer the Jet A power-plant as an option, a turbo Jet A as an option with pressurized cabin and make T-handle throttle standard. Still very modern looking, among all of the other benefits.
It's funny, the last few days I've been promoting the return of the Cardinal RG. Cessna needs to get back into the complex training market, and offer a retractable, constant speed, four seat airplane, and the Cardinal ticks all the boxes. But, that's not to say that it couldn't be made better, and honestly, I think it can.
1. The basic airframe should remain the same, no doubt, but the engine needs a little help. Add another 30 cubic inches to it and stuff the nose with an IO-390. I believe Textron already owns the STC for that, so nothing to pay out.
2. A little airflow management wouldn't hurt any. LoPresti made the Cowlabunga cowl for the Cardinal. They don't produce it any more, Textron could buy the STC and the molds from them and integrate that onto the front of the Cardinal. Wouldn't really cost anything more than what they have now.
3. More power is always great, and the IO-390 should add at least 10-15 useable horsepower, but get another 5-10% by installing a Power Flow exhaust system on it, one that's designed for better exhaust gas management.
4. Obviously, we're in 2019 now, so if indeed Cessna were to reintroduce this airplane, we'd need modern day avionics. For the training aspect, a Garmin G3X Touch, a GTN-750, and a GNX-375 with ADS-B In and Out, and a choice of panel mount or remote mount audio panel. GFC-500 as an option! Offer a 'step up' package with a G500TXi, the GFC500 as standard, and replace the GNX-375 with a GTN 650 and a remote transponder.
A base model airplane would be competitive with the Piper Arrow, and a bit faster, too.
As the step up model, more for personal/family/business flights, a leather and alcantra interior, more luxurious appointments, maybe a little better sound proofing would be welcome. Also, for the step up model, the option of Tornade Alley's Turbonormalizing kit, as factory installed for higher and faster.
Yeah, Cessna needs to bring the Cardinal RG back.
Agree 100%!! Thanks for your good post!
You need a reality check ! That's what Cessna did back in 71. Could not sell it. 15 hp will do nothing except drive the cost up, turbo, pressurize . glass. garmin all the bells & whistles ? Now you are in 210 cost ! To be sure it would be a fun plane ? I believe mooney would eat it alive. maybe. So how much for this dream liner ?
@@pauleyplay back in 1971, Cessna offered a lot more options. Today, they don't offer that much. Sure, it would cost more than what it did in 1977, the last year it was offered, but then again the Skyhawk and the Skylane also cost more.
I suspect it would slot in just about the cost of a Skylane, or even a little less, for the normally aspirated version.
@@pauleyplay which mooney? the Ultra, or all the other ones with that stupid cargo door you cant put anything into except catch falling objects from the sky cause thats where its aimed at. Walk up to a Mooney and right away you realize your standing next to a little torpedo with wings on it that has no useful load, so whatever its eating is a waste of money.
@@tropicthndr I do agree with everything you say about the mooney. My teen years were spent in a m20A. Hard to work on, cramped. Most of all none of them are not as fast as advertised ! I was guessing what would compete with your dream plane ? I refuse to believe or understand new plane prices. Yes you are correct again a ultra could compete. At a unbelievable price ! I like your falling objects door !
James, come over to ID for a photo shoot. I got two cherry FGs over here that would love to do some photos.
Heck ya, I'd love to do that. If I'm ever in that area, I'll let you know
Oh I wish I had those backseats!
Well done video! Great looking Cardinal too!
Thanks!
Is it true that the 177 and the 210 has an issue with the wings coming off?
For me,the throttle push/pull rod ,is the sin ...Why not a quadrant lever,alike piper arrow?
Because it's a Cessna.
🤣
Any chance you would share the cost of that great panel?
I think I ended up spending about $25,000 on the panel
Nice video. When will part 2 be coming? Looking forward to it!
Thanks! Working on it right now:)
I don't fly. But visually wing strut arms going up to the wing reassure me. 🙈
I've seen videos or heard about corrosion issues for both types.
Until the hydraulic power pack starts giving trouble and you have to have it removed for overhaul or worse you end up doing a wheels up landing.
Well, you got me sold..
#Ditto
It is a shame that when you enter the Cessna website you can only find the 172 and the ugly 182/206
A question for you, have you ever witnessed any evidence of water in your sump cup?
.....loud motor on retractable landing gear; could stand for an upgrade?
they did the 1977/8 with a turbo and a 3 blade prop, but by that time CESSNA had close the 177 program and it was the end of what could have been a brilliant aircraft. Cessna had a 150, 172, 182, the market department decided they had no room in the line up for the 177. so the market department killed it off, using all the bad press from the 1967/8 aircraft at the start, but bring a new aircraft to the market and you should expect teething problems, but the public expected it the fly like a 172 but it a more complicated aircraft then the 172, please do not think I am have a pop at the 172, I love the simplicity and good manners of our 172, but I love my 177 RG must more. it as the 200BHP injected engine in it with a constant speed prop.
exactly. I want the 3 bladed turbo!
What, exactly, on or about a Cessna 177, is an A&P going to scratch his head at??
Looking to buy a airplane. Cardinals are too old to me to be safe
God Cessna. I wish there were more Cardinals out there
Dankie/ Merci. A great video. I like to know. Diesel and electric engines are they used in the Cessna C 177? 8GPH (7.5G/H) = 29.6L/h (27L/h).
...and the Grumman Tiger just took a little pee on its tyre.
Great video. Thank you for the upload!
Glenn Llewellyn love the tigers
hahahah
Wow 59000 views good job!
Flew the 182, 33q, was a great fast little plane.
Why did Cessna stop production if it's so awesome?
Thats a great question. It was answered by another Cardinal expert in the comments below:). Thanks
Those are purty. Always wondered what a turbo would have done for it.
they did the 1977/8 with a turbo and a 3 blade pr, but by that time CESSNA had close the 177 program and it was the end of what could have been a brilliant aircraft. Cessna had a 150,172, 182, the market department decided they had no room in the lineup for the 177. so the market department killed it off, using all the bad press from the 1967/8 aircraft at the start, but bring a new aircraft to the market and you should expect teething problems, but the public expected it the fly like a 172 but it a more complicated aircraft then the 172, please do not think I am have a pop at the 172, I love the simplicity and good manners of our 172, but I love my 177 RG must more. it as the 200BHP injected engine in it with a constant speed pro.
graham thompson Yeah I half expect people expected the same from the 175. Another 172 ish airplane but with the geared motor it just wasn’t. If I lived in the lower 48, I’d consider a cardinal.
It is a beautiful machine and its design seems to make a lot of sense. I wonder why it hasn´t been a commercial success ! Can you tell us why ?
They got a bad impression initially because the first models were underpowered (150 hp). Additionally, they were marketed to C-172 pilots, but the Cardinal lands differently. (Very pitch sensitive) C-172 pilots were flaring it like a C-172 and that led to landing accidents, which didn't help the brand. This added with all the other intense competition from other manufactures in the 1970s led to the demise of the Cardinal. Too bad:(
To add to James' answer, they were more expensive to build (for example, all the fuselage panels are curved...) and the market wanted more Cessnas like the ones they were used to. The Cardinal is simply different, although those of us who have them think better... but it made it harder for dealers to understand them, which led to it being replaced in 1979 by an airplane which is smaller inside, slower and noisier. But Cessna sold a lot of them!
Perfect movie. I love Cessna's acfts.
One MAIN reason why you DON'T need a Cardinal: Possible wing strut corrosion issues.
If it looks right, it is right
One reason to be cautious.... Eddy Current Analysis of the main spar of cantilever Cessnas is not cheap and time consuming.
"one of the many distinct aspects of a Cadinal, is the face of pure dread the A&P makes when you pull up to the maintenance hangar."
Very funny.... I own a 177RG, it's the simplest aircraft in our fleet. There is absolutely nothing difficult about it. As it's a single engine, 4 cylinder, 4 seat, general aviation aircraft with excellent access under the cowl and everywhere else. I think you meant to say the "M" word... By the way, our Gulfstream G650ER is a complex, fly by wire, mesh network, Rolls Royce powered, mechanical monster. If your mechanic can't deal with a Cardinal, he has no business working on any aircraft.
Imagine if they put that 200HP in an FG!!
I wish there was an STC to do that with the 177B.
@@johnnyboythepilot4098 you could write one.
@@themechanic568 I guess so. It sounds like it would just be a bolt-on sort of deal as its a similar engine just with a higher HP output. Although I'm not an A&P mechanic (but intend on getting an A&P to do my own maintenance when I buy a plane in the future) and don't have anywhere near the resources yet to do something like that. Maybe in the distant future.
I've never flown a 177 but honestly I think they look weird. Probably is a great plane, but that nose wheel... Looks a lot like the beech 1900.
Love it!
Omg what a sexy plane where’s part 2
Thanks!! Part 2 will be coming in a couple weeks:)
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC
All those things are nice. What do you think the price tag would be on a plane, i liked to, but it didn't sell that well. Have a lot of hours in the retractable model and had lots of fun. If they would refine it, it would be great. Probably by that time,$900K airplane for sure.
Best plane is Cardinal 177RG !
Great video. I have a Cardinal and love it. My channel also has a few Cardinal videos. Hope you'll check em out.
I owned a 1977 177B until my wife flew in a 182 with me. If you want to have C177 fuel flow & speed just slow the C182 down. There isn't any substitute for more horsepower when you need it. There is a reason C177's failed in the marketplace and C182s are still being built.
Great to hear you're enjoying your 182, that's a fine airplane. Personally I like the wider cabin and lower operating costs of my 177RG, but there is room for each of us to enjoy something different! As for why Cardinals were dropped, they were more expensive to build and the higher price put them into a different category with different competition. Cessna always built great simple airplanes, and the market was used to them, liked them and wanted more!
I wonder if there is an LS3 version available. They have one for the 172, I wounder what would be involved?
Hey Mike, I must admit my ignorance: What is an LS3?
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC I think he is referring to a Chevy V8 engine called an LS3. It is a lot of horsepower and, unfortunately, a lot of weight. I think it would throw off the CG and make it not very fun to fly. Also, It would likely have it bumping into VNE before any real advantage was gained. It would probably climb like a F-15 but that would probably be the only flight characteristic that would be enhanced. Not to mention, it would be experimental with no hope of an STC, given the low production numbers of the Cardinal. IMHO.
Dan Mallery gotcha. Interesting, with that much power that makes sense you’d be limited in cruise. Thanks for the info!
Al true what you say. However I remember when the cardinal came out. We all thought it is heavy & just did not fly well. Not a bad plane just not a172 replace. Cessna tried hard to sell it. nobody was buying.
What you may not remember is that when it came out it had 150 HP in the first Fixed Gear. The RG has 200 and flies great!
@@cardinalflyer Don't remember ? I was the test pilot at Alphin aircraft in 67. What a shop. Largest rebuilder on the east coast. I flew everything with wings & got paid to do it ! Dream job. I flew brand new cardnials. Yes I agree the RG was the best of all, just saying Cessna could not sell them. Very crowed market at the time & prices were soaring.
Okay you convinced me. I just wished I had someplace to go so i could use one. LOL I owned a Piper Warrior for a couple years. All l ever did with it was fly 150 miles to get a hamburger for lunch then fly back.
LOL
That gear bothers me, it acts laggish and i wouldnt pull up the gear unless i was traveling a long ways in a hurry
Baby 210 - nice.
Is Hartzell Top-Prop (3 Blade) an option? We did this with a Lyc 0-360-A1A on a P172D.
I know many owners with 3 bladed props. I think it makes it look great, but apparently you loose a little speed
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC Yah, was like a speed brake just before landing. Take-off performance, noise reduction and ground clearance enhanced.
You might be more interested in the two-blade Hartzell top prop. They make it in metal or composite. Their composite 2 blade is lighter and slightly faster. Usually 3 blade props accelerate better, climb better, decelerate better, are heavier, cruise slower and some people prefer the sound and the look.
Strutless and gutless, and now staring down the barrel of a major potential SPAR AD
You must be referring to the 1968 C177? Yes, indeed, that model was gutless. I hope that SPAR AD doesn't occur
68 was my first introduction to one.
Gutless unless the mods were done. Mine is '68 177, O-360, updated stabilator, 206 nose gear, larger tires for non-paved, spar checks just fine,
Mine is a 73 RG. Not gutless, 200 hp and honest cruise at 8000’ of 140kts using 10+gph. Useful load of 1030 pounds and full tanks of 60 gallons. A joy to fly.
Anticipation building, excitement so thick. An endeavor to peek at Heaven, on a magically flown brick!.......
Up There, by Terry Allan!..... . !
I did multiple internet searches and could not find this! I found a musician/artist from New Mexico whose name is spelled slightly differently. His name is Terry Allen. But I couldn't find any poems or songs written by him that were entitled "Up There". Then suddenly, I noticed your TH-cam "handle" and thought... Oh. Maybe HE is the Terry Allan of whom he speaks. Doh! Is it a poem? A song? Is there more to it? I loved what you posted! Thanks @Allan62T !
@@Zelig2Cents Well thank you very much!.yes I am the author of an unfinished book entitled up there and I thank you for going through such pains to find out the facts if you want and you give me your email address I will send you the intro and first four chapters of my beautiful book ... Don't EVER forget Jesus loves you and I kind of like your little bit.
@@Zelig2Cents I am an author. Up there by Terry Allan... But you can call me Tman...
when Jesus was born, a new star in sky He soon began to preach, then to the Cross he died..
All along the way, HE taught us what the word. Butt the devil's demise is eminent, though still very disturbed.!
Not sure if the music is more important than the narrator.
I'm sorry Colin, if I had to remake the video, I would definitely change the music. Thanks.
Wanting The Powerball To Buy a Fleet Of Cardinals !
It's a pretty aircraft, but the claim of taking one's family plus camping gear to Oshkosh assumes a pretty small family. At 1035 lbs., useful in a C177 RG is not that much better than a C172. Compare with a PA28-R200 which has 1,120 lbs. Or compare the C177A (180 hp) which has 1,060 lbs useful, and the PA28-180 with 100 lbs more at 1,160 lbs useful. I do agree Cardinals are nice and roomy, and those huge doors are great for getting in and out, except (as the narrator said) if you open them when the wind is from behind.
Is it just me, or did the retract and extension cycle on the C177RG shown seem as though it needs some tuning? The C172RG (ZS-KDC) that I flew many years ago had a much smoother gear cycle.
true, indeed. Thanks for the feedback!
Absolutely not. That old junk isn't worth.. Wait. I was just watching Juan Brown's clip on the "ALL NEW, FOR '22, 172!" Nevermind.
There's a 200 hp C-177 for sale that is absolutely pristine. Metallic maroon in color. My desk models aren't anywhere close to that clean. The C-177 has always been my favorite. When Cessna finally got it right, they decided to cease production. A decent IFR and commercial training platform, a solid cross country cruiser, and a great passenger comfort compartment, the 177 is just plain family fun. What a true C-172 Reno racer, if one were ever built, would look like. All for a lot less than a $.5mil all new for '22 172. With the cash left over, you could operate the 177 for 15 years or more.
Nice video...what’s the name of the first background song?
Ok, but is it still ok to laugh everytime you see the gear cycle?
hahaha, I do the same thing!
Robert Gary Sure. But you won’t be laughing if they don’t n
Same as ya do in a 377 or a 210!
Oh, it’s a Garmin ad. C-ya
Don’t need to convince me! And in another decade, o might have night one. But it no longer fits the bill.
Ya n then you can deal with the 44,000.00$ repair for the spar beam..
I can name one AD as to why you might want to reconsider
Christian Forbes which AD?
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC main spar inspections. After the current issues with with the cantilever wing design, inspections, corrosion protection, and a possible retrofit may be coming.
Still great aircraft, I love them both, but man was I shocked to see Cessna have similar issues as the Pa-28 showed in the Daytona incident. Oddly enough, the DPE from that flight signed me off on my multi commercial way back when.
@@christianjforbes Interesting. I didn't know the FAA issued an AD for a spar inspection. This must have just happened.Thanks
@@EagleEyePhotographyLLC They haven't. Only an air worthiness alert. Not an AD. www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/noticeView.aspx?nid=9552
I'm so tired of hearing about the corrosion spar issues. It's not rocket science. Inspect and if you don't find anything the put some AV8 on the pig and move along.
yeah, exactly. It an't rocket science
Parts are getting very Hard to get !!!!!
No, not really. If you join the Cardinal Flyers we work with various sources to make sure they don't leave us out of their plans. And we know a lot about alternate sources and solutions. Right now I'm not aware of anything that we can't get...
Great video, annoying background noise
How match
Stop saying ONE SEVEN TWO, it's ONE SEVENTY FUCKING TWO.
Baby 210
Then they should keep making it, jeez
I have Never cared for a C-177. For the same reason I don't care for Cherokee's. That damned Stabelator.
The early 150hp powered airplanes were underpowered... badly.
This is from an article entitled “Unfairly Maligned Airplanes” I’m not sure who the author is.
///////////////////
The Cessna Cardinal
Cessna 177 Cardinal
Admit it. You look at a Cardinal -- especially a 1968 model, the first year of production -- and the reaction is to say, "Underpowered." On top of that, you might have a memory of someone saying it had twitchy controls. Those are the two accusations that unfairly dogged the Cardinal line throughout its production history. Only in the last few years has the word gotten out just how far ahead of its time the Cardinal was and what a great personal airplane it is -- and the used prices now reflect that reality. Nevertheless, the old labels are difficult to shed, and get repeated by those who don't know any better, as they hang around the airport and solemnly pass on knowledge they don't possess.
I certainly admit that there have been times when flying, no matter what airplane I was in, that I wished it had more power. However, it sure seems to me that when a particular model airplane out-climbs and out-runs another model airplane that has precisely the same engine and is similar size, claiming that the former is underpowered is a rank distortion of the truth.
And, if you don't read the manual for an airplane, proceed to load it well above gross weight, select an airspeed for climb that is 10 mph below Vy, and then don't understand why it climbs poorly, perhaps the fault might not lie with the airplane.
Few people now recall that Cessna started building airplanes in 1927 and didn't put a wing strut on any of them until the 120/140 series at the end of World War II. By the mid-1960s there was some feeling at Cessna that it was time to go back to the cleaner lines it had been known for with its slick airplanes of the mid-1930s. Step one was to create a cantilever wing for its top-of-the-line single, the 210. Flight testing was completed and the change was introduced for the 1967 model year. The airplane was a great success.
The next logical step was to create a cleaner version of its best seller, the Cessna 172. For the 1968 model year, the 145-hp 172 would cease to exist and the clean-sheet Model 177 Cardinal would take its place. (The 172 had a six-cylinder, 145-hp, Continental engine from its inception through 1967.) Cessna decided to go with a lighter-weight, four-cylinder, Lycoming engine that produced 5 more horsepower for the 177. The 210 wing was lightened slightly for the smaller 177. The resulting Cardinal was far sleeker than the 172, had a wider cabin than even the 182, and a wider, tougher landing gear. Plus, to compete with the Piper Cherokee and Beech Musketeer, the 177 had a stabilator rather than a horizontal-stabilizer/elevator combination. The benefit of the stabilator was reduced weight and drag. The Cardinal was an airplane that just plain looked fast. Testing had gone so well that plans were being made to replace the Cessna 182 with a cantilever-wing Model 187 in model year 1969.
Once the Cardinal was in the hands of owners and renters, however, serious problems arose. Because of the complexity of the airframe, with its compound curves, the 177 was heavier than the 172, so it had less useful load -- but no one seemed to read the owner's manual to figure that out. (No POHs in those days.) It had four seats, so pilots put four people in the airplane. The 177 had nearly 10 gallons more usable fuel than the 172, and pilots filled the tanks along with putting four people in the airplane. With full fuel and four adults, a Cardinal was way over gross. Vy was about 10 mph faster than in the 172, but pilots flew it at 172 speeds. Rather than read the manual, pilots howled about lack of climb performance and whined mightily that the airplane was underpowered; after all, it couldn't be their fault.
Cessna had mistakenly figured that pilots would load their airplanes per the owner's manual. It was one of two errors the company made in assessing real-world behavior of private pilots. The second error was to overestimate their skill once in the airplane, because they made the controls noticeably lighter and more effective than the 172.
The ailerons and rudder for the 177 were light and very effective; a 177 can handle some pretty incredible crosswinds. To harmonize with the ailerons and rudder, the stabilator was made light and effective. The number of degrees of deflection of a stabilator per inch of movement of a control wheel, as well as the force involved, is a decision made jointly by test pilots and engineers during development of any new airplane. Once the effectiveness of the stabilator was set to match the other controls on the Cardinal, it turned out that a significant number of pilots could not cope with a pitch control that remained effective at low speeds. Those pilots were used to making fairly large control inputs when coming down final in airplanes that were not particularly responsive in pitch at approach speeds. When those same pilots got to yanking and shoving on the Cardinal's wheel, the airplane responded. Right now. Pilots overcontrolled in the flare and broke nosewheels off with alacrity. In fact, a prospective buyer of a Cardinal is always warned to check the condition of the nose gear and firewall-attach area.
With the "underpowered" complaints from the field, as well as the cry to bring back the old, familiar boot that was known and loved, Cessna decided to resurrect the 172 in the second half of 1968. The 150-hp engines that were going to go into the Cardinal were diverted to a new model 172. The 172 went on to be the largest selling civilian airplane in history, largely because it will tolerate astonishing levels of abuse from those who may not have kept their skills up to snuff.
Cessna looked at the market and decided that, because it didn't have an airplane in the 180-hp niche and both Piper and Beechcraft did, the logical thing would be to bow to uninformed public pressure (gee, that would have to be a first) and bump the power of the Cardinal to 180 hp. It did so. (Even with 180 hp, there are some who still insist the Cardinal was underpowered.)
What has always struck me as interesting is that if you take a 1968 177 with 150 hp and a 1968 172 with 150 hp, load each to gross weight, and then take off side by side (this has been done and carefully documented and published), the 177 will out-climb the 172. With full fuel in each, the 172 will hold more weight in the cabin; however, the occupants will be squeezed together tighter than in the 177. Once in level flight -- even with the bigger cabin -- at every power setting the 177 is always at least one knot faster than the 172. Yet the 177 got the rep for being underpowered.
Cessna did change the gearing of the stabilator in 1969 and again in 1970, each time slightly increasing the force required for pitch change and decreasing the amount of deflection per inch of travel. However, the claim of "twitchy" control in pitch did not go away until the introduction of the Grumman American Traveler, Cheetah and Tiger, each of which had deliciously quick controls and were even more responsive in pitch than the Cardinal. For the good pilot, the airplanes are a joy to fly; however, and not surprisingly, they are also subject to a high rate of pilot-induced oscillation landing accidents and -- guess what? -- broken nosewheels.
If you get a chance to fly -- or better yet, to own -- a Cardinal, grab it. It was ahead of its time, efficient and capable, and it truly rewards a good pilot who will not overload it and caresses the controls rather than manhandling them.
I took some lessons in a 152 and it was ok I guess till she started with the emergency training.
I quit. I thought I was going to shit my pants! Which actually is a real thing with rough landings and survivable crashes that don't turn everyone to bloody hamburger.
That thing just gave me the creeps more and more with each lesson.
Sorry. But they're just such scrawny tin can hunks of shit that fly somehow. It's like being a giant moth that could disintegrate at any second, or a giant fly swatter would get you. Stressful as hell.
But put me on any race track, and I'm like a duck in water. Sports cars and vintage race bikes are a blast! No fear whatsoever. So I'm not a total pussy. I just couldn't stand that there was nothing under my ass!
But what I really hated were quick turns that felt like you were going to fall out!
And that mechanical stall alarm that sounds like a demonic baby crying.
And of course the blender like prop spinning three feet from your face that would easily turn you into juice wasn't too relaxing either.
I hate those damn things.
Definitely not for everyone.
Safest way to travel,
Deadliest way to crash!
I always say.
No dis fly gang, I wish you all the fun and safety in the world! But my balls are needed elsewhere.
I cringe watching that gear come up.
LOL, I know, me too