Cessna 177

F

fast99

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 3, 2023
Messages
57
Display Name
Display name:
fast99
Have been doing a little research on these. Seems originally, they had some handling issues that were corrected by Cessna. Asking prices on these are appear to be lower than a similar hours/equipped 172. Are they more expensive to own or have other problems? Guess what I am asking is there anything that would make buying one a mistake? Looking at 180HP models.
 
Thanks, sounds like the similar issue effecting some Pipers.
 
fast99 said:
Thanks, sounds like the similar issue effecting some Pipers.
Click to expand...
The Cardinal Spar is a pretty substantial thing, but after some corrosion and mistreatment of some spars overseas, they decided to look at the entire fleet. The grounding numbers don't seem to be too bad, but there are some very unhappy owners at the moment who's planes did fail the inspections.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The Cardinal Spar is a pretty substantial thing, but after some corrosion and mistreatment of some spars overseas, they decided to look at the entire fleet. The grounding numbers don't seem to be too bad, but there are some very unhappy owners at the moment who's planes did fail the inspections.
Click to expand...

I looked at Cardinals, a long time ago. It seems that the spar carry-through was the critical component. If it was corroded, you had a paper weight with wings. Unless your bank account was very substantial....

-Skip
 
A lot of other models are included in the AD. Essentially any of them without a wing brace.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The Cardinal Spar is a pretty substantial thing, but after some corrosion and mistreatment of some spars overseas, they decided to look at the entire fleet. The grounding numbers don't seem to be too bad, but there are some very unhappy owners at the moment who's planes did fail the inspections.
Click to expand...
My annual is due next month. I'll let you know how painful the AD is.
 
fast99 said:
Have been doing a little research on these. Seems originally, they had some handling issues that were corrected by Cessna. Asking prices on these are appear to be lower than a similar hours/equipped 172. Are they more expensive to own or have other problems? Guess what I am asking is there anything that would make buying one a mistake? Looking at 180HP models.
Click to expand...
There are some odd things here and there, but I don't think it has been much of a maintenance hog. I would be surprised if the asking is lower than a similar 172 of the same vintage and engine hours. The 177s generally out-perform the 172s, particularly if you are talking about a 177B, which has the 180HP engine with constant speed prop. They are certainly more roomy inside, too. The original 177 did not have the 180 HP engine, which had a reputation for poor climb performance. If you look at Cardinal Flyers online, you will see information that suggests some of the poor climb performance was due to pilots attempting to fly by 172 book numbers rather than the book numbers for the 177. But I have never flown one of those.

I have had an interest in a 177B for probably 10 years now, and have really enjoyed it. I don't think it would be a mistake if it fits your needs and the AD discussed above checks out.
 
I spent more than 40 hours removing the entire interior of a 177, then blending out many corrosion spots and pits. I had to draw grids of 1/4" squares on all affected areas of that spar carrythrough. Then an NDI tech came with his ultrasonic thickness measuring equipment and read out the thickness in every square, hundreds of them, which I recorded on photographs of these areas. Those were sent to Cessna, whose engineers evaluated it and passed it. Then I had to use the primer specified by Cessna on the carrythrough; that alone takes a lot of time to mask off the whole interior to prevent overspray onto the windows and instruments before spraying. Then reassemble everything.

Well over $40K for all that, on a $70K? airplane. There are no new carrythroughs available.

Beware.
 
PPC1052 said:
If you look at Cardinal Flyers online, you will see information that suggests some of the poor climb performance was due to pilots attempting to fly by 172 book numbers rather than the book numbers for the 177. But I have never flown one of those.
Click to expand...
I flew one. Anemic, it was. And it was only six years old at the time.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I spent more than 40 hours removing the entire interior of a 177, then blending out many corrosion spots and pits. I had to draw grids of 1/4" squares on all affected areas of that spar carrythrough. Then an NDI tech came with his ultrasonic thickness measuring equipment and read out the thickness in every square, hundreds of them, which I recorded on photographs of these areas. Those were sent to Cessna, whose engineers evaluated it and passed it. Then I had to use the primer specified by Cessna on the carrythrough; that alone takes a lot of time to mask off the whole interior to prevent overspray onto the windows and instruments before spraying. Then reassemble everything.

Well over $40K for all that, on a $70K? airplane. There are no new carrythroughs available.

Beware.
Click to expand...

Is that because the spar failed the inspection, or was that just to complete the inspection?
 
PPC1052 said:
Is that because the spar failed the inspection, or was that just to complete the inspection?
Click to expand...
This is maybe seven years ago. It had corrosion. I found it during a prebuy, knowing that these things were famous for corrosion. That carrythrough is in the ceiling, and the moisture from the breath of the aircraft's occupants condenses in there. Adding to the mess are the CAT hoses for the vent system. They chafe on that carrythrough and the steel wire in the hose ends up against the aluminum, and so we get electrolysis too. The carrythroughs were never primed at the factory.

Cessna's engineers never figured that their creations would be flying 50 and 60 and 70 years after production. Nor was litigation such a big threat back then. They might have built the airplanes differently if they had known.
 
Well.. some of the same _________ that have been ignoring any sort of preventative action for 30+ years are now being tasked to actually look.


1700073705534.png

VS (not the same airplane)

1700074044509.png
 
bnt83 said:
Well.. some of the same _________ that have been ignoring any sort of preventative action for 30+ years are now being tasked to actually look.
View attachment 122407
Click to expand...
Yeah, that one's a killer. Amazing it got this far. I'd bet that the rest of the airframe isn't much better.

Getting a look at that spar is difficult, takes lots of time and effort to get the headliners out, front and rear. So it gets ignored.

From FAR 43 Appendix D, the minimum required for an annual or 100-hour inspection:

(f) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) all components of the wing and center section assembly for poor general condition, fabric or skin deterioration, distortion, evidence of failure, and insecurity of attachment.

So how many annuals did that spar go through before someone either looked at it or flagged it??
 
Thanks for the information. Now I know what to look for. Kind of surprising people are risking their life not doing proper maintenance or inspection. Hard to pull out of a problem with 1 wing.
 
fast99 said:
Thanks for the information. Now I know what to look for. Kind of surprising people are risking their life not doing proper maintenance or inspection. Hard to pull out of a problem with 1 wing.
Click to expand...
Given this occurs in the center of the wing spar, I presume you lose both wings. Not sure that makes recovery easier. But I'll defer to the experts on that.
 
PPC1052 said:
Given this occurs in the center of the wing spar, I presume you lose both wings.
Click to expand...
You could lose one. The other would spiral the fuselage down to the crash.
 
I did mine 2 mnths ago. 800 for anual plus 500 for AD. Not too bad. Stock 68
 
fast99 said:
Thanks for the information. Now I know what to look for. Kind of surprising people are risking their life not doing proper maintenance or inspection. Hard to pull out of a problem with 1 wing.
Click to expand...
Would that be a 'Cardinal sin?'
 
I wonder what would it take to get a PMA to manufacture these spars?
 
Ashara Keliyn said:
I wonder what would it take to get a PMA to manufacture these spars?
Click to expand...
More than it's worth. The original part was forged and machined. Forging is expensive, especially for tiny production runs, and most attempts would involve machining the whole thing from a billet. That would require extensive design and testing to make sure a machined part was at least as strong as the forged part. Since there is only so much room to fit this thing into the fuselage and to the wings, that gets tough. You can't just make it bigger or thicker or fatter. All you could do is make it from something like titanium, and that would be obscenely expensive.
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
More than it's worth. The original part was forged and machined. Forging is expensive, especially for tiny production runs, and most attempts would involve machining the whole thing from a billet. That would require extensive design and testing to make sure a machined part was at least as strong as the forged part. Since there is only so much room to fit this thing into the fuselage and to the wings, that gets tough. You can't just make it bigger or thicker or fatter. All you could do is make it from something like titanium, and that would be obscenely expensive.
Click to expand...
Thank you, great explanation!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top