After the ppl

cowman

cowman

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
5,283
Location
Danger Zone
Display Name
Display name:
Cowman
This is a ways off but I like to plan for the future.

At some point down the line I'll(hopefully) be finding myself with 50-60hrs in a cessna 172 and a brand new private pilot certificate. I'll also(hopefully) have some money to spend on my first aircraft.

One that I think fits the mission well(mostly 2, maybe sometimes more adults on 200-400nMi trips to paved runways in the Midwest) is a Cessna 177RG so let's use that as the example...

I'll need to get a complex aircraft endorsement, but that's all I would need for the FAA as far as I know. It would seem to make sense to do that in the plane I'm hypothetically buying...

But then I'll want insurance and that's where my question would come in. What kind of requirements would be typical to get insured in something like a 177RG with low hours and most of them in a 172? Will I have to get more hours before carrying passengers? How badly are they going to beat me up on premiums with low time in a complex aircraft? I know you guys can't give quotes, I'm just looking for ballpark numbers to get an idea of how reasonable I'm being.

Would it be smart to start looking for the plane I want now and try to transition to it before finishing my PPL and try to get some hours in it that way?

Or maybe buy the plane after and start working on an instrument rating in it to build hours?
 
For your insurance questions I'd call AOPA insurance, they normally have close to the best rates and would really be the ones to ask (they might want to know you age, location, hangar, etc too).

As for flying the plane for the rest of your PPL, HECK YES, if you can find a 177 to rent, which shouldnt be hard, I'd fly the for sure.

The other reason I would get some time under my belt in the 177, is it's not really a liked plane, not the best flying, all that fast, or really great for anything other then just being a complex plane for the sake of being complex.

The only reason I could see for buying one would be for aerial photography, due to the strutless cantilever wing. Aside from that, millions of other planes I'd rather have for that kind of money.
 
Expect at least 10 and as much as 25 hours in make/model for insurance and some premium on your rate for the first year. That will come own as you accumulate accident-free hours.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
For your insurance questions I'd call AOPA insurance, they normally have close to the best rates and would really be the ones to ask (they might want to know you age, location, hangar, etc too).

As for flying the plane for the rest of your PPL, HECK YES, if you can find a 177 to rent, which shouldnt be hard, I'd fly the for sure.

The other reason I would get some time under my belt in the 177, is it's not really a liked plane, not the best flying, all that fast, or really great for anything other then just being a complex plane for the sake of being complex.

The only reason I could see for buying one would be for aerial photography, due to the strutless cantilever wing. Aside from that, millions of other planes I'd rather have for that kind of money.
Click to expand...


Good to know, I've only flown a 172 so far so at this point I'm just looking at used aircraft for sale on trade-a-plane that I can afford and looking up the performance data on them. I've gone through a couple of "this one looks perfect" so far and this is just the latest option. What I liked about it was the price, the 145kt cruise speed with a relatively low fuel burn, and the ability to be able to carry 4 adults with some fuel tradeoff.

A 182 or a Piper PA-28-235 are 2 others I looked at. Thing is at this point I know I'll be flying cross country with 2 adults but I'm not sure how often or if at all that will be 4. The 177, at least on paper, looked like a nice compromise with cost factored in.
 
I had about 70 hours when I got my ticket. I bought a 182RG to fly as soon as I was done. My insurance company required 20 hours dual and 50 in type before flying with passengers. I could get the other 30 hours dual or solo, they didn't care. The instructors I used either needed to have a checkout or have 10 hours in type. The ones I used had 10 hours in type. I know a 177RG isn't high performance, but from what I'm told the majority of the time for insurance is to make sure you're not gonna gear up, but I don't know how much truth there is in that.
 
For the cardinal, join they online type club, Cardinal Flyers Online.

I too am interested in the Cardinal as a purchase.

Today, I attended a flight operations clinic hosted by Guy Maher, one of the top Cardinal instructors. Lots and lots of excellent information on how to get the most out of flying the C177.

Guy was very friendly and answered lots of my questions regarding eventual acquisition. He is well known in the CFO community as both a sellers and buyers rep.

On insurance, he recommended Joe Ruck and Aviation Insurance Resources. http://www.cardinalflyers.com/home/insure/_insure.php


Hope this info helps you.
 
Cardinals are a slightly different world than the strutted Cessnas. Mechanics in some areas never see them. Make sure you have a mechanic nearby who knows them.

They're a love-hate bird. People who love them, wont fly anything else. Some just curse them.

Personally I think they do some things well and some poorly. They're underpowered up here, IMHO. Midwest, not a big deal.
 
The 200hp RG is underpowered?

Hmm. With the wide wariety of opinions on them I think ill just have to see if I can find one to fly myself and find out what everyone is talking about!

Anything else that can be had with similar cruise speed, fuel burn, and still be able to cram in 4 adults and still carry enough fuel for 2-3hrs flight for around $70k or less in good shape?
 
cowman said:
The 200hp RG is underpowered?

Hmm. With the wide wariety of opinions on them I think ill just have to see if I can find one to fly myself and find out what everyone is talking about!

Anything else that can be had with similar cruise speed, fuel burn, and still be able to cram in 4 adults and still carry enough fuel for 2-3hrs flight for around $70k or less in good shape?
Click to expand...

182? :dunno:
 
cowman said:
The 200hp RG is underpowered?
Click to expand...

Nate just means that around Denver and in the hills. I'm not familiar with Cardinals so can't add anything other than all NA aircraft lose performance (of course). We use 172s like lowlanders use 152s.

I sure like it when I go to sea level in the 'kota. The engine puts out about the same power but it sure gets off the ground quicker and climbs a little bit better.
 
Ill repeat, join CFO. Use the members helping members to find a generous soul near to you to show off his/ her aircraft and answer your questions.
 
2800# for the RG

Other versions I think are all 2500. Some of that extra weight is used for the hydraulics but it still leaves some extra capacity to squeeze one more adult in.
 
Get a 182 with the P-Ponk or Texas Skyways 275-300hp. About the same purchase price as a 177RG just as fast with more useful load. And it will be a hell of a lot cheaper to maintain. I have a friend with a 177 that was bought from one of the well respected Cardinal gurus and it has been a maintenance nightmare. There are a lot of really expensive gear parts that are hard to come by. Don
 
Is the 177RG gear different from the rest of the Cessna single retracts?
 
Z06_Mir said:
Is the 177RG gear different from the rest of the Cessna single retracts?
Click to expand...

Yes, but they are all different from each other in certain and particular ways.

Refine your question some to get the more detailed answer you wanted.
 
I know each gear setup is a little different. Though the 172RG, 182RG and 210 seem to have the same basic design and from what I've seen the same basic parts. The 210 is obviously larger and heavier so I wouldn't be surprised if that gear was designed to be slightly more robust than the 1 series gears. But I've seen a lot of retract Cessnas and they all seem to have the same design without anything that sticks out as different. I've never looked at a 177RG closely, probably because you don't see them that often and I've only really started caring since I got my 182RG.

Better questions... what are the primary differences from gear to gear in a retract Cessna single? What are the major differences from a 182RG to a 177RG?
 
Z06_Mir said:
Better questions... what are the primary differences from gear to gear in a retract Cessna single? What are the major differences from a 182RG to a 177RG?
Click to expand...

That I don't know (yet). But one of the best guys I knowof to ask this question to off of the forum is Guy R. Maher [guy@laniermedia.com].

I attended his C177 Flight Operations Clinic over the weekend and he did a good job demonstrating his knowledge of the RG systems and ability to compare to the other Cessna airframes.
 
Last edited:
I like the 177RG. I have ~50ish hours PIC in a former club's 177RG. It's easy to get in and out of with those big barn doors. It handles a little better than the 172. It can haul a family of 4 with enough luggage for 2-3 days and ~3hrs of fuel. I think we planned 140 KTAS instead of the OP's 145 kts, but we did hit the 10.5gph figure pretty easily.

One thing about it - you're not going to load it up and get out of a short grass strip, and you're not going to load it up and climb to 10,000' ft in record time, but it does well enough for normal sized paved runways without any major obstacles.

All in all, it was a fun plane to fly. Slick and fast enough to keep you on your toes during approaches, but not so heavy that it felt like a 'big' plane.
 
others on this board with more experience may know better, but I heard a lot of the RGs were problematic with the gear.
 
cowman said:
This is a ways off but I like to plan for the future.

At some point down the line I'll(hopefully) be finding myself with 50-60hrs in a cessna 172 and a brand new private pilot certificate. I'll also(hopefully) have some money to spend on my first aircraft.

One that I think fits the mission well(mostly 2, maybe sometimes more adults on 200-400nMi trips to paved runways in the Midwest) is a Cessna 177RG so let's use that as the example...

I'll need to get a complex aircraft endorsement, but that's all I would need for the FAA as far as I know. It would seem to make sense to do that in the plane I'm hypothetically buying...

But then I'll want insurance and that's where my question would come in. What kind of requirements would be typical to get insured in something like a 177RG with low hours and most of them in a 172? Will I have to get more hours before carrying passengers? How badly are they going to beat me up on premiums with low time in a complex aircraft? I know you guys can't give quotes, I'm just looking for ballpark numbers to get an idea of how reasonable I'm being.

Would it be smart to start looking for the plane I want now and try to transition to it before finishing my PPL and try to get some hours in it that way?

Or maybe buy the plane after and start working on an instrument rating in it to build hours?
Click to expand...


The 177RG is a fine choice for a plane, I would buy one if I had a photo contract, they are the best for what I do.

Buy the plane before you take your first lesson. This will get you the best price on total insurance and over all costs that you can get. The Cardinal is a bit of a unique airplane with a few quirks so I recommend you check the Cardinal Pilots Association and hook up with a CFI that has considerable time instructing in them as well as advice and reference to purchase. Train from day one in the plane you will fly for the next 5 year+ will also achieve the most efficient result in proficiency and safety going forward post PPL with your family. Consider SVT early on if the funds are available.
 
Last edited:
If I was going to go to a retract for what you described I would get a Mooney. Fairly quick, easy to fly and cheap on fuel. I have always thought they were a bargain price for what they can do.
 
cowman said:
But then I'll want insurance and that's where my question would come in. What kind of requirements would be typical to get insured in something like a 177RG with low hours and most of them in a 172? Will I have to get more hours before carrying passengers? How badly are they going to beat me up on premiums with low time in a complex aircraft? I know you guys can't give quotes, I'm just looking for ballpark numbers to get an idea of how reasonable I'm being.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't think you're being unreasonable. You'll probably have some training and transition time required, but you should be insurable. It's just gonna be a bit more expensive at first.

One easy thing you can do is to call Avemco. They'll give you a quote right over the phone while you wait, and they're generally on the high side for rates. They'll also tell you what you'll need as far as training time, and even give you various scenarios and rate reductions (for example, how far your rates will go down after 50 or 100 hours in type).

Would it be smart to start looking for the plane I want now and try to transition to it before finishing my PPL and try to get some hours in it that way?
Click to expand...

It'll probably make your PPL take longer, and you may not be able to do much if any solo time in it, but when you're done with the PPL you'll have some time in type and that's good when it comes to insurance.

Or maybe buy the plane after and start working on an instrument rating in it to build hours?
Click to expand...

Definitely a good way to go.
 
cowman said:
Anything else that can be had with similar cruise speed, fuel burn, and still be able to cram in 4 adults and still carry enough fuel for 2-3hrs flight for around $70k or less in good shape?
Click to expand...

If the numbers are as you say, it'd be hard to beat for the mission. Plenty of planes will fulfill the mission, but most will burn more fuel to do so.

Z06_Mir said:
182? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Great plane, but it's gonna burn 13gph on average.

yakdriver said:
Get a 182 with the P-Ponk or Texas Skyways 275-300hp. About the same purchase price as a 177RG just as fast with more useful load. And it will be a hell of a lot cheaper to maintain.
Click to expand...

It'll make up for it in fuel burn, though. Stock 230hp 182, as I noted above, burns 13gph. Using extra horsepower to get extra speed gets really expensive, really fast. I think a modded 182 is likely to have a higher purchase price as well.

AEROBAT said:
If I was going to go to a retract for what you described I would get a Mooney. Fairly quick, easy to fly and cheap on fuel. I have always thought they were a bargain price for what they can do.
Click to expand...

Mooneys are great airplanes, no doubt. However, for a $70K budget, you'll probably end up with a short body Mooney, and that's not something you're going to use for four adults even if the weight works out - The back seats are just too small. A mid-body F-model might be do-able, but I think for $70K the long-body ones are out of the question. If you've got $165K, though, I've got a nice Ovation to sell you! :thumbsup:

NineThreeKilo said:
As for flying the plane for the rest of your PPL, HECK YES, if you can find a 177 to rent, which shouldnt be hard, I'd fly the for sure.
Click to expand...

I wish it were that easy to find a 177 to rent. I've never seen one for rent, and I used to rent airplanes all over the country, from a Tiger in Philly to a DA40 in Denver or Palo Alto to a Twin Comanche in Oregon. Not once have I seen a Cardinal for rent - If I had, I'd have rented it!

The other reason I would get some time under my belt in the 177, is it's not really a liked plane, not the best flying, all that fast, or really great for anything other then just being a complex plane for the sake of being complex.
Click to expand...

The people I've spoken with who have Cardinal time say the exact opposite - That it's one of the best-handling planes they've ever flown, and they LOVE them. The 172RG and Arrow are the planes that I'd say are complex just for the sake of being complex, but I wouldn't necessarily put the 177RG in that category.

The only reason I could see for buying one would be for aerial photography, due to the strutless cantilever wing. Aside from that, millions of other planes I'd rather have for that kind of money.
Click to expand...

Like what? My observation so far is that your tastes run counter to most others'. I'm willing to learn, though...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If the numbers are as you say, it'd be hard to beat for the mission. Plenty of planes will fulfill the mission, but most will burn more fuel to do so.



Great plane, but it's gonna burn 13gph on average.



It'll make up for it in fuel burn, though. Stock 230hp 182, as I noted above, burns 13gph. Using extra horsepower to get extra speed gets really expensive, really fast. I think a modded 182 is likely to have a higher purchase price as well.



Mooneys are great airplanes, no doubt. However, for a $70K budget, you'll probably end up with a short body Mooney, and that's not something you're going to use for four adults even if the weight works out - The back seats are just too small. A mid-body F-model might be do-able, but I think for $70K the long-body ones are out of the question. If you've got $165K, though, I've got a nice Ovation to sell you! :thumbsup:



I wish it were that easy to find a 177 to rent. I've never seen one for rent, and I used to rent airplanes all over the country, from a Tiger in Philly to a DA40 in Denver or Palo Alto to a Twin Comanche in Oregon. Not once have I seen a Cardinal for rent - If I had, I'd have rented it!



The people I've spoken with who have Cardinal time say the exact opposite - That it's one of the best-handling planes they've ever flown, and they LOVE them. The 172RG and Arrow are the planes that I'd say are complex just for the sake of being complex, but I wouldn't necessarily put the 177RG in that category.



Like what? My observation so far is that your tastes run counter to most others'. I'm willing to learn, though...
Click to expand...

Not sure where the OP is from but... rentals are out there.

http://www.alpineflighttraining.com/cessna-177rg-cardinal/

And if you are going to buy a rental/flightschool plane like the 177, Arrow, etc it would be foolish not to fly all the RG rentals you can first before you lay down the cold hard cash for a permanent saddle.

We rented one out of Paine Field in WA, forgot the FBO, it was my first experience in one and I really was underwhelmed.

Those things were built to be complex trainers, you go from ab intro in the 172 to CPL work in the 177.

The arrows will cruse faster with better handling then the 177, I believe most folks who have some time under their belt will agree.

You want a RG single engine Cessna, you want a 210.

The 77 only is a great bird for photography work, outside of that, its a good complex plane for flightschools who operate it's simple brother, the 172.
 
yakdriver said:
Get a 182 with the P-Ponk or Texas Skyways 275-300hp. About the same purchase price as a 177RG just as fast with more useful load. And it will be a hell of a lot cheaper to maintain. I have a friend with a 177 that was bought from one of the well respected Cardinal gurus and it has been a maintenance nightmare. There are a lot of really expensive gear parts that are hard to come by. Don
Click to expand...


No way, if you're going 182 conversion Katmai all the way. That canard turns it into a sweet airframe even with the 260hp engine. It flies so well balanced and can slow way down while gaining top end speed as well.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I certainly don't think you're being unreasonable. You'll probably have some training and transition time required, but you should be insurable. It's just gonna be a bit more expensive at first.

One easy thing you can do is to call Avemco. They'll give you a quote right over the phone while you wait, and they're generally on the high side for rates. They'll also tell you what you'll need as far as training time, and even give you various scenarios and rate reductions (for example, how far your rates will go down after 50 or 100 hours in type).



It'll probably make your PPL take longer, and you may not be able to do much if any solo time in it, but when you're done with the PPL you'll have some time in type and that's good when it comes to insurance.



Definitely a good way to go.
Click to expand...

A reminder to Cowman to check out the resources I listed in post #6. Especially on insurance and instruction.

The CFO community is the best about getting the straight dope on the C177B's and RG's.
 
AggieMike88 said:
A reminder to Cowman to check out the resources I listed in post #6. Especially on insurance and instruction.

The CFO community is the best about getting the straight dope on the C177B's and RG's.
Click to expand...

CFO, yeah, that's it, there's so many.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Those things were built to be complex trainers,

...its a good complex plane for flightschools who operate it's simple brother, the 172.
Click to expand...

With respect, you're wrong on this point and are expressing your opinion by disguising it as a fact.

Cessna's original intention was for the original Cardinals to be the J model of the C172, and retire the existing 172 design.

To quote Bill Thompson on this page on the CFO site (click the link to read more of design/development of the Cardinal)

"In 1965, work was started on an all-new 4-place single-engine airplane that would replace the venerable C-172. In fact, it was designated the C-172J in the design and prototype flight testing phases. This was to be all things to all people with much more cabin room, better pilot visibility in turns, more speed, easier ingress and egress through monstrous cabin doors, better flying qualities, a state-of-the-art instrument panel, a tubular steel main landing gear, and a highly streamlined and attractive appearance"

As far as the RG being only for complex training and photography, I disagree. It will be a very nice cross country traveler with great comfort, good handling, and very good economy.
 
I feel like you're comparing apples to oranges a little bit. You want a 177RG (possibly) because of its versatility and relative economy. Not a bad choice at all. But yet a 182 is out of the question due to its 13gph (false) fuel burn and the fact that a modded one is expensive. Why are you willing to get a stock 177RG but need a modded 182(RG?). My stock 182RG does not burn 13gph except for maybe in the pattern. It burns something like 10.8 when flying across the country ROP, it gets better gas millage than my Jeep does. I'm not trying to advocate for a 182, I'm just trying to set a few things straight. If you're sold on a 177, get a 177.


Just my opinion, but I feel like the Cardinal is kind of the step-child of the single Cessna fleet. It's the only one that looks significantly different from the other and the one that doesn't have a hard, defined place in the fleet.
 
Z06_Mir said:
I've seen a couple Mooneys gear up too. They are heavy when trying to pick them up to get them off the runway.
Click to expand...

Most of the Mooneys that gear up are pilot error, the gear system is electric with a mechanical backup, whereas the Cessna gear is hydraulic with a hydraulic backup.
 
What about the J bar gears? It seems that it leaves more room for pilot error. I'd rather my airplane not bring the gear down than me forget. Or worse only put the gear "half down". That's just me though. Even though I own a retract Cessna I think when the gear comes up it looks half retarded.
 
A belly in with a Cardinal does very little damage and is highly preventable by regulare maintenance of hoses, seals, cylinders and pumps. BTW, you can owner produce by parts number cross reference the pump for a few hundred bucks at NAPA through Sierra for a Mercruiser drive trim pump, same exact Prestolite product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top