I just joined this Board today, and I don't know much about computer stuff, so I hope I am able to figure this out. I have been on the AOPA webboard for 6 years, but more of a lurker than a poster. I will experiment on here a bit, but will probably continue to use the AOPA webboard, too, to see if it settles down over there a bit. I appreciate Chuck and Chip's efforts here, and wish that AOPA would implement some of the controls that this board seems to offer.
Love the pic of your Viking, Dave--I always heard they provided a lot of performance for the dollar! I would be concerned that routinely breaking the sound barrier like that might ultimately damage the wood and cloth construction, however . . .
OK, as for the Cardinal:
I have owned a '76 177RG for five years, and love it. Toby, I agree with Chuck's recommendation re Cardinal Fliers Online (CFO). Most of their info is actually available without a membership, I believe, as for the model history and prepurchase inspections. Even the daily e-mail digest is available without a membership (for some reason!), and it is the best aspect of the club. I basically never GO to the website anymore, unless I want to do a search of the daily e-mail archives.
I don't know much about the fixed-gear Cardinal (177, 177A, and 177B), other than there were two occasions where I have wished I HAD a non-RG! The history of those models can be read about on the CFO website or in the two-volume set that Aviation Consumer sells. Most of the talk/malignment of the model is hearsay about the 68 model, what with the underpowered 150HP and the original non-slotted stabilator. ALL of the stablilators have been modified now, however, so forget about THAT. I believe that most (but NOT all) of the 150 HP models have been upgraded to 160 or 180 HP. I think there is only ONE 177B which has been modified by field-approval to the 200 HP IO-360: for some reason that does not seem to be an available option. I have heard of a FEW 177B's that have been turbocharged (still the carburated engine).
As far as Greg's remark about most Cardinals being retractables, that is not my belief, but I have not looked at the actual production numbers. I do know that the fixed-gear models were made 1968-1978, while the RG was 1971-1978. All the RG's came with the IO-360 rated at 200 HP. Several of the RG's have been turbochared (or turbo-normalized?), and that mod is available through Tornado Alley/GAMI, which can render a 177 knot airplane (at altitude).
The Cardinal is a WONDERFUL airplane. What I like about it the most is the very spacious cabin and the two large doors--the easiest plane ever made to get in and out of. The back seat is as spacious as the front seat of the 182. The visibility is good, although very tall pilots such as myself lose some of the advantage of the 'further-back' wing, as our seat being all the way back necessitates us leaning forward to see up (or to the inside of turns), but at least we CAN see up in that fashion. The plane is also nice looking, with the windshield sloping back--looks more like a Corvette than the Granada look of the other Cessnas. I think it is the best looking high wing plane ever made.
As for Anthony's "handling is typical Cessna" remark, I don't agree. The controls are very well-harmonized, and, if anything, the powerful stabilator makes it pitch-sensitive (which, in turns, makes landings considerably more difficult than other Cessnas, as moving the yoke a few millimeters invokes appreciable pitch changes even when slow, like in the landing flare). The plane IS stable enough to make a good IFR platform, though.
Bad things include the model's tendancy to leak in the rain (from the wing root fairing and the doors). Greg mentioned the problem with wind-from-behind catching and damaging the doors (with no struts to stop the forward movement of the doors, they can be forved past the usual hinge stops and damage the hinges). Our concern for the doors causes some of us to secure the pilot side door with bungee cord when parked outside for any length of time, as wind can rock the whole plane, and there is enough flexibility in the fuselage for the door to pop open, and then the open door might be blown forward forcibly, damaging it.
Another "bad thing" is the design of the retracting gear (in the RG--duh!). By the time (1971) that the RG came out, Cessna had worked out most of the kinks in the more-trouble-prone 210 gear, but still it is not as easy to cause gear to retract into a non-existent low wing! There were several changes in the gear system made throughout the production run of the 177RG, though, with the 1974 and later models probably being more reliable than the earlier ones. Nevertheless, unlike most low wing retracts, the Cessnas require hydraulic pressure even to lower the gear (even with the manual back up hand pump), so if one loses hydraulic fluid while in flight, he is going to have belly it in (I have installed a light to show me when the gear pump is running--anything more than a fleeting flash while the pump is maintaining pressure in flight can hopefully give the pilot time to lower the gear). The RG Cessna owner should have a mechanic who is familiar with the systems--properly maintained, they should have no problems.
My earlier references to my wishing on two occasions for a non-RG were with regard to costs: I had to rebuild the hydraulic pump once, and recently a brake line at the gear swivel point broke--two costs I wouldn't have if I had the straight-legged Cardinal. (But then, again, I wouldn't have the extra speed (10-15kt?) over the FG, nor would have that ego-stroke of manipulating the gear handle). Another advantage of the FG over the RG, other than costs, is the fact that the FG is better off grass (larger wheels).
One could do far worse than a Cardinal. CFO is one of the best things about the model, too. If you do decide on the the plane, you would be wise to ante up the whole $34, Toby!
Wells
