Cessna 177 FG (71-74) or Navion (not Rangemaster)

CharlieD3

CharlieD3

En-Route
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
3,390
Location
Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
CharlieD3
....Same price point. Say 45-65AMU$.

I like both... I'd love to buy both... but cannot. This is not a discussion of high/low wing, or retract/FG (but I don't like the complexity of the Cardinal retract).

Which would you choose and why..? Both fit mission profile overall... Might be nicer to camp under the wing of the 177. But can't honestly say I would do much of that.

I'll start the popcorn... Tell me how you really feel.
 
At those prices I'd take either. Can you find either plane for those prices?

Always liked Navions! If $$$$ was the same why wouldnt you take the Navion?
 
For me, a high wing is a must, since I love to look down and take pictures. Bonus: no strut! The RG version of 177 is one of the sexiest planes IMO.
 
If you have a short enough tent, you can camp under a Navion wing. We used to have an inflatable sofa we'd set up under the wing at Oshkosh.
 
I have a '68 Cardinal with the 150hp engine. I took out the back seat and insure it as a two seater (`750). I filled it up with camping gear and flew North Alabama to Oshkosh a few years back. I fly LOP and plan at 105 knots and 7.5 gph. Under estimating the knots and overestimating the gph.
My wife who now has two new knees had trouble getting into a 172 before she got them but was able to get into the Cardinal. The view is great and once you get used to the stabilator the landings are easy. The systems are similar to a 172 so mechanics don't have issues with it.
 
For some reason I don't think of the Cardinal RG and Navion as all that similar or comparable. I like our 182 but I think a Navion would be the clear winner over a 177 if you can afford it...except ease of entry. The Cardinal is tough to beat there.
 
Sinistar said:
At those prices I'd take either. Can you find either plane for those prices?

Always liked Navions! If $$$$ was the same why wouldnt you take the Navion?
Click to expand...
That's exactly where I'm at. I'd take either. Love the looks of both. Both are available at those prices. Non RG 177.

As mentioned above, my wife has also had both knees replaced, which tilts me toward the 177.

That said, I fell in love with Navions and their ramp presence alone, some 30-40 years ago.

I also love the look of the 177....


Really hard choice in a "forever" plane....

More input needed, wanted...
 
Gear is simpler on the Navion. They have about the same useful load. The Cardinal is easier to get into with the wide doors. Navion's these days tend to have a larger engines and are faster.

Amusingly, I was close to buying a Cardinal years before I bought the Navion.
 
flyingron said:
Gear is simpler on the Navion. They have about the same useful load. The Cardinal is easier to get into with the wide doors. Navion's these days tend to have a larger engines and are faster.
Click to expand...

He's asking about a fixed gear Cardinal. So it is much simpler than the Navion. 30 years newer too. But substantially slower.

If I wanted to fly and go places, I'd go Cardinal. If I wanted to tinker more, I'd go Navion.
 
kyleb said:
He's asking about a fixed gear Cardinal. So it is much simpler than the Navion. 30 years newer too. But substantially slower.

If I wanted to fly and go places, I'd go Cardinal. If I wanted to tinker more, I'd go Navion.
Click to expand...
20 mph slower with a lower fuel burn. (Converting from knots.)

I also wonder about the negativity about the Navion above....

And, it's a binary choice. None of the above is not an option...

Thanx for all the input so far....

I appreciate the non option of the 177A. But, I really don't want to take out the rear seat, making it into a "stretch" 152.... And I understand that's not necessary... But, there might be a time I take a passenger or 2 in addition to the wife... Albeit at less than full fuel.


Navion's got perhaps a bit more short field capability than the Cardinal...

I've researched a lot.

Aw heck. It'll prolly never happen unless I kite a check against an unconfirmed lottery ticket. But a fellow can dream, can't he?

I think I could afford one of them Coleman two wheelers at Tractor Supply....sigh.
 
CharlieD3 said:
I also wonder about the negativity about the Navion above...
Click to expand...

Not negativity. Reality. Generically speaking a Navion will be a much older airframe and has more moving parts - not only the gear, but also those extra two cylinders. Over the long term, it is guaranteed to need more maintenance.
 
kyleb said:
Not negativity. Reality. Generically speaking a Navion will be a much older airframe and has more moving parts - not only the gear, but also those extra two cylinders. Over the long term, it is guaranteed to need more maintenance.
Click to expand...
Navion IS indeed an older airframe. But arguably built for "privates to maintain, and generals to fly..." Many were zinc chromated internally to protect against corrosion.

Cessna is a bit of an orphan with the spar issue potential... Yet, still some support from Textron...

Treated well, both would probably outlive me.
 
CharlieD3 said:
Treated well, both would probably outlive me.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. It isn't longevity. It is ongoing maintenance. Retract systems wear. Old wiring sucks. 70 year old parts are generally harder to find than 40 year old parts. No matter which Continental is in the Navion, odds are it'll require more maintenance than the Lycoming on the Cardinal. Is the prop on the Navion still supported? Whether it is or not, it is a maintenance item. If the Cardinal is FP, there's little to no maintenance required for decades.

Sorta the "New Honda" or "Old ___" argument. Do you want to hop in and go, or do you want the vehicle to be a hobby unto itself? Both are fine, just go in with your eyes wide open.
 
kyleb said:
You missed the point. It isn't longevity. It is ongoing maintenance. ..
Click to expand...

Yeah, no... I get the point... Both have advantages, and disadvantages....

The wings could separate from the fuselage on the 177, too... That could be deadly. MX on the carry thru spar ain't cheap... But also isn't "required" until 15000 hrs. Or, is it...for peace of mind.

The 177 has the scales tipped in it's favor for ingress/egress, gph, and familiarity (Cessna from intro flight to last flight), and even non retract, a fast looking craft.

Many Navions have updated engines, but that effects useful load...

Thanks for your thoughts...like I said, it'll prolly never happen anyway... Sigh.
 
kyleb said:
You missed the point. It isn't longevity. It is ongoing maintenance. Retract systems wear. Old wiring sucks. 70 year old parts are generally harder to find than 40 year old parts. No matter which Continental is in the Navion, odds are it'll require more maintenance than the Lycoming on the Cardinal. Is the prop on the Navion still supported? Whether it is or not, it is a maintenance item. If the Cardinal is FP, there's little to no maintenance required for decades.
Click to expand...

Navion parts are not hard to come by. There are a few parts suppliers with old and new parts (there's a warehouse out in Nebraska that has the contents of the factory when it shuddown in the seventies). The type society also has a lot of parts and technical advice. I'll put a 70-year-old Navion part up against a 40-year-old Cessna part any day. The stuff is pretty tough.

The Navions pretty much universally have the same Hartzell prop that's on every high performance plane of the era from Bonanzas to Commanches to whatever. Most of the older E-series continenals are getting a bit hard to maintain, but it's not hard to upgrade to the later Injected Conteinentals. My plane was reengined with a brand new IO-550-B back in 2004. -R conversions are all the rage these days. The joke being "Every time a Cirrus chute is pulled, a Navion gets a new engine."

Yeah, 4 cylinder, fixed pitch, fixed gear is going to be a lot simpler and cheaper than a more complex aircraft, but the performance and utility is less. I'd be leary of putting even the fixed gear 177 on a short, grass strip that I wouldn't think twice about the Navion. If you compare Navions to the 177RG (with it's balky gear) or better yet to a comparable 182RG or Bonanza or Commanche, you'll find it stands up pretty well.


Indeed, the bigger engine "effects" [SIC] useful load, but in many cases it's a wash as you get a 100lb gross weight increase with any addition of horsepower. Tip tanks get you even more. It does tend to put the CG pretty much on the forward limit, but there are ways to ameliorate that.
 
flyingron said:
Indeed, the bigger engine "effects" [SIC] useful load, but in many cases it's a wash as you get a 100lb gross weight increase with any addition of horsepower. Tip tanks get you even more. It does tend to put the CG pretty much on the forward limit, but there are ways to ameliorate that.
Click to expand...

Ron, thanks for the correction... Can you elucidate on the effect of the bigger engine on the affected plane... Particularly "Any addition of HP gives me 100lb increase in GW..."

I've heard of Navion owners putting ballast in the luggage compartment.

The ONLY strike against the Navion for me is ingress/egress....

Once I'm flying again, I'll try to find a willing owner to let me have the wife try to board... Probably a rear step AC, as I think the OEM step is a definite deal breaker.

Still a ways out on my 3rd class... Then I gotta get proficient again.

BTW leery is the current spelling, leary is out of use for a century or so...

 
Yes, there were perhaps two things that cut into the Navion's popularity. One was the comparable Bonanza always being a bit faster (speed sells on specs more than unimproved field capability or comfort) and the other was that it was harder for women (typically wearing dresses or skirts) to gracefully board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top