Cessna 177 RG specs?

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
What can you folks tell me about the Cessna 177RG (1970-76) Cardinal Have you flown it before? Is it a good starter airplane? What kind of fuel burn to expect? Maintenance...etc?

I have been in one but I didn't fly it, the legroom is REALLY comfortable probably the best I have been in.

What do you think?
 
Starter airplane? It's complex.

Pretty fast down low, but runs hot on long climbs. Can be slippery. Gear is quite complex and very draggy in transit. It has a very uncomfortable failure mode -- hydraulic leaks will defeat alternate extension AND will fail to hold the gear up.

Some are prone to vapor lock when hot, and may require ballast to avoid forward CG. Doors are very comfortable, but can be difficult to latch and get blown around while open in the wind.

The fuel vents are very long and plug with fuel if overfilled. This results in sucking fuel from one tank until it's pretty low, and some models don't have left/right fuel selectors.

Useful load is pretty good, but climb rate is anemic when heavy.

Fuel burn is right around 10GPH at 75% power.
 
MAKG1 said:
Starter airplane? It's complex.

Pretty fast down low, but runs hot on long climbs. Can be slippery. Gear is quite complex and very draggy in transit. It has a very uncomfortable failure mode -- hydraulic leaks will defeat alternate extension AND will fail to hold the gear up.

Some are prone to vapor lock when hot, and may require ballast to avoid forward CG. Doors are very comfortable, but can be difficult to latch and get blown around while open in the wind.

The fuel vents are very long and plug with fuel if overfilled. This results in sucking fuel from one tank until it's pretty low, and some models don't have left/right fuel selectors.

Useful load is pretty good, but climb rate is anemic when heavy.

Fuel burn is right around 10GPH at 75% power.
Click to expand...

What kind of speeds could you get on average. I thought 177's are fixed gear?
 
MAKG1 said:
You asked about 177RGs. They are not the same.
Click to expand...

Ahh...that is right RG stands for Retractable gear. Better to get a fixed gear? I can't find what the useful load is on it. I would prefer just the 177 not the RG. Less maintenance. Other than retractable gear is there any differences?

Thank you!
 
FloridaPilot said:
Ahh...that is right RG stands for Retractable gear. Better to get a fixed gear? I can't find what the useful load is on it. I would prefer just the 177 not the RG. Less maintenance. Other than retractable gear is there any differences?

Thank you!
Click to expand...
There are a lot of differences. I've never flown a 177 as PIC, but I've been right seat in a 177B. Fixed gear, they came with 160 or 180 HP engines, and had a rep for being a bit underpowered. Kinda like 172s....

Don't think of a 177RG as a 177 with retractible gear. They are not that similar.

Retractible gear is not at all a small difference. 172RGs land similarly to 172N's, but that's about as far as the similarities go. Even the fuel primer is used differently.
 
FloridaPilot said:
What kind of speeds could you get on average. I thought 177's are fixed gear?
Click to expand...

Check out my Cardinal's web page (link below) under "Documents". You'll see a weight and balance calculator that'll let you test some loads. As far as speed goes, look at the POH, also under "Documents". My plane does book speeds (Section IV) or a little better.

My 14 year old grandson will be learning in mine next month, and he's been flying with me for years, so I personally think it's fine as a beginners airplane.
 
The RG I fly is an IO-360, so 200HP and constant speed prop.

Learning on a complex isn't that big of a deal. Good friend of mine just got his PPL in an Arrow 180 that he bought to learn in.

I don't know if I believe the "extra maintenance" part of the fixed vs retract discussion. I've been co-owner of this Cardinal for ~5 years and there hasn't been any noticeable gear maintenance costs. YMMV
 
:popcorn:Slippery?
MAKG1 said:
Starter airplane? It's complex.

Pretty fast down low, but runs hot on long climbs. Can be slippery. Gear is quite complex and very draggy in transit. It has a very uncomfortable failure mode -- hydraulic leaks will defeat alternate extension AND will fail to hold the gear up.

Some are prone to vapor lock when hot, and may require ballast to avoid forward CG. Doors are very comfortable, but can be difficult to latch and get blown around while open in the wind.

The fuel vents are very long and plug with fuel if overfilled. This results in sucking fuel from one tank until it's pretty low, and some models don't have left/right fuel selectors.

Useful load is pretty good, but climb rate is anemic when heavy.

Fuel burn is right around 10GPH at 75% power.
Click to expand...
 
Peter O Knight has a pretty nice one for rental if you're around that area. Haven't flown it personally but it looks decked out.
 
GRG55 said:
It's a Cessna without struts or wheel pants. The very definition of "slippery". ;)
Click to expand...
It also has some streamlining in the wing, more like a 206 than a 172. For instance, the aileron hardware is well hidden.

In clean configuration in a descent, they can be hard to slow down. Fortunately, the gear extension speed is pretty high.
 
I have a 1976 177B. I think it's a great plane for a relatively new pilot. It's not too much plane, but it is a small a step up from the plane I trained in. It has the 180 hp engine with the constant speed prop. It's going to be faster than 150 hp 172, but I am not sure how much faster it is than a 172 with a 180 hp engine. It gets some speed from the lack of side struts, but it gives up a lot to be wide and comfortable. Book speed is 130 TAS. It's probably not far off that, but our fairings where the wheel pants meet the legs are a little cracked, and could stand to be replaced. It does tend to be nose heavy, but not too bad, and I don't think it's as much as the RG models. Usually, we have some extra oil, tie downs, and other stuff in the back, anyway. I can put my wife and toddler in his car seat in the back, and full suit cases for all in the cargo area with no problem with weight and balance. And, with the wide doors, it's easy to get them loaded up. I love mine, but you won't mistake the speed for a Cirrus or a Mooney. The early models have more of a laminar flow wing that was somewhat phased out in later models. That has some pluses and minuses. Some of the cooling issues in the climb for all models, and climb rate for the early 150 hp models can be addressed relatively easily with a Powerflow exhaust mod relatively cheaply. They are relatively docile, and often described as a good stable IFR plane. I personally haven't flown any other plane IFR to compare, though. I echo the sentiment to check out Cardinal Flyers online if you are seriously interested. There's a ton of great information there for cheap.

As far as flight planning, I plan to burn 11.0 gph, but in actuality, it's more like 9 - 9.5.

The 177 was supposed to replace the 172, but ultimately failed initially because it was expensive to make, the price tag was a lot higher than a 172, and it got a bad reputation because the early 177s only had a 150 hp engine, and there were some growing pains with the stabilator. As a result, the market did not want to pay the extra cost for the 177 model over the 172, and the market never recovered during production. The engine size in the fixed gear models was increased to 180 hp, and the stabilator issues were addressed with a retro fit on the early models, and a design change in the later models. After the plane was discontinued, people have come to realize it's a pretty good plane, particularly the later models where the above issues were resolved. I think of it as kind of a "tweener" between a 172 and a 182.

Maintenance hasn't been too bad, but I share the cost with a couple others, so it's not bad. Usually around 2000-3000 per year at annual (which I then split with my co-owners). Sometimes more, depending.
 
MAKG1 said:
It also has some streamlining in the wing, more like a 206 than a 172. For instance, the aileron hardware is well hidden.

In clean configuration in a descent, they can be hard to slow down. Fortunately, the gear extension speed is pretty high.
Click to expand...
The gear extension speed is 125 kts, but I wouldn't extend mine above 110. My procedure is to add a notch of flaps first.

I've never heard of a 177 model without left/right fuel selector positions. Maybe one of the earliest FG's?? I don't think it's true of any of the RGs. :dunno:

To the OP: I own a 1976 177RG. To the other advantages that have been mentioned I would add an excellent field of view, particularly in the forward direction, thanks to the long sloping windshield, the lack of struts, and slightly rearward wing position compared to comparable models like the 172. There's a reason they're very popular among aerial photographers!

Do not expect blazing speed. Some owners claim TAS of 140 kts cruising at altitude, but I've never seen more than 135, and that was with a fresh engine. 130 is more normal at cross country cruising altitudes above 6000, even 125 closer to sea level. If you want a plane that gets the most out of the 200 hp IO-360, check into Mooney, not the Cardinal RG.

What it is, though, is a fairly reliable cross-country plane that (usually) doesn't break the bank. I've had only one issue with the gear, a failure of the downlock mechanism that resulted in sometimes requiring two cycles of the gear to get a locked down green indication. But routine maintenance costs are not exorbitantly expensive. Annuals generally cost a couple of hundred more than otherwise due to the need to swing the gear.

It is also a very stable IFR platform. With a notch of "approach flaps", shooting an ILS can sometimes feel like riding on rails.

If you get serious about owning one, be sure to do a thorough pre-buy. One common and critical vulnerability is to corrosion of the wing spar carry-through. I was bitten by this problem (the corrosion was caused by a mouse nest above the headliner) and if not for a good insurance policy, would have been out nearly $10K to fix it, due mostly to labor costs. The carry-through itself is a salvage item and I was very lucky to find one available.

Check out Cardinal Flyers Online for more info about the breed. I'm a fairly satisfied owner, but a little more critical than average I think. There are times I wish the bird was a little faster.
 
Last edited:
Skid said:
Peter O Knight has a pretty nice one for rental if you're around that area. Haven't flown it personally but it looks decked out.
Click to expand...

That sounds good do you know what FBO has it?
 
Due to the fact the Cardinal was discontinued is parts hard to find? specific parts made for the 177?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Due to the fact the Cardinal was discontinued is parts hard to find? specific parts made for the 177?
Click to expand...

Getting parts hasn't been too hard for me. Again, CFO is a great resource. They have recommendations for vendors for various parts that might otherwise be hard to source. I am sure that there may be some parts that might be difficult, but the CFO folks have seen a lot, and have lots of great resources for most things you are likely to encounter.
 
azure said:
I've never heard of a 177 model without left/right fuel selector positions. Maybe one of the earliest FG's?? I don't think it's true of any of the RGs. :dunno:

Check out Cardinal Flyers Online for more info about the breed. I'm a fairly satisfied owner, but a little more critical than average I think. There are times I wish the bird was a little faster.
Click to expand...

The first two years of RG production had only on/off for fuel. '73 and later had left/both/right/off.

All the details year by year are on the free portion of our Cardinal Flyers website, under "prepurchase."

Paul
 
PPC1052 said:
, but the CFO folks have seen a lot, and have lots of great resources for most things you are likely to encounter.
Click to expand...

PaulMillner said:
The first two years of RG production had only on/off for fuel. '73 and later had left/both/right/off.

All the details year by year are on the free portion of our Cardinal Flyers website, under "prepurchase."

Paul
Click to expand...

And by the way, Paul Millner is one of those "CFO folks." He's one of the guys that created and runs CFO (Cardinal Flyers Online).
 
PaulMillner said:
The first two years of RG production had only on/off for fuel. '73 and later had left/both/right/off.

All the details year by year are on the free portion of our Cardinal Flyers website, under "prepurchase."

Paul
Click to expand...
Thanks Paul. Never looked much into the earliest years of the RG, in fact I've never personally seen one from earlier than '75.

Also, the OP mentioned '70 - '76, but there are also '77 and '78 model years. The '78 RG at least had faster gear extension and a 28V electrical system; that might have applied to the '77 model year as well, but I'm not sure.

Your CFO website is, as always, the go-to source for information about the breed!
 
FloridaPilot said:
Due to the fact the Cardinal was discontinued is parts hard to find? specific parts made for the 177?
Click to expand...
Not in general. It depends on the part. Parts that are difficult to fabricate and aren't shared with other models (e.g. the spar carry-through) can be extremely difficult to find. If not for CFO, I would have had a very expensive hangar queen on my hands.
 
MAKG1 said:
It also has some streamlining in the wing, more like a 206 than a 172. For instance, the aileron hardware is well hidden.
Click to expand...

As I recall, the 152/172/182/206 all use the same airfoil while the 177 and 210 use a different airfoil.
 
As far as parts availability, ten years of owning my B and I haven't had any problems. Sheet metal is sheet metal, Lycomings are Lycomings, Cleveland brakes and wheels are Cleveland brakes and wheels. Plastic parts are available from Plane Plastics, avionics are generic as are tires, Whelen and all others make (including STC LED) lights for the Cardinals. There are a few specific parts that could possibly be hard to find, such as the carrythrough spar (out of the thousands of Cardinals out there, only a few have had problems with this item (but because of the scarcity, it is important to check on a prepurchase) as Azure stated, but the CFO is your best and ideal resource for these few issues.
 
azure said:
I've never heard of a 177 model without left/right fuel selector positions. Maybe one of the earliest FG's?? I don't think it's true of any of the RGs. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I flew a 1971 177RG to Los Angeles a few weeks ago. It rather definitely did not have left/right fuel selector positions. You notice that kind of thing.... Most of them do have the usual 172/182 four position selectors, but it is rather definitely not all.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
As far as parts availability, ten years of owning my B and I haven't had any problems. Sheet metal is sheet metal, Lycomings are Lycomings, Cleveland brakes and wheels are Cleveland brakes and wheels. Plastic parts are available from Plane Plastics, avionics are generic as are tires, Whelen and all others make (including STC LED) lights for the Cardinals. There are a few specific parts that could possibly be hard to find, such as the carrythrough spar (out of the thousands of Cardinals out there, only a few have had problems with this item (but because of the scarcity, it is important to check on a prepurchase) as Azure stated, but the CFO is your best and ideal resource for these few issues.
Click to expand...

They appear to take weird tires, at least in the RG versions. Screwing one up can result in a delay for parts. But they aren't unobtanium.
 
asicer said:
As I recall, the 152/172/182/206 all use the same airfoil while the 177 and 210 use a different airfoil.
Click to expand...
Correct as to 177 and strutless 210s (1967 210G and later; strutted 210s share the same airfoil as the rest of the legacy singles). The reason for the airfoil change is that on a cantilever-wing airplane, the spar carry-through has to go through the upper cabin at or near the point of maximum wing thickness. If they had used the standard NACA 2412 airfoil on the 177 or 210G, the spar would interfere with the front seaters' heads. That's why the strutless Cessnas have the "laminar" airfoil -- maximum thickness is further aft than on the 2412 airfoil, so the spar is well behind the pilot's head. It's the same on low-wing airplanes with "laminar" airfoils -- Cherokees, Comanches, Mooneys, etc. But with a low wing, the spar carry-through can be stowed conveniently under the back seat.

Cessna mounted the wings of the 177 and 210G as far aft as possible, good for visibility, but resulting in unusually-far-forward CG limits relative to mean aerodynamic chord, nose-heaviness, and the need for more pitch authority for full-flap, tail-low landings. That was handled in the 210G with a larger horizontal tail, and in the 177 with a stabilator.

The "laminar" airfoil as used on the '68 and '69 Cardinals and all the strutless 210s, with its sharp leading edge, is prone to high drag at high angles of attack. That's not a good thing for a relatively underpowered airplane like the early Cardinal -- pilots tried to climb before the wing was ready, and got behind the power curve in ground effect. So the '70-'78 177B, and all the 177RGs, have a recontoured, more rounded leading edge to minimize that problem. The 210 didn't need it, since it has enough power to easily accelerate through the high-drag regime in ground effect, and the more blunt leading edge would probably cost a few knots in high-speed cruise.


MAKG1 said:
The 206 doesn't fit in your list. It has a deeper wing the same span, and the same airfoil, as a 177.
Click to expand...
The 206 - all of 'em, from 1964 to present - has exactly the same wing as the strutted 210D-F (1964-66), which is the same as a C-185 wing except for longer-span flaps and shorter-span but deeper-chord ailerons. It's the same NACA 2412 airfoil as the rest of the strutted legacy singles. Most strutted models (150/152 and 207 excepted) were modified with the leading-edge cuff in the early '70s.

cessna_206_1964.jpg
 
Last edited:
azure said:
Also, the OP mentioned '70 - '76, but there are also '77 and '78 model years. The '78 RG at least had faster gear extension and a 28V electrical system; that might have applied to the '77 model year as well, but I'm not sure.

Your CFO website is, as always, the go-to source for information about the breed!
Click to expand...

There are eight RG model years, '71 through '78. Only '78 is 28 volt.

Paul
 
Mine is a 74 RG. I fly at 165 mph TAS consistently at 5000' and above and flight plan 10 mph. I usually get somewhere between 9.5 and 10 below 8000' and the fuel flow drops as I go up from there. It's a very stable IFR platform and while slippery I can drop the gear at anything below 140 and then it flies like a 172. If I was in trouble I'd drop the gear above 140.

Last year we flew to the Bahamas in the spring and the west coast in the fall. My wife couldn't tolerate more than 3 hours in the 172 but has no issues with 5 hour legs in the RG and we flew around 8 hours total coming back from both the Bahamas and California in same day trips back to the Houston area

Gary
 
Hey @MAKG1 , remember that time when we flew in to Boonville? Were you flying a 177 RG or a fixed gear? I don't remember, but I do remember we were both concerned about our respective abilities to get off the ground in that terrain and DA and we discussed the relative merits of taking off in one direction vs. the other.

Damn good lunch spot though.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Hey @MAKG1 , remember that time when we flew in to Boonville? Were you flying a 177 RG or a fixed gear? I don't remember, but I do remember we were both concerned about our respective abilities to get off the ground in that terrain and DA and we discussed the relative merits of taking off in one direction vs. the other.

Damn good lunch spot though.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was a 177RG. The DA ended up not being a big deal that day. I won't fly that particular one anymore; it's been gear-up'd twice due to extension failures.

The only time I've been in a fixed gear 177 was right seat, at KCOS in nearly 10,000 DA. That was an eye opener; my first time in high DA, and the amount of runway it needed was stunning.

Agreed, that was a nice lunch spot.
 
Last edited:
JohnAJohnson said:
As far as parts availability, ten years of owning my B and I haven't had any problems. Sheet metal is sheet metal, Lycomings are Lycomings, Cleveland brakes and wheels are Cleveland brakes and wheels. Plastic parts are available from Plane Plastics, avionics are generic as are tires, Whelen and all others make (including STC LED) lights for the Cardinals. There are a few specific parts that could possibly be hard to find, such as the carrythrough spar (out of the thousands of Cardinals out there, only a few have had problems with this item (but because of the scarcity, it is important to check on a prepurchase) as Azure stated, but the CFO is your best and ideal resource for these few issues.
Click to expand...

I just joined a few mins ago (CFO) . There is a Cardinal model type that seems under powered?
 
I looked closely at the C177RG 5 years ago. Great airplane for all the reasons discussed. But the thing that seemed dumb to me was that some models (I don't recall now) had only 3/4 of a panel. Never made sense to me why they designed it that way.

As far as flying an RG goes... No one has RG time until they get RG time. So don't let anyone tell you that you can't or shouldn't fly an RG because you're a new (or newish) pilot. Like anything, just train on it until you're proficient.

In my case I wanted something that could carry my whole family plus full fuel even when my kids were in their tweens. So that led me to the TR182 but the C177RG is a pretty capable going-places machine.

Good luck!
 
petrolero said:
I looked closely at the C177RG 5 years ago. Great airplane for all the reasons discussed. But the thing that seemed dumb to me was that some models (I don't recall now) had only 3/4 of a panel. Never made sense to me why they designed it that way.
Click to expand...

You mean like in a Cirrus?
SR22TN_Perspective_Cockpit.jpg
 
FloridaPilot said:
There is a Cardinal model type that seems under powered?
Click to expand...

Of the 2,748 fixed-gear Cardinals built (1968-78), 42% of them (1,164 units) were built in the 1968 model year alone. These had only a 150 hp Lycoming O-320, as the Cardinal was originally expected to replace the "obsolete" Model 172. In fact, during development the Cardinal was known within the company as "Model 172J". But as development continued it became apparent that the Cardinal design was going to be heavier than originally anticipated, and despite efforts to trim weight from the airframe, the 150 hp '68 Cardinal was about 110 pounds heavier in empty weight than the 150 hp '68 Skyhawk.

After that first year Cessna acknowledged that the Cardinal would not replace the 172, but would instead be a "tweener", filling the gap in the catalog between the 172 and 182. The 1969 177A Cardinal (206 built) switched to a 180 hp Lycoming O-360, a better airframe/engine combination. For 1970, the 177B added a constant-speed prop and cowl flaps, and a modified wing leading edge to reduce drag at high angles of attack. Along the way the stabilator was modified and the pitch control linkage was tweaked to correct what some claimed were problems with handling qualities on landing. After all these changes the Cardinal was an excellent, well-balanced package, but the public relations damage was done. The fixed-gear Cardinal averaged only 153 units sold per year from 1970 through 1978, while the Skyhawk averaged 1,274 per year over the same time.

Another unavoidable problem is that the Cardinal was more expensive to build, and shared few common components with any other Cessna product. Ultimately "The Plane of The 70's" failed to survive its decade, and was discontinued after the 1978 model year and replaced by the Model R172K Hawk XP, a derivative of the "obsolete" 172.

One man's "underpowered" airplane is another's economy champ. Many who own 150 hp Cardinals love them, and rightfully so.

Screen Shot 2017-05-13 at 8.04.10 AM.png

There's nothing wrong with an "underpowered" airplane (a 65-hp Cub comes to mind), as long as the pilot recognizes and allows for the limitations. The "problem" with the 150 hp Cardinal was that it looked like it should carry a huge load and have better performance than a 172; and some of the performance data provided was, shall we say, optimistic.

Over the years, a number of '68 Cardinals have been modified with more powerful engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top