Cessna 177 vs 182

Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by daviegrygg, May 12, 2011.

  1. daviegrygg

    daviegrygg Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2

    Display name:
    Dave
    I had a scary density altitude moment today in my 1973 Cessna 172M and am parsing and searching and thinking about an upgrade. The cost of a 177 to own and fly are quite a bit less, but I worry about my capacity... I would like to be able to carry 4 adults with luggage.

    Any advice would be very helpful.

    Dave
     
  2. Pilawt

    Pilawt En-Route

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,977

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    A 180-hp C-177 would be a little better load-lifter than your 172, but probably not enough to justify the cost and hassle of selling one airplane and buying another.

    A C-182 would be significantly better in the heavy-high-hot department. You might also consider an R172K Hawk XP (195 hp upgradable to 210 hp).
     
  3. Doggtyred

    Doggtyred En-Route

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,533
    Location:
    Houston area, Texas

    Display name:
    Dave
    The 177 wont give you that much extra, performance wise.

    If you do go that route go with the 200 hp RG. And put a powerflow on it.

    What the 177 appeals to me with is the wide doors and slightly lower posture. Remember, it was intended to replace the 172, so it's in the same league.
     
  4. ejensen

    ejensen Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,897
    Location:
    Fort Collins, CO

    Display name:
    Eric Jensen
    I would choose a 180 hp 172 conversion or the Hawk XP over either Cardinal. I have a couple hundred hours in a 177RG and really like the plane. It just doesn't like altitude. Big, fat wing, underpowered or something. The 172 conversion with a 0-360 and constant speed prop did better in the mountains and at altitude. Never flew an XP. A 182 would be even better.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2011
  5. AdamZ

    AdamZ Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,283
    Location:
    Montgomery County PA

    Display name:
    Adam Zucker
    I agree with the above posters but have to ask about the "incident". What happened?Do you live in a high altitude location and fly out of shorter strips? Perhaps it was just a matter of poor or misplanning. Not trying to be critical of you no one here is perfect but buying a new plane due to one incident seems a bit drastic IMHO. We have members here that have flown high altitude in normally aspirated singles including the renound runway hog the Tiger :D( Just a goof on Anthony) By chance is your 172 one of the older models with the 145hp Conti O-300?

    By the way welcome to POA
     
  6. flyersfan31

    flyersfan31 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    14,250

    Display name:
    Freiburgfan31
    A 182 is a perfect plane. No excuses needed.
     
  7. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    19,254
    Location:
    Paola, KS

    Display name:
    iFlyTwins
    172M from the factory I believe should have a 160 HP O-320. The 180 HP O-360 by itself will really wake the plane up.

    However, if you want 4 adults and baggage, it's hard to go wrong with a 182. It is easy to go wrong with a Cardinal. The only W&B scare (aft CG) I had was in a Cardinal with four adults and full fuel. Lesson learned: The guy who's been flying the plane for 20 years may not know what it's talking about when he says it's fine.

    (I had 65 hours total time back when that happened)
     
  8. steingar

    steingar Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    22,414

    Display name:
    steingar
    One of my good friends was trying to decide between a Cherokee 180 and a Cardinal. His mechanic told him to get the Skylane, as did I. He did, and was glad of it when he retired to Colorado.
     
  9. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017

    Display name:
    Wayne
    Well, almost perfect.

     
  10. jhausch

    jhausch Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,408

    Display name:
    jhausch
    :D:D:D

    +1
     
  11. flyersfan31

    flyersfan31 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    14,250

    Display name:
    Freiburgfan31
    Forgot the turbo!!!!:D
     
  12. CJones

    CJones En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,845
    Location:
    Jawjuh

    Display name:
    uHaveNoIdea
    The main 'step-up' in going from a 172 to a 177 is the interior dimensions. As already mentioned, the doors are huge, which make getting into the back seats much easier. You *can* get 4 adults and some baggage in a 177RG, but you'll be draining fuel. My family used a 177RG regularly for our annual Thanksgiving trip for 3-4 years. We had 3 adults + my teenage sister and a lot of baggage. We would go with fuel to the tabs and had ~3.5 hr endurance IIRC with a cruise of around 135kts. The highest cruise altitude we were able was somewhere around 8-10k.

    With that said, my scariest density-altitude event happened in the same 177RG with 4 adults, no bags, and full-minus-1-hr fuel on a hot day in May.

    182RG, OTOH, is a beast. 4 adults, luggage, and 6 hrs of fuel (145kts) coming out of the mountains in TN were a non-event in December.

    Edit:
    I should also add that, in discussing my future career projection with my wife, she made the off-hand comment of "Well, we could probably get a plane someday, then."
    Me (surprised that SHE brought it up): "Oh, ok. What do you want?" (Not expecting a response)
    Her (without missing a beat): "182RG of course!"
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2011
  13. Skylane81E

    Skylane81E Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    8,059
    Location:
    Cincinnati

    Display name:
    Duncan
    Turbo?!

    We don't need no stinking turbo!



    177 is a great plane but if it's load carrying you're after get a 182.

    Also consider a P,Q,R model. P and Q can have a paper STC appied and get an extra 150lbs takeoff weight for what is by aircraft standards chicken feed. The R (and the restart S and T) already have the 3100lb take off weight. Q and later planes do not have bladders but also require 100LL due to higher compression engines so no auto gas STC.

    The "new" models, the S and T, are great planes but have bulked up with heavy interiors and the like and do not have the same UL of an older plane equipped for 3100lbs TOW. My 1983 can lift 1250lbs (and launched out of Leadville at a 13,000ft DA with 900) and still be within legal limmits.
     
  14. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,274

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    The "M" has a 0-320-E2D = 150 horse power
     
  15. skylanerg

    skylanerg Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    KFOK, Gabreski, Suffolk Co, Westhampton Beach

    Display name:
    harpo
    You're kinda in my wheel house here. My first plane was a '68 177 (160 RAM) after renting 172s for a few years. My current ride of 8 years is a '78 182RG. Just confirming everything previously posted. Bazzinga!
     
  16. DJones

    DJones Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2

    Display name:
    DJones

    I'm certainly glad, the one day since 2008 that I log into the POA, I'm able to correct the miss-conceptions of my son and wonderful daughter-in-law.... The correct answer would be RV10..... 4 adults, no folding gear to not go down when my grand-kids are in the plane, 165kts easy (to be used to get my grand-kids to me).... and no, you're not getting mine! :nonod:

    Back to hibernation.
    Doug
     
  17. Merf

    Merf Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    99

    Display name:
    Merf 45R
    172M with airplanes conversion....789 lbs payload full fuel. Just make your 4 adults skinny.
     
  18. tonycondon

    tonycondon Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    15,262
    Location:
    Wichita, KS

    Display name:
    Tony
    :rofl:

    stick around a while Doug!
     
  19. CJones

    CJones En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,845
    Location:
    Jawjuh

    Display name:
    uHaveNoIdea
    Well, unfortunately, my wonderful wife has not had the pleasure of traveling in this miraculous RV-10.

    I'll trade ya an RV-7A for an RV-10! Oh wait....
     
  20. tonycondon

    tonycondon Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    15,262
    Location:
    Wichita, KS

    Display name:
    Tony
    actually, speaking of grandkids, he should trade you the 7 for the 10. that way you can bring the kid home next christmas. i've never seen a kiddie seat for the baggage area of a -7. and if the rugrat gets your genes instead of rachels god knows they won't fit back there for long anyway.
     
  21. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    19,254
    Location:
    Paola, KS

    Display name:
    iFlyTwins
    Thanks for the correction. I knew it was an O-320, I forgot which one.

    So the 180 hp upgrade would be even better...
     
  22. Yellowbird

    Yellowbird Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    276
    Location:
    Wooster, OH

    Display name:
    Yellowbird
    How did you get a Cardinal loaded aft of the cg? I've run hypothetical loads on my Cardinal, and the only way I could get it out of bounds with an aft cg was to put 650+ pounds of passengers and cargo in the rear seats and baggage area, with a hypothetical 98 lb weakling alone in the front seats. (that was with 20 gallons of fuel)

    With full tanks (60 gallons), I could load the baggage compartment to max capacity (120 lbs), fill the rear seats to bring the aircraft to max gross weight with no one up front, and still be forward of the aft limit.

    Exceeding gross in a Cardinal is unfortunately easy, but I can't imagine a plausible loading scenario that would exceed the aft CG limits (unless you exceeded the 120 lb weight limit for the baggage compartment).
     
  23. Bob Bement

    Bob Bement Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,783
    Location:
    Vale, Oregon

    Display name:
    Bob Bement
    I have flown 54 November now for 16 years and about 1600 hours. I have had it overloaded a few times and in rough places, and in rough air. It has always been up to the task at hand. I think it is a great plane for the job it was designed for. It will haul 4 with some baggage and full fuel. I did that at Rock Springs last year on my way to Gastons. I don't think you can go wrong with a 182 Cessna. Even if it has a straight tail.
     

    Attached Files:

  24. Tom-D

    Tom-D Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    22,274

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    I believe in keeping the safety margin as wide as possible, So I'd recommend the PA-24 260C it's a better aircraft for the load. with the power to haul 1200# The 0-540 running at 260 horses is virtually bullet proof.
     
  25. alaskaflyer

    alaskaflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,545
    Location:
    Bay Area, California

    Display name:
    Alaskaflyer
    :yes:
     
  26. MSPAviator

    MSPAviator Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,064
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN

    Display name:
    MSPAviator
    I like the C-177, 180hp fixed gear because it's faster than a 172 and relatively efficient, but for four adults on a regular basis, the power of the 182 is probably what you are better off with.
     
  27. daviegrygg

    daviegrygg Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2

    Display name:
    Dave
    Excellent input. I just put Rhonda on the market last night (172M) and am looking at getting a share in a 182... but after flying a 177A, I'm still torn. What a nice ride in that Cardinal! Again, thanks for the feedback, I'll let you know how it pans out!

    Dave
     
  28. JesseD

    JesseD Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Appleton, WI

    Display name:
    Jesse
    A Cherokee 6 - 300. My father-in-law and I have a Pre-buy inspection scheduled for the last week of May. 1400-1500 UL, 84gal fuel, 6/7 seats. Take out the extra seats and use it for luggage. Just make sure to put in an engine comp and you should be able to get fuel consumption nice and low.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  29. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    32,407
    Location:
    Denver, CO

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    What happened? DA sneaks up on everyone who doesn't fly at high DA airports and has to do the calculations for every takeoff. If you're going to do a lot more high DA flying, start making takeoff distance calculations for every takeoff, easiest way is an app on any smart-phone, or a quick use of a chart or table from the POH.

    For four adults with baggage you're really looking at a 182 or a 206 if you're staying with Cessna. A 172 is really a 2+2 at higher density altitudes unless you leave the tanks half-empty. Even then most Mountain CFIs won't launch West out of Denver in a Skyhawk after about 9 AM in the summer. Preferably earlier. They also want to burn down fuel load and stay light.

    Temperature makes a HUGE difference. If you can modify your behavior to be off the ground by 7 AM a Skyhawk can be a Mountain airplane.

    But not with four adults. I wouldn't even launch my Skylane into the Mountains without leaving some fuel behind with four adults and bags. CAP around here only fuels to the tabs in the T182T and three crew and a survival kit hits max gross regularly.

    The 177 really isn't that great a climber. It's a faster Skyhawk that will travel better but it'd be no better in the mountains. To really utilize either one in mountains you're going to have to practice and get good at finding ridge lift, thermals, etc. You're a powered glider pilot in a Skyhawk with two plus bags. Four flat-landers in a Skyhawk is quite often the subject of SAR activity and fatalities west of DEN. Or at least it used to be a regular multiple time summer occurrence when more people were flying in the early 90s.

    The ultimate "fix" for most aircraft going West of DEN into the really high DA is turbocharging. You're still going to chew up a lot of runway but at least you have sea-level power to accelerate. At Leadville last summer my Skylane's engine was putting out about 65% of rated HP for takeoff and we felt it. We had two bigger than FAA standard people and half tanks on our long-range (80 gal/75 useable) tanks.

    How high were you and how hot was it outside? Remember back to your Dry Adiabatic lapse rate and realize also that 70F might be "hot" when normal atmospheric conditions mean that you should subtract 3F per 1000' of altitude to compare apples to apples.
     
  30. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    19,067
    Location:
    UQACY, WI

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Do you really do them on every takeoff? You've got some long runways at your home 'drome, longer than you'll ever need in a Skylane. Besides, after the first 4,000' if you're not off the ground you're not gonna get off the ground, so you can use the rest to abort. ;)

    Hmmm. Interesting. When I took a mountain course in Idaho, I started pulling all my crap out of the airplane, only to have the CFI tell me to put it back in. Yes, it's better to have a lower power loading, but she wanted me to experience everything as heavy as possible. No "cheating"! And this was going into the backcountry and taking off from unimproved strips.

    And sadly, it's not the airplane's fault :frown2: - Leadville does flight instruction in normally aspirated 150hp 172's.

    Nothing like three TIMES the normal takeoff roll, is there?

    Dry adiabatic lapse rate is 3ºC per 1000 feet, or 5.4ºF, according to the PHAK. Standard temp up there at 5,000 feet is 5.1ºC or 41ºF. Brrr!
     
  31. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    32,407
    Location:
    Denver, CO

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    Yes, I roll the numbers into my iPhone app that gives standard 182 numbers. The Robby kit adds an additional margin, of course.

    Habit built up from a local flight club that requires a TOLD sheet (takeoff and landing data) for every training flight, even advanced students. I think some people cheat and keep a copy with their usual numbers for them and their CFI on it and photocopy it, but it's a good mental procedure reminder.

    Apparently I've completely screwed up dry Adiabatic lapse rate though. ;) Sigh.