Cessna 177RG Cardinal

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Lowflynjack, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. wheaties

    wheaties Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2019
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    wheaties
    Right now there is a premium for 172 and 182. This has had the effect of pushing up values for 177 and, ironically, Dakotas. The "value" play of a 177 are the 68s which are woefully under powered. The premium is commanded by the '79 whose gear retract faster due to the higher voltage of the model (24v vs 12v.)

    I looked at these and they are a catch, provided yiu get a decent pre-buy.
     
  2. Lowflynjack

    Lowflynjack Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    2,345
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jack Fleetwood
    @pigpenracing I took a look at it when you flew into T74 one day. Very, very nice! I'm supposed to do a cover shot for Bonanza society sometime in the next few months. Waiting on a Bo to get a new paint job. I think I could get in with them and Mooney, but sometimes I struggle to stay up with the demands of Cessna and Piper and I put off things like my friend's Staggerwing.... deadlines suck!!
     
    pigpenracing likes this.
  3. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,972
    Location:
    Varmint Country
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    FTFY... the last model year for the Cardinal RG was 1978.
     
  4. jsstevens

    jsstevens En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,918
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jsstevens
    That's why the 79's are so expensive. :)
     
    Zeldman and azure like this.
  5. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,972
    Location:
    Varmint Country
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    Yep - they were made with unobtainium.
     
  6. Lowflynjack

    Lowflynjack Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    2,345
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jack Fleetwood
    I work in a highly secured factory. I walked through the metal detector the other day and it beeped because I have a new hip made of titanium. I told the new guard I had a new hip. The next step is for him to get out the wand and scan that area. I pointed to my hip and as he wanded me, the wand didn't beep. I told him it was made out of unobtainium and he seriously told me the wand wouldn't pick that up!
     
  7. jsstevens

    jsstevens En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,918
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jsstevens
    Whereas the Piper PA-24 is only partly made of unobtanium. Cessna was SO ahead of their time with the Cardinal.
     
  8. JohnAJohnson

    JohnAJohnson Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Gulf Shores, AL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JohnAJohnson
    I think just under 200k is the top right now.

     
  9. wheaties

    wheaties Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2019
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    wheaties
    I walked into that one, didn't I...
     
  10. JohnAJohnson

    JohnAJohnson Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Gulf Shores, AL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JohnAJohnson
    When 172s are discussed, no one mentions how unsafe they are on a runway shorter than 5000' or how underpowered they are, yet every time the 68 Cardinal is discussed, this comes up. The 68 177 vs the 68 172 would be a fair and interesting comparison.
     
  11. Pilawt

    Pilawt Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,272
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    Part of the issue is the 177’s cavernous interior, with ample opportunity to overload if one played fast and loose with the W&B. And the performance charts in the original 177 owners manual were a bit ... um, optimistic.
     
  12. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,978
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    A 172 gets used for training and a 177 doesn't. That's the difference
     
  13. Pilawt

    Pilawt Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,272
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    Add to the mix that the ‘68 and ‘69 Cardinals had an airfoil that gets really draggy at high AOA - like when the pilot tries to haul it off the ground and climb before it’s really ready. The 210G (and later) Centurions have the same wing planform and airfoil, but they have enough power to get through that high-drag condition quickly. The 172’s airfoil is more tolerant of ham-fisted operation in that flight regime.
     
  14. Matthew Rogers

    Matthew Rogers Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    299
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Matt R
    I just flew my instructors 177RG and had the rear baggage door open on takeoff. Got real windy inside. I am used to my own 150 and do a lot of hand flying without fiddling with trim so I think I handled the quick shift from takeoff to landing well, but the landing was rushed and poor since I only have 3 landings in this model so far. Just a different feel on round out and rudder. Managed to get it back down on the ground without dropping the oil, towbar, or tools on the class delta airport. Controller easily cleared an immediate landing on the crossing runway with a 270.

    Not that it really helps the discussion at all. But this plane is what I am using for my 10 complex hours for commercial. Basically get to tag along for brunch trips. I got a sweet deal.
     
  15. deyoung

    deyoung Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Chris
    This started me thinking... always dangerous, that.

    How comparable is an upgrade 177RG --> 210 (G or later) vs., say 180HP Arrow --> Cherokee-6/300?

    Roughly, of course.
     
  16. Jozment

    Jozment Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2019
    Messages:
    6
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jozment
    If your interested in moving the older model, I know someone who might’ve interested.
     
  17. c177tx

    c177tx Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    New Braunfels, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    GWM
    Plan on passing the FG down to my grandson for now. But thanks for the offer
     
  18. Lowflynjack

    Lowflynjack Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    2,345
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jack Fleetwood
    And the final result!

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    And they also used photos in a couple of other sections of the magazine.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    3393RP, SoCal RV Flyer, azure and 3 others like this.
  19. N1120A

    N1120A Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    710
    Location:
    AG5B MYF
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    N1120A
    The 200 HP 177RG is probably the best light GA product from a pilot's flying machine perspective Cessna ever made. Superior handling, excellent speed, economical and all that comfort.

    The 180 HP Arrow is similarly underpowered to a 150 HP Cardinal RG. Also, a Cherokee 6 isn't really faster than a 200 HP Cardinal, but burns a lot more gas to lift better. You might want to compare a Lance or Saratoga in this situation.
     
    Crashnburn likes this.
  20. Kansas Flyer

    Kansas Flyer Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2018
    Messages:
    314
    Location:
    Wichita
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James
    I don't think they're unsafe on shorter runways, I operate mine of a 2200' grass strip routinely (not at gross). The empty weight of a 68' Card is about 100 lbs heavier than a 172 so there is definitely some truth to them being underpowered. I could also see what Pilawt said about the airfoil being a factor, try to pull her off too soon and she will mush along right into the trees.
     
  21. GaryV

    GaryV Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2016
    Messages:
    282
    Location:
    South of Houston
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    GaryV
    Jack
    You sure make the plane look good! Great photos as always.
    Gary
     
    Lowflynjack likes this.
  22. jonvcaples

    jonvcaples Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2019
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sasquatch
    Excellent photos of a beautiful machine! Congrats to all involved!
     
    Lowflynjack likes this.
  23. BigBadLou

    BigBadLou Final Approach

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,133
    Location:
    TX - the friendliest state
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Lou
    Gorgeous airplane, can't agree more.
    I especially like the picture above the fluffy cloud cover.
    Well done, Jack, as usual!
     
  24. bnt83

    bnt83 Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    8,613
    Location:
    Lincoln NE
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian
    How many 150/160 horse 172s will hold 4 people with a reasonable amount of gas?

    Just flew a 150 horse 177, 3 real sized adults, ~30 pounds of gear and 192 pounds of fuel 91F OAT on the ground at 1200 MSL elevation, did fine for being a big 150 horse airplane about 30 pounds under gross with a 4000k foot density altitude.



    https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N2221Y/history/20190912/0019Z/KLNK/KLNK/tracklog

    There aren't any 150/160 horse airplanes that I know of that are great 4 place airplanes. None of the 177/RG are great 4 place airplanes either, 180 or 200 horse versions, just don't have the useful load to be.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  25. hindsight2020

    hindsight2020 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,141
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    hindsight2020
    Indeed. And those which do have the useful for it don't have the volumetrics for it either (cherokee -235 and -236 for instance). Cirrus really hit the spot when it comes to properly mating automotive volumetrics with sufficient horsepower, at least in the -22. Tecnam really misfired by putting a piddly O-360/390 on it's P2010. The incremental cost of a parallel valve -540 is nothing compared to the unobtanium 390 cylinder kits. Summer climb rates down here in TX are awful with the four bangers and any kind of family load.
     
  26. CJones

    CJones En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,997
    Location:
    Jawjuh
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    uHaveNoIdea
    My family used the club's 177RG for weekend trips for a few years. We would fuel to the tabs, my sister and mom learned not to pack like they were leaving for a month, and we did fine going from eastern Iowa to north Alabama non-stop for Thanksgiving and Christmas for several years. For a tall guy like myself, it's one of the most comfortable certified planes I've flown.
     
  27. GaryV

    GaryV Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2016
    Messages:
    282
    Location:
    South of Houston
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    GaryV
    With 60 gallons of fuel I have 676 lbs. available. That gets me 6 hours flight time (5 plus 1 hour reserve) at 165 mph.TAS. My wife and I, plus all she wants to take, can comfortably make Nashville non-stop from the Houston area.

    For AngleFlights, I regularly fly with 40 gallons, two passengers, and the stuff I want to carry, plus the stuff the people carry on the missions. That’s 3 hours plus reserves, so I can comfortably make Oklahoma City from the Houston area, and 3 hours is about the most I’d want to make an AngleFlight passenger fly. My wife and I plus another couple with weekend baggage can make New Orleans with a 1 hour reserve.

    That’s pretty good for a comfortable ‘4’ seater, with easy access, and that flies fast on 10 GPH or less.

    The missions I’d planned while searching for a plane were 90% solo or just with my wife, 8% 3 souls on board for flights under 400 miles, 2% my wife and I plus another couple for short flights of up to 300 miles. The mission would include at least one trip a year of at least 1500 miles one way with my wife and would require single pilot IFR when needed. For single pilot IFR I wanted at least a single axis autopilot, and because the 1956 172 I started with cruised at 110 mph. I wanted the new plane to cruise at a minimum of 150 mph.

    I’m 6’ 4” and average around 250 lbs. so my fitting comfortably limited my choices pretty significantly. Of the major certified planes that I could buy for less than $100,000 my size really meant I needed a Cessna. I didn’t fit in any of the other singles I checked out except a Mooney and the Mooney was too narrow for my wife and I to fly side be side comfortably.

    The Cardinal RG ticks all the boxes I listed.

    Gary
     
    Crashnburn and imwithtuxedo like this.