Which Cessna 17X is right? another 'which plane'

[bnt83]

Is the 1969 177 a thin wing, and 360HP engine?

Not sure. Thin wing has stall strips, the thick wings do not. Other than that idk without looking at it.

The 69 have 180 horse and most if not all fixed pitch.

 

[Pilawt]

Is the 1969 177 a thin wing, and 360HP engine?

1968 Model 177: 150 hp O-320, fixed-pitch prop, "thin" wing.

1969 177A: 180 hp O-360, fixed-pitch prop, "thin" wing.

1970-78 177B: 180 hp O-360, C/S prop, cowl flaps, modified wing leading edge.

As to the wing change and reason for it, former Manager of Flight Test & Aerodynamics at Cessna, the late Bill Thompson, wrote (Cessna - Wings for the World: The Single-Engine Development Story, p. 60):

"Other aircraft manufacturers who had used similar laminar-flow airfoils in their airplanes were receiving customers' complaints over the abnormally high drag encountered in a premature rotation for lift-off during take-off. Our previous experience with the same airfoil in the C-210 did not disclose this problem, probably because the acceleration was rapid enough to pass through this narrow high-drag speed range very quickly. However, we realized that the thinner leading edge skins on the C-177's wings would be more vulnerable to surface irregularities, and, with only a 150 horsepower engine, the acceleration would be less rapid. [...] These were rolled skins, subject to almost invisible minor flat spots that could disrupt the airflow at relatively high angles of attack. Therefore, in the 1970 model the sharp leading edge shape was transformed to a blunt leading edge to approximate the more docile NACA 2415 airfoil section at the root and a 2412 section at the tip. This change permitted the pilot to make more abrupt pull-ups without experiencing the high drag and reduced acceleration so common in laminar-flow wings. In level flight performance testing following this change, we were unable to measure a speed penalty."
​

 

[docmirror]

Interesting. The newer thick wing experienced no speed penalty, thus my reasoning for wanting an early thin wing would seem to be invalid.

The specs at Risingup.com would confirm this as they show a faster cruise for the 177B(thick wing) than for the 177A(thin wing) with basically the same engine and prop.

Another dead OWT. Now I'm not limited to the 68/69 variants.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Another thing to check for during pre-buy that I haven't seen anyone mention: the wing spar carrythrough is a prime site for corrosion. Very expensive repair if you happen to need it. Requires removing the headliner for a really good inspection, and most pre-buy mechanics will want to skimp on this. Don't. I write from experience.

There's a recent SB from Cessna on lower spar cap cracking on the 177 and 210. That needs to be a part of any prebuy, too. A crack would just about make the airplane worth whatever the engine and instruments might bring.

Dan

 

[bnt83]

There's a recent SB from Cessna on lower spar cap cracking on the 177 and 210. That needs to be a part of any prebuy, too. A crack would just about make the airplane worth whatever the engine and instruments might bring.

Dan

Do you have the bulletin #? I'm looking through the customer portal at cessna and see no such bulletin that covers the 177 series. The SIDS inspection does yes.

 

[bnt83]

The 1977 pictured in this thread has a rudder-aileron interconnect that I don't care for. The rudder trim is nice tho.