Cessna Model 177 / Cardinal / Cardinal Classic

Troy Lake, e-mail, 02.05.2012 02:38 This is gonna sound like the most oddball question ever asked, how far would a 177 glide on it's own if the pilot bailed out? I know it would somewhat depend on altitude, but would it glide a ways before going nose down? Believe it or not, I know a situation when this happened. reply

John Knudsen, e-mail, 19.02.2012 02:37 I flew a 177 for several years and found it to be a very nice airplane. I had a C 140 at the time. Both the C 140 and the C177 would do a "falling leaf" stall. No other cessna I ever flew would do this. reply

Ben, e-mail, 24.06.2011 21:02 Partners in a 1967 177. Loved the "ole girl". Many trips to Cedar Key, Fl and loved every minute. Dependable, good looking and fun to drive. Miss her much. reply

cujet, e-mail, 27.11.2010 03:41 I own an early Cardinal RG, with the IO-360 A1B6 engine (2 distinct and separate magneto's)(a reason for purchase of the early model). It's a fine flying aircraft. But the very best thing is the combination of interior space, speed and efficiency. I generally cruise at 142 Knots and at less than 9 gallons per hour. It will stay up on a long range trip for 5.5 hours, maximum. 700 statute miles is easy, even with a strong headwind. reply

Bernie, e-mail, 20.11.2010 05:10 I have a 1977 C-177RG that I bought as a factory demo with about 45 hours on it. Other than using oil excessively on my first engine, she has been a dream for me. At 2120 hours, I traded in my IO 360-A1B6D for an IO 360-A1B6, and my dream improved. I also traded my 2 blade prop for a 3 blade, with reduction in noise and more ground clearance. After owning this bird for the last 33 years, I wouldn't trade it in for any other airplane. It does everything I want it to do and then some. reply

Bob Spofford, e-mail, 18.11.2010 05:59 The Cardinal was originally intended as a replacement for the 172, which by 1968 was 13 years old and looking a bit dowdy when compared with the newer Piper Cherokee. The visibility (the pilot sits slightly ahead of the wing's leading edge) interior room and styling were a triumph of the marketing department. Unfortunately, the performance and handling of the original 1968 model weren't quite ready for prime time: a) it was slightly underpowered with an airfoil that was unforgiving of attempts to horse it off the ground at low speed. As a result, a number of low-tiime pilots overloaded it and then flew into the trees on takeoff. b) The handling was twitchy compared to other Cessnas, and heavy-handed technique sometimes provoked a tailplane stall in the flare, dropping the Cardinal on its nose gear and causing a lot of damage. VERY quickly, word got around that the Cardinal, while beautiful, was an oddball that "doesn't fly like a Cessna." So the 172 was rushed back into production and Cessna set about fixing the Cardinal. By the 177B model in 1970, they had everything worked out - a bigger engine, constant speed prop, a kinder airfoil, revised control ratios and the distinctive slots in the stabilator. (The latter two items were retrofitted to all Cardinals at factory expense.) However, the original bad reputation stuck, and Cessna only sold a few hundred each year until stopping production in 1978. I own a 1975 177B that I bought in 1994. Even that late, there was still a cloud over the model, and fixed-gear Cardinals were priced lower than comparable 172s. In the last 10 years, that has reversed, and the Cardinal is now considered a modest sort of cult collectors item, with prices to match. The majority of Cardinals flying today are lovingly cared-for and are tricked-out with beautiful paint, leather interiors and high-end modern avionics. An interesting footnote: The Cardinal was originally considered the model for the future of Cessna's single engine line. They actually built a prototype model 187 that had the power and other specs of the 182 /Skylane but the looks of a Cardinal. However, the Cardinal's teething troubles and the fact that it cost more to build (thanks to the compound curves and strutless wing) meant the idea was dropped pretty quickly. There are pictures available of the 187 prototype, but the plane itself was apparently broken up for scrap years ago. reply

JV, e-mail, 16.10.2010 00:00 I remember when the CE-177 first came out. I was a flight instructor at a small airport at Totowa-Wayne (NJ)Airport. The airplane was very pitch sensitive and with a balanced elevator-horizontal stabilizer, difficult to flare. It had a tendency to "float" on landing. The elevator could easily be over controlled especially on landing. That problem was remedied by slits in the forward portion of the elevator which gave it more feel. The engine was responsive if no somewhat underpowered with a fixed pitch propeller. The 177 was roomy and reasonably quiet. ARC avionics were not very good, as I remember. reply

B Schulte, e-mail, 20.12.2009 06:10 I was fortunate to be a partner in a 1975 Cardinal 177 RG. It was a dream to fly. It was a treat to take trips up to 1,000 Stat. Miles in. It was a top performer @ 7500ft. We had auto pilot and GPS. Just tell it where you wanted to go and it would take you ther in style. Fort Worth to San Antonio and back in an afternoon. I miss the old girl. reply

Juvenal, e-mail, 23.12.2008 14:05 Uma ótima aeronave, com um motor dentro das necessidades. Aeronaves de asa alta tem uma ótima performance no ar, principalmente em áreas logísticas. Trens de pouso reforçado, aguentando qualquer tipo de solo(areia, gramado, pedra,asfalto). Perfeita reply