I think this is a question of personal preferences. There is one more serious glitch though - there is no real chance of emergency gear extension in case of hydraulic fluid loss. Yes, there is a backup manual pump, which helps you to extend the gear if you lose the electric pump for any reason but if the fluid is gone due to leak or hise rupture, the gravity is not going to help with the emergency extension. This is a common problem with all Cessna retractables of this type.
This is actually a common problem with all aircraft with hydraulic gear. As much as you’d like to think that gravity and/or airflow would help, it often doesn’t. Lots of other failure modes too that will prevent a more conventional gear from extending.
I love to see a retractable airplane sitting on its hardpoints like this. It's the only time you get to see her with the gear up, as if she's in flight, but you can walk around and look at her from every angle. Does my heart good to see her cycling the landing gear while at rest and looking like she's "in flight". Thank you.
My dad had an issue getting the wheels down once on his Cardinal. He had his passenger use the tow bar to lever the gear into place and held it there until landing. Something you can try if you ever have that problem and your belly skins don't need replacing.
Love the Cardinal... was my first plane ride as a kid..... I would love to get back into aviation after recently going flying with a buddy in his V tail Bonanza 21 yrs. since I left off as a student with 63 hrs c152ii still lack night xc oral and written ck ride for ppl 👌
It is never too late to pursue your dreams. I have a friend who is still flying his JetProp DLX and a post war radial fighter YAK C11 at the age of 83!
@@lildeena1 I'm in central MS.... my friend with the V-tail has just recv'd his instructor rating.... he's really been putting alot of time into aviation... works for Heath Aviation at the local airport and they do avionics upgrades and that company is really getting off the ground too as they do work for aircraft owners all over the US... one comes to mind is a local celebrity Morgan Freeman has his jets avionics upgrades done there... I really don't like how our airport has grown... as a kid we used to fly our rc airplanes out there and have lots of fun watching ultralights back in the 80's.... now more planes and hangers and FAA funds pouring in runway extensions..etc.. probably gonna be hard to fly my Northwing ATF trike out there once I get training for it and already can't find a hanger for it coz they're on a waiting list before they're even built..lol
most efficient cessna; laminar flow wing, full flying stabilator, no struts, sloped windshield -you can see ahead of leading edge in 60 dgre bank. 210 and 337 came with gear doors most ditch those. better have the mains 24" off hangar floor or it will walk off jacks '
Actually not. Laminar flow makes zero difference at the speeds and wing loadings of these aircraft. It was successful on the Piper Cherokee mainly because it allowed for a very lightweight aircraft. Only one main spar which also formed the rear seat. No subfloor.. only a raceway for the cables to run to the wings and tail and the rest of the floor was constructed like a boat with chines to increase strength rather than floor beams and formers. Only one door also helped make this plane very light. The first Cardinal was an absolute disaster. It was touted as a futuristic Cessna 172 replacement (it was originally the 172J) but it was overweight, underpowered, and even slower than the 172 that it replaced even though it had a lighter four cylinder Lycoming that produced 5 more horsepower. Turns out that mounting a heavy cantilever wing high up on top of a traditional sub-floored Cessna fuselage with two huge doors was heavier than the 172 rather than lighter like the Cherokee was. The cockpit being as far forward as it was led to centre of gravity issues-particularly as the stabilator entered ground effect which resulted in a dangerous tendency for tail stall and damage to the nose gear and firewall. The lightweight tubular gear was advanced but added more drag than the spring steel gear most Cessnas had. And as a result of all of this weight and drag and lack of power.. the laminar flow wing actually produced more drag than the prewar four digit NACA airfoil it replaced. Because of this, Cessna initiated the Cardinal Rule modification program which changed the leading edge of the NACA 6 series laminar flow airfoil to one that was more efficient at lower airspeeds, installed fairings on the landing gear to reduce drag, and installed slots in the stabilator to increase pitch authority in the flare. The 177 RG and the 180 HP derivatives were attempts to salvage a failed design. They were only partially successful since fewer than 5000 aircraft were sold during the hugest aviation boom since 1946.
I know the C210 has retractable gear but never knew a smaller cessna like this had them. Looks like this C177 does not appear to have wing struts. Very cool airplane.
Mike Day Apart from Cardinal, you can find retractable gear on other small Cessnas, namely 172RG and 182RG. Only Cardinal is a wing strutless design as a C210. Btw, now I have C210 in my hangar for maintenance as well so the two ladies stand close to each other for comparison. I must say that C177RG is a very nice little airplane!
@@PytlakHK On your C177RG I like how the white paint and simple red and blue stripes combine with the nice shape of the fuselage making a very tasteful attractive appearance compared to others. This one really stands out, I love the look!
@@PytlakHK the C210 Centurion is a sweet plane.. I remember a local biz owner had one that he flew around the world in... took out some some seats added extra tank inside the cockpit... after Charles Hull retired he donated the plane to a missionary in S. America or somewhere.... my dream planes are Cessna Skymaster and a Cardinal 177RG.... can't forget my favorite homebuilt LongEZ or Varieze
I prefer to see this type equipped with the AN-124 set-up. Like 6 fatties to each side of of the air frame shrouded in flared pants and a double nose gear. Extra Wide treatment.! A real mud machine
Nice piece of engineering that landing gear on the beautiful Cardinal. I have those Cardinal's (virtual...) on my PC, via FSX-SE and Prepar3D sims, thanks to Alabeo software. Appreciate the "behind the scene" video!
You sure can't beat the real thing, that's for sure. Again, armchair Pilots on PC's have at least the consolation of imagining that they really own these great Cardinal's. In fact, the mechanical/electrical sounds of the landing gear actuation is very accurate on my simulators. This from inside and outside of the aircraft. Enjoy fully your awesome 177 R.G. CYUL.
Maybe I’m seeing it incorrectly but it looks like they have the wing jack sitting on a stand.. IIf I am seeing this correctly then this is a big safely no-no. I’ve participated in many jacking of planes over 20+ years, and this isn’t done.
You are right, these are military aircraft jacks made specifically for Aero L-29 "Delfin" (Dolphin) and L-39 "Albatros". These are low wing aircraft and that is the reason the shop made special extension stands for the jacks. The two were made to fit and lock together so I do not see a big security risk here nevertheless we use Meyer hydraulics jacks today...
@@PytlakHK thanks for the info. Again I only caught a small glimpse of the jacks, but they reminded me of jacks we used on aircraft such as the T-33 or the T-39 also low wing aircraft. (Yes I’m old) thanks again for your response.
This is very important check during annual inspection or after landing gear maintenance. Just imagine that you change some parts on the landing gear and go flying without ground test. What if someone mounts some scissors wrong way and the gear does not lock properly after full cycle of the gear? What would you do to remedy the problem without belly landing? How do you fix landing gear in flight? Also, you need to check proper operation of the landing gear door to make sure it closes and opens properly and is closed tight after the gear retraction. The swing test is extremely important part of the maintenance.
This one is actually less complicated version of the C177 landing gear. The previous version utilised electromechanical locks, which are extremely difficult to adjust properly and hard to find serviceable examples. So even though this one looks complicated and "somewhat dangerous", there are even worse examples flying...
William Will You are absolutely right, it looks a bit funny but these are forged and quite strong, never seen it bent. The problems with the main gear on 177 is with electromechanical locks on older versions. This aircraft has the newer version, which is fine.
@@PytlakHK A 4 seater Centurian. The only thing bad about this bad ass plane is the front quarter pilot vision (with the windscreen pillar running right past your eye). If it wasn't for that it would have taken over in popularity like the 172/182 did.
Vans RV is a very nice line of aircrafts, quite efficient and fast at the same time. Cessna Cardinal 177 is not a speed demon but can happily cruise at around 130kts, which is improvement over standard 172. Each aircraft has its specific mission and the speed is not the only feature. Sometimes I even find that too fast airplanes are not good for certain missions...
In my opinion this has to be the worst ever designed retractable gear ever..I flew a 177RG years ago..it flew nice..but that gear was always a concern..due to its unreliable reputation..even the engineers hated them due to that ..
When you ask a mechanic how to resolve the issues on the first version of C177 gear with electromechanical locks, the typical answer you get is: "Sell the airplane..." That is the easiest solution.
