As a Cessna dealer I was at the factory in Wichita when it was unveiled. I bough two for 10,500.00 each. Why some pilots refused to fly them was because the they didn’t fly by the numbers listed in the POH. And the tail would stall. I flew them by the numbers and never had a problem. Cessna put the slots on the stabilizer and that cured the tail stall issue for pilots who didn’t fly by the numbers. A big feature is the fact the pilot can see the leading edge of the wings so you are not blind in turns. Performance the 177 RG had the same performance as a 182 and only burning 10 gallons per hour. With those big doors it is easy for handicap passengers to access the cabin.
Spoken like a true dealer. I will just say that the FAA ended up telling a very different story, including about the numbers in the POH. Deceptive mess of an airplane from the beginning, all the fixes in the world couldn’t save its story and its acceptance in the marketplace (nor its accident rate for so little gain), and rightfully so. Cessna was very fortunate that the FAA didn’t decide to prosecute for fraud. Sorry, but that’s the true tale of how this design began its life. It makes the 737 MAX errors at Boeing look professional. Its only salvation is that people have short memories, or the generation that refused to condone both the design and conduct surrounding it are mostly no longer in the industry reminding younger pilots of what actually happened.
@@warntheidiotmasses7114 A summary that tries to remain more neutral and manufacturer-friendly than what you would have heard internally from the FAA at the time is in Aviation Consumer’s article on the fixed-gear (original) Cardinal. The technical analysis done by NASA and the University of Kansas has been published online as well-should be easy via Google. YT ghosts nearly all links that I attempt to post-sorry.
I came here to specifically mention the ability for the pilot to look into a turn because the wing is further back than all other high wing Cessnas, but you beat me to it. Another point I wanted to make was that this plane has just about zero in common with a Cessna 172. My uncle owned one of these and kept it at Danbury airport in Connecticut. Because he wasn't instrument rated, he often called on me to fly him and this lovely bird in IMC conditions. I never turned down the opportunity to command this gem, which had the slots in the stabilator. My uncle passed away, leaving his plane and estate to his only daughter with the option for me to own it at a ridiculously low price. She, unfortunately, suffered from a terrible fear of flying. Because of that and the fact that I was serving in the USNavy at the time of his death, I missed out; my cousin sold the plane while I was on a cruise aboard the USS Independence. I've been pining over that for the past 40 years.
@@ReflectedMiles I know that the prototypes weighted much more than planned and Cessna had to run a big weight reduction program that involved thinner skins, Cessna never did develop the tooling it had for the 172s and the result is that every Cardinal is a little bit different, i.e. making the parts fit. Issues with the tail caused some initial problems and the slotted tail solved those but made the elevator a little too powerful for Cessna pilots used to the 172 resulting in overcorrection and bouncing on landing. In the end however the resulting plane is very nice handling, comfortable, with a gentle stall, and unlike the 172 with a utility rating allowing spins and all of the maneuvers needed for the commercial pilot exam. The RG is faster than the 182 and probably the 182 RG as well but the 182 is a real weightlifter, its hard to overfill a 182 while the 177 with its big interior might temp some to fill it up, not a good idea. It is important to slow the 177 down on final, if you are fast it will float forever due to its clean design. Depending on weight it will do slow flight at about 55mph, I do the pattern at 80 and drop into the 70s on short final with full flaps with some power on. My base is a 2500' grass strip with a big dip in the north end, I'm off B4 the dip and if landing to the south try to touch down just after the dip.
I am guessing he's referring to the fatigue crack in the spar carrythrough. A Cessna 210 crashed in Australia because the spar carrythrough was covered in glue and foam trapping moisture, and corrosion developed. A fatigue crack developed from a pinhead. The carrythough failed completely in flight. Wing snapped off. 2 died. So all strutless Cessna planes now need to be inspected (voluntarily).
Damn I so love the Cardinal with its strut-less wings and that more aerodynamic shape given by the long windscreen. It just looks so much better than the standard 172-182s etc. I hate Cessna for discontinuing it. It would have been an awesome plane if they kept making it into 21st century.
Having PIC time in both the C172 and the C177RG, I can state from experience that a Cardinal RG doesn't fly at all like a 172. First of all, the ailerons on the 177RG are delightful. Second, with the wing set back on the 177RG, you actually see into a turn much better than in the 172. Third, as other commenters have noted, the 177RG's pitch is noticeably heavier in the landing flare than in the 172. I think a more relevant comparison is between the C172SP and C177B fixed-gear Cardinal, both with 180HP Lycoming O-360 engines. The two major differences are the constant speed prop and the strutless wing in the 177B vs. the 172SP. The downsides of the Cardinals are that (1) according to the Cessna Cardinal Association the constant speed prop governor has had issues with an oil seal failing (if it isn't installed correctly) pumping all the oil overboard (2) the concern about corrosion in the spar carrythrough beam (since it is a strutless design) which has been attributed to water leaks getting into the original factory ceiling ventilation ducting with iron windings coming into contact with the aluminum airframe initiating a galvanic reaction, and (3) Cessna trying three different gear retraction mechanisms on the RG before it became sufficiently reliable. Since a new spar carrythrough is no longer available from Cessna the only other alternative if one is condemned following testing is to obtain an acceptable (i.e., no corrosion issues) second-hand "donor" from a Cardinal being scrapped, and Cessna never made a lot of Cardinals. So unfortunately, like the hare, the Cardinal was sleeker, flashier and quicker, but the tortise (172) just plodded along (with its benign appearance, flying and mechanical qualities) into history with over 44,000 built to-date vs. almost 4300 for the two Cardinal variants, a nearly 10:1 ratio.
Like most, I learned to fly in a C172 and PA28. These were 'club' owned aircraft which also included the 200 HP C177RG. I needed a bit more speed for business trips (105 vs. 150!) so got checked out in the Cardinal and never looked back. I loved to fly that plane!
As a Cardinal owner it is not like a 172, starting with a 180 hp engine (fixed gear) and a constant speed prop, the large windscreen, no wing struts and the stabilator tail. It is rated as a utility aircraft, meaning spins are allowed. The big doors make entry easy even for rear seat passengers. It is a nice flying plane with an gentle stall but you do need instruction on takeoffs and landings due to the power of the stabilator and bouncing a landing. It has big semi fowler flaps, not barn door flaps and is a good xcountry flyer. It also looks good. The Lycombing O360 is reliable, economical, with a good TBO if your original purchaser opted for the oil filter. It is not a full tanks and four pass. plane unless the front seaters are slim and the read seaters are kids. I had mine for nearly 40 years now without regrets, I had a 182 before, this uses way less gas, the 182 was a truck, good if you need a truck, but most of the time I'm alone or just one pass.
Thank you for an informed owner review! I earned my Commercial and CFI in the C-177RG. Would jump on one if I weren't going Experimental/Amateur-built.
@@EJWash57 The RG is great if all is going well but I got tired of reading Cardinal Club newsletter where half the issue was about RG problems. If I needed the speed I'd go for the Mooney, especially the older ones with the manual gear system. I would caution weekend pilots about RGs anyhow, just another thing to go wrong, way less money on speed fairings can make the B model almost as fast. Put your money into the gas tank and do the flying rather than a duded up hanger queen. Once you have a 77B sorted out, the annuals are easy with few surprises. Annuals for an RG are double if they find nothing wrong. Insurance and pilot qualifications are more difficult for the RG.
When my kids were little, I could load up the family with full fuel and fly to Disney. Flying with four full sized men, no luggage and about half tanks!
@@CatarineausArmory I agree. I am one of those "Old School" Pilots who keeps the yoke in my belly while taxiing to save wear and tear on the front gear. Even at 30 knots on my take off run, the tail would raise the nose wheel up before it was ready to fly! It is like the tail starts flying before the wings! fast learning curve but, IS a little different from the old 172.
@@CatarineausArmory with just the front seats filled in my 182 it need power on landing to raise the nose, no problem with the cardinal, just don't raise it too much.
I flew the RG for over a year doing MT St. Helens scenic flights out of the woodland Washington airport many days 5-7 flights a day 1 hour RT it was a dream to fly never had a problem ever great plane
I would guess that the 77 would be a good choice for this, the rear seat is comfortable with decent headroom and legroom, and at 2200 rpm you can talk to your passengers although I'd recommend headsets for all. Also the windows are really big.
I flew this plane a lot. I loved it. It was a great cross country. Mine was fixed gear, but constant speed prop. The big door was great to get in and out. You had to be carful opening it in wind because the door was so big. Rear seats had plenty of leg room.
I know that the 177 was meant to be a replacement for the 172, but there's a world of difference between flying one of these and flying a 172. Call me weird, but this is my my favorite (so far) single to fly. It has a more solid feel than the 172, but at the same time it's a lot more perky. I have a fair amount of time in one of these and it would be one of my first choices if I was to purchase an airplane right now. A funny story about the one that I used to fly... Someone ran out of gas about 8 miles short of the runway during the winter and put it down in a golf course. He was only able to get the nose wheel down, but that served to keep the prop safe and the plane tobogganed across the snow to a full stop. There was no damage and the snow even brushed most of the grease off the bottom of the plane. They pulled it over to the nearby highway, fueled it up and flew it back to the airport.
Hey Mike just the other day buddy and I discussed why they don't make those little triangle Windows anymore.......... They were the cream on the cake 🤠👍
Maybe I see the world differently but there is almost nothing 172ish in the cardinal - it has a completely unique fuselage (closest to the 182) with a 210 wing and a Cherokee tail - it took me a few years to be able to tell the difference from a distance between a 172 and 182 but the 210 and cardinal are the two Cessna's I can instantly identify from miles away (the 337 is another), the 177 is the most characteristic of all of them with the straight, flying tail and cantilevered wing and highly raked windshield - you can recognize it even at high altitudes and even it's sound is characteristic, it sounds most like the 210 but the shape makes for a slightly different note. The only commonality it has with the 172 is that it is a high wing single made by Cessna just like the 172, but that's pretty much it.
thanks, for the pointing out the mish-mash of design details. i never heard of the 177, before. i did notice a similarity of function, with a 182, and the use of a stabilator. d
@@daviddavids2884 The 182 has a conventional hinged elevator almost idneitcal to the 172 and common to al lother Cessna singles except the 177, thus the 177 is the only Cessna single to incorporate the stabilator.
OK the Cardinal family is- 177 Cardinal 160 HP Fixed pitch prop. Stabilator slots were post production change. 177A 180 HP Fixed pitch prop. Stabilator slots standard. 177B 180 HP Constant speed prop. 177RG 200HP Retractable gear and CS Prop. The elevator control on a Cardinal is a bit heaver than a 172 and the one thing I had to get used to was being more aware of pitch attitude on final and adjusting the elevator trim so you can be relaxed on the amount of back pressure you need to use on short final. If you are pulling back on the yoke on final the tendency is to relax and let the nose drop when you are close to the runway, which can be difficult to correct for. The biggest handling problem for the inexperienced Cardinal pilot is dropping the nose near flair height then pulling it back too far starting an undulation resulting in a hard nose wheel hit. Get your pitch and trim right, airspeed nailed and add a slight amount of power just as the wheels are ready to touch and they land beautiful! The Cardinal in the video has the prop modification adding a three blade prop for the standard 2 blade prop. The three blade prop gives improved climb performance but cruse is about the same. The 177RG I flew was landed gear up when a line blew in flight and all the fluid was pumped overboard. The gear needed pressure at all times to hold the gear in the up position and if a line let loose the pump would start running and pump all the fluid overboard, leaving none for lowering the gear.
The 177/RG was one of my favorites. I always felt it was a great cross country plane and the added visibility was very nice. It's also one of the easier airplanes for passengers to get in and out of. Those big doors can be a problem. A gust of wind with an open door can be expensive. Like all RGs, it best to always practice manual gear extension. The two I flew, different model years, required re-cycling and manual extension more then the other planes I flew. There are also stories of pilots carrying a golf club, but I never believed it. How would you ever get that door open.
Once I found the actual explanation under another comment and checked out some of the details, I can understand why a video featuring the plane would rather not go into it and just stay with where things are now. When any new model from a major manufacturer is "great," they don't just fail in the marketplace with no hope of recovery a few years after they launched for no reason. What a sad chapter at Cessna. I wouldn't want to talk about it, either.
These planes have some pretty cool history. From what I have researched with my fixed Gear 177 is that they started producing these in 1968. They designed these for a 180hp engine but since Cessna purchased 2000 of the 150hp engines they just put the 150hp engine in them. Mine is a 1968 C177 Cardinal with the 150hp engine. It is definitely underpowered and I'm considering putting a power flow exhaust on it during the next annual. It has been a great airplane for my brother and I to learn how to fly. But on the good side its encouraged my brother and I to diet a little bit so we can minimize weight...lol.. Its very responsive with the controls and I'm happy with it.
@@davbzz man that is really great. Thank you for the info. Our plan is to add it on our next annual in January, Provided that the annual doesn't have any surprises.
I have a few hours in a fixed-gear Cardinal. I wasn't afraid of it, but I was told by the check pilot that there was a lot of problems with it porpoising on landing. I paid particular attention when landing and never had a problem with it porpoising. The only thing I did not like about the Cardinal was the windshield. For some reason to me it made the runway look a little distorted. I never had a problem landing, but I always took off my sunglasses and sat up a little taller in the seat on final. I'd fly it again if I had the chance.
I flew the original Cardinal with the 150 hp Lycoming, a departure from the Continental 145 hp. The wing is not conventional in that it was a laminar flow wing. I'm sure everyone has noticed the stabilators as opposed to the standard enpenage with elevators. Many pilots complained about this plane but my experience was pleasant because I believe I didn't over control the stabilators as others have done.. The plane handles well and if you like spins, it is a lot of fun. Don't over control the plane in it's original configuration, the plane acquired a bad rep from heavy handed pilots who didn't have a feel for the aircraft.
I met three milestones in the C-177RG back in college (mid/late-1970s): Complex Airplane, Commercial Pilot, Single-engine Land, and Certified Flight instructor (CFI) Single-engine Land. Very fond memories. Roomy, comfortable, and great views. Ownership-wise I'm going the Experimental/Amateur-built route. If I weren't, I'd be looking at filling four seats and limited fuel for shorter flights - two-people, full fuel/baggage for longer/optimum cross-country flights. The C-177RG would be at the top of my list. Review-wise, you should have put in more homework. The C-177 is nothing like the C-172. You go more on rumor than research.
I use to own a straight leg Cardinal and it was one of my favorites. The straight leg models tend be a bit more popular than the RG models as the maintenance cost is more favorable and only few knots slower. The early models were underpowered, until they were replaced with 180 hp Lyvoming
I have the 1968 with the 180. Slats were added to the horizontal stabilator back around 1969 or 1970. I have VG's on my vertical, horton stall on the leading edge of the wings. The VG's make a big difference when landing vs a Cardinal without the VG's on the vertical tail. Mine will be going up for sale soon. Age, health and insurance cost is forcing me out of flying.
It's a great plane, I have a 73 and it check all my boxes..speed, comfort, fuel efficient and a good useful load. On a hot day after a shut down try this, it works for me. Before suiting down bring the RPMs to 1,200 to 1,300 the pull the mixture. When you want to restart after fill up don't touch throttle or mixture. Fuel pump on and crank, my will start up easy and bring in the mixture to keep engine running. Then fuel pump off, done.
Great to see! This was the last rating I got before leaving my training. It wasn't worth me getting a commercial due to my eyesight. Just above minimum..unfortunately. I do clearly recall learning it was a slippery aircraft compared to the 172, had to start slowing down way out from Ardmore airfield..lol...in Auckland NZ. I really liked it....Laurie
Hands down best looking airplane that Cessna ever built, of any type up through the jets. It actually looks very little like the 172. My brother owned a fixed gear 177. Okay, it looks like it should do 200 knots, but so what if that was fantasy. It flew well, had unsurpassed high wing visibility, and was very comfortable. I would be proud to own one.
Brother Mojo, In the mid 1970's I ferried one of these from California to Louisiana for a guy that had just bought it. Surprisingly, it flew better than the 172. The extra HP made a noticeable difference on take off and, cruise speed. The 3 blade prop was fast to catch air and simple to adjust for optimal performance. I would not mind owning one myself! Keep the video's comin! Bravo-29
Years ago a friend used to rent one of these out of Pontiac airport, with a constant speed prop. We used to go up many times in that plane, good memories. RIP Frank.
Early Cardinals were underpowered and had a stabilator without the slots. That stabilator would quit flying abruptly when holding the plane in the flare, as is done with other Cessnas. That caused the nose to drop quickly to the pavement and could instigate bounces with resultant collapsed nose gears. Once Cessna upped the horsepower and put the slot in the stabilator it became a wonderful airplane to fly. By then, the word had gotten around that the Cardinals were not like other Cessnas and you didn't want to fly them. I had an RG and a Piper Arrow at my flight school years ago. Most pilots didn't want to fly the RG because of what they had heard, preferring the Arrow instead. Once they flew the RG, I couldn't get them back in the Arrow...
Love my 1973 RG. It flies great at 140kts, significantly faster than the 172. Requires much more attention to energy management, carries four adults and a little baggage. A great performer for the class. My useful load is 1160 pounds which leaves 800 pounds payload.
I've just started flying a Cutlass RG. I love it. It's not as heavy in the elevator as the C177 but heavier than a C172. Kind of C182-ish with a better view over the nose.
@@theprojectproject01 great comparison bud. You’re right you win, thanks for comparing vehicles that use fuel to lift themselves in the air with a vehicle that rolls on wheels on the ground. I’m much better educated now.
When they came out they had hot start difficulties related to fuel injection vapor lock. I saw pilot cranking and cranking them. That might have been fixed, I'm not sure.
He brushed on it. The early models tended to “porpoise” if the pilot carried ANY extra speed into the flare. If handled wrong, that could grow into gear-damaging slams. The slots in the leading edge of the stabilizer were Cessna’s fix. But the damage to the plane’s rep had already been done. I flew a fixed gear version while getting my instrument ticket, and so long as you didn’t land hot, it was a joy.
The first Cardinal was a 150 HP aeroplane with a solid leading edge on the stabilator. Pilots used to the forgiving nature of the 172, with its elevator, were a bit heavy handed when transitioning to the Cardinal and there were several instances where the tail would stall on short final (over the runway) as a result. The stabilator slots were added to prevent the tail from stalling. Even most/all of the 1968 models have had the slots added. As others in this reply thread have mentioned, that was causing hard landings on the nose gear with various [bad] consequences.
Got to fly one quite a bit years ago. We had a farm with a fly-in veterinarian (used a auto-gyro and later a chopper). But he had Cardinal as well I checked out in. It may have LOOKED like a 172/182 but was a sports car and required the pilot knew what was up re geared prop (were they all?)and different control surfaces (stabilator). It was a very honest airplane, just different. Had great numbers. If it had had a low wing it would have been an obvious hot rod. I think the high wing lulled people. "It's a Cessna. I can fly Cessnas, they are all just bigger 152s." No, not really.
Nice one. I own the fixed gear version of this airplane 1968. I think the title is a bit misleading as the later version are pretty desirable planes for the reason you call out in the review. First of the original Cardinal came off the assembly line with a 150hp engine. That was a marketing decision (a poor one). That plane was fairly underpowered for the added weight (compared to the 172) as you mentioned the intent was to replace the 172, or call this the J. That said, there was really no benefit for the extra cash, plus it has some very dangerous landing characteristics with the original stabilator. Many crashed on landing or bounced the tail section off the runway...I guess that would be a crash. Anyway, Cessna came out with "the Cardinal rule" to address these issues. Those slats on the stabilator were part of that modification and prevent the stabilator from stalling on landing. The A models (1969) fixed the engine problem by adding a 180HP Lycoming IO360 engine. However, by this point, the Cardinal already had established a bad reputation (hard to overcome the first impression as they say). 1970 introduced the B model which added a constant speed prop. The RG came out the same year, with the 200HP engine. By this point, most of the bugs had been worked out and the Cardinal was a fine airplane (still is). Many original Cardinals have been upgraded to the Lycoming IO360 and a Hartzell Constant Speed prop, including mine. It is a wonderful plane to fly. I plan on throwing a Powerflow exhaust on later this summer and that should even increase my performance. Last November I flew from middle Virginia to Utah, and it was a great, very comfortable experience. All this said I wish I had a bit more speed and maybe some more useful load (but who doesn't) On the good side, I am 60 years old, 6'2 240. Crawling into a one-door Piper, Money, whatever...is not cool. The Cessnas have TWO doors, and the Cardinal has the widest door opening in GA, the cabin is roomy and your passengers have plenty of legs room. Those little windows are MONEY! Very nice on a hot summer day. The plane flies beautifully and, as noted, sits nicely between the 172 and the 182. The RGs have better speed, due to the reduced drag hanging from the belly, which figure about a 20 Knot improvement. BUT, big BUT, your maintenance costs will be higher annually, it is complex (need training and in indorsement and you can't forget to put your landing gear down on a fixed gear :-)). And, if you are a relatively new pilot like me, your insurance cost will be ridiculous. Sorry for the long ramble...Nice video Mike!
It's obvious, you have had and flown a 177. (Me too, a 177RG) My midwest hometown had a 1500ft grass strip, never felt comfortable with the short field performance so I never went in there in the 177RG. I also felt 9,000 feet in the summertime was a challenge maintaining altitude in turbulence. Also, try to park it facing into a stiff wind, if you park it pointing downwind, you'll find out why that isn't a great idea...
Hey, Arnold, good summary of the excellent qualities of the Cardinal. In the past I owned two 1976 177B's fixed gear, and also a 1974 Skyhawk. Hands down, the Cardinal outclasses the Hawk in every category, from looks to performance, from utility to safety. The down and dirty stall speed in the Cardinal was ridiculously low and with good control all the way. In my opinion, the best of all the affordable (at time of manufacture) planes ever produced by Cessna.
A friend of a friend traded his 172 for a 177RG. The first time he used it his wife got out to get something out of the car and walked straight through the propeller arc and lost her left arm. No strut as a reminder to steer clear.
N2047Q, don’t know why the N number is a secret. Easy to see toward the end! Very nice airplane. I flew them when they were new and no slot in tail, almost missed the whole airport trying to land. It really floated.
Hyperbole in the head line is not necessary. Never flew the RG, but did fly the 177 fixed gear, constant speed prop. with 180 hp. Really enjoyed my time in that airplane. Flew a lease back out of Santa Monica CA.
My dad was flying instrument practice with an instructor in one of these. I went along and it was awesome. We flew over MSP and I believe we took off from Maple Lake airport. Never flew one but my memories as a passenger were great.
I really enjoyed flying the '74 C-177 RG with the great useful load and speed. When I was flying I was 6'2" and any tall person doesn't need to be reminded about the spar.
I have owned 6 Cardinals over the last 30 years, never had a problem with any of them. Five of the Cardinals I had were sold two pilots who had wheelchairs. Because of the large door and no struts it was easy for them to get into the cockpit.
I owned one for 25 years. I have 25,000 hours and have flown taildraggers to 747's. The Cardinal RG is my favorite all-time SEL 4-passenger. You should change your title. 177's and 177RGs have a very loyal pilot group. If Cessna had kept improving on it...today there would be 10,00+ A/C. It was murdered by Cessna before it could really hit its stride. The 1978 was almost there. IMHO.
This phoney knows NOTHING about aircraft except what he can make. SLOTS, not SLATS, STRUTS, not BARS. LANDING GEAR, not WHEELS. I'd not buy so much as a used Yugo from this character.
I agree with Jack. Your videos are very informative but you have misleading titles. This is not a plane pilots refuse to fly! Why the misleading title of the video?
I got my commercial ticket in a Cardinal RG. I really liked that airplane. I don’t know what the big problem is with it. My next airplane was a V-35 Bonanza.
As others have noted it's an all flying stabilator, different from the other Cessna 100 series. No mention made of the 3 bladed scimitar prop as a performance enhancement.
We had one at the Reading airport that was a leaseback. My instructor at the time, Kieth Bauder taught me how to fly this plane which gave me a high performance and complex aircraft add on. I loved that plane, it was like I owned it because everyone was afraid the gear would fail. Use to fly the ladies down to Atlantic city and land at the old Bader field for the weekend and only paid what was on the hobbs. I even got membership in the 2000 foot club in that plane, it had a 3 axis auto pilot and like you said..Plenty of room! LOL Thanks for the memories!
The cardinal had a laminar flow wing profile and actually flew quite a bit differently than a 150 or 172 during landing. If a bit fast it would float forever, and if a bit slow would drop in and this while easily overcome with proper training, was part of the reason for it's bad rap.
Clyde Cessna (the man who founded the company bearing his name) was a Big Believer in the 'Fully Cantilevered' wing design. This design doesn't require the Wing Support Struts typically seen on high wing aircraft. Look at an old Cessna 195 or a more modern 210.
A world class airframe. I flew one from Pontiac (PTK), Michigan to Long Island, NY, over the Bi-Centennial weekend. My best friend and youngest sister joined me. We had great visibility and a smooth ride. Noise level was low compared to a Cessna 182.
My search showed useful load of 1,135 for the RG, 1010 for the non RG. Definitely the 4 seater I hope to get in the future! I love this plane, it is gorgeous!
In the late 80's and early 90's I loved owning my 177 RG. Never had a problem with it in over 10 years and a thousand hours of flight time. Most pilots who got in trouble with them didnt follow the number listed in the POH. Then the rumor mill went into action.......
If looking at a used 177, have an A&P pull out the headliner and examine the center spar. It's made of magnesium and is easily corroded if not hangared or tied down in coastal areas.
One minute into this video and I am amazed at how little this very nice fellow knows about the Cardinal vs the 172. First, they don't look alike at all. From the rakish windshield to the cantilevered wing to the stabilator, no resemblance at all between the two. Interior dimensions, height of the cabin from the ground, and real performance differences also (even comparing the 177B, non-retractable to the 172.) As a former owner of two Cardinals I would, if possible, still take this plane over any of its competition, in a heart beat !
Waddya mean? High wing, Cessna-shape, you're just nit-picking. You'll notice he did mention that some of his viewers are non-know-it-all aviation types, so he's giving that level of commentary
Hey Mike! That’s a 70’s look; Not 80’s . The material and pattern and the side window vent is classic 70’s. Check out the cars from that era and you will agree, I.e. Ford LTD, Monte Carlo, Electra 225 ( aka Deuce and a quarter)
I couldn't fit into it, right now anyways, still over 300lbs. but hopefully the new ankle will help me get more active after getting crippled in 2009. really hoping to finish the license I started before that final deployment and get my own plane.
The 177RG was a fine piece of machinery- strong. Only problem are the brakes that always seemed inadequate during roll out. The bird slid through the air quite nicely. Makes a good complex trainer too!
I love mine. Its been upgraded to a turbo, at 19,000 feet 200kts she burns around 10 gallons an hour. I didnt want one cause i remember them being known as a pilot killer. But I got to fly in one and I feel in love, found one that the owner passed and his wife just wanted it gone. The only thing Ill trade her for now would be a Pressurized 337 and since that wont happen, I keep flying mine.
Leaving the N number un-blurred for like 5 frames is sorta like when robbers put their mask on after entering the store LOL :D. Really nice airplane though. I've never understood why they weren't more popular than they ended up being.
