Nice video Mark. A few more interesting facts about the Cardinal. 177 has same Laminar flow airfoil as Lear and a couple other high perf planes. The engineers designed it for 180 HP but Marketing wanted economy to compete with Cherokee, so it got 150HP in '68. That was problematic because the sharp leading edge on the '68 produced high drag at high AOA. Since it's bigger (9" wider cabin) and holds 9 more gallons of fuel than 172, pilots overloaded it and tried to climb at excessive AOA. '69 saw the 'A' model with 180 HP fixed pitch. Another issue was 'overcontrolling' the stabilator on landing, resulting in 'crow-hopping' . Cessna rounded the wing leading edge on the later models like yours. BTW, a '68 upgraded to 180 HP constant speed will out climb and outrun a B model. They're all a delight to fly, a sports sedan compared to mom's car (172), or dad's truck (182). You're right about egress; I fly with friend in his 172 and it reminds me I'm not as flexible as I used to be. Also, a long cross country with a large person is MUCH more comfortable in a Cardinal. Remember; friends don't let friends fly with struts!
The all flying horizontal tail was slotted and was a joy to land. Did a lot of flying out of Santa Monica CA in the ( rented ) 177 180 hp with constant speed prop. And the ailerons where so light and sat in front of the leading edge so clearing turns was a piece of cake. To bad the cost of the full monocoque wing stopped production. Everything else now uses a strut on the main wing.
I own a 73RG and love it. I have a son in a wheelchair. The way the plane sits and big doors I can get him in and out a lot easier that the 182rg I use to fly. I've flown it with all seats at full gross many times and it's a pleasure to fly.
What a great looking airplane. A shame Cessna did not continue to produce them. I think these will continue to outpace the market as they increase in value.
Well done video! I purchased my 177B Cardinal six years ago. Everything you described is absolutely true. It’s a solid, dependable airplane. I’m happy to show it off to anyone in the Philadelphia area.
FYI - you can open the quarter windows in flight, as long as your airspeed is below 120mph. Ive done it, but only a little bit as the air comes in quite fast!
I worked as a "line boy" at the Nacogdoches, Tx airport in 65 and then again in 68-69 when I returned from a tour with the Marines and the FBO I worked for had one (He was a Cessna dealer) and I was fortunate to build some time in one. I do not remember the model number but I do remember that it did not have a constant speed prop on it, so it must have been the 150hp engine. I was not impressed with it because I did not think it was an upgraded 172. Also, one windy day I almost had the PIC door ripped off the hinges by not being careful when I opened the door lol. The FBO was not happy lol
Owned a 72 C-177B for over 12 years. Flew it every weekday. Used it for my job and work to and from airports. Around 3,500 hours in it. Always loved the plane. Dependable, fast, economical, easy and quick annuals. Never regretted it. And, it is the *only* Cessna with the 'flying tail'. A shame it didn't have a longer run. Did find though there are 2 kinds of people - those that loved and and those that didn't think much of it. The O-360 was a bullet proof engine choice for the Cardinal. The RG model (In my opinion) with the IO360 was a pain in the rear to start when the engine was hot. Other than that an absolutely wonderful aircraft. My only minor complaint was have to learn to park *opposite* from where the sun was shining in. It did get hot in the S. TX summers.
Cardinals are beautiful airplanes, especially the RG series!!! Have a friend with a original 68 with less than 1200 TT on the airframe. Story goes his was the very first, Brand New Cardinal in the field to have the slots installed in the stabilator, that is after his father boinked the nose gear/lower firewall landing it for the first time at his 1500 ft farm grass strip. Cessna Mechanics actually flew in in a 310 and did the mod right there in his shop. Cool true story from back in 68. His father had been a Piper man up to that point, and was used to flying his Super Cruiser. Lands a little bit different than a Cardinal. Ha Ha Ha!!!!
I got some time in one of these, back in the 80s in preparation to my complex time. Very nice airplane. I remember during touch and go's, a few times the pitch trim require to be adjusted almost immediately after powering up as the nose wanted to go higher than was supposed to. Still loved it. For a while I considered buying one, but never did, and certainly too late now.
There is a bit of a cult following for the C177, especially the 177RG. I never liked the single point of failure in Cessna's RG systems on the 172RG, 177RG. Piper and Mooney were far better because of the low wing. I owned a 1977 177B, trained in 172, 172S, 172RG. I completely agree 177B would have been better with more horsepower. Which is why I own a 182. The 182 is far more capable, if you want to slow down to the 177B airspeed, pull back on the throttle and you have the same GPH. There is no substitute for more power. The doors are bigger on a 177B, but I've never, ever missed them. A 172 with 180 HP is a bit more lively, but the C177 teaches you good things when you transition to a bigger a/c.
Another GREAT video, thanks Mark! As a current Cardinal 177B owner, I really enjoy the aircraft and your video analysis is again very accurate and informative. N12095 looks like a very nice Cardinal, and will likely sell very soon. Nice job!
Very nice, Mark. Thank you for doing this. I rarely ever see those around and I never knew much about them but I always guessed that they were a streamlined version of the 172 and a much more attractive version in my opinion.
I flew a C-177RG for around 200 hours in 1974-75 to build hours. I loved it! Only concern was with the gear periodically which seemed requiring lots of maintenance. Had to cycle it sometimes up to three times to get the gear to confirm the up position and the green lights for the down position. I believe the micro-switches were an recurring issue that was problematic. But that never stopped me from enjoying flying it, even onto grass strips like the one that was in the park close to the town of Jasper, Alberta. Fun A/C...
Very much appreciate the videos. As a fist time plane buyer I have gathered a great deal of useful knowledge. I had excluded the 177 from my search as I thought the spar was the same as the 210s. It may be at the top of my list now.
Have a 71 177B FG. The 210 that caused the spar AD was heavily modified, flew extensive full weight, short run, low level flights and the spar was right above pilots head so the headliner was heavily glued right there. There’s so many differences between the problem 210 and Cardinals, that I think there will never be a spar AD. They’ll issue the SB like they did to cover their legal rears, but a 177 Spar AD is highly unlikely. IMHO!
I remember when it came out; will always have a special place in my heart for it. I do wonder if they had called it a 172J if it would be still around.
Love the videos as usual. Mark I have a request, can you do some videos covering “mini wagons” like 120’s 140’s 150’s and other planes for us poor folks?
wow what a beautiful plane it's now on my list to hope to run across our local airport is getting larger by the year so many interesting planes to see and catalog have been reading standard catalog of Cessna single-engine aircraft 2nd edition in hopes to even begin to know what mark has forgotten kidding he is a wealth of knowledge
Flew a cardinal retractable for mt st helens scenic flights in 1980 may for about 1.5 years great plane for scenic flights with high wings and no struts
As far as I know there is nothing close to it being built today! The wide doors, roomy cabin, comfortable ride! It earned a. Five Star rating all the way. Every Cardinal owner I've ever meet, would never part with it.
Most Cessna's not not considered to be "beautiful" aircraft, they are more functional. But the first time I saw that long nose and that big, cantilevered wing I thought I was looking at a modern composite homebuilt. Too bad they stopped making them.
During the 1970’s, I flew a 1968 150 hp model. It was a dream to fly in the traffic pattern with the excellent visibility and responsive flight controls. I think the takeoff and climb performance being slightly less than the 172 of this first version, tainted its reputation. If Cessna introduced the 177 with a 180 hp fixed pitch prop, this plane would still be in production today. Back seat comfort was like flying first class.
The 150 HP 1968 Cardinal could out-run and out-climb a 1968 172 with the same engine, if flown by the book. The Cardinal wing has a different airfoil than the 172 and Vy is higher for the Cardinal. If the Cardinal is flown at the 172 Vy, it is behind the lower curve and climb performance suffers. Google the article “Unfairly Maligned Airplanes” by AvWeb for more info on why the Cardinal did not succeed in the market”.
Very interesting videos. Helpful hint: leave the phone in the office, voicemail is your friend. Three videos in a row with ringing phone....just a thought.
Once again Mark, I walk away from your video having gained valuable information of your featured aircraft. When you first taxied up, I thought for sure this was a much later model Cessna, but was quickly surprised to find out that this plane was in fact manufactured from? 1968 to 79? Anyways, please know that all your work via "Skywagon University" is greatly appreciated!
I have a 75RG. It seems that when Cessna started building planes again a big reason they didn't start the Cardinal line was that they cost more to build and the RG competed with the Skylane. Think about it. My Cardinal has 1029 useful load. My neighbors Skylane has about 90 lbs more. But, I'm faster, on less fuel which means more pounds in the cockpit for a similar trip. There's one early fixed gear Cardinal with the thin wing with my same 200HP and he's as fast as me! But only one. The Cardinal was just begging for more power! Oh, with the turbo STC, it'll do 177kts at 17,000'.
(6:55) Point of information: the engine used in the Hawk XP was a derated version of the front engine of the Skymaster. Yes, it did burn more fuel than the Cardinal or the standard 172, and while it was slower than the Cardinal, the Hawk XP had a higher useful load, better rate of climb and a slightly higher cruise speed than the standard 172. Just throwing in my two cents...
1970+ 177B had a much more favorable airfoil than the earlier laminar flow design on the 177/177A (poor climb, harsh stall). 1976+ got the desirable full width instrument panel instead of split panel. Cleaner cowling in later models. Door stewards help save the hinges. Much wider cockpit than a 172 (IIRC, 48" instead of 40"). Especially in later models filiform corrosion was common and many were repainted. The 177 cost considerably more than a 172 both in retail price and man hours to build. Beautiful lines. More flush riveting. I always wanted one and regret not buying a few years ago when they were more attainable.
G,day Mark at Skywagon University from Sydney Australia. Airframe Why did Cessna select the corrugation aluminium for the coverage of the control surfaces in many of their models? Moreover, is there any advantage of corrugation aluminium over flat. Merry Christmas 🎄🇦🇺
Hey Mark , yeah it is a beauty , I always wanted one and assumed there must have been a bunch of Ads on them . OH' by the way my phone never rings I must see about that but I would be happy to swap phones with you it might make your videos less annoying to you Thanks again , Mark Battista
No, sorry it's not. It sold immediately. These videos are about the planes themselves, not their sale, but the reason they come here is to sell them which is why I have so many opportunities to see so many types.
About the same. The test is this. If you would drive your standard road car on the surface at 70 MPH without rattling your teeth out, you can probably land on it.
I’ve owned mine for 11 years. Yes, they are much more roomy AND comfortable than the 172. The ergonomics are great. The remark I hear most often from other pilots, including Cirrus drivers, when I give them a ride is “wow, this thing is comfortable!”
@@cessna177flyer3 i definitely love the looks and room of the Cardinal. And too hear a Cirrus pilot call it roomy says something. Assuming the annual, maintenance and insurance is comparable to a 172 or 182?
@@fridge7515 exactly. Very similar to a 172 or 182. However, because the Cardinal is somewhat of a rare bird, having a mechanic familiar with the breed is important. You don’t want to have to pay for your mechanic’s “education”.
@@fridge7515 not so much “hitting the books” but you don’t want your mechanic figuring something out for the first time using *your* airplane. Replacing Cardinal door seals, refilling the shimmy dampener, and changing the flap follower cable are each somewhat unique for the Cardinal compared to other Cessnas. You don’t want your mechanic doing it for the first time on your Cardinal, which will take longer and cost more $$$.
I want to buy one, but can't find the right one for the right price. My first house didn't cost as much. I DEFINITELY want to fly one before taking the plunge though. Anyone in the West Palm area (South Florida) own one, and want to go for a $200 hamburger somewhere? I'm at KLNA.
