I've been flying nothing but 172's. Whats different about the C175 and 177?

John

Yeah, me too. My club has a 177RG. It looks so cool. What's the difference
in performance, maintainance, and operating cost between it and a 182?

Dave


"John T" > wrote in message
...
> I've been flying nothing but 172's. Whats different about the C175 and
177?
>
> John
>

Haven't flown either but did some research:

C-175: uses a geared engine which didn't do so well in the field (wide
opinions on why - some love it, some hate it, many are converted over to
O-360 engines). It's essentially a 172 airframe but cruises faster
(5-10 kts) and with a bit more useful load (don't quote me on the
latter). Otherwise, haven't heard of much difference in other ops
performance (useful load, handling, etc). Operating costs depend a lot
on how the engine has been run - definitely a research item.

C-177: very different. Cardinalflyers.com has extensive resources on
the history. The basic research is accessible to non-members. Overall,
it's a much different beast than the 172. The cabin is wider/more
comfortable, it sits lower and the doors are huge. The airframe has a
lot less drag and handling is said to be much smoother. Operating costs
for the fixed gear version aren't significantly more than a 172. The
1st year (1968)had a 150hp engine that left in underpowered. It'll hold
3 people and cruise a couple knots faster than a 172 but hot/high
performance must be examined before flight. The '69 model had a 180hp
fixed-pitch and lots of other improvements. It'll outspeed a 172 with
no problem and has much better useful load. The fixed-gear versions
after that had a constant-speed props but a different wing so not sure
if there's a speed gain (not much). The retractables are 10-15 kts
faster and feature 200hp in the later models. It won't haul as much as
a 182 but you'll burn less gas and have more elbow room for the ride.
The underpowered 1st year gave the design a bad rap.

My $.02.

Walt


Dave D wrote:
> Yeah, me too. My club has a 177RG. It looks so cool. What's the difference
> in performance, maintainance, and operating cost between it and a 182?
>
> Dave
>
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I've been flying nothing but 172's. Whats different about the C175 and
>
> 177?
>
>>John
>>
>
>
>

The C177 RG will cost more for the same speed. Insurance will cost a
lot more. The gear is delicate on a C177, if you need to replace the
gear saddles you will spend thousands. The 182 gear is built like a
brick ****house in comparison. The 182 will cost you 1-2 gph more in
cruise. The C177 has a lot less runway performance than a 182.



Dave D wrote:
> Yeah, me too. My club has a 177RG. It looks so cool. What's the difference
> in performance, maintainance, and operating cost between it and a 182?
>
> Dave
>
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I've been flying nothing but 172's. Whats different about the C175 and
>
> 177?
>
>>John
>>
>
>
>

The gear is NOT "delicate" on the 177RG. And two years ago I repaired
the gear saddles on our Cardinal at a cost of three hours time and $25
in materials thanks to the information on the Cardinal Flyers Online
group. (Cessna wanted $1100 for new parts replacable in less than one
hour, total cost about $1200. Expensive, but not 'thousands')

How about no struts, cruise at 130K on 9gph, large cabin, ........


Sounds like you don't really know of which you speak.

Anyone wanting *accurate* information on Cardinals (FG or RG) should
look at the information supplied by those who DO know:
www.cardinalflyers.com

- Steve
N2679V ('Vicky') Cardinal RG '75 @ PDK, Atlanta




On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:50:31 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>The C177 RG will cost more for the same speed. Insurance will cost a
>lot more. The gear is delicate on a C177, if you need to replace the
>gear saddles you will spend thousands. The 182 gear is built like a
>brick ****house in comparison. The 182 will cost you 1-2 gph more in
>cruise. The C177 has a lot less runway performance than a 182.
>
>
>
>Dave D wrote:
>> Yeah, me too. My club has a 177RG. It looks so cool. What's the difference
>> in performance, maintainance, and operating cost between it and a 182?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> "John T" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>I've been flying nothing but 172's. Whats different about the C175 and
>>
>> 177?
>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Thats just the kind of basic info I was looking for, thanks!

John

Stephen N Mills wrote:
> The gear is NOT "delicate" on the 177RG.

All Cessna single engine RG gear is delicate,


And two years ago I repaired
> the gear saddles on our Cardinal at a cost of three hours time and $25
> in materials thanks to the information on the Cardinal Flyers Online
> group.

That's nice but I said replace. Buddy of mine has a C177 RG. He spends
so much more for maintenence and insurance that I do that it about makes
him cry. And because the gear isn't strong he won't land off road like
he wish he could. That switch on the nose gear that tells the plane if
the gear is down is a pis poor desgin. At one annual he spent as much
having that one stupid switch troubleshooted than I did for the whole
flat rate on my annual.

I read in another thread "Comfortable 4-seaters" in r.a.o that the 177 has a
48" cabin. Considering that operating costs for the 177FG are in the range
of the 172, (39" cabin) but better or equal speeds, that can be a pretty
compelling feature especially for those of us who are not FAA-sized.

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Thats just the kind of basic info I was looking for, thanks!
>
> John
>

The best thing about the C177 are the ailerons. It is a very snappy bird
in roll. The all flying stab sucks, I hated landing mine. Depending on
how tall you were you may or may not like the fact it is lower to the
ground. I'm 6'1" and it was way too low for me. The other major
downside for me was the interior height. I was always banging my head
on the overhead. The seat was as low as it would go.



Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
> I read in another thread "Comfortable 4-seaters" in r.a.o that the 177 has a
> 48" cabin. Considering that operating costs for the 177FG are in the range
> of the 172, (39" cabin) but better or equal speeds, that can be a pretty
> compelling feature especially for those of us who are not FAA-sized.
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Thats just the kind of basic info I was looking for, thanks!
>>
>>John
>>
>
>
>

Sounds like you need to visit the cardinal owners webpage that was
mentioned in this thread. There is mention of a stab mod that makes it
smoother, and they also casually talk about tall guys being comfortable
in this plane (177). In fact, that website has really gotten me
interested in the 177, I wish I could afford one!

John

I went to that site many times a day when I owned my Cardinal. As for
the stab, they are all modified. It is still vastly inferior to a 182
tail. I was told that the fixed seat is lower than the fully
articulating seat that I had. That doesn't even make sense that Cessna
would make a fixed seat that is outside the range of the adjustable seat
but that's what I was told. If I was in the market for a basic fixed
gear 4 seater I would never consider a 177 again. Compared to the 172
there are no parts or mods available for the Cardinal. I want to know
that when I need something I can get it from anywhere and a dozen
different companies make the part. You never find that with the 177.




John T wrote:
> Sounds like you need to visit the cardinal owners webpage that was
> mentioned in this thread. There is mention of a stab mod that makes it
> smoother, and they also casually talk about tall guys being comfortable
> in this plane (177). In fact, that website has really gotten me
> interested in the 177, I wish I could afford one!
>
> John
>

As part-owner of a C-177B, I can tell you that this is true only to a point.
There aren't enough Cardinals around to generate the kind of aftermarket PMA and
STC support that the 172 enjoys. The shimmy damper, for example, is unique to
the Cardinal, expensive, and has to be replaced or rebuilt with distressing
frequency. The same thing goes for plastic parts like fairings. Wheel pants
for the Cardinal are much more expensive.

That said, I think it's a great bird. I flight plan at 120k TAS and 9gph. The
view without the strut is great (the wing is essentially the same at the 210)
and the cabin is much more comfortable than the Skyhawk. The big doors make
entry/exit easy, but be very careful not to let the wind catch them. Without a
strut to stop them, they'll fold up against the nose in a flash. That's another
one of those very expensive things to fix.

Dave Reinhart


Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

> I read in another thread "Comfortable 4-seaters" in r.a.o that the 177 has a
> 48" cabin. Considering that operating costs for the 177FG are in the range
> of the 172, (39" cabin) but better or equal speeds, that can be a pretty
> compelling feature especially for those of us who are not FAA-sized.
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thats just the kind of basic info I was looking for, thanks!
> >
> > John
> >

Newps,

Interesting that you didn't care for the stabilator. Which model did
you own? The gearing of the stabilator was "fastest" in the original
177, changed to slightly "slow" it a bit in the 177A and a bit more in
the 177B. I did a lot of instruction in the "no letter" and then in
the B models and found that pilots used to Cherokees (stabilators) or
172s and 182s (elevators) where the pitch control authority diminished
a lot when slowed for the approach often overcontrolled the Cardinal
because its controls remained so very effective at slow speeds. It did
lead to broken nose wheels and bent firewalls because pilots
overcontrolled the 177 series due to the very effective controls (you
have to go to the Grumman singles of later years to find airplanes that
were as light and nice on the controls).

Because of my pleasant experience instructing in Cardinals I later
bought a 177B and put about 1,100 hours on it, flying it over much of
the U.S. east of the Rockies.

At 6'4" I really loved the Cardinal because I could slide the seat back
and recline it so I was very comfortable and had plenty of headroom.
The seats were very comfortable and I made some flights that lasted
over 5 hours because they were comfortable enough to do so. I also
liked the extremely effective controls when it came time to land in
strong crosswinds. I'll land a Cardinal in stronger crosswinds than
I'd attempt with almost any other single, just because it is so
controllable.

All the best,
Rick

wrote:

> Newps,
>
> Interesting that you didn't care for the stabilator. Which model did
> you own?

I had the 177A.



The gearing of the stabilator was "fastest" in the original
> 177, changed to slightly "slow" it a bit in the 177A and a bit more in
> the 177B. I did a lot of instruction in the "no letter" and then in
> the B models and found that pilots used to Cherokees (stabilators) or
> 172s and 182s (elevators) where the pitch control authority diminished
> a lot when slowed for the approach often overcontrolled the Cardinal
> because its controls remained so very effective at slow speeds. It did
> lead to broken nose wheels and bent firewalls because pilots
> overcontrolled the 177 series due to the very effective controls (you
> have to go to the Grumman singles of later years to find airplanes that
> were as light and nice on the controls).

My experience was the opposite. I ran out of elevator at low speeds. I
can fly slower in my 182 with the feeling that I have more control over
the tail.

>
> At 6'4" I really loved the Cardinal because I could slide the seat back
> and recline it so I was very comfortable and had plenty of headroom.

I had the vertically adjustable seat and with it at its lowest setting
the headset headband was always hitting the overhead. I could wear a
baseball hat on top of my headset now and not hit the headliner. Plus
the C177 has a molded headliner with wells molded up into the overhead.
Move around and I was always bashing the lower parts of the molded
headliner, like near the top of the door and the center of the cockpit
where the overhead lights and vents are.




> The seats were very comfortable and I made some flights that lasted
> over 5 hours because they were comfortable enough to do so.

I had no problem with the seats other than they were too high off the floor.


I also
> liked the extremely effective controls when it came time to land in
> strong crosswinds. I'll land a Cardinal in stronger crosswinds than
> I'd attempt with almost any other single, just because it is so
> controllable.

I think the 182 has more crosswind ability. I really did like those
ailerons though. Very fast rate of roll. The C177 is just **** poor
for what I do and that is landing off road. That stupid nosewheel
design wouldn't last 15 minutes off pavement. Look at the AOPA magazine
article about our group in the June 2004 issue. The cover article is
about the Sportsman homebuilt but they came and flew it here in Billings
and the surrounding area. Look at the shore of the Yellowstone River in
a couple of those pictures. You'd need a crane to get a 177 back out of
there. No big deal with big tires on my 182. I bought the 177 because
a local shop ahd taken two busted up 177's and turned out a basically
brand new one. It was an easy purchase and I got to make a few
decisions. But you live and learn.

Newps,

Agree with you completely on the 182 being better for unimproved
airports, the Cardinal was not designed for them at all.

I'm really curious about the seats in your A model, especially when it
was the result of an involved rebuild. I've never had a problem with
them being too high.

I'm also interested in your running out of elevator in your 177, I've
never had that happen, so I wonder if they got the gearing right when
they rebuilt it. (Then again, I've only got about 10 hours in an A
model.)

Fair amount of time in the 182 and 177, I like the 182 for carrying a
load, the 177 for comfort and burning less fuel. If the field is
rough, I prefer the 182 (unless it is one of those late '60s ones with
poor prop-ground clearance) but if I've got to go in and out of rough
strips regularly, I'd go with a 180 or 185.

All the best,
Rick

wrote:
> Newps,
>
> Agree with you completely on the 182 being better for unimproved
> airports, the Cardinal was not designed for them at all.
>
> I'm really curious about the seats in your A model, especially when it
> was the result of an involved rebuild. I've never had a problem with
> them being too high.

I have since been told that the fixed seat in the C177, which was
standard, is lower than the lowest setting on the adjustable seat.
That's hard to believe and makes no sense at all. It never occurred to
me that seatng height would be a problem, it never had been before or
since. Never thought to check it.


>
> I'm also interested in your running out of elevator in your 177, I've
> never had that happen, so I wonder if they got the gearing right when
> they rebuilt it. (Then again, I've only got about 10 hours in an A
> model.)

Maybe those were the wrong words. But to me the tail is just not as
controllable as on my 182. Maybe stall is the right word.


>
> Fair amount of time in the 182 and 177, I like the 182 for carrying a
> load, the 177 for comfort and burning less fuel. If the field is
> rough, I prefer the 182 (unless it is one of those late '60s ones with
> poor prop-ground clearance) but if I've got to go in and out of rough
> strips regularly, I'd go with a 180 or 185.

Depends on what you mean by rough. My buddys 182 with the 300 hp
conversion and Air Glas fork with 8.50's all around is better than a
180/185 from what I have seen them do. But that really makes the 182
ugly in my view. You get nearly 24" of prop clearance. I find my 182
more comfortable than my 177. I like sitting like I'm in a chair. I
don't want my legs sticking out straight or nearly so. Plus the C177
wing is too low to the ground, too much of a duck walk to get in.

> downside for me was the interior height. I was always banging my
head
> on the overhead. The seat was as low as it would go.

Any chance you have short legs and a long trunk? I have that
problem myself, and bang my head on things in some vehicles
and airplanes. I remember the time I briefly entertained the
thought of buying a DeLorean (when they were peddling the
unsold ones for a relatively cheap price). This car had
indentations in the headliner above the seats - and I just
fit. However, if I moved my head left or right it would bang
into the side of the indentation. That and the big fat
steering wheel that blocked my view of the instruments ended
my interest right then and there.

In my plane (Cessna 182B)I also just make it (with headset
in place). For a time I had some extra long tinted transparent
sun visors. When retracted the left one would interfere with
my headset - so I tended to leave them down whether needed or
not. Switching back to the original style solved that problem.
David Johnson

wrote:
>>downside for me was the interior height. I was always banging my
>
> head
>
>>on the overhead. The seat was as low as it would go.
>
>
> Any chance you have short legs and a long trunk?

36" inseam.

The fixed seat is set at a position that is fairly high. I had
adjustable seats in both front spots in my airplane, so being tall was
never a problem. Your comment about desiring to sit more upright, as
you do in your 182, makes a lot of sense; I'm more of a sports car
person and prefer a more reclined driving and flying position, but
that's purely individual preference. Having your seat fairly upright
in a Cardinal would mean limited headroom.

Wing height is a preference thing as well, I have to bend over whether
I'm getting into a Cardinal or 182, however, with the Cardinal I had
the option of standing at the leading edge of the wing, opening the
door 90 degrees and just sliding in. I also liked the inflight vis of
the Cardinal and Skymaster better than the other high wing Cessnas, due
to wing position.

Yeah, the converted 182 you've described is not terribly good looking.
Does it really have 24" of prop clearance? That sounds like a huge
amount. That seems more consistent with a 180 or 185 with a three
blade prop. If the field is not too rough for a nosewheel, the 182 is
certainly less work on takeoff and landing than the 180 or 185. (I do
like the 182s cabin, it's wider than the 180/185.) BTW, have you flown
the 185 with the IO-550 mod? Impressive performer. Couple friends have
them for operations in the bush and they do some pretty amazing things
with them.

All the best,
Rick

wrote:

BTW, have you flown
> the 185 with the IO-550 mod? Impressive performer. Couple friends have
> them for operations in the bush and they do some pretty amazing things
> with them.

I have flown my friends with the 300 hp and 8.50's all around, not
enough to get real familiar with though. About this time next year I
will be PPonking mine. That'll give me 275HP, basically putting a
carb'd O-520 in. Another friend just put that in his 180 and he is
15-18 mph faster than me, so if I get another 10 mph I'll be pretty
happy. Went flying this morning and at 4500 MSL I got 152 MPH TAS and
it was warm too, 55F at that altitude.