Cardinal 177A 1968 advice

Hello there,

I am considering the purchase of a Cardinal 177A with low frame and
engine times, nice gps and slaved HSI. It has had 2 accidents, one in
2003 requiring major work to everything in front of and including the
firewall. I have flown the plane and it feels heavier on the landings
with more stick pressure required than in the 172`s I have flown but
otherwise OK. I have heard that this early model Cardinal has tail
stall issues and that one should not fill her up to the max permitted
gross weight on warm days. I would be flying alone 95% of the time and
in Canada where we only have cold days.

Any thoughts by owners on this plane?

Tien, CP

Fly approaches a little faster!

Nice plane with the NACA airfoil, but forgiving when flown slow.

wrote:
Hello there,

I am considering the purchase of a Cardinal 177A with low frame and
engine times, nice gps and slaved HSI. It has had 2 accidents, one in
2003 requiring major work to everything in front of and including the
firewall. I have flown the plane and it feels heavier on the landings
with more stick pressure required than in the 172`s I have flown but
otherwise OK. I have heard that this early model Cardinal has tail
stall issues and that one should not fill her up to the max permitted
gross weight on warm days. I would be flying alone 95% of the time and
in Canada where we only have cold days.

Any thoughts by owners on this plane?

Tien, CP

The tail stall problem with early Cardinal went away when the slots
were put in the stabilator back in 1968. See this thread

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e?dmode=source

If you are interested in purchasing a Cardinal, I highly recommend
you checking out this website

http://www.cardinalflyers.com/

You may want to consider joining the club for $34/yr. There is a
wealth of information at the site for members. I joined CFO before
purchasing our Cardinal. We have owned our C177B sinc March 2003 and
have been very happy with our decision.

The main drawback of the 177A is the 150HP engine. It may not be an
issue if you don't live in high altitude areas and don't plan to fly
with max load. One advantage of the 177B is the autogas STC which is
worth consideration.

Hai Longworth

I have owned a 177A for eight years and love it. It has several
qualities hard to find anywhere, even in later year Cardinals. If you
are looking at a 177A(Cessna 1969 model), and not a 1968 177(no A),
then it came from the factory with the 180 HP engine. It is the 150 HP
1968 model that you can't fill the seats on a hot day.My 177A has a
useful load of over a 1000 lbs, and I have flown it there several times
and it handles it well. The slots in the Stabilator eliminated the
stalling in the flare issue. Cardinals have great looks, room, and the
early ones have a high useful load. I actually prefer the early airfoil
that was changed the following year to a more Skyhawk like one. If you
use alot of nose up trim, you should feel little pressure upon landing.
Should get 118 knots at 75% cruise. Later models will do 130.
Wouldn't trade it for anything in it's class.


wrote:
Hello there,

I am considering the purchase of a Cardinal 177A with low frame and
engine times, nice gps and slaved HSI. It has had 2 accidents, one in
2003 requiring major work to everything in front of and including the
firewall. I have flown the plane and it feels heavier on the landings
with more stick pressure required than in the 172`s I have flown but
otherwise OK. I have heard that this early model Cardinal has tail
stall issues and that one should not fill her up to the max permitted
gross weight on warm days. I would be flying alone 95% of the time and
in Canada where we only have cold days.

Any thoughts by owners on this plane?

Tien, CP

wrote in message
ups.com...
I have owned a 177A for eight years and love it. It has several
qualities hard to find anywhere, even in later year Cardinals. If you
are looking at a 177A(Cessna 1969 model), and not a 1968 177(no A),
then it came from the factory with the 180 HP engine. It is the 150 HP
1968 model that you can't fill the seats on a hot day.My 177A has a
useful load of over a 1000 lbs, and I have flown it there several times
and it handles it well. The slots in the Stabilator eliminated the
stalling in the flare issue. Cardinals have great looks, room, and the
early ones have a high useful load. I actually prefer the early airfoil
that was changed the following year to a more Skyhawk like one. If you
use alot of nose up trim, you should feel little pressure upon landing.
Should get 118 knots at 75% cruise. Later models will do 130.
Wouldn't trade it for anything in it's class.

Thanks everyone for your help.
It is indeed a 177, 1968 with a 150 HP engine. I think I can live with its
handling characteristics.

Tien

Tien Dao wrote:

Thanks everyone for your help.
It is indeed a 177, 1968 with a 150 HP engine. I think I can live with its
handling characteristics.

There is a STC upgrade to 160hp if you so desire... Can still run on
mogas as well, with the proper STC for that...

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
There is a STC upgrade to 160hp if you so desire... Can still run on
mogas as well, with the proper STC for that...

It has a "PowerFlow Extractor Exhaust System" which is supposed to bump
up the bhp somewhat putting it possibly in the neighborhood of 160 hp.

Tien

wrote:
Darrel Toepfer wrote:
There is a STC upgrade to 160hp if you so desire... Can still run on
mogas as well, with the proper STC for that...

It has a "PowerFlow Extractor Exhaust System" which is supposed to bump
up the bhp somewhat putting it possibly in the neighborhood of 160 hp.

Well with the 160hp upgrade, it would take it above that with the
PowerFlow system. PF is a nice addon if you don't have to foot the bill
for it... Old style put a long extended pipe on it, new design keeps
most of it under the cowling...

define hot day... out here that means 95F-115F on a field elevation of
3000MSL, that cranks the Density Altitude just a bit.. with 6000+MSL ridge
lines to cross to get out of the valley..
BT

wrote in message
ups.com...
I have owned a 177A for eight years and love it. It has several
qualities hard to find anywhere, even in later year Cardinals. If you
are looking at a 177A(Cessna 1969 model), and not a 1968 177(no A),
then it came from the factory with the 180 HP engine. It is the 150 HP
1968 model that you can't fill the seats on a hot day.My 177A has a
useful load of over a 1000 lbs, and I have flown it there several times
and it handles it well. The slots in the Stabilator eliminated the
stalling in the flare issue. Cardinals have great looks, room, and the
early ones have a high useful load. I actually prefer the early airfoil
that was changed the following year to a more Skyhawk like one. If you
use alot of nose up trim, you should feel little pressure upon landing.
Should get 118 knots at 75% cruise. Later models will do 130.
Wouldn't trade it for anything in it's class.


wrote:
Hello there,

I am considering the purchase of a Cardinal 177A with low frame and
engine times, nice gps and slaved HSI. It has had 2 accidents, one in
2003 requiring major work to everything in front of and including the
firewall. I have flown the plane and it feels heavier on the landings
with more stick pressure required than in the 172`s I have flown but
otherwise OK. I have heard that this early model Cardinal has tail
stall issues and that one should not fill her up to the max permitted
gross weight on warm days. I would be flying alone 95% of the time and
in Canada where we only have cold days.

Any thoughts by owners on this plane?

Tien, CP

I have taken it out of Santa Fe, ABQ, Flagstaff, Williams, etc. I had
it near gross this summer when I moved it to WJF. It gets pretty hot
here in the Mojave. The DA out of Santa Fe was 9300 the day I took off
there on July 4th weekend. Not that you don't notice the difference
though . Williams, Az at near gross was a piece of cake the same
afternoon. Lots of gusty crosswind, and that ridge ahead! Less than
4000' runway would be exciting though. I find that high humidity at
95-100 in Alabama was almost as bad, because the engine makes less
power than in the dry air out west.