Cardinal 177A 1968 advice

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.

an A model does get "tail stalls" when landing.. if slow.. that's why
the
mod on the B model


Don't think this is correct. The fixed slats cured the problem. What
mod were they supposed to have done for the tail stall? The airfoil was
changed to give a slower stall speed(7 mph!) and better short field and
climb perf, which is why they added the CS prop. If anything, it made
the CG problem worse. A random plane in the field could be slightly out
of rig causing the trim problem. Several VERY knowledgeable friends of
mine have RGs and they say trim is no problem. Even those that have 3
blade prop conversions(heavier) don't seem to run out of trim. Also,
RGs don't have the B designation, just C177RG. Was this what you were
flying?

wrote:
an A model does get "tail stalls" when landing.. if slow.. that's why
the
mod on the B model


Don't think this is correct.

What approach speed do you use on short final? I have heard things to
effect of not going too slow and not going too fast. Big help! The
owner suggests an approach at 80 knots. I feel that I could probably
land OK with shorter distances at 75. I often use 65 on a 172M but
from what I read, 65 is too slow for a 1968 177.

Tien

IIRC the "A" does not have the "fixed slats" that the "B" has...
that is the Mod I refer too... but it has been a few years since I've flown
the 177RG
BT

wrote in message
oups.com...
an A model does get "tail stalls" when landing.. if slow.. that's why
the
mod on the B model


Don't think this is correct. The fixed slats cured the problem. What
mod were they supposed to have done for the tail stall? The airfoil was
changed to give a slower stall speed(7 mph!) and better short field and
climb perf, which is why they added the CS prop. If anything, it made
the CG problem worse. A random plane in the field could be slightly out
of rig causing the trim problem. Several VERY knowledgeable friends of
mine have RGs and they say trim is no problem. Even those that have 3
blade prop conversions(heavier) don't seem to run out of trim. Also,
RGs don't have the B designation, just C177RG. Was this what you were
flying?

I "cross the fence' at 70 MPH indicated(full flaps). 80 knots is about
92 MPH which is way too fast. You will almost certainly bounce at that
speed. The early models had the airspeed shown in MPH whereas later
models were in knots. There is some great, free advice and discussion
on this subject(and most anything else about Cardinals you could
imagine) at www.cardinalflyers.com. Keith Peterson and Paul Milner who
run the site are very Cardinal owners. Check it out. The secret to
great (meaning no porpoising or such) is to never push the nose down
once you are in the flare. Keep it level or above and everything will
be OK. Trust me, I have dropped mine in from great heights and that
steel gear just soaks it up. Just hold your nose steady and the bounces
soon stop. Start chasing it and you can be in big trouble pronto. Most
people used to 172s and the like are surprised by how fast the full
stabilator will react if you start trying to correct a bad flare, and
end up over correcting. Also, all 68 Cardinals were modified with the
stabilator slats at Cessna's expense during the first year they were
out. All models since then, 177A, 177B, and 177RGs had the slats from
the factory. Cardinals were much (undeservedly) maligned for years due
to this issue. Most people (including Aviation Consumer which loves
them) have finally admitted what a great plane it is (which is why I
actually went looking for one).
The 68s can be great buys since you can buy them much cheaper. An
acquaintance of mine has a 68 with your 160 HP mod, a Powerflow
exhaust, and a cowl flap speed mod that really does as advertised, and
his is as fast and climbs as well as a 180 HP model. Could be a good
buy if the price is right. Just be careful of gross weight.

Regards,
Bruce Cunningham
N30464

all 68 Cardinals were modified with the
stabilator slats at Cessna's expense during the first year they were
out. All models since then, 177A, 177B, and 177RGs had the slats from
the factory.

I "cross the fence' at 70 MPH indicated(full flaps). 80 knots is about
92 MPH which is way too fast. You will almost certainly bounce at that
speed. The early models had the airspeed shown in MPH whereas later
models were in knots. There is some great, free advice and discussion
on this subject(and most anything else about Cardinals you could
imagine) at www.cardinalflyers.com. Keith Peterson and Paul Milner who
run the site are very Cardinal owners. Check it out. The secret to
great (meaning no porpoising or such) is to never push the nose down
once you are in the flare. Keep it level or above and everything will
be OK. Trust me, I have dropped mine in from great heights and that
steel gear just soaks it up. Just hold your nose steady and the bounces
soon stop. Start chasing it and you can be in big trouble pronto. Most
people used to 172s and the like are surprised by how fast the full
stabilator will react if you start trying to correct a bad flare, and
end up over correcting. Also, all 68 Cardinals were modified with the
stabilator slats at Cessna's expense during the first year they were
out. All models since then, 177A, 177B, and 177RGs had the slats from
the factory. Cardinals were much (undeservedly) maligned for years due
to this issue. Most people (including Aviation Consumer which loves
them) have finally admitted what a great plane it is (which is why I
actually went looking for one).
The 68s can be great buys since you can buy them much cheaper. An
acquaintance of mine has a 68 with your 160 HP mod, a Powerflow
exhaust, and a cowl flap speed mod that really does as advertised, and
his is as fast and climbs as well as a 180 HP model. Could be a good
buy if the price is right. Just be careful of gross weight.

Regards,
Bruce Cunningham
N30464