Cessna 177 vs Commander 112

There is much more front seat headroom in the Commander. I used to fly one for charter and instruction in Seattle, plus did a lot of long cross countries in them. With the extended tanks -- man take your lunch, they'll fly clean through a duty day but are comfortable enough to be good at it. I can't say the Cardinal offers the same luxury.

The Cardinal is nicer to preflight in the rain, but harder to de-ice in the winter.

I'm partial to the Commander also because of its overly rugged yet forgiving landing gear. It will take a lot more abuse than what you'd expect.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"john smith" wrote in message ...
Biggest advantage for the 177 is that there is probably a great deal
more support available from the type group.

I have about 25 hours in a 112. A retired airline captain friend has a
177RG. I think the 177 gives you more cabin space and big doors to get
things in and out. No wing or strut to block the door openings.

Paul wrote:
I'm looking for one of the airplane.

1. What are the pros and cons ?

2. What's the meaning of this post concerning the Commander: "The only
downfall is I was looking through the TC & there is mention of a limited
life of the wing structure." ?

In article ,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

I'm partial to the Commander also because of its overly rugged yet forgiving
landing gear. It will take a lot more abuse than what you'd expect.

I'm biased against the 112 due to hydraulic problems on the aircraft I
flew.