C172/175/177 diff?

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.