Trading in a 172 for a 177. Good Idea?

[White Bear]

After some 350 hours flying a 172, I am seriously thinking of moving 'up' to a late model Cessna 177 (1976-1978) fixed gear (avoiding the RG because of maintenance and insurance costs).

Has anyone, who has flown both, got an opinion on the 177, how does it compare flying it to the 172, any downsides, problems, or comments on why it never did replace the 172?
Thanks,
White Bear.
N.B. I did try a search, but it was not very helpful.

[Monocock]

White Bear.

For three years while I owned a 172 I looked around for a 177 as I thought they looked so stunning and had heard great reports.

They do look the dogs ******** and seem a lot more roomy that the 172.

However, if you go for a fixed gear and fixed pitch prop version (pre 1968) you are going to be very disappointed with the performance. I looked at one and it just didn't get up and away fast enough compared to the 172.

There is one (and only one) of the fixed gear 180 hp versions in the UK. This is G-BTSZ and was called the A model. It is the perfect balance but sadly they didn't make many before going all wobbly on the props.

Fixed gear and wobbly props by comparison are more common in the UK although no where near as common as the venerable 172.

If that is what you want then I would say go for it as you will have a far superior plane compared to the 172. If it is the lower hp version you are consiering then stick with the 172.

If on the other hand you have found that G-BTSZ is for sale then buy her now!! That's the one to own (in my opinion)!!

Good luck an make sure you don't pay TOO much of a premium over 172 prices an they are often being advertised for big money. I think this is because those who really want one are normally prepared to really pay for them

P.S Watch for saggy doors (very big doors on these birds). Hinges are very expensive to replace.

P.P.S I have only jusr realised you are based in the US. You should find plenty of A models there.

[1McLay]

Hey White Bear and MonococK

I would not have gone as far to say the 177 is more superior to the 172, because it just depends on what you want to use it for!

Quite interesting to note is the A model had troubles with the all flying tail plane stalling at certain angles when you really didnt want it too! Cessna fixed this in the B model by including two slots just aft of the leading edge of the horizontal plane. Correct me if I'm wrong but A models had 160 hp stock standard.

B models have 180hp O-360.

They are okay to fly, reasonably comfortable, much more room than the 172. They take a bit of gettin use to at first because of the laminar flow wing, slab tail, most people cant get the thing to slow down when they need too. The laminar wing also requires an element of respect because unlike the standard cessna wing you can not raise the nose too soon during takeoff and pull the thing off the ground...it tends to want to slow down instead! So from this angle, the 177 tends to not be the best on and off short strips, depending on the load and experience that you have, the 172 would be better for this! However the 177 comes to its own on trips greater than an hour or so, just because of its faster cruise speed which depending on the AC can be between 110 - 130kts (fixed gear).
Better visibilty than the 172 because of the obvious no struts and the big slant windscreen!

Yes those doors are big! Bad news if you find yourself parked in a tail wind and the breeze gets hold of them!

I think they are a good machine to take a step up from the 172 with the extra horses and the CSU. Appart from this and the speed increase the 172 will do just about anything the fixed gear cardinal will do and is probably more diverse in its work capablilites.

Thats my point of view anyway...I fly both types on a regular basis (172/177B), if you would like some more detailed information about this machine feel free to ask away

[Monocock]

Without wishing to appear like a :8 , I would like to say that the "A" model definitely has the Lycoming 360 (180hp). It was only produced for one year and was Cessna's stepping stone between the standard 150 hp "177" and the "177B".

I nearly bought one and did much research on the subject.

Decided against it as the wife said it was ugly. She has no taste though (except in men of course.....:rolleyes: )

[Final 3 Greens]

White Bear

Go and have a look at the 177. Ask yourself why it has a slotted stabilator and then decide what you want from an aeroplane.

[Tinstaafl]

C177: More leg room, less headroom.

The slot in the tailplane is there for a reason. The original type was stalling during high tailplane AoA manouvres so slot were added to address a tailplane stall issue. Wouldn't want the tailplane to stall while holding off 2' above the runway. That would cause a nasty chin slap onto terra firma...

B models had a different mainplane thickness too. I've flown both but it was too long ago & too littletime on either to remember a difference.

[White Bear]

Thank you for the replies, very informative.
I checked the web site 'Vref', who stated that the C 177 along with the C 172 were in a small group of single engine aircraft who's values were on the rise in the U.S., and that the long decent of prices of aircraft had finally turned the corner. A good time to buy.
For those interested there is a wonderful web site maintained by Cardinal owners, Cardinalflyers.com.
Thanks again,
White Bear.

[Flyin'Dutch']

It is alleged that 177s are nowhere as good at short fields as the 172.

Keef used to have one and now has an Arrer which he likes better, will give him a nudge and see if he is happy to contribute on here.

[Keef]

I did a LOT of flying of a 177RG in my "formative" years. That beast cruised at 140 knots at 24/24 and was plenty roomy enough for four big blokes. It was possibly not quite as roomy as a 172 (which seemed big to me at the time, coming from an MS880B).

When we formed our first group, we were sorely tempted by the C177RG; it was the gear retract mechanism that put us off. It really is quite scary when you watch it from the ground as one goes over with the gear in transit.

It's a lovely aeroplane, looks brilliant, handles well. It could be loaded with four adults and full fuel - which is more than can be said for many other nominal 4-place retractables. The fuel capacity wasn't enormous, mind.

I never flew a 177B or any other of the fixed-gear versions. I prefer retractables because I like to fly long distances...

I can't comment on short field performance - I flew it out of Southend, and mostly into largeish fields elsewhere (places like Schiphol).