Cessna 177 Cardinal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 177 Cardinal
Can anyone assist me?
I am looking to buy a Cessna 177 Cardinal which I will operate from an airfield that has only grass runways.
Does anyone have comparisons between a 177 vv Arrow from such an airfield?
Thanks
The Member
I am looking to buy a Cessna 177 Cardinal which I will operate from an airfield that has only grass runways.
Does anyone have comparisons between a 177 vv Arrow from such an airfield?
Thanks
The Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck with your choice!
Good luck with your choice....... I logged a lot of grass-field time on Piper and Cessna singles..... but I'd never choose to invest in a 177 Cardinal! (I have never known an aircraft type so prone to undercarriage problems... never...not one!!) In 15,200 hours I experienced undercarriage problems on 3 occasions.. and all were different 177s. Good luck! bm
Moderator
The C 177 RG can have gear problems. I always got them down, though sometimes I landed with less than total confidence. Excellent maintenance is necessary. Hoever, as you did not mention the RG, I will presume you are considering the fixed gear 177.
I operated both a fixed gear 180HP 177 and an Arrow, among others for years from a 1600 foot turf runway. Both were perfectly fine with good technique. The only thing which made the 177 better was that later in its career it had a STOL kit installed. The STOL kit represented quite an improvement for turf runway operations. The 150HP 177 I flew was somewhat less enthusiastic in short runways, and I would have kept the load light had I operated one of those into such a runway.
The Arrow to which I refer was the older straight wing model, which is the best of all Arrows for this type of runway. On the otherside of that scale, I would never attempt such a runway in a "T" tail Arrow, particularly takeoff. We did have cracks in the engine mount in the area of the nosewheel attachment after a few years. I cannot say that the turf runway contributed, but it was probably a factor.
The 177 is a great flying plane, though a few soft field / short field circuits with a very experienced 177 pilot would be a good idea. They do fly differently that other Cessnas in slow flight.
Two factors which make both types equally poor choices for "softer" runways are: Neither have wing struts, which can be vital for pushing them around on soft ground. If you actually get them stuck, a towbar on the nosewheel could overload it - not advised! The other factor I have written about several times here is that both these types have a stabilator instead of an elevator stabilizer combination. This offers poorer soft field takeoff "feel", and in my opinion, less safety than the conventional set up. The early 177's were actually AD'd for a change to the stabiator to improve this poor characteristic. I never had a problem with this in a 177, but came very close to being a statistic in the very same Arrow, when the owner was flying it with me one day out of a longer runway. The previous post is #8 here
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...p-setting.html
Pilot DAR
I operated both a fixed gear 180HP 177 and an Arrow, among others for years from a 1600 foot turf runway. Both were perfectly fine with good technique. The only thing which made the 177 better was that later in its career it had a STOL kit installed. The STOL kit represented quite an improvement for turf runway operations. The 150HP 177 I flew was somewhat less enthusiastic in short runways, and I would have kept the load light had I operated one of those into such a runway.
The Arrow to which I refer was the older straight wing model, which is the best of all Arrows for this type of runway. On the otherside of that scale, I would never attempt such a runway in a "T" tail Arrow, particularly takeoff. We did have cracks in the engine mount in the area of the nosewheel attachment after a few years. I cannot say that the turf runway contributed, but it was probably a factor.
The 177 is a great flying plane, though a few soft field / short field circuits with a very experienced 177 pilot would be a good idea. They do fly differently that other Cessnas in slow flight.
Two factors which make both types equally poor choices for "softer" runways are: Neither have wing struts, which can be vital for pushing them around on soft ground. If you actually get them stuck, a towbar on the nosewheel could overload it - not advised! The other factor I have written about several times here is that both these types have a stabilator instead of an elevator stabilizer combination. This offers poorer soft field takeoff "feel", and in my opinion, less safety than the conventional set up. The early 177's were actually AD'd for a change to the stabiator to improve this poor characteristic. I never had a problem with this in a 177, but came very close to being a statistic in the very same Arrow, when the owner was flying it with me one day out of a longer runway. The previous post is #8 here
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...p-setting.html
Pilot DAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DER
Thanks for your very expansive reply.
The a/c I am looking at is an RG.
With your input and BoeingMEL not looking good for the 177RG.
Still better I know now then when I have parted with my cash.
The Member
Thanks for your very expansive reply.
The a/c I am looking at is an RG.
With your input and BoeingMEL not looking good for the 177RG.
Still better I know now then when I have parted with my cash.
The Member
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own a Cardinal. The gear problems are largely overstated and usually caused by poor maintenance. If you want a solid opinion have a fly up to Airspeed Aviation at Derby. They know the 177 inside out.
They're great for getting in and out of small strips, good turn of speed, loads of room inside, have great looks and don't suffer from roll-blindness like most Cessnas due to the wings being set back.
If you should eventually decide you don't want the disappearing wheels, there is a great range of after-market parts for the FG which can add a huge chunk of speed via improved aerodynamics (spats, tailcone etc). Powerflow also produce exhausts for both RG and FG which will give you 20+bhp power increase - well worth it.
There simply is no comparison to a PA28. The Piper feels like an unresponsive brick after you've flown a Cardinal.
They're great for getting in and out of small strips, good turn of speed, loads of room inside, have great looks and don't suffer from roll-blindness like most Cessnas due to the wings being set back.
If you should eventually decide you don't want the disappearing wheels, there is a great range of after-market parts for the FG which can add a huge chunk of speed via improved aerodynamics (spats, tailcone etc). Powerflow also produce exhausts for both RG and FG which will give you 20+bhp power increase - well worth it.
There simply is no comparison to a PA28. The Piper feels like an unresponsive brick after you've flown a Cardinal.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cardinal sins
I have owned two 177 RG's and an Arrow IV and have operated them all from grass strips.
Some of the strips were quite short for these type of aircraft (500 metres) and in my opinion the Cardinal is not really suited for these type of operations. It is definately a bit of a ground hugger on take off whether grass or tarmac and I would never consider taking off with a full load from a short strip in one.
The landings also need more attention than other types which don't have a stabilator but once you get the feel for it they are not particularly difficult to land well.
I never had any problems with the undercarriage but you do need an engineer who knows how to set up the micro switches and make sure that the power pack is in good condition.
Most RG types will suffer eventually from continued use on grass due to the nature of the terrain and the additional wear factor on the gear.
I would go for a Cessna 182 fixed gear which is an excellent grass strip a/c but with a higher fuel burn.
Some of the strips were quite short for these type of aircraft (500 metres) and in my opinion the Cardinal is not really suited for these type of operations. It is definately a bit of a ground hugger on take off whether grass or tarmac and I would never consider taking off with a full load from a short strip in one.
The landings also need more attention than other types which don't have a stabilator but once you get the feel for it they are not particularly difficult to land well.
I never had any problems with the undercarriage but you do need an engineer who knows how to set up the micro switches and make sure that the power pack is in good condition.
Most RG types will suffer eventually from continued use on grass due to the nature of the terrain and the additional wear factor on the gear.
I would go for a Cessna 182 fixed gear which is an excellent grass strip a/c but with a higher fuel burn.
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting... 15deg of flap and mine's usually off the ground in about 350m with 3 fat bastards onboard and a rather heavy toolkit in the back.
The trick to landing them is a) nail the correct speed, and b) dial in full up-trim. As you chop the power in the flare she'll just sit down nice and smooth with very little other input.
The trick to landing them is a) nail the correct speed, and b) dial in full up-trim. As you chop the power in the flare she'll just sit down nice and smooth with very little other input.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nosegear failed to extend
My pupil's C177 had just had a large service & everything looked fine. However during a session of circuits & landings, on the final landing ( despite a green down light) the nosegear retracted.
Obviously the system had not pushed the nosegear into the locked position!
This was the enthusiastic owner's 1st ever problem.
Have a look at the Cessna Flyers website-it's huge & very useful.
Obviously the system had not pushed the nosegear into the locked position!
This was the enthusiastic owner's 1st ever problem.
Have a look at the Cessna Flyers website-it's huge & very useful.
