C177 Cardinal
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've flown about 40 hours in one for instrument training, mostly IR training. I'm a bit hard to impress with this type of metal as I tend to compare any 4 seater with a Jodel 140 and nothing gets close.
However, the Cardinal is a rather nice aeroplane.
Lots of space inside, lots of windows, any sensible loading will be within limits, nice control feel, quite fast.
Also, you can fly the ILS at about 160kts to the outer marker and still make a short landing(no turbo), mix it with the heavy metal.
It looks rather sexy too, kind of sharklike!
It should be more popular than the Arrow.
Hope this helps and hope you like it.
However, the Cardinal is a rather nice aeroplane.
Lots of space inside, lots of windows, any sensible loading will be within limits, nice control feel, quite fast.
Also, you can fly the ILS at about 160kts to the outer marker and still make a short landing(no turbo), mix it with the heavy metal.
It looks rather sexy too, kind of sharklike!
It should be more popular than the Arrow.
Hope this helps and hope you like it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There's a retractable (C177RG) and fixed-gear version.
I flew the retractable for a while and loved it - fast, capable, and with an excellent payload. Takes some beating in that respect.
The gear retract is a worry - it drops then twists and turns like a mad thing. I dreaded it going wrong on me (never did), but I would be wary of owning one because of that.
I flew the retractable for a while and loved it - fast, capable, and with an excellent payload. Takes some beating in that respect.
The gear retract is a worry - it drops then twists and turns like a mad thing. I dreaded it going wrong on me (never did), but I would be wary of owning one because of that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The undercarriage is very strong apparently. The hinge is at a 45' angle to the actual force.
If I remember right it takes about 40something turns to wind the gear down manually. I didn't count and it was just for practice porpoises.
James Gilbert(Pilot's editor) has had one for many years, I believe.
If I remember right it takes about 40something turns to wind the gear down manually. I didn't count and it was just for practice porpoises.
James Gilbert(Pilot's editor) has had one for many years, I believe.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Toppers,
A good friend owns a share in a C177RG at Panshangar. He enjoys it and I have flown it. Fast, comfortable, stable, good long distance tourer. Gear is weird but seems not to be a problem. If you would like to contact him for advice / opinion e-mail me and I will give you his e-mail.
A2
A good friend owns a share in a C177RG at Panshangar. He enjoys it and I have flown it. Fast, comfortable, stable, good long distance tourer. Gear is weird but seems not to be a problem. If you would like to contact him for advice / opinion e-mail me and I will give you his e-mail.
A2
Guest
Posts: n/a
The 177 isn't bad but the retractable has a bit of a history wih the nosewheel assembly leading to either a failure to extend or a failure to lock. I believe that it's a problem with deformation of the uplock. I would personally say that a 182 (fixed gear) is a better aircraft because of its very nice all round qualities, good load ability and simplicity. Unfortunately the price reflects the same sentiment (and you need to pull darned hard in the flare!)
If you wanted to shift away from Cessnas the single Comanche offers huge value for money and godd load/range/speed options. It can be a little dificult to get a greaser out of it, however.
Good luck hunting for your dream machine.
If you wanted to shift away from Cessnas the single Comanche offers huge value for money and godd load/range/speed options. It can be a little dificult to get a greaser out of it, however.
Good luck hunting for your dream machine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
C177RG are pretty nice aircraft (I have about 50 or so hours in one). Be aware that the gear systems changed in '76 and the ones older than this are more troublesome.
Great visibility, holds alot, good speed, but cant climb worth !!!!! (at least the one I fly).
Great visibility, holds alot, good speed, but cant climb worth !!!!! (at least the one I fly).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guest
Posts: n/a
While touring FL looking for a 172 to buy with a friend in 1997, we looked at a 177 Cardinal RG. According to local maintenance engineer they need more maintenance than the equivalent 172 or 182. Probably due to the RG system. It all seems to work quite nicely, but I wouldn't fancy hammering it out of grass or rough strips.
In the end, my pal went for an old V-tail 'nanza. Over here my old man has a 182P. Will lug 4 people and full fuel (it has LR tanks also) plus a bit of luggage a long way at a decent speed. Although it doesn't have the looks of the 177, that big continental 230hp six chimes away and give great short field performance. Compared to pals bonanza with a similar 225hp version of the motor, the 182 lifts of far earlier and goes skywards.
Not to scare, but did you see that fox tv 'world's most amazing tv' show where the guy hung out of a C210 (I think) with the twisted foldey back gear backed up and yaked it forwards manually...? Scary stuff.
Aq
In the end, my pal went for an old V-tail 'nanza. Over here my old man has a 182P. Will lug 4 people and full fuel (it has LR tanks also) plus a bit of luggage a long way at a decent speed. Although it doesn't have the looks of the 177, that big continental 230hp six chimes away and give great short field performance. Compared to pals bonanza with a similar 225hp version of the motor, the 182 lifts of far earlier and goes skywards.
Not to scare, but did you see that fox tv 'world's most amazing tv' show where the guy hung out of a C210 (I think) with the twisted foldey back gear backed up and yaked it forwards manually...? Scary stuff.
Aq
