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.