C177RG (1971)

Hi,

Our club just put a 177RG (1971) on line. I have a bunch of 172RG time (and
Arrow and Duchess too). Apart from the wing further back, stabilator, slots
on the tail, and VGs, anything I should know about flying a Cardinal? I've
heard stories about tail-stalls on landing and porposing, but are those just
horror stories and/or have they been solved with the slots and VGs?

Thanks!

Hilton

a 177RG does not land like a 172RG... the nose is heavier.. if chop the
throttle at the flare.. or if you think your high and chop the power.. be
prepared for the nose to drop..

the slots in the 177B stabulator is to help the tail stall problem with
full nose high flares at slow speeds.. properly flown.. a 177 can be fun

BT

"Hilton" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Our club just put a 177RG (1971) on line. I have a bunch of 172RG time
(and
Arrow and Duchess too). Apart from the wing further back, stabilator,
slots
on the tail, and VGs, anything I should know about flying a Cardinal?
I've
heard stories about tail-stalls on landing and porposing, but are those
just
horror stories and/or have they been solved with the slots and VGs?

Thanks!

Hilton

Hilton,

The tail stall crap went away when the slots were put in the
stabilator back in 1968. No A or B models or RGs left the factory
without slots. The slots also removed the caution about slipping with
full flaps. The problem with the Cardinal is that it is a responsive
airplane in a ham-fist pilot world. Every time you hear of a Cardinal
being damaged due to "porpoising" or some such, it's because the pilot
was used to 172s or Cherokees which had no low speed control response
and badly overcontrolled the airplane.

A Cardinal has fully effective controls down through the stall. That
means you can handle incredible crosswinds. It also means, that if
you move the controls, it will respond, so apply pressure to the,
rather than moving them.

The cabin is huge, the biggest of all four place except maybe the Aero
Commander 112/114. It is also extremely comfortable for long flights.
I've made flights of over 5 hour durations in them and was not nearly
as tired as I've been in other airplanes.

On landing the nose comes up to block your forward view. Learn the
pitch attitude or you will land on the nose wheel. You absolutely
must get the nose up prior to touchdown or you can get yourself in a
jam and start bouncing between the mains and nosewheel.

The center of gravity is extraordinarily long, longer than any other
four place airplane. While it is easy to overload the
airplane...definitely work some weight problems to see what you can
carrry, the big cabin tempts one to overload it...but you won't have
to worry much about loading it too far forward or aft.

Hang onto the doors when opening them!!!! If you are pointed downwind
they will sail out of your hand and can be sprung. Cardinals with
unsprung doors are valuable.

The RG went through three landing gear design iterations. The
original gear requires aggressive maintenance. Make sure you
understand how it works and how to pump it down and what the failure
modes are when you check out. It is a forerunner of the 172RG you are
used to, but by the time the 172RG came out they had the bugs worked
out.

Use the first "notch" of flaps for takeoff, trim it as indicated, and
it will reward you with some of the most lovely takeoffs imaginable,
it just flies off. In a crosswind, use the ailerons and it tracks
perfectly. On landing always use full flaps, especially in
crosswinds, get the nose up, use your croswind technique and you can
put it on one main gear and hold it there an amazingly long time
before the dowwind gear comes down and then the nose comes down. The
only airplane that will handle crosswinds as well is the Diamond
DA-40.

Make sure you get a good checkout because it does not fly like other
Cessna singles, it's more responsive and you may find yourself
thinking ill of the others when you find what the Cardinal can do.

Most Cardinals seem to leak in rain. I always carried an extra, out
of date, sectional, to put on my left leg as that's where the ones I
flew leaked. When parked, the rear window may leak and get the
baggage floor wet.

If possible, have your club install via retrofit, the inertia reel
shoulder harnesses for the front seat. They are much nicer than the
standard issued ones. Cessna also sells the kits for the rear seat
shoulder harnesses at cost, no markup. The hard points were put in at
the factory, installation takes about 15 minutes. It's cheap
insurance for your family and loved ones riding with you.

Hot starts on that engine can be a pain in the whatsis. Make sure
your instructor shows you how to do them.

It is an okay, not great, airplane for short fields. If you fly it
exactly at book speeds, with book flaps for takeoff and full for
landing, you can get out and in pretty short. Just make damn sure you
get the nose up on landing (I know, I said that earlier, I'm not
kidding).

It is one of the finest single engine airplanes ever built. It got a
bad rep from pilots making excuses for their own ineptitude. It will
cruise about 140 knots all day long, with delightful handling,
excellent visibility and passenger comfort. The early ones had an
on-off fuel selector that drove people nuts because they thought the
tanks didn't feed evenly. Sometimes they did feed evenly but the fuel
gauges were so bad, they said otherwise, and pilots believed them. If
they feed unevenly, they'll eventually balance. It's a minor glitch
that can generally be ignored unless you are certain one tank isn't
feeding at all (which is extremely rare).

On a short field takeoff, don't be in a hurry to raise the gear,
there's no drag reduction for a long time. On any takeoff, don't be
in a hurry to raise the gear as it drops about 18 inches in the
process of rertracting...but you knew that from the 172 RG.

The Cardinal RG is a much classier airplane than the 127 RG. If this
one has been maintained well, I think you'll like it a lot.

All the best,
Rick

"Hilton" wrote in message ...
Hi,

Our club just put a 177RG (1971) on line. I have a bunch of 172RG time (and
Arrow and Duchess too). Apart from the wing further back, stabilator, slots
on the tail, and VGs, anything I should know about flying a Cardinal? I've
heard stories about tail-stalls on landing and porposing, but are those just
horror stories and/or have they been solved with the slots and VGs?

Thanks!

Hilton

Rick Durden wrote:


A Cardinal has fully effective controls down through the stall. That
means you can handle incredible crosswinds. It also means, that if
you move the controls, it will respond, so apply pressure to the,
rather than moving them.

I had a C177A for a while. Hated that damn stab. It doesn't handle
more crosswind than a 172 or 182 but still that is a lot.

The cabin is huge, the biggest of all four place except maybe the Aero
Commander 112/114. It is also extremely comfortable for long flights.
I've made flights of over 5 hour durations in them and was not nearly
as tired as I've been in other airplanes.

It was a big cabin in all respects expect the most important. It had no
headroom. I'm 6'1" and the top of my head hit the overhead. Not just
scraped it occasionally but so much that I had to conciously scooch down
to minimize it as best I could.



On landing the nose comes up to block your forward view. Learn the
pitch attitude or you will land on the nose wheel. You absolutely
must get the nose up prior to touchdown or you can get yourself in a
jam and start bouncing between the mains and nosewheel.

All Cessna singles are the same, but the cardinal is a little worse.
The FG nosewheels are a joke. The difference with the early Cardinals
is that their wing is such that it will not fly away from a bounced
landing. You will be stuck there in essentially a stall, wings level,
descending at about 4-500 fpm.



The RG went through three landing gear design iterations. The
original gear requires aggressive maintenance. Make sure you
understand how it works and how to pump it down and what the failure
modes are when you check out. It is a forerunner of the 172RG you are
used to, but by the time the 172RG came out they had the bugs worked
out.

One weak link to the gear is that stupid magnet setup on the nosegear.
A little 1/2" by 1" magnet sensor on one end and a magnet on the other.
The two parts are over $600 when a kitchen magnet would be a 1000%
better design.



Use the first "notch" of flaps for takeoff, trim it as indicated, and
it will reward you with some of the most lovely takeoffs imaginable,
it just flies off. In a crosswind, use the ailerons and it tracks
perfectly. On landing always use full flaps, especially in
crosswinds, get the nose up, use your croswind technique and you can
put it on one main gear and hold it there an amazingly long time
before the dowwind gear comes down and then the nose comes down.


In crosswinds I preferred no flaps or 10 degrees.


Make sure you get a good checkout because it does not fly like other
Cessna singles, it's more responsive and you may find yourself
thinking ill of the others when you find what the Cardinal can do.

Yes, even though the performance is the same as a 172 it is different.



It is one of the finest single engine airplanes ever built. It got a
bad rep from pilots making excuses for their own ineptitude. It will
cruise about 140 knots all day long, with delightful handling,
excellent visibility and passenger comfort.

I did love the ailerons, very fast. But it will be a hell of a lot
cheaper to own a 182 than a 177RG and the speeds are the same.

Newps,

I had a C177A for a while. Hated that damn stab. It doesn't handle
more crosswind than a 172 or 182 but still that is a lot.

Respectfully disagree, Cardinal's have been demonstrated to handle 30
knots at 90 degrees. I owned a B model for a lot of years and put
about 1,050 hours on it and made some crosswind landings that had me
very thankful for the control effectiveness. Don't know why you
"hated the stab" it's just a pitch control that remained effective
when slow, which fooled some pilots who weren't ready for controls
that were responsive.


It was a big cabin in all respects expect the most important. It had no
headroom. I'm 6'1" and the top of my head hit the overhead. Not just
scraped it occasionally but so much that I had to conciously scooch down
to minimize it as best I could.

Did you not have vertically adjustable seats? I'm 6'4", my brother is
6'5" and both did fine in my B model. Just had to crank the seats
down.

All Cessna singles are the same, but the cardinal is a little worse.
The FG nosewheels are a joke. The difference with the early Cardinals
is that their wing is such that it will not fly away from a bounced
landing. You will be stuck there in essentially a stall, wings level,
descending at about 4-500 fpm.

Actually all Cessna singles are not the same, and they have
qualitative differences in handling even among the lines, for example
on the 172 with the numerous changes over the years that affected
pitch forces. The '50s era versions are very different from those of
the late '70s. The Cardinal had significantly differnent handling
than the 172/175/182/185 that had come before. The Cardinal will
indeed fly away from a bounced landing, done it many times in the no
letter, A, B and RG. The airplane climbs all the way to the stall,
even with full flaps on a hot day. If it doesn't, the engine either
isn't making power or the pilot is trying get speed by descending.

One weak link to the gear is that stupid magnet setup on the nosegear.
A little 1/2" by 1" magnet sensor on one end and a magnet on the other.
The two parts are over $600 when a kitchen magnet would be a 1000%
better design.

Haven't looked at that particular part.



Use the first "notch" of flaps for takeoff, trim it as indicated, and
it will reward you with some of the most lovely takeoffs imaginable,
it just flies off. In a crosswind, use the ailerons and it tracks
perfectly. On landing always use full flaps, especially in
crosswinds, get the nose up, use your croswind technique and you can
put it on one main gear and hold it there an amazingly long time
before the dowwind gear comes down and then the nose comes down.


In crosswinds I preferred no flaps or 10 degrees.

If it works, stick with it.


Make sure you get a good checkout because it does not fly like other
Cessna singles, it's more responsive and you may find yourself
thinking ill of the others when you find what the Cardinal can do.

Yes, even though the performance is the same as a 172 it is different.

The no letter was very close to the 172 in performance (they put the
172 back in production in '68 after taking it out of production and,
in doing so, they changed the 172 from 145 hp to 150, as was the
Cardinal. I and some others did some side-by-side comparisons over
the years. The 150 hp Cardinal would outclimb the 172 by about 10 fpm
with each at best rate (the 177's best rate of climb speed was faster
by about 10 mph, if I recall correctly, and a lot of pilots tried to
climb it using 172 speeds, which didn't work and adversely affected
the rate of climb), and in cruise the 150 hp Cardinal was from 2-5 mph
faster than the 172, barely noticable. The A and B would outrun a 172
all the way around. Don't know how they compared to the 180 hp 172s.
Probably pretty close.



It is one of the finest single engine airplanes ever built. It got a
bad rep from pilots making excuses for their own ineptitude. It will
cruise about 140 knots all day long, with delightful handling,
excellent visibility and passenger comfort.

I did love the ailerons, very fast. But it will be a hell of a lot
cheaper to own a 182 than a 177RG and the speeds are the same.

Yeah, 182 will carry more, as well and speeds are really close. That
gets to be a personal preference thing. Very different airplanes from
a design and use perspective.

All the best,
Rick

Newps wrote:
It was a big cabin in all respects expect the most important. It had
no headroom. I'm 6'1" and the top of my head hit the overhead. Not
just scraped it occasionally but so much that I had to conciously
scooch down to minimize it as best I could.

Did you not have vertically adjustable seats? I'm 6'4", my brother is
6'5" and both did fine in my B model. Just had to crank the seats
down.

Yeah, that's the damndest thing too. I had the adjustable seat, set it
as low as it would go. I have had people tell me the fixed seat was
actually lower, that that is what I needed. Which of course makes no
sense that the fixed seat would be lower than the adjustable, logic says
it would be somewhere in the middle.

I'm 6'5" and I find the headroom in the 177RG very tight, especially with a
tall headset on. Basically can't wear my Lightspeed in it. And that's with
the seat cranked down all the way and seriously reclined (to the point of
discomfort for any duration). Throw in turbulence and my skull has hit the
ceiling many times.

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
.. .
I'm 6'5" and I find the headroom in the 177RG very tight, especially with
a
tall headset on.

6'4", Cardinal is very comfortable to me.

Even for people the same height, they will require a different amount of
headroom when seated, depending on their body proportions. I have a
relatively short torso and longer legs, so legroom is the problem for me.
For others, they have a longer torso and shorter legs, so headroom becomes
the issue. Total height is only part of the picture.

The Cardinal may be too small for some people, but I suspect that for those
people, many other planes are too. Want room? Go for the 182, Navion, or
something like that.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
.. .

I'm 6'5" and I find the headroom in the 177RG very tight, especially with

a

tall headset on.


6'4", Cardinal is very comfortable to me.

Even for people the same height, they will require a different amount of
headroom when seated, depending on their body proportions. I have a
relatively short torso and longer legs, so legroom is the problem for me.
For others, they have a longer torso and shorter legs, so headroom becomes
the issue. Total height is only part of the picture.

Yep. I'm the opposite - long torso.

The Cardinal may be too small for some people, but I suspect that for those
people, many other planes are too. Want room? Go for the 182, Navion, or
something like that.

The 182 is quite roomy for me, especially in headroom. I enjoy flying both,
but when time came for a two-week trip last year, the 182 was the only
reasonable choice for several reasons. Comfort was a major one.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

Even for people the same height, they will require a different amount of
headroom when seated, depending on their body proportions. I have a
relatively short torso and longer legs, so legroom is the problem for me.

Yep, exactly so. DH wasn't too comfy in the Cardinal. He's 6'1" but
it's all in the torso. His brother is the same height but when they're
sitting side by side, they look as though they're about 6" different
in height. Bro's height is all in the legs.

The Cardinal may be too small for some people, but I suspect that for those
people, many other planes are too.

Interestingly, our Grumman was roomier for DH. The Cardinal was
wierd -- it looked as though it should have great visibility, but
it has such a high instrument panel it blocked a lot of view for
me. And it looked as though it should have great room, but it
was a tight fit for DH. That's not to say our Tiger has headroom
to spare for him, but he can wear his Lightspeeds and sit up straight,
it has awesome vis. for me, and it can hold 2 full size mtn bikes
(believe it or don't, 'struth). If we're expecting a bumpy ride he
pulls the standard seat cushion and replaces it w/ 1" Oregon Aero.

Anyway, just goes to show the importance of actually *flying*
planes before one gets too excited about buying. Lots of little
details where what sounds great when you read about it doesn't
fit you, personally, as well as you expected.

Cheers,
Sydney

Thanks Rick and others for the replies...

Hilton