I have over a thousand hours in the 172 . Have made trips from Florida to Arizona , Bahamas , Haiti and more and some full IFR approaches . I find most problems with the plane is the pilot .

@RwP223

2 жыл бұрын

Not surprised if the leading cause of death is rooted in pilot actions or inactions.

@StarSong936

2 жыл бұрын

Well, I certainly fall in the category of pilot error. The 172 is a very forgiving aircraft, and as I was flying with an instructor, I certainly made more than my fair share of mistakes.

@8literbeater

2 жыл бұрын

This video isn't about the 172.

@StarSong936

2 жыл бұрын

@@8literbeater If you are replying to me, I was relating my very limited (5 hours) experience with flying lessons in the 172. If you are replying to the original poster, then you may have a point as the video description clearly states it's about the 177. I do agree with the statement that many problems are with the pilot, though not all.

@Donald-ky2fg

6 ай бұрын

If you come to harm in a 172 your trying really hard

I worked at Cessna in 67-6&. Worked on the 172 line, moving sheet metal to the real craftsmen. Did fly the 210RG and love it-about 400 hours in it. Retired now and flying is a distant dream.

@jamesmorton7881

2 жыл бұрын

Soloed a Grumman Yankee AA1A in 1975 at Hawthorne Airport. Now that i can afford an AA5B Tiger, would thay actually issue a current medical? not likely! Hot little numbers to fly.

I've owned my '68 31 years and love it. the recent spike in Cardinal prices demonstrate that other pilots love it. I've owned a 172, but getting in/out of a 172 is painful at my age, esp for back seaters. Also, the extra cabin width makes longer trips with other folks on board, MUCH more comfortable in the Cardinal. The visibility is FANTASTIC. And the airplane is BEAUTIFUL!

@paulmartos7730

2 жыл бұрын

In my training for a Commercial ticket I moved up from a 172 to a 177A. I found the Cardinal a delight to fly and, as you say, it was beautiful. And it's still quite popular.

@jimposton9266

2 жыл бұрын

I’ve owned my Cardinal for 6 years. I occasionally go back and fly a 172 and realize what a good decision I made. The Cardinal is really that good. After the “Cardinal Rules” changes on my B model this is an outstanding aircraft. I’d challenge anyone who really thinks the 172 is better to fly a Cardinal. The 172 is a great trainer, but as an owner aircraft the Cardinal (172J) this author calls it, there’s no comparison. This aircraft is maligned for problems that were fixed nearly 50 years ago.

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

The Cardinal sits lower to the ground making it more family friendly, but yeah 200 hp would have been sweet to increase payload. 20+ years as a GA A&P was nice because technology changed so slowly every airplane was something I'd worked on before, but even when Cirrus and others developed more advanced airframe construction techniques they were still stuck with 60+ year old powerplants.

@ReflectedMiles

2 жыл бұрын

Respect to those who died and the great amount of corrective money spent to make your experience possible.

@stevejones7574

2 жыл бұрын

@@ReflectedMiles Have you stopped taking your meds again? You KNOW what happens when you do that!

My dad owned a 177RG in the 80's. It was actually a fairly good plane but it had some quarks that I pilot had to deal with. It was a bit under powered so it took some time to climb in hot weather or high altitude. You could get off the ground at about 60 MPH but you had to get to 97 before it would climb out of ground effect. And to accelerate you had to get the nose down. The real reason the 177 failed was they were trying to replace a simple to fly simple airplane (fixed gear fixed pitch propeller) with a complex airplane that took a lot more skill to fly safely. There is a reason the 172 is the most popular trainer out there. The 172 is very good at what it was designed to do. Almost perfect, really. If they had intended the 177 to replace the 182 I think it would have done much better. The 172 didn't need to be replaced. It would be like trying to do a remake of the Princess Bride. No matter what you do, it won't be as good as the original. The 177 was quite a good airplane, but it wasn't a upgraded 172.

@geraldscott4302

2 жыл бұрын

The 172 is about as perfect as an aircraft can get for someone like me. Affordable, simple, reliable, and FUN. I mainly fly for recreation. I never liked retractables because I have always had this irrational fear that the gear might fail and not come down. Yes I know that sounds dumb, but it's something I've never really been able to get completely past. And the insurance costs more. A friend has a 1947 V35 Bonanza, which looks brand new, and I have flown with him many times. It has electrically operated gear, but also has an emergency hand crank.

@Arthur172B

2 жыл бұрын

Physicists deal with QUARKS, others deal with QUIRKS, eh? Very Quirky!

@erictaylor5462

2 жыл бұрын

@@geraldscott4302 The 177 is not a simple easy to fly plane. And there is the issue with landing gear, but most of the time, landing gears fail to retract because the pilot just forgets to move the gear switch to the "down" position. Cessna do have the least reliable gear out there, but even fixed gear planes can have landing gear failure. kzread.info/dash/bejne/dGZmm4-EfNjKhNI.html

@geraldscott4302

2 жыл бұрын

@@erictaylor5462 It's hard to believe anyone would forget to put the gear down, unless it was their first time flying a retractable. I have never flown one, or flown in one. Nothing is perfect, but I'll stick with fixed gear. The only benefit I can see to an RG is more speed, and depending on the speed, less fuel consumption, but when you fly for recreational reasons (other than rate of climb) neither of those really make any difference. The longer a flight lasts the better I like it. It's not something I can do every day, and I want to enjoy it.

@blaster-zy7xx

2 жыл бұрын

As odd as this sounds, I have flown many small single engine private planes and I have never flown a 172 as PIC. My time was in a 177, so I ca t compare. But I have a passenger in 172s and I prefer the 177 for all the extra passenger room. I enjoyed the 177 for cross country.

As someone who has actual time in the 177 Cardinal, I can say that it is actually a nice plane. Woefully underpowered at 150/160 though. It is not hard to fly but it is not a primary trainer. The only real failure of the cardinal was the management shoving that tiny engine in the early models and marketing it as a 172 type plane. It handles well in the air, has great visibility, and cruises at a decent speed. If you’ve got a decently long runway don’t hesitate to get one, throw a power flow on there and you’ve got yourself a great 2-3person touring plane.

@erictaylor5462

2 жыл бұрын

My dad met a guy with a turbo on his 177. He said that totally fixed the underpower problem.

The 177 was not a failure once they put the 180 hp engine in it. Combine that with the constant speed propeller and you have an excellent airplane. The C-177RG is fairly fast, very comfortable and has a very good range. Yeah they are ground huggers taking off but that is the only downside that I can see. Look at the prices of C-177B now, they command insane prices for a reason.

Thanks for the information. I have a 1974 172M (with it's original panel) It is my third aircraft since 1987. I got my license at age 22 in 1981. Before the 172M, I had a 1967 172H, and before that a 1959 Cessna 150. The 1972 172M will be my last aircraft. I have read about some of the stuff in your video in magazines, but your video included a lot more details. I love the 172. It does everything I need, and is amazingly easy to fly. I have no problem with it's cruising speed, or load capacity, it would be nice to have a slightly better rate of climb, but it is what it is. One of the best aircraft ever built.

Customers: Why doesn't Cessna build something new? Cessna: Ok here is the new 177 Cardinal. Customers: This doesn't fly like a Cessna. Cessna: well Duh, what did you want?

@Ayeshteni

2 жыл бұрын

Humanity is inherently stupid.

@DerickMasai

2 жыл бұрын

@@Ayeshteni Did we both not just see the very legitimate reasons it was rejected?

@aaronthomas8834

2 жыл бұрын

I love the Cardinal

@mzaite

2 жыл бұрын

Honestly, the customers weren’t really asking. Cessna had a bad case of Detroit brain throughout the 60’s. 175 177 most of the 200 series. Trying to invent niches.

Got my complex rating in a '74 RG. No trouble at all transitioning from a Piper Cherokee to a Cardinal RG. Fun airplane to fly, fast and very sleek looking, even when sitting on the tarmac. Thank you for the article.

@pauleyplay

2 жыл бұрын

Card RG sure does have ramp appeal

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

Year the Cardinal looked fast and sleek. Wish it could have had more power so it was fast. I got to fly right seat a few times with a friend who owned one and it was smooth, stable and fun. More fun that a 172 for sure, tho any flying is enjoyable

We had a Cardinal 177B. Not the RG as my dad distrusted retractable gear after hearing how many had failed to deploy fully from other pilots. It wasn't too slow and quite stable in choppy conditions. Great visibility and easy to get in and out of. Landings were tricky. You almost never cut the throttle fully on the landing flare as the lack of propwash over the flying tail actually...makes it...well less effective shall we say. Once I came in hot bounced cut the throttle and waited for the bird to settle which never happened. The nose dipped sharply down and I must have done 3 further violent hops before attempting the go around. As soon as I applied throttle the the tail came back into action and I just wanted to land at this point. I pushed the notice forward and reduced throttle by about 50% and she glided gracefully down for a full stop landing. The controller later remarked to my dad that I had perhaps 50m of runway left. Instead of doing what I did just do the go around. She loves to fly... not to land so much though.

@cessna177flyer3

2 жыл бұрын

The Cardinal lands just fine if you fly it by the numbers. But the Cardinal is NOT a 172, which will withstand an astonishing level of abuse by ham-fisted pilots.

Nice video saw a plane I've Annual/worked on (N4580K Cessna p210n), fairly informative but more speculative of Cessna. Been working as AP for 11years and AP/IA for 1year of that.

I bought a used C-177 in 1972 which I think was about 3-4 years old (150 hp). The first and only plane I've ever owned and sold it in 1979 as I was moving to NYC. Great ship EXCEPT I had a hard time making smooth landing at 40 degrees of flaps. The ship would porpoise as soon as I touch down. I switched to all landing with 30 degrees of flaps and the porpoising went bye-bye. My old ship is still flying after 50 years and sometime after I sold it, it was reengined with a 180 hp engine. Good looking ship...

As a student pilot I often felt like the aircraft (a 172 in my case) seemed to know what it was doing more than I did. In a way that's true when you consider how much aeronautical knowledge is built into the flight characteristics of the aircraft by way of its airframe. This video finally revealed for me how complex that engineering really was.

Flying is now a rich man’s hobby. When I started flying about 1995, I could rent a 152 for $32.50/hour wet. I don’t fly anymore due to cost.

@pchantreau

2 жыл бұрын

Wonder where that was. I started my training in Texas in 1995, it was one of the cheapest states to fly. A VFR 152 wet rate was about $60 an hour

@3865ron

2 жыл бұрын

Go back farther than that to 1972 when I got a private pilot package , including ground school for $440.00.

@jamesburns2232

2 жыл бұрын

Not to mention FAA agents anxious to demonstrate their power to "Fail Another Aviator." 😳

Love both Cessna 172's and 182's. Great aircraft for General Aviation. More than a few Private Pilots got their hours in and Licenses thanks to Cessna.

I always enjoyed the 177 RG as a nice little step-up from instructing and flying in the 172. The Eielson AFB Aeroclub had one (this was decades ago). The only gotcha that I ever saw was the spacious cabin looked like it could hold more than GW allowed. That is, it could be easy to overload if the pilot was basing things on volume rather than weight. Thanks, Dwayne, for the story.

I've owned a 177B Cardinal for nearly 40 years, it is a great plane, with excellent flying characteristics, a very comfortable cabin, the reliable Lycoming o 360 engine. It has a gentle stall and no tendency to drop a wing when stalled. The 180 hp engine and constant speed prop give it good takeoff performance, it is slippery and you need to watch your speed on landing or you'll float forever. Like all lower powered four seaters the rear seats are for kids weightwise even though the rear seat is very comfortable, it can handle three adults, four if the ladies leave their purse behind. Newer radios are much lighter than the original Cessna's, that helps. I might note that when Piper and Mooney restarted production in the 90s both did a lot of aerodynamic cleanup, this plane can go a lot faster if this was done. Most of my training was in Piper 150s and Cessan 152s and 72s and the 177 flies better than any of them. The first plane that I owned was an old straight tailed 182, that was powerful but I don't think it was much faster than the Card. but you could fill it up and take off but the gas bill was terrible and it felt like a heavy duty pickup on a bad country road. With just me or one pass aboard landing required a burst of power to get the nose up for the flair, fuel and oil consumption improved when I added a EGT and started to lean the engine out, I've done this with the Card. as well. I do not lust for the RG model, I don't want to deal will all of the gear problems and maintenance.

I learned in Grumman American’s and flew Piper’s and Beechcraft. When I had 100 hours or so, was the first time I ever flew a Cessna (I think it was a 172). The low wings were not as forgiving and didn’t float on landing like the 172, so that was something to get used to. After college (I was licensed in High School), I hired on with a a company with a flying club and they had a cardinal and a 152 so I logged many hours in the 177 Cardinal. It was not RG due to the club clientele. It was a nice plane to fly locally, like less than 500 miles. If we flew father I would use a friends Mooney which scooted quite nicely across the country side. Thanks for the video, it brought back memories.

it appears that i have stumbled upon a gem of aviation videos

My 1969 177A Cardinal with 180HP Lycoming (only about 200 were made of that vintage) was an excellent stable aircraft with great visibility and roominess and its wide doors (just be careful opening the doors downwind when the wind is blowing). It handled very well once you got the hang of it. It was a great camping aircraft in the 1970's and 80's sleeping two when the backseat was left home.

the 177 was my grandparent's favourite plane. They owned basically all of the 1xx tricycle gear planes Cessna made at various points in their lives, and the 177 was by far my grandfather's favourite plane to fly. In his opinion (based on his observation of other pilots in the flying club he founded), the problem with the 177 was not anything inherently wrong with the design of the plane, but the fact that Cessna was trying to sell a high performance crisp-handling aircraft to people who wanted to be flying mushy trainers which would be tolerant of their ham-fisted operation of the controls. IMO, the reverse of this is why Cirrus is so successful: they figured out that most people don't want to actually FLY the plane, they want to FLY IN the plane. So they stuffed airliner automation into a GA single and sell them like hotcakes.

I've flown the 3 cardinals that I have owned over 900 hours total, and I love it today as much as ever. I think it was 30 years ahead of its time.

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

I only flew my friend's 177RG right seat a few hours but it was sweet.

Back in the late 1980's I flew both the Cessna 152, and the 172. I was taking flying lessons, so I'm not well versed in different flying characteristics between different models. I did get to fly the Voyager in flight simulation. I decided to try to replicate the round the world flight they did in the Voyager in my simulator. It took me the same amount of time it did for the original crew. That is 9 days. My favorite plane in the simulator was the Beach King Air. The only planes I have flown in real life were the 152, and the 172. One of my favorite experiences was getting involved in an aircraft design competition. I learned a great deal in that. I was up against real engineers in that, and I really did not expect to win (I did not win). I did get compliments though on my tandem wing design. There were 3 engines rated for 5000 HP each. The aircraft, as designed in the simulator weighed about 60,000 pounds. To get the weight that low, the wings and tail were carbon fiber. Well, like I said, I did not expect to win, and I didn't even place in the top 10. My personal favorite in that competition was a flying wing design. The guy who did that did place in the top 10. Anyhow the 152 and the 172 are good aircraft if you can get ahold of one. They are good beginner aircraft if you are taking lesson. They both have good range as well if you are taking a trip.

A very worthwhile film demonstrating the complexity of, and technical expertise required in, creating a successful aviation product.

Got my PPL in a 172 & then had a choice for commercial between the school's Arrow or Cardinal. I did most of it in the Arrow but did log about 25-30 hours in the Cardinal RG. The Arrow was old, peeling paint, glided like a brick with its Hershey bar wing, but was cheaper. If I was going on a pleasure flight or overnight trip, I always took the school's Cardinal. It looked very cool so I thought I was more impressive. I also liked the cabin room compared to the Arrow. My first instruction in the 177 was "don't fly this like the 172," so I had no problem transitioning. Mainly, I remember it being more pitch twitchy and less stable. It definitely didn't fly like a 172 but I never had a problem. Mainly I liked the way it looked. If you were checked out in the Cardinal, you were one of the "cool pilots" at Navarro College!

As a person with a cessna 172 and a 180hp cessna cardinal, i along with anyone i've flown with, prefer the cardinal. It is a better climbing, more comfortable airplane, and unlike a 172, i can take four 6ft tall passengers in comfort. The cardinal is not all that different to fly than the 172 in the grand scheme of things and if i flew my 172 the way i fly my cardinal, i'd have crashed by now. The 172 is for training and putsing around on a sunday evening. The cardinal comes out when you have to get something done.

I got my commerical rating using a 177 and a 177RG. I did not have any problems with them, if landing and you are solo I do remember very heavy elevator force for flair.

I have a lot of time in the 177RG , loved it , next was the 172RG , liked it as well and # 3 was the 210 , it liked altitude and speed and still carry a bunch .

I flew several 172's while getting my training. They were always great planes. My friend Mike owned a 1972 model and kept it in a large garage behind his house in Tom Bean, Texas. We flew often from his grassy 80 acres. I remember the alternator belt broke after taking off and a little red light illuminated on the dash. No problem. Did a 180 to downwind, turned base, and landed in the grass and putted back to the garage. It was fun days (1980s). I remember Mike said his dad paid about $10K for the 172 and I look today and those planes are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I rented a few at Addison's FBO back in the day but it isn't a priority for me anymore. I like attending the plane shows and checking out the military inventory. I have yet to see an F-22 Rapter. Eagles (F-15E versions, Tomcats, and most all of America's military planes) I have seen many times. Got to fly in a C-141 at Hickham to Johnston-Atoll for a Raytheon job I did in 1991. That was fun. Been to Oshkosh twice. It's fun stuff.

@gustafpeyron

2 жыл бұрын

no one cares

I’ve owned my Cessna 177B Cardinal for 10 years. Yes, the Cardinal had some growing pains at first, primarily due to the decision to use the 150hp engine. My 177B has the following advantages over the 172: much larger cabin, better visibility, easier ingress/egress, more responsive controls, holds more fuel, is 20mph faster, and has much more ramp appeal. I don’t think that rises to the level of “failure”. It just took the public decades to realize how far ahead of its time the Cardinal was. Used Cardinal prices, compared to the 172, reflect that. With proper training and a bit of finesse, the Cardinal is a delight to fly (unlike most Cessnas). There’s an excellent article by AvWeb called “Unfairly Maligned Airplanes” if you want to know more. The Cardinal is one of them.

@sgd5k292

2 жыл бұрын

Agree with everything you wrote. As someone who trained and flew extensively an RG, I loved that plane and almost bought a fixed gear version (due to too many problems, no sale and ended up buying a Bonanza). The Cardinal holds a special place in my heart and still to me one of the most beautiful production light planes ever built and would gladly buy one if I were still flying,

@cessna177flyer3

2 жыл бұрын

@@sgd5k292 I looked for two years until I found my Cardinal-they were hard to find 10 years ago and are even more difficult to find today. Prices are insane. If my flying mission were to change (requiring longer distances) the Bo would be on my short list.

@sgd5k292

2 жыл бұрын

@@cessna177flyer3 Yes, I can imagine what one would cost today! The Cardinal fixed gear I was looking at was in the year 1980, but don't remember the model year. It had full IFR panel, low time engine and the owner was asking $16,xxx. Really wanted it but I had to make sure it was in good shape and I reluctantly had to say no and left. I was not looking for an RG because this plane was for pleasure and distances less than 500 miles, so the extra knots of an RG was not worth higher costs associated with it. I say that, but that night on our way home, my wife and I stopped at another airport and saw a beautiful straight 35 Bonanza that had everything upgraded and updated included a low time 205 hp engine and new prop for just a few thousand more. Anyway, sorry, like most pilots we have a story for everything! :)

@jimposton9266

2 жыл бұрын

Ditto! 6 years of ownership for me. I owned a Piper Arrow II and a 152 Aerobat before buying my Cardinal. It’s my keeper! Best kept secret in GA IMHO. Stupid legends perpetuated over the years kept me away for no good reason… Haven’t had a single regret since buying. And, a great bonus is I bought mine before it was “discovered” apparently. That being said, I don’t plan to sell mine!

I have dozens of hours in a friend's 177RG. It is a fabulous airplane. Pros: A super-roomy back seat (plus lots of room in the front seats), good size luggage bay, excellent visibility, nice handling, heaps of useful load. The RG model has 200 horsepower. Plus, all the expenses are my friend's problem. ;-) Cons: Not a dirt-field plane. The tires are small, to fit in the available space, so my friend and his partners have a no-dirt-runway policy. The landing gear mechanism takes a lot of maintenance. Cessna has a history of coming up with great designs and then killing them. This is but one example of that.

Civil Air Patrol uses the 172 and the 182 for cadet orientation flights, pilot training and search and rescue missions as well as transportation of members to events and incidents.

An o-320 powered 172 is no slouch. My personal plane is a 180, but I’ve got a lot of respect for 170/172 performance, when you keep them light.

I've flown the 150, 152, 170, 172, 172RG, 177RG, 182, 206, and 207. Of them all, the fixed gear 230hp 182 (O-470) would be my pick for a good, reliable GA aircraft. It's the best compromise for power, speed, economy, and capacity. However, honorable mention should go to the Cardinal RG - it was quick, economical, and very pretty - really enjoyed flying it.

Very enjoyable and informative, L+S thanks!

As a renter pilot I loved flying the 177 and eventually the 177RG. Sad to lear how Cessna bumbling hurt what could have been a phenomenal airplane!

My dad was a Cessna dealer and he never ordered the original Cardinal. We did get a RG model but never ordered again after it sold due to too much skepticism around the model.

Have a lot of tie in a C-177RG 200 HP. Did not like flying it at GROSSE. Found it to be a good IFR platform with 2 people and baggage,

I learned to fly on a C172, but I wound up instructing in Piper PA-28-161 Warriors. I found the Piper to be tighter feeling and better in general. I guess the C172 is better for sightseeing, but I still prefer the Piper product.

Part of the problem with the retractable gear single Cessnas' can be the expense of parts. In particular, main gear legs now a days. 172RG, 182RG, 177RG & 210RG are all fun to fly...just expect to pay more if you ding your gear legs. From a CPL, CFII, A&P/IA, for what it's worth.

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

As a GA AP for many years, I can say that the gear retract mechanism on Cessna singles is probably their biggest weakness, because both mains are more or less connected by the same actuator, but it is pretty robust and reliable. But if it breaks, ... Yeah, parts are $$$

@brianlarson5006

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrisanderson6204 Yea, man. I've seen hung gear issues before. Particularly flying a 177. Ive had to alternatively lower them . It got fixed by another mech, but about 6 months later, I couldn't get the gear to fully retract. I put it in the hangar, cycled the gear, left it on jacks all day with gear up... couldn't repeat the problem. I've looked through the entire system, just don't want to fly it again until I find the problem. Suggestions?

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianlarson5006 I assume you checked the hydraulic fluid level. The actuator doesn't travel far so a little 5606 goes a long way. Does the actuator shut off? If not, it Could be an internal hydraulic leak, but Mind you It's been 15 years since I actually worked on GA aircraft.

@brianlarson5006

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrisanderson6204 Yea, that's what's throwing me because the reservoir was within limits.

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianlarson5006 If the legs don't hit the up limit switches (forgive me it's been a while) and the actuator is bypassing fluid internally, like by a worn o-ring, the pump could keep running, ad the fluid level wouldn't be affected. That was the most common issue I dealt with. Not saying it's yours. If your actuator hasn't been inspected/overhauled in a while, it's a possibility. And they're SOOO much fun to R&R. And, it could be intermittent. What about the limit switch? being slightly out of adjustment could cause it. Another thing, having air pressure on the a/c in flight could cause a difference, because the legs swing aft. I had that problem with a 172RG.

The 177s biggest problem- it was not a p210n centurion II. a 177 used to park in my hangar. I always looked at it with disdain before i pushed my c210 out on to the tarmac

For the record, the 177RG will perform as well as a 182 and fly farther. By any metric it was far ahead of it’s time. That’s why so many “new” aircraft today are copycat productions of the 177. It failed to make the required sales quota because Cessna made a series of bad decisions.

@ReflectedMiles

2 жыл бұрын

"It failed to make the required sales quota because Cessna made a series of bad decisions." Yes--as in lies that killed people, necessitating NASA and a university getting involved to do the analysis that Cessna apparently couldn't / wouldn't, required a serious redesign even using a different NACA airfoil in addition to the power change, and unlike the claim in the video, resulted in the repugnance of a generation of pilots who knew very well that it was no 172.

Very nice info. Greetings from sunny Jamaica. (MBJ Airport)

Having worked on the 0-300 powered T41A (military 172) the continental engine does not last well when used as a primary trainer doing laps around the pattern all day. We averaged about 300 hours between cylinder changes, due to cracking, and they are a massive pain to change with the exhaust design continental used. The continental design is great for longer distance cruising, but does not stand up to on and off the power the way the engine is for pattern work. The Lycoming O-360 is nearly bulletproof by comparison. I've seen them soldier on for years in pattern work with no issues, and go three times the TBO time in private ownership still making good compression and minimal metal in the oil. The continental 520 series are good, but their smaller engines are

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

Continentals don't to seem to handle thermal cycling as well as Lycomings. I worked at a few flight schools and Lycoming powered all the trainers, from Traumahawks to Semiholes. There were a couple Continental powered Senecas along the way as lease-backs. Plus, in most installations, Lycomings were easier to access and service, esp changing cylinders, in my experience, but the 177 is a pretty bird.

nothing like the older 120 and 140 and the 170 and 180 with straight tail like my old 150B, before the car-like back window era. I so much regret selling her

I did my initial Flight Instructors in a Cessna 177 RG. Back in 1977, I never flew one ever again. I didn't like the airplane at all, My first Flight Instructors job they had a Cessna 177 Cardinal and I hated that airplane even more. Some people like them I just never did. And I piled quite a bit of flight time in the 177. I never had a problem flying it. I was lucky the home airport was the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point They had an aero club at the time and I was a flight instructor there. Come to think about it a Gunnery Sargent owned the airplane and had leased it to the club.

@industrieundtechnik1761

2 жыл бұрын

Yes you are absolutly right. The 177 is crap in my eyes. Doesnt matter if we are talking about the sl or the rectable. I fly a R182. Great plane !

@pauleyplay

2 жыл бұрын

You are correct. They got better but just never flew well. Well said

Interestingly some of the concepts for super efficient airliners have a strut supported wing. I’m guessing that weight reduction is the aim which transforms into efficiency, and with better understanding and computer modelling of aerodynamics the drag penalties can be minimised. Only concepts of course and the current batch of new airliner designs will be with us for the next 50 plus years.

Failure only in terms of marketing, ultimately. A fixed gear 180 hp Cardinal actually seems very attractive to me. But if I manage to get current I'm pretty sure I'll gravitate toward experimentals. Sonex has a highwing in the development stages which has a slight resemblance which once proven as expected might be even more practical for many casual flyers.

I learned to fly in alaska in a 177 RG , i eventually owned a 74 and a 77 if you learn that not all planes fly alike you will get the best out of all of them. my RG's were great for travel you could carry 4 legal faa pax 200 lbs luggage and full fuel. i cruised at 150 mph and got about 15 mpg, what more could you want?

Sounds like a big committee of semi-retired experts were making proposals and chiming in freely.

Thanks. I now want a 177 rg

Flying one was depressing, after flying a Grumman American AA5B and even the Yankee AA1A. Line up on the runway and float down. And this was back in 1975.

I used to own a 1960 Cessna 175...yup, there was such a model. When Cessna added the rear angled vertical stabilizer tail, 2 mph cruise speed was lost. In the 172, when the rear window was added, the cruise speed lowered another 3 mph. Experimenting with my 175, removing the wheel pants resulted the cruise speed lowering by 4 mph. I put the wheel pants back on. Installing the AVCON STOL kit resulted in 2 mph lower cruise speeding. Adding flap gap seals did nothing for speed or performance. It was money wasted. Adding Texas droop tips improved the STOL performance. It was impossible to stall. It would hang on the prop indicating 45 mph. With the Lyc O-360 A1D engine conversion with CSP, there was no increase in cruise speed, but the plane got off the ground quickly and the rate of climb was double over the original book speed with the fixed pitch prop.

@mzaite

2 жыл бұрын

175RG was redesigned the 172RG when Cessna realized they misread the market with the 175. The Cutlass like the Cardinal, was a pointless over complication. For really pathetic performance gains.

I loved renting the 177! Nobody liked it so it was always free and $2 dollars cheaper. It was underpowered and normally carbureted so it took forever to climb.

what is "ibs" ?

Interesting that you should mention the 177 - a RG has passed over my house 3 - 4 times a week for the last 30 years. Don't know who or where to or from.

The first cantilever wing 210 was the 1967 201G, not "H" as stated. I owed one for several years in the 1980s.

@robertwarner5963

2 жыл бұрын

Your narrator got it wrong about wing dihedral. Greater dihedral was a side effect of forward sweep. Since forward sweep in de-stabilizing in roll, engineers wanted to add more dihedral, while salesmen wanted to limit dihedral. Since the cantilever wing needed to be swept forward - for balance - it also needed greater dihedral.

The Cardinal and Centurion were Cessna's best models. The initial problems with the Cardinal were due to Cessna's incompetence. The reason for the poor sales of the Cardinal was primarily due to poor marketing and sales strategies.

@cessna177flyer3

2 жыл бұрын

Also, Cessna never could get Cardinal production costs down. The Cardinal was a very labor-intensive aircraft to make. Many components, such as the doors, were handmade. Rising labor costs in the U.S. during the late 1960s affected the Cardinal more than other models. Furthermore, the efficiency gains Cessna counted on from the production learning curve (the Cardinal was a new model) never materialized. The result was a great plane, but one that couldn’t compete in the market on price. Today, it’s a different story. Cardinals are highly desirable.

@pauleyplay

2 жыл бұрын

And it flew terrible. Cessna could not sell them

@lkdysinger

2 жыл бұрын

@@pauleyplay Paul, I owned a 1978 177B Classic as well as a 1978 177RG. Both handled beautifully. I also have a lot of hours in 172 and owned a share of a 182. Neither of them could hold a candle to the 177. The reason Cessna could not sell a lot of 177's was due to their incompetencies. The first couple of years had some growing pains, like any other model. After that the Cardinal was great. The Cardinal was smooth handling and I could land it easier and better than I could the 172 and 182.

@pauleyplay

2 жыл бұрын

@@lkdysinger Dont total disagree. About performance of all you mention. I get it you favor the card. That ok. Outrun a 182, not quite. But i realize the 182 is in a different class.You know all of this !

I contend that just as GA is stagnant, so too are the sales of GA a/c, including this model specifically. My guess- Cessna doesn't make money on GA; they make money on their biz jets, etc. Nonetheless, this was a fascinating review of what could be viewed as aviation's "Model T", the MOST produced a/c ever in GA.

Got about 400 hours in a 177 RG. It was fun, pretty fast and had a descent fuel burn. Don’t miss shrinking down to get into it though. Ended up putting a hole in the plastic where my headset was hitting the turbulence.

We called it the “gutless strutless”.

Interesting video, but you've got a 'typo' at 6:08 +/- error: placing wing further aft would not create a nose heavy condition. Just the opposite. The weight of that huge wing spar would be distributed closer to the tail. Since the force on the tail was insufficient to bring the nose up in early prototypes, the wing spar must have been moved more toward the propeller. That would increase weight on the nose. Many Cardinals have suffered nose gear collapse because it is still nose heavy. So is a 182, but easier to control.

Interesting demographics.

Not addressed in the video but important. Maintenance costs for the 177 are much higher than the 172, I would budget almost double. Part availability and cost can be an issue due to the much smaller size of the fleet so there is not a lot of 3rd party parts support. Everything is unique to the 177. It is also a maintainers nightmare, everything is more time consuming and more difficult to do. The Cessna engineers gave absolutely no thought to ease of maintenance in the 177 design, you would have to deliberately try to design a more difficult to maintain small aeroplane. When flown at the proper climb and approach speeds it is a decent flying aeroplane, even the early 150hp ones. But if you try and fly it like a 172 at 172 speeds it will make you think it is the worst aeroplane ever made. The complaints about performance and flying quality are a problem with the pilot not the aeroplane.

@neskyz4259

2 жыл бұрын

There was an A&P at my old airport that refused to work on them. There's one sitting there now needing maintenance and he won't touch it.

@larryegilman1

2 жыл бұрын

They did design a more difficult airplane to service and maintain. It’s called a skymaster

@Jeffrey_Pyefinch

2 жыл бұрын

@@larryegilman1 I have very limited experience with the skymaster but I can not say you are wrong. I just tend to put twins in a different category when comparing aircraft.

@larryegilman1

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jeffrey_Pyefinch I once owned a P337. I loved flying it. The engineers were more concerned about placing all the equipment in all available spaces, without concern about how to get to them for maintenance. Great for twin redundancy without concerns of asymmetric thrust

@jimposton9266

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t know where your data is coming from. I have owned my Cardinal for 6 years, after having owned a Piper Arrow II and a 152 Aerobat. I spent more on those aircraft in maintenance than my Cardinal. The only nagging issue on my Cardinal is the D magneto. There’s an STC to replace that mag with electronic ignition coming soon. BTW, the D mag issue is on several other types than the Cardinal too. Bad gouge that a Cardinal is more expensive to maintain. At least I’m my experience, and the experience of a few hundred other folks in Cardinal Flyers On Line.

Bro, 1967 is the 210g, not the h. The 210g was the first 210 without struts

This is the perfect example of taking a perfectly good airplane & over thinking it...

How do you consider an aircraft a failure especially when it is in a spin. To recover you get your hands and feet off of the controls. The 172 in my opinion is a fantastic success.

Re: 2:28 timestamp. How does moving a (heavy) wing aft cause a nose-heavy condition? Wouldn't that shift the CG such that the nose would be inclined to rise?

@8literbeater

2 жыл бұрын

It has zero to do with the weight of the wing. A lot of things in the video are wrong anyway. The wing produces lift. If you create lift more toward the rear, then the front tends to be harder to raise.

@txman201

2 жыл бұрын

@@8literbeater true, not the wing weight (spoke incorrectly). Actually it is because more of the fuselage is in front of the wing as far as front to rear balance is concerned.

R&D during the '60's; shows meeting full of laptops... I hate stock photo videos.

13:52 stablelazers? What are THOSE?

The inflation and the higher demands for the 172 Skyhawk for flight schools are pumping the students out faster than before because of the lack of pilots that are retiring and with the 1500 rule and with your ATP written done the Regionals with the CJs needs pilots as well as the corporate pilot jobs

The cardinal is an awesome airplane.

One way they could have got a quicker return on investment on the new plane was to sack all the staff at Cessna and replace them with stock footage. Like in this video.

@mzaite

2 жыл бұрын

Cessna was kind of a mess in the 60’s.

The narrator sounds more natural if you speed up the video to 1.25.

i do admit that it looks good

Cessna 177 - Bad, bad, bad….. I rented and flew one once for a trip. There was never a place for 177. we had the option of 172, 182, 182 RG.

The Cardinal's problem was it cost too much to build. The biggest 172 failure wasn't the Cardinal, it was the H2AD engine. The tappet spauling problem caused many premature overhauls and cost their owners tens of thousands of dollars.

Why do you use "ilbs" to indicate pounds. Is this a new term in aviation that I'm not familiar with. Pounds abreviation for me has always been "lbs". Just curious.

13:51 vertical stabilators? wth? I was a GA mechanic for 20 years and every 177 I ever touched/saw had a fin and rudder. The Cardinal was beloved by many, but it weren't no SR-71, which actually had vertical stabilators.

@gstone3148

2 жыл бұрын

But the fin that the rudder is attached to is a vertical stabilizer lol!

I thought the 177 Cardinal was to be a replacement for the Cessna 182. With a little more design tweaks the 177 could have been a great bird.

Eurofox and Sportlites are taking over the world

Your audio narration was very well done. Reading a script without inflections makes for a boring presentation. The drama you add to your speech and the very easily understood diction allows the listener to absorb the many facts you provide. Great job on your video!

@kazansky22

2 жыл бұрын

Hmmm.... I thought the exact opposite, it feels to me as if it's being read by a robot.

This is a great airplane for 1960.

The stabilator looks like it was kit-bashed^8-)

I always knew there were good reasons that I never liked Cessnas! Might as well try to fly a bus, with slow handling to match!

If we call the C177 Cardinal a failure, what should we call the C162 Skycatcher?

@mzaite

2 жыл бұрын

Stillborn.

Wing spar Eddy current check on the Cardinal and the Cessna 210s

@cessna177flyer3

2 жыл бұрын

As of now, the Cardinal does not have an AD for the spar. The 210 does. However, prospective Cardinal buyers would be wise to ensure the Cessna Service Bulletins (including the eddy current one) have been complied with before writing a check.

I flew this plane on my discovery flight and I see this airplane everywhere, this video makes no sense

As soon as I hear a robot voice I close the video and move onto one that human narrated.

When I first saw the video's title, my thoughts turned to recent reports of a problem inherent to the 172's fuel tanks. It turns out that water can collect in pockets in the tanks, and these pockets are NOT at the lowest points in the tanks. I have seen videos of the tank interiors when they contained dyed water and a relatively low amount of fuel, so you can more easily see the dyed water. Then, under certain flight maneuvers the tanks can present this water to the engines rather than providing fuel. Early crashes were chalked up to the pilot not properly draining entrained water from the tanks, but testing proves that to not always be the case. The FAA knows about the problem, as does Cessna.

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

years ago there was a SB (can't remember if it was an AD, but since I only did a couple prob not) ti onstall a modification to the tank sump drains which put a little stretch on the rubber tank and slightly lowered the drain valve and the tank low point. I had my doubts that it would solve the problem due to possible wrinkles in the tank.

@MattRogersdesigns

2 жыл бұрын

I don't believe that website that has the pictures of a gallon or more of water that does not drain from the sumps. They have the C150 tanks (of which I own) and they claim that a huge amount of water will collect inside before you get any drops, yet my tanks are largely dry except for a few drops from time to time, all of which come out the sumps easily. This is confirmed with a boroscope inside the tank while it was in service on a several occasions (checking the vent line, checking the strainer, etc). If a gallon of water could collect without draining, how am I getting a few drops here and there, but have no accumulated water after a year?

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

@@MattRogersdesigns As I see it, and from experience, All of these issues involve bladder tanks. I found it rare that that even a poorly installed bladder on a high wing SE a/c could hold a gallon of undetected water. It doesn’t take much water to cause an engine stall, but a gallon is a LOT in a 20 gal tank. That’s months of condensation, a leaking filler/cap or some bad fuel out of the tanker/pump. An inch high wrinkle in the bladder the width of the tank, assuming only one tank was the issue , to trap that much water. Just taxiing should free some of it to present to the carb. Integral tanks don’t have the possibility of wrinkling and all water should flow to the sump drains. Any internal ribs/baffles have provisions for draining water. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’ve known a lot of people who owned airplanes and flew once a month or less, had them tied down outside and hated paying for a good, thorough annual. I must add that Cessna singles with bladder tanks were the worst for water retention and my colleagues and I would rock the wings when sumping the tanks before maintenance run ups and preflights. And sometimes we would find a few drops in the low point drain (AN tee fitting) after a run up. I worked on a couple where that Tee hadn't been removed in years and were filled with sediment. CHECK IT!

@MattRogersdesigns

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrisanderson6204 I agree with you that the bladder tanks are way worse, and the problem of water in fuel is a serious one. Other models and tanks need to be more or less careful depending on their design. I have heard of the newer C172 models that have something like 14 different sump drains to address their issue! I just want to counter that website (don't want to list it here) that states that it takes 88 ounces of water to reach the sump drain on a C150. That is just not true in the real world. While I have not poured water into my airworthy airplane's fuel tank and watched it under video surveillance, I know that I get the occasional single drop or two of water in the sample cup, while also having a dry fuel tank as verified by boroscope - meaning the tank sumps work as intended in the real world. If they actually failed to remove the water, there would certainly be ADs about the issue since my fuel tank is from 1967!

@chrisanderson6204

2 жыл бұрын

IDK why the Cessna SE family has the most reported problems with water in bladders, considering there are other GA ac out there with them, e.g Piper Aztruck, Beech Baron and Bonanza/Debonair, etc. Worst ones I had to swap was on Aztruck and a 172. Most ac with bladder tanks could use a couple more access panels near the nipples and snaps.

Fly it at FL55 and she is perfect👍 By the way: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Then they developed the 172XP with the performance too close to the 172 and the cost too close to the 182. I always wished they had just made the 172 with the 180hp engine.

Design never improve in over 50 yrs ,, European Market with new composite models came to eat their candies

The C-172 is a nice two place cruiser. Unless you and you friends are 150 lbs. or less (not me since I was 16), forget filling the back sets or carrying much fuel in it, trying to climb or getting safely over the trees at the end of a short runway. It's a nice flying airplane, but I like a Piper Archer, or better, a C-182 for real four place aviating. I find the C-172's cabin to be cramped and narrow. It's a nice, simple, inexpensive airplane for basic training, and as I said, for two not-too-large people, but not for much else. Pipers in the same class are far more comfortable. Cessna should have taken a lesson from North American Aviation's experience with the "laminar flow" airfoil on the P-51. Great on paper, it was never truly "laminar flow" in practice, not on those rainy, muddy English airfields. In a wind tunnel it works great, in the real world not so much. Too bad we can't always fly in a wind tunnel.

@pauleyplay

2 жыл бұрын

What piper is in the same class as a 172 ? Cherokee 150 ?

@Glicksman1

2 жыл бұрын

@@pauleyplay Piper Cherokee PA-28-140, 150, 151, 160, and161 are all in the same general class as the C-172.

@pauleyplay

2 жыл бұрын

@@Glicksman1 Do any of the above perform any better than a 172 ? I think not

@Glicksman1

2 жыл бұрын

@@pauleyplay Here are the published performance specifications of the C-172R and the PA-28-160: Cessna 172R Powerplant: Lycoming IO-360-L2A four cylinder, horizontally opposed aircraft engine, 160 hp (120 kW) Performance Cruise speed: 140 mph, 122 k at 75% power at 7,000 ft (2,135 m) Stall speed: 54 mph, 47 k (power off, flaps down) Service ceiling: 13,500 ft (4,100 m) Rate of climb: 721 ft/min Useful load (Fuel and passengers and cargo) -759 lbs. Piper PA-28 Cherokee 160 Powerplant- Lycoming O-320-D2A, four cylinder, horizontally opposed aircraft engine, 160 hp (120 kW) Performance Cruising speed: 137 mph (119.04 k) at 75% power at 7,000 ft (2,135 m) Stalling speed: 55 mph (47.8 k) power off, flaps down Service ceiling: 15,800 ft (4,815 m) Rate of climb at S/L: 730 ft/min Useful Load (fuel passengers and cargo)- 945 lbs. As you can see, with essentially the same powerplant, performance specs are very close. However, the Piper Cherokee 160, being lighter, can carry 186 more lbs. of useful load and has a 2,300 ft. higher service ceiling. Having flown both airplanes for many hours, I can say that IMO the Cherokee is the better airplane in every respect.

@pauleyplay

2 жыл бұрын

@@Glicksman1 You are certainly entitled to a opinion. Like you i have been in aviation all my life. Now 72. I remember the first cherokee. Thats sad. Both are ok planes. Not my favorites. As I remember production of the cherokee started about 1960 ending about 1970. 172 still going strong. At 400K I dont see how ! Flight schools I guess. I have owned a 185 & Super Cub for years. There is a contradiction if ever was one ! Some day I wish you & I could have a Cessna ,piper fly off. Got to love them all !!!

The 177 is an amazing aircraft once you up the horse power.

My first, and dozens more, skydivers were

The 172 has NEVER failed as a light trainer or family hauler... POOR PILOTS ARE THE SYSTEM WIDE FAILURE.

This didn't need to be edited with irrelevant scenes of random people sitting around a table etc.

Low wing Pipers and Mooneys didn't go through these problems. What's the matter with Cessna?