Why Cessna 177 Cardinal Failed, Most Pilots Refused to Fly it
Special Thanks to Brian Spurr and Gary Shepard for the awesome photos.
Brian: www.airliners.net/user/BrianS...
Gary: www.airliners.net/user/garyje...
Visit their pages to get the best airplane pictures out there.
Besides being sleeker and strut-less, the problem was the 177 had a stabilator, just like Piper’s competing Cherokees did. The cantilever, laminar-flow wing is similar to that on the Cessna 210 and it is positioned far enough aft to improve visibility than in previous high-wing airplanes. The strut less design clears the view out of the side. Stepping into the Cardinal is more like sliding into a sedan than climbing into a pickup. One of the most notable design features is the slopped windshield which makes the aircraft extremely aerodynamic and provides better visibility.
#Cessna #Cessna177 #Cessna177Cardinal
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: Dashboardglobal@techie.com
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.
Cardinals are wonderful planes. I have yet to meet anyone who flew a Cardinal and "hated" flying it. So much for the title of this video.
Totally agree! Solid flying bird. Took 2 check rides in a B model.....and too many other memories in that plane to mention.
My dad had Cardinal in the late seventies and we had no performance problems but it would have been nice to have an retractable gear . We were flying with three adults and one child on one trip and had one point a cruise speed of 165 knots .
I tend to agree. I know three guys with cardinals all at the same tiny airport. I always thought they were called the gutless strutless but I have no idea if that is warranted. In the flesh they look fabulously sexy. Probably the sexiest of the boring Cessna design.
The cardinal is the corvette of Cessnas. Sleek. The retract however takes up the baggage area as do many Cessna retracts
@@dukeford8893 amen
This video is very informative. I learned many different ways to butcher the pronunciation of words.
Pretty much what I expected when I saw the ridiculous click-bait title.
It's Grumman, not grew-mon
AI
I have many hours in the Cardinal RG and it was a wonderful aircraft with no problems whatsoever. I'm not sure who would refuse to fly it? The speed and handling were superb.
Obviously you never attempted a high density altitude take off. There were a few issues with it, but it really was quite a good plane. I agree that pilots didn't refuse to fly it.
Obviously
Ha! Not on a hot day in Sac!!!
Plane was a real slug on a hot day fuel would percolate in fuel lines on top of cylinders; hot start proceedurs; don't put more than 2 pax on board and forget about charters to RNO; unless early morning or dusk. Only a 10 k aircraft at best If new...
Thought a 172 was a better performer,even on a hot day
The Cardinal didn’t fly exactly like a 172 so Cessna pilots didn’t like it. The Cardinal is a really great airplane. Be careful opening the doors downwind.
Could dampeners be installed?
@@cjpatz yes. They are called Door Stewards.
Hehe. The Cardinal is a real surprise! Just watched this video. I have always loved low wing aircraft. Grew up flying the Ercoupe, and the Piper Cheorkee. The Cardinal changed my mind, she's a real jewel! I am impressed with her response, that stabilator is impressive. The cockpit is a real surprise, those HUGE doors can't be overstated. Lovely cabin. I am proud to have a Cardinal yoke on my coffee table as a souvenir. Flying the humble Cardinal is pure joy. It changed my mind about Cessna.
The Cardinal had many issues in the beginning, but it a great flying aircraft. The RG model is a great combination of speed, load carry, and economy of fuel burn.
Yet the all-plastic interior deteriorates away in front of your own eyes mid flight, leading to a new interior that costs as much as the plane itself ☠
@@TailHeavyProductions not true, full custom panel upgrade to replace plastic for about 3k
@Frazer Peterson I’m not talking panel, I’m talking the entire interior
Sorry, I will just agree to disagree. I have a 73 177, 180hp constant speed, FG all new avionics, new interior, IFR certified and it did not cost what your advertising to do all that. Sweet aircraft.
@@TailHeavyProductions vantage plastics- all up including labor and upholstery- about $14k
I own the 1973 Cardinal RG N177KT featured at 0:50 in the video. Best airplane for four place comfort and cost efficient to own and operate. When we travel, my wife stretches out in the back and I have the front all to my self. I’m 6’3” and the Cardinal fits me just fine.
Very nice-looking bird!!
I'm jealous.
Owned a Cardinal for several years best plane I flew. Every owner I ever talked to loved theirs as well. Flew 172,150 Archer and Cherokee. Liked my Cardinal best of all.
I own an 1971 Cardinal RG. None of the shortcomings he speaks of apply to my airplane. I can easily plan for 700 miles, have a 1017 pound useful load and I can't think of an airplane that can compete with regard to cabin size, comfort, speed, range and economy. Certainly a late model 200HP Mooney is a bit faster, but my wife can't climb on the wing and down into the cabin of a very tight fitting Mooney. Furthermore, I can easily fit my large dog crate in the back, with plenty of room for luggage. Try that in a Mooney. I've done some long cross country trips at a higher cruise altitude and have been able to run at normal cruise speed at only 7.5GPH, normal is about 10GPH. Kind of hard to beat that with today's fuel prices.
I always thought the Cardinal RG was an Awesome plane. Beautiful lines. Roomy. Efficient. Fun.
Gotta say ... the Cardinal was always my favorite Cessna. I flew one in the '70's in a flying club. Awsome visibility in turns for a high wing. The prejudice against them is totally unwarranted.
I own a Cardinal RG, and fly G1000 C-182's and C-172's with Civil Air Patrol. Every time I get into the 172 or 182, I wish I was in the Cardinal. It's far more comfortable, visibility is far better, the flight controls are better harmonized, and it's both faster and more efficient, averaging 137-140 KTAS at 8.5 gph. While the stabilator makes it a little pitch sensitive in the flare, it's easy to learn and easy to land softly.
Agreed, sir! In my humble experience, the Cardinal showed me all about pitch sensitivity, I agree, she's a sports car, hehe. I flew a fixed gear model, Wow! It brought back memories of flying the Cherokee with my father years ago. Fantastic aircraft!
I first checked out in a Cardinal in 1972. It had the 180 hp engine with constant speed prop. I had 100 hours Total time in the Cessna 150 and 172. It was a breeze to fly. I could not understand all the fuss, still can’t. It’s a beautiful plane with a spacious cabin and fantastic visibility. It is THE airplane of choice for handicapped pilots (including us old farts with lousy backs) because of ease of entry and spaciousness. If you can’t fly a Cardinal, you should probably take up golf and give up flying.
Amen!
You came over in it before having aquired bad habbits weight and speed vise, I believe. Someone once said that if the mph meter was replaced with a kts meter without telling anyone, the problems with poor climb and hard landings would be over.
A Cardinal was the first compound/complex plane I flew. It was a rocket ship compaired to the similar year 172's I was flying.
The Cardinal was an absolutely great aircraft. It was far superior to the 172 and 182. It still is. Not sure where you are getting your alleged facts. You obviously never owned and flown one. Your criticism should be of Cessna, not the design.
I don’t think the moron who made this video is anything more than a desktop sim pilot. His mispronunciations were atrocious.
I owned a 68, and I loved it. The drag was more a function of the huge lower cowl opening than the wing. Most criticism is just armchair pilots regurgitating what they’ve heard.
The Cardinal RG is one of the nicest airplanes I have flown. Will gladly give up a cpl knots of airspeed for cabin comfort!
Flown both the Fixed gear and RG, simply my favorite Cessna to fly.
I owned a 1973 177B from 1981-2000. Most of the problems had been resolved by 1973 and it was a great aircraft. No regrets owning this airplane......
I owned a 1968 Cardinal for 4 years and it was a great airplane. It is not a Cessna 172 but it flys better than the 172 and is faster and more economical. The cabin has more room and great visibility. I should never have sold it.
You may not be a pilot. The Cardinal RG is one of the best airplanes to fly like a pro, besides its excellent performance. It requires a transition to a complex operation that any good pilot could quickly learn.
Loved the C177 and C177RG. Great little aircraft. Worked for a Cessna dealer, and flew every Cessna built. Always enjoyed both of these. A poor man's C210.
More than a thousand hours in Cardinals as PIC. I personally will take this Cessna with the O-360 over most single engine Cessnas and certainly over all Pipers. Every issue presented could be managed.
I have owned and loved a ‘75 Cardinal RG since 2017, flown from Virginia to California, Washington to Arizona. It is a great airplane, stable IFR platform, very comfortable and fun to fly. The author of this video is obviously biased against this aircraft and to say “no pilot wants to fly it” is simply wrong!
177RG’s are great airplanes. I like the whole 177 line, but the RG is my favorite.
I've never heard of the Citrus SR20 either....or of a plane purpoising on landing. This dude can read, but not very well.
I never ever heard of anyone not wanting to fly a Cardinal.
I’ve been flying a 1971 177B FG for 4 years now and love the plane. It handles great, is very comfortable and looks great. Upgraded to full glass panel and plane is a great plane. Very solid IFR platform.
Your correct on all points.
I got my commercial rating using the 177 and the 177RG for the complex portion. I always LIKED the Cardinal and never complained about it. They had the slotted stabilator with no problems. I do remember when solo the fixed gear 177 took a strong pull to flair.
I had a 1969 177A Cardinal with a 180HP Lycoming fixed pitch propellor. It was a beautiful flying aircraft with lots of room, big doors (watch for his winds when opening), and great visibility. It was great for airport camping for 2 people sleeping in the back when you leave the rear seat home. No problem in handling at all.
The 172 Racer. Once Cessna got the 177 ‘right,’ they stopped production and introduced the “Gutless.” The Cardinal flew like a smaller C210. Love flying and teaching instruments in it.
"Could hardly pull this flying Caddy up a Kansas hill" & "Cessna...realized the airplane was underpowered" & "lethargic"...and yet, it could out climb and out run a 172 with the same 150hp engine. Lots of old wives tales out there about the Cardinal.
I remember one at Camp Lake Airport. It`s 2500ft of sod with mature trees at one end. 49C is the designator.
I owned a 71 177B model for nearly 16 years. Traveled in it for business like most would drive a car every day. All my business was on airports, so a car made litle sense to travel by car.. Was in it almost every day traveling. There was absolutely nothing I didn't like about the Cardinal (except in the scorching summer heat - the seat belt was often to hot to touch after sitting on the ramp a couple hours as was the yoke), but I would not call that a complaint at all. Went thru 2 engines both to TBO + around another 100 hrs or so. It really gets under my skin for those that try to compare it to a C-172. The 172 is a truck - the Cardinal a sleek race car by comparison. I loved that airplane and what it could do. Miss the old hot rod. 😕😕
I've flown both the Skyhawk and the Cardinal, and I can tell you that the Skyhawk is inferior. While it is true that early Cardinals were underpowered, once Cessna addressed the flaws it became a fantastic airplane. The REAL reason a lot of pilots didn't like it is because it didn't fly (esp. land) like a Skyhawk. The Skyhawk handles like a truck, while the Cardinal is lighter in pitch and roll. As a result, the Cardinal requires a bit more finess than the Skyhawk to fly (esp. land) it properly.
That lighter feel makes sense given it has a stabilitor. The same reason I liked landing the Cherokee 180 vs. the 172 when I took lessons. I actually learned to fly one three different planes, the 152, 172 and Cherokee 180. I hated the 152, the 172 was just "okay" and the Cherokee was light on the controls and faster. It was hard to remember the tank switching on that Cherokee though, which in a Cessna you didn't have to worry about.
Interesting, I didn't like the Skyhawk because it was like flying a tractor / truck. I loved the Grob 115 - light and nimble on the controls in comparison. The 172 btw seemed to only make on kind of landings, okish but firmish, the Grob better displayed the errors one might make.
I took my wife up on her first flight in a airplane in the stiff legged version. That was 41 years ago. Other than a bumpy final approach with a bit of settling, the aircraft flew great. Got to fly an rg version a few years later, loved both versions. Of course I learned in a 7ac champ, the best stick & rudder plane ever!!
I loved the 177 back in the late 70's. Logged over 300h. Did my IFR, X-Country and night ratings.
I owned a 1968 and a 1976 model both were a joy to fly I kept the 1976 for 13 years and loved it, I also owned a 182, for my type of flying the 177 was , preferable , mostly my wife and I,
I flew the 1968 Cardinal before the stabilator was modified. Many pilots looked at the plane and thought of it just as if it was a Sky Hawk. They forgot about that big stabilator in the back. It's a different airplane and I loved it, especially doing commercial maneuvers.
BS story! I've owned several fixed gear and retract versions. The 180HP fixed gear was a super performer, as well as the 200HP retract. Sold many of them in 1975, '76, and '77 and ALL the owners were VERY pleased.
I own a C177A and it is, by far, the best plane that I flew. Fast, efficient, stylish, awesome visibility, easy to fly, etc, etc, etc... I couldn't finish the video due to the inconsistencies with reality...
I own the first RG Cardinal ever built. So many reasons why I love this airplane.
You lost me a minute in. Carelessly selected stock footage. The design team didn't use iPads designing the Cardinal. BTW- it's a fine airplane and fun to fly.
I owned a 180HP Cardinal for 16 years- It was the best airplane I have ever flown. Your description is typical of people who were expecting a C-172.
Back in the late 60’s and early 70’s, I had the opportunity to ferry the Cardinal several times. I really enjoyed flying it on each occasion. Wish I was still flying one.
Taught in the C-177RG. Found it a good trainer. Loved the visibility and ease of in/out for pilots. Only negative were the brakes which seemed to fade during repeat T/L exercises. Never had trouble with the undercarriage. Love to have one, fine bird. Straight leg? Early ones? A bit doggy compared to the RG. Higher HP helped it a tad. Agree on the ARC radios- messy. They were good trainers. As an X-C machine with four souls? A tad lacking load ability.
Part of the issue is people expected it to fly like a 172.....I have a few hours in one and really enjoyed it. Nice cabin and roomy.
This was always my favorite Cessna design. Since childhood this airplane caught my eye. Never flew one though, I would if I could!
Anyone who refused to fly a Cardinal has never flown one. Best plane I have owned.
Owned a 75 Cardinal. Loved that plane. Only issue we had with it was finding parts. When we sold the plane the new owner got our stash of extra parts as part of the deal.
The wind catching the door thing is easy to fix. A "door minder" or similar. Also, 172 doors leak as well.
@6:13 Gotta love those "German" avionics.
I owned a 180 cs cardinal for several years and loved it .
I understand the headline. I purchased a 1968 Cardinal in 1971; it was a repo I purchased from a bank for $8,000.00. It had 300 hours and smelled new. The owner had a 337 Skymaster, which he flew most of the time. The ferry flight was perfection, totally smooth, quiet, uneventful. It liked paved runways but was easy to fly. I once landed on the now nonexistent East/West runway at Put-In-Bay. It was very embarrassing, as I landed downwind, with my wife and 2 children on board. I taxied to a remote parking spot and went in to sign the log. A tri-motor pilot came up behind me and said, "Most pilots can't even make that runway". I replied, I'm so embarrassed, I hoped no one would notice me; my family was on board. We made many enjoyable trips and as the kids grew, and we started to have to limit gas, to maintain gross weight, I sold the plane. The next year, the new owner totaled it into the trees, when he tried to take off from a short grass strip. No one was injured. You have to know your plane.
I owned a 1968 cessna 177 for 43 years ALL GOOD
Flew this great plane many times. Loved it, no bad landings .! Loved the big doors!😀😀😀😀😀
My Father ferried a lot of aircraft around the SE and central USA for the northern FBO he learned to fly at. In 1968 I was a young 8th grader, too young to solo but flying from the right side spent a lot of weekends and some school days puddle jumping around the country due to Dad's VFR only status. One of the first long trips we took was flying a 68 150HP Cardinal from Minnesota to Mississppi with four aboard picking up a 172 and dropping off the Cardinal on the way home for an engine, prop, and tail upgrade. My first long cross country was in a 69 slotted stabilator, 180HP fixed pitch prop. and my first owned aircraft was a 69 182... Once I was instructing, I noticed Daddi-o had picked up a lot of bad habits flying the Cardinal searching for the proper pitch during a landing flare... The upgraded cardinal was really a fabulous aircraft... and by the time the 1976 RG came along she was a real beauty. But, The Public Relations damage had already been done.
“German Avionics?” First time I’ve ever heard Garmin pronounced that way.😂 The problem with the 177 is pilots were flying it like a 172. Flown under its own terms it’s an excellent aircraft in its own right.
And it’s competition from the Groomin aircraft company.
Don't forget about the "Citrus" SR22 he mentioned as well
Perpoiseing.
And his unintentionally hilarious mispronunciation of stabilator.
Great airplane, took my private check ride in an RG in 1973,
The first time I flew a Cardinal it was an RG we were given when the T-210 was in the shop getting a new windshield. I found it a solid airplane. Much later I purchased a 68 Cardinal but was disappointed with the speed as the original engine was not the best combination. However, after getting used to what seems like a low cieling in the cockpit you will find the visibility outstanding. In the pattern you can see around the leading edge of the wing and is unobstructed. Getting in and out is like sitting at the kitchen table. These wide doors have to be handled with care, but making egress and ingress very easy even in the back seat. If you can find one with at least the 180 HP engine at an acceptable price I would suggest it. The original issues with the airplane have been resolved with the stabilator. Initial experience saw pilots getting into PIO Pilot Induced Ocillation on landing finding the elevator too powerful. Thus, that flying surface began to include slots that tamed the problem in landings from what I recall.
As a low-time pilot I flew traffic patrol in a Cardinal every morning from 6am-9am. I loved the plane. It was much better than the C172. Loving the Cessna, I later bought a Cessna 206, which I owned for several years.
I love how KZhead shows me an 18min video on why the Cardinal failed, then suggests a 12min video telling me 10 reasons I need one.
That is a beautiful airplane. It has great doors as well. Sure it has issues but what plane doesn't?
I got checked out in the Cardinal shortly after my PPL when I had about 60 hours in my log book. My type check flight was 1.5 hours, 4 months after earning my license at age 17. I loved the Cardinal, and later the Cardinal RG, after I had 100+ hours. I always flew Cardinals with slots in the stabilator which I understand made a big difference in handling, I ended up with about 50 hours on Cardinals before they all disappeared from my local rental market. Clickbait titles aside, Cessna sold 4295 Cardinals over 10 years and the airplane had many great reviews (after the poorly executed introduction by Cessna, so they clearly were a much better airplane than you say.
"PPL". I think this should read PPC if the L was meaning "License". There is no airman license in the USA.
@@jpeterman57 I am in Canada and we are issued a PPL or CPL, but you are of course right about the PPC in the USA.
Cardinal RG it is a wonderful Aircraft to fly. Wery god handling and harmoni.
We had a 69 model with the 180 hp and a CS prop . I really liked flying that plane ! My cuz and I are big guys and those car doors were awesome . Had to watch on landing as getting to slow would get you into pitch porp . And that could be kinda scary !
The Cardinal was the only Cessna built with a stabilator instead of a conventional stabilizer. I flew this airplane back in the 1970s under Part 135.
As a low time pilot back in the early 70’s, the FBO that I flew out of at Cleveland Hopkins airport got a brand new Cardinal. I got checked out in it and I really loved it being a skinny 6’2”, 20 YO kid. The one memory that to this day sticks in my mind - you had better stay on top of trimming the stabilator during approach and landing or the force on the control wheel would pull your arms out their sockets.
I got my Complex endorsement in a 177RG 200hp, and I loved it. I bought one and flew it for 25 years! I LOVED it. It was a stable IFR platform, with economical gas consumption at altitude, great visibility, room for passengers, baggage area, just a BEAUTIFUL and functional airplane. I DON"T KNOW ANYONE WHO WOULD REFUSE TO FLY IT. If they had put a 235 hp or 250 hp engine in it - it would have been PERFECT. I don't know who you were talking to! Three times I flew it from Van Nuys to Oshkosh for the Fly-In and it was a sheer joy to fly X/country. Other than airliners and bizjets, the -177RG is my fav ASEL A/C. I have a short list of how Cessna could have made it even better!!!!
I flew a 1976 Cardinal FG for years and loved it. Fully IFR with great avionics stack. A pleasure to fly. I did try a no flaps take off once lol. That made the elevator so heavy that I reached over and selected 10 deg real quick during the take-off run!
This is rediculous. C172 pilots tried to fly a C177 like a C172 and they got themselves into a PIO situation and landed on the nose wheel. Piper PA28 pilots had no problem with the C177. All it would have taken was a little proper instruction in flying with a stabilator. The C177 was and is a wonderfully flying airplane with good handling characteristics. Unbelievable.
I have only about 5 hours on the 177 I loved flying it because it was very stable in turns and I liked the more sensitive controls I would love to have on with fixed gear only.
You don’t know what you’re talking about- problems discussed were fixed in 1968 And after- these are great planes.
Flew the 180hp version awesome airplane for an experienced pilot. Very comfortable and roomy. Should reopen production.
I flew this plane for years and loved it.
I have around a hundred hours on a 177 Cessna Cardinal Classic. I loved flying the 177,easy to access and great vision,! I must add ,my total time on many types of aircraft is 1200 hours.
Hehe, stabilator? I flew with my father in the Cherokee, and years prior. in the Ercoupe. Perhaps, I am biased. I was warned about the differences with the little Cardinal. In my humble limited experience, she is a joy to fly. Yes, I understand the differences in how she lands. Coming from my last experience with the Cherokee, it's a "non issue." The Cardinal has earned a permanent spot in my heart. She's a beautiful bird.
Btw if Cessna would bring back the 177 with modern technology, it would be a blockbuster!
Ahhh the good ole Citrus SR20....
Cardinal RG and fixed gear is the best flying Cessna. Very smooth and light controls, other Cessnas fly like trucks.
I've owned 3 cardinals and i love them to the death. My current 177B is economical and all Ill ever need. Thanks Cessna
The 177 and especially the RG was a great aircraft. I think Dwayne should do videos on gardening instead.
Flew the 177RG a few times after stepping up from the venerable 172/Skyhawk. Each has its own distinctive personality. While the 172/Hawk is a solid and predictable performer, it plods along like a vintage Detroit family sedan designed by a committee compared to the Cardinal RG, which feels more like a sportscar. Both are great airplanes. The Cardinal has delightful Frise ailerons, and the pilot sits well in front of the leading edge of the strutless wing so they can actually see into a turn. However, I was surprised how much heavier the landing flare was the first few times (vs. the 172), but that's the stabilator vs. elevator. The Cardinals do have a few potential mechanical concerns vs. the 172 such as the spar carry-through AD (check for corrosion and Cessna no longer manufactures the part so finding a replacement can be difficult), 3 different versions of RG mechanism, and the seal on the constant-speed prop governor that can pump all the oil overboard if it isn't installed correctly. As much as I like the 177RG, I think that I would like the 177B even more due to not having to deal with the unusual RG mechanism.
I trained on a 66' 7ECA Citabria with the O-200 (115hp), a PA-12 Super Cruiser with O-320 (150hp), but the insurance company stopped letting my CFII's students to solo on tailwheel aircraft so he bought a C-177B as a project (reassembly and mods). Ended up with a 1968 C-177B with the O-360(180hp), Horton STOL kit on the leading edge and vortex generators and a custom pitched prop allowed +120kt cruise +800 ft per minute, didn't want to stall. The airplane maintained amazing control and performance while having excellent efficiency and allowing 4 passengers. I wish I could find one in this same configuration, but the prices are out of control.
I would loved to have had a 177 Cardinal RG however it needed a better engine & cooling. I flew mostly Piper aircraft though, the Arrow was not speedy at around 135 knots however it was docile and had enough room to be comfortable.
Around minute 6:25 we get the Grooming and shortly after that we get the (even better) Citrus! …when life feeds u 🍋 … make a Citrus aircraft… 😳
Your "click bait" is misleading. The 177 series is a great aircraft as long as you understand it's operating limitations. Like other Cessna models. It's not a 172 and should not be compared.
I have a 73RG and have no issues with the plane. When I pull up all I get is its a beautiful plane and slick looking would love to take a flight with you.
I’m not sure where you are getting your information. But, you might want to consider another source. Better yet would be to go to your local airport and talk to people who actually fly these machines.
I did my commercial training in an almost new 177RG. It was wonderful. 170 mph on 9/gal/hr. Wonderful handing and views.
Great Flying Aircraft !!! great speed and handling and perfect if you are 5,9 Ft .
My absolute favorite airplane to fly..
"Citrus"? @ 6:40 I guess he thinks it's a "lemon." LOL
I like the Mac and tablets they used in the 1960's.
A great plane must have done over 200 hours never missed a beat would buy one today if I wasn’t so old
Dwayne, would you like to know my biggest issue? It's not flying the 177, (although I did like my Commanche 250 better) it's that artificial voice you're using for this piece. the only way it could be worse, would be if it were longer. Whether you liked the Cardinal or not, it deserved better than this.
The Cessna 177 was a pretty aircraft.There were many R/C model manufactures that made models of this private plane.I always thought it was a sporty looking plane.But in reality,the Cessna 182 RG was a much better aircraft.My parents had one and we loved it for years.We had great service from it.
I flew the 177RG with the bigger engine for almost one hundred hours in the late 60's and I loved every minute. I thought it was a great airplane.
Yep, must agree great plane to fly, fast and manoeuvrable
Not me. Early ones underpowered but later ones were absolutely a pleasure to fly. Great cross country machine. Some of my best landings were in this airplane.
The one cessna that wasn't an obvious tractor. Shame.
I enjoy my 1973 177B I does take a lot of work to keep it flying epical the D single mag. They recommend a 500-hr. service on the D Mag your lucky to get 100 hours. It's a very comfortable cabin...
One of the nicest flying Cessna Aircraft !!!
I’ve never heard of a Citrus airplane (Cirrus)
I’m always amazed at how people can try to appear knowledgeable and yet make ignorant mistakes like this…..🤷♂️ “Gruuuuuman” 🤓
@@cmflydelta grooooooman. Yeah I heard that too. I actually think that voiceover was done by a computer and whomever wrote the script had a couple of typos. And whoever wrote it, was not as you say, very knowledgeable.
I was learning to fly when in came out. It first had elevator problems, which was fixed with a slot in the elevator. The big complaint seemed to9 boil down to that the aircraft didn't fly like a 172.
I've owned my '77 C177B N18602 for 6 years. Recently converted her to "all glass" with 4x Garmin GI-275's and a Trio AP with GNX375 WAAS GPS. This aircraft is an OUTSTANDING bird. I've owned an Arrow II and a C-152 Aerobat (shouldn't have sold that one), and flown many others. This airplane is a keeper. Fun to fly (and yes the flare takes a little time to learn, as does the rotation) and a solid solid cross country and IFR airplane. Don't believe the naysayers. Most have never flown one and even fewer own one.
Would love to see your 177, sounds beautiful. Full glass would make it perfect.
@@Mark.Brindle Thanks!
Ahh, Jim, that's pronounced German! ;-)
@@hughboyle 😂
Fantastic airplane. Had one for 8-9 years.