Why no pilot wanted the Cessna 177 cardinal INTRODUCTION
During the glory years of the civil aviation in the mid-1960s, the Cessna Aircraft Company
decided to design a new aircraft which would keep the excitement alive, meet the customers’ desires
and succeed the venerable Skyhawk. Aiming to do it cost effectively, the company decided to base
a lot of decisions on the success they had while building the 172. Cessna was so confident in the
Cardinal shutdown the Skyhawk production line was actually shut down in anticipation of the Hawk’s
planned demise. However, things didn’t really go according to their plan. The Cardinal was a flop.
Suffering from poor performance and troubling aerodynamic qualities, it quickly acquired a bad
reputation that haunted the design for years. EXTERIOR/DESIGN
Despite high expectations for a design that would usher in new thinking in light aircraft, the
Cardinal had a rocky start and was gone from Cessna’s inventory a decade after it emerged.
Although the design is more than four decades old, the Cardinal with its racy sloped windshield,
wide doors and strut less wings looks more modern than the newest Skyhawks.
Besides being sleeker and strut-less, the new model 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. The Cessna Cardinal has enormous doors which
offer a potential benefit: of all airplane models, it’s the easiest to get in and out
of. There’s no wing strut to get in the way and the floor sits lower to the ground than other
high-wing Cessnas, so the step up is a small one. But those doors require special care,
as a gust of wind can damage the door and surrounding sheet metal when it opens violently.
The Cessna Cardinal’s wing was a high-performance NACA 6400 series airfoil, the same one used in the
Aerostar and Learjet. But that airfoil tends to build up drag quickly at high angles of attack
and low speeds, which isn’t a good trait for an airplane flown by low-time pilots.
Moving to its dimensions, the aircraft has a length of 27 feet 8 in, height of 8 feet 7 in
and a wingspan of 35 feet 6 in. INTERIOR
One goal Cessna hoped to achieve with the Cardinal was to improve cabin comfort and design over the
172 182 series aircraft and in this regard, it succeeded. The Cardinal cabin is fully 6
inches wider than a Cherokee’s and puts its sibling Skyhawk to shame. Moreover,
its baggage compartment is enormous and relatively easy to get to through a dedicated door.
As noted, the airplane’s wing sits higher and farther back, allowing excellent visibility out
of the panoramic windshield. Unlike the other high-wing Cessnas, the pilot’s vision up and to
the side is not blocked by the wing. To a degree, this gives the pilot some of the best of both
worlds—good visibility up, down and to the side. Overall, the Cardinal is probably the roomiest
four-place airplane made, not counting semi-sixseaters like the Bonanza or Cessna 210.
The tradeoff for a big cabin, of course, is speed. The main reason for the Tiger’s speed advantage
over the Cardinal is that the latter has a bigger passenger compartment while the former is tight,
with a minimal backseat and smaller frontal area. In the cockpit, there is again plenty of legroom
and comfortable seating for the pilots. ENGINE
The engine choice was nothing but a big mistake and this was one of the major reasons
why pilots disliked this aircraft, giving it a bad reputation. Cessna had ordered 2,000
150horsepower Lycoming O-320’s for the 177 assuming it will power this new bird just as
adequately as it did the 172. In reality, it could hardly pull this flying Caddy up a Kansas hill.
Although the airplane was designed with the 180-HP engine in mind, the 1968 Cardinal had a
fixed-pitch prop and a Lycoming O-320-E2D. Cessna soon understood its error after facing criticism
and realized that the aircraft was underpowered, and with the 1969 model, they swapped the O-320
for a 180-hp Lycoming O-360-A2F, keeping the fixed-pitch propeller. This match made
the airplane as harmonious as its rakish good looks suggest. Since then, most 1968 models have
been upgraded to beefier engines as well. Later the 177RG had a 200 hp Lycoming IO-360 engine.
Speaking of avionics, a wide panel holds all the latest avionics for the 1968 era
which includes a choice of ARC, King, or Narco nav/coms and a Nav-O-Matic autopilot. An audio
panel and marker beacons were popular options for the IFR cross-country fliers and a large ashtray
just right for cradling their Swisher Sweet cigarillos completes the sedan-style surroundings.
However, starting in the mid-1970s, the quality of ARC radios began to decline.
Many owners have replaced part or all of older ARC panels. The 28-volt digital ARC navcomm radios,
for example, are more serviceable than the mechanical 14-volt versions.
PERFORMANCE
The Cessna Cardinal’s performance is adequate by 1970s standards for 180-HP airplanes.
Book cruise speeds range from 120 to 130 knots, while the 150-HP 177 is listed at 115 knots.
Climb rate is about average for this class of aircraft, with the exception of the 1968 model,
whose owners universally complain about its lethargic climb performance. The 150-HP,
fixedpitch prop Cardinal looked great, but gained a reputation for lethargic climb performance.
In reality, it took some time for Cessna to figure out that pilots were loading and flying the
Cardinal as if it were a 172—which meant they were often over gross weight—since it carried 10 more
gallons of fuel and had a heavier empty weight. Cessna discovered that pilots were climbing the
aircraft well below Vy (Vy in the 172 was 10-MPH slower than it was for the Cardinal). When flown
and maintained properly, the 150-HP Cardinal actually out climbed and outran the 150-HP 172.
The stall speed was higher than the Skyhawk’s, too. The 1968 Cardinal as originally delivered
was quite sensitive on the controls, particularly in the pitch mode.
In crosswinds, the stabilator could stall in the landing flare,
resulting in a sudden loss of tail power and an unexpected plunge of the nose wheel onto
the runway. Porpoising and bounced landings were commonplace. Various studies showed a
disproportionately high rate of hard landings and takeoff stall-mush accidents for the early models.
Owners typically report useful loads in the 850-950-pound range,
depending on installed equipment. That’s a bit less than the Cherokee 180 or the Grumman Tiger,
but perhaps not enough to rule in favor of one or the other solely on payload issues. Assuming
a fairly typical 900-pound useful load and 49-gallon tanks, the Cessna Cardinal has roughly
600 pounds for people and bags once the tanks are filled. That’s three FAA-standard people—well,
a little less if “standard” becomes 195 pounds—and 90 pounds of luggage.
If you want to carry four full-size people and 100 pounds of luggage, you’ll be limited to perhaps 20
gallons of fuel—barely enough to fly anywhere safely. Weight limitations make the Cardinal
essentially a three-passenger airplane, or at best a two-plus-two with adults and kids aboard,
certainly not four large rear-ended adults, therefore one must choose pax wisely.
With full tanks, the Cessna 177 Cardinal has decent but not an exceptional range.
The 49 gallons usable and typical 9- to 10-GPH fuel flow allows the Cardinal to fly
four hours with reserves and cover more than 500 miles. The 60-gallon tanks available on post-1973
models boost endurance by an hour and range by 150 miles, at the expense of 66 pounds of payload.
Legally speaking, the 177s converted to the 180-HP constant-speed setup are worse, since useful
load can’t be legally increased while the new engine/prop package is about 50 pounds heavier.
Interestingly, the c.g. is so long that if you abide by the 120-pound baggage restrictions,
it’s nearly impossible to load out of c.g., even with two heavy-weights up front (but no
passengers in the back), or two heavyweights in the back and a lightweight pilot up front.
The Cardinal wins praise from owners for its handling qualities.
Despite having lighter control forces than other Cessnas, the airplane makes a fine instrument
platform. What was once considered an airplane that was “twitchy” in pitch is now considered
more normal in that other airplanes with even lighter controls were subsequently marketed,
such as the Grumman American Cheetah and Tiger. In cruise flight, the Cessna 177 Cardinal is
a steady IFR airplane if you can get it trimmed out laterally and keep the fuel balanced. Several
owners reported gross fuel-flow discrepancies when the fuel selector is on “both,” with the tendency
for fuel to flow from the left wing. Leftright switching every half hour may be necessary to
maintain good lateral trim or a few seconds of uncoordinated flight to clear the liquid from tank
vent system, which is what causes the imbalance. VARIANTS
Cessna realized it had made a major gaffe with the Cardinal.
It restarted the Skyhawk production line using the 150-HP engines that had been purchased for
the Cardinal and set to work fixing the Cardinal’s problems. Under the “Cardinal Rule” program, it
retrofitted leading edge slots to stabilators on all Cardinals already in the field and made them
standard in new production machines. This fixed the stabilator-stalling problem, although pitch
forces remained lighter than average for a Cessna. The 1969 model (177A) had a 180-HP Lycoming
engine, plus there was a 150-pound increase in gross weight to compensate for both the
engine’s increased mass and some shortcomings in the original airplane’s useful load.
The stabilator-to-wheel control linkage ratio was changed to slow the response in pitch slightly.
Despite the improvements, 1969 sales nose-dived to about 200 units, while Skyhawk sales rebounded
to their former league-leading levels. In 1970, Cessna made more major improvements, yielding the
177B Cardinal. The 6400 series airfoil was changed to a more conventional 2400-series similar to the
Skyhawk’s, plus a constant-speed propeller was added for better takeoff and climb performance.
The final aircraft in the 177 line was the retractable-gear 177 Cardinal RG,
which Cessna began producing in 1970. Both the nose-wheel and main wheels retract rearwards,
with the nose-wheel enclosed by doors when retracted. The 177RG had a 200
hp (149 kW) Lycoming IO-360 engine which also allowed increase of the maximum weight by 300 lbs.
The additional resulted in a cruise speed of 148 knots which was 22 knots faster than the 177B.
At last, the Cardinal had all the makings of a good airplane. From 1971 on, the Cessna Cardinal
got only minor changes. In 1973, a 61-gallon fuel capacity became optional, and cowling improvements
boosted cruise speed from 139 to 143 MPH. In 1978, a 28-volt electrical system was added.
In 1975, speed went up again, but this was really mostly the result of some creative number
crunching by Cessna. For example, the cruise RPM limit was increased so that 75 percent power could
be obtained at 10,000 feet instead of at 8000 feet, as before. At the time, Cessna’s marketing
department called the Cardinal “the fastest 180-HP, fixed-gear airplane in the world.”
Not true—the Grumman Tiger was at least 8 or 9 knots faster—at about the same price.
Finally, 1976 brought a new instrument panel. The older panels had a 1960s Buick-style split
panel arrangement that did little but rob panel space. The 1976 panel is a more conventional,
full-width design. In 1978, Cessna made one last-ditch effort to save the Cardinal.
The company spruced it up with some fancy interior appointments and radio packages—along
with an absurdly high price tag—and called it the Cardinal Classic. Only 79 intrepid souls sprang
for the gussied-up airplane. MARKET
Cessna produced 1164 Cardinals that first year, but word got around about the
airplane’s performance. The following year, sales slumped, while other models were selling well.
In fact, no more than 250 Cardinals were built in any single year after the airplane’s introduction.
Throughout its lifespan, the airplane continued to be a slow seller, despite Cessna’s successful
efforts to fix the original Cardinal’s quirks. It was the only Cessna single that didn’t lead
its category in sales. Piper’s Cherokee 180/Archer beat it handily, as did the upstart Grumman Tiger.
While the latest models of the 177RG (1978) have a typical retail value of around $69,000,
the price is higher for models with new paint and fresh avionics
upgrades. PROS
Despite the fact that the aircraft had plenty of warts and shortfalls,
many of them were rectified and the Cessna Cardinal became an excellent choice for
owners who wanted a bit more performance than the Skyhawk without stepping up to the 182 Skylane.
The two best attributes are the cabin which is longer and wider than a 182
and the improved visibility as compared to other Cessnas. Probably the most beneficial
to pilot and passengers is the absence of a wing strut which contributes to such improved
views down. CONS
The Lycoming IO-360-A1B6D engine in the 1973 to 1978 Cardinal RGs has a couple
of notable idiosyncrasies. One is that it uses the infamous Bendix dual magneto that puts two
magnetos on a single shaft, making the shaft a potential single-point failure item that can
rob you of all engine power instantly if it fails. It has a heavier airframe than a 172, despite
use of some thinner skins and lighter-weight components with a more complex fuel system.
Although it was supposed to succeed the legendary 172 with better characteristics,
it had higher stall speeds as compared to 172. Moreover, the 177 and 177A (1968-69) airfoil
builds up drag at high angles of attack. The large doors on the 177 were a problem
on windy and gusty days as they were fairly light and can fly right out of your hand if
they get caught by a gust, causing damage to the hinge or the skin ahead of the door, or both. The
doors also have proved to be leak-prone. Some of the doors fit too tightly, others too loosely,
due to either poor quality control in production, subsequent wind damage or both.
The stabilator in the Cardinal RG has been the subject of a lot of discussion.
While it’s less sensitive than some other stabilator-equipped aircraft, it’s much
more sensitive than the stabilizer/elevator combination that most Cessna pilots know and love.
The landing gear raises the issue of proper maintenance. Experienced Cardinal RG owners
will tell you that properly maintained, the landing gear is every bit as reliable as the gear
on any other aircraft. The problem is finding a mechanic who really understands the landing gear,
as well as the rest of the airplane. CONCLUSION
Although Cessna’s 177 Cardinal was intended to be a Skyhawk killer, the venerable 172
outlasted it and continues to be a mainstay in Cessna’s current piston aircraft line.
Still, the Cardinal enjoys enthusiastic support among owners for many of the reasons
that Cessna thought it would become a hit, although it had its fair share of problems.