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.