Cessna Cardinal 177RG

Take away the struts from a 172 and what do you get? The Cessna 177, that's what. We sent Geoffrey Boot to find out more ...

By the mid-sixties Cessna, always keen to retain a share of the marketplace, decided that they would need a replacement for the strut-braced Cessnas which dated from the late forties and early fifties. In 1967 they introduced the strutless Centurion (C210) with full cantilever wing, which increased speed slightly but just as importantly gave a new sleeker, more modern look to the range.

In the eyes of Cessna it was time to rework the venerable Cl72. A prototype, designated the Cl72J and colloquially known as 'the J Bird', was conceived, which became the 177. According to the company it offered improved cabin space, better access, far better visibility, improved flying characteristics and a state of line art - in those days at least - instrument panel.

The design basically grew from the cantilever wing of the Cessna 210. Designers used thinner components throughout aiming for a gross weight target of 2,350lb. To improve visibility the wing was placed a lot further aft than on the J72, but this had a knock on effect as it produced a nose-heavy centre of gravity which, combined with the aerodynamic forces caused by exceptionally long-span wing flaps, forced Cessna to use an all moving stabilator horizontal tail, a radical departure from earlier designs. Even so prototypes exhibited a tendency for a sharp wing drop during the stall and ended up with a stall speed around 7mph greater tan their C172 cousins.

The final roll out of the new C177 occurred in late l967. The aircraft certainly had a more modern look about it - and still does today. The first variants were of a fixed undercarriage type and were designed specifically to replace the Cl72. History tells us that this never happened. Despite careful design and testing the wing and tail leading edge finishes proved variable and customers experienced problems in crosswind landing flares with loss of pitch control. Over-controlling and porpoising in the flare often resulted in hard, nosewheel first touchdowns. It was obvious that owners were having difficulty in transitioning from the more tolerant elevator control of the C172 with its relatively slow pitch response to the more rapid reaction of the 177's stabilator control.

Some would say that the new Cardinal, as it became known, was completely different from anything that had left the factory previously. Power was courtesy of a 150hp 4-cylinder Lycoming (previous variants were all powered by Continental engines). The wing, as well as being cantilever, had wet wing fuel bays instead of metal or rubber tanks. Flaps were wide span, preselect Fowlers. The fuselage, by earlier standards, was low slung, so much so that when the four foot wide doors were opened, the passenger and pilot could simply sit in rather than climbing in. To the rear there was the radical (and, as it turned out, die most bothersome) departure of the all moving stabilator.

The fixed wheeled version continued to be plagued by problems and, worse still, the marketplace viewed it as underpowered. Handling was far from typical Cessna and it seemed that a whole raft of fixes were going to be needed to restore marketability.

Even when Cessna switched the 172 Skyhawk to the 150hp Lycoming after Continental had abandoned manufacture of lower powered engines, the 1968 Skyhawk sold readily whilst the Cardinal, though obviously more futuristic and modern, stayed in the doldrums. The '68 Skyhawk outperformed the Cardinal and cost $1,250 less, even though the Cardinal's launch was subsidised. Strangely, as we all know, strut braced aeroplanes continued to sell, and still are going from strength to strength whilst the Cardinal withered. Cessna struggled on with horsepower upgrades to 180 in 1969, followed by a constant prop in 1970 and then a retractable gear version in 1971 with a 200hp engine (as in the subject of this review). This allowed production to continue until 1978: a total of 2,751 fixed gear and 1,314 retractable versions were built.

The retractable model filled a niche in the Cessna range and sold relatively well. Cessna at that time (and even today with the reintroduction of the 172) had no light retractables to compete with the Piper Arrow or the Mooney and Beech ranges. The Cardinal fitted right into this slot as a baby Centurion.

 

If you've got it keep it

Cardinal owners have a reputation for holding on to their aircraft. They probably know something about them that we don't. In the States the average ownership is around ten years. Our test aircraft, owned by Colin Bain from Inverness, has been in his hands for four and a half years and was with the previous owner for four years. Colin tells me he has no intention of selling the aircraft, although he is quite candid about its shortfalls.

G-GAJB was built in 1973, so it's a later RG version, one of the types which sold relatively well. It is undoubtedly Cessna in appearance, but a close inspection reveals some remarkable non-Cessna features.

True, the high wings are the same - the fuel goes into the top of the wing, 60US gallons in total - but the wing appears unnaturally rearward, leaving room for a massive expanse of windscreen.

The doors on either side are reminiscent of those in a limousine. Open them and you can sit on the seats without lifting your legs off the ground.

Behind the rear seats there is a large baggage area which has its own door. The floor has a marked hump in it, into which the undercarriage retracts. In some fixed gear versions child seats have been fitted in this space (as there is no hump). Further back still, and very un-Cessna, is the all-flying stabilator which has what Colin describes as 'a Cessna fix' for the problem of a tail unit which stalled before the main wing: slots cut into the leading edge on both sides of the stabilator.

The engine is the fairly hardy 200hp Lycoming, driving a two-blade constant speed propeller.

 

Modern interiors

30 years after the initial design, the interior still has a modern feel about it. It is spacious, and the seats have plenty of legroom.

The instrument panel, which at that time was described as 'futuristic', still looks good today. This panel comes in two distinct tiers: the larger portion houses the flight instruments, main radio console with engine instrumentation, and switches below; the smaller section lower to the P2 side houses an ADF and a further Com unit, with fuses below.

In the centre Cessna-type plungers control the throttle, mixture and rpm, with elevator trim to the left and rudder trim below. Further down there is a cowl flap lever on the floor below the fuel tank selector.

From the pilots' perspective the windscreen seems to go on forever. With the wings set well back visibility both forward, above and around is excellent. On the cabin side windows there are little wind opened triangular sections, which can be left open up to 140mph indicated (around cruise speed) and provide very forced ventilation.

There is no 'sit up and beg' feel about the seating - it's more laid back and comfortable. The rear seats are fully reclining. Colin, with a snigger, was unable to explain the possible significance of this, but one suspects it might allow passengers to sleep on long transits - or maybe, rather like the old Austin Maxi which was sold on the basis that its seats reclined to form a double bed, this feature might allow overnight stops sans hotel bill.

Useful load is some 1,140lb which after deducting the weight of full fuel, leaves approximately 750lb of passenger and baggage payload. With the wing set well back it is almost impossible (Colin's words, but I'm sure it could be arranged) to load the aircraft out of C of G limits. This means that four average sized males can be accommodated quite happily with a little luggage, or alternatively two males and two females with quite a lot of luggage, and the aircraft could still fly to full range. In fact, Colin regularly uses the aircraft for fairly long trans-European flights. With a fuel burn of around to 10 US gallons or less in economy cruise the endurance is six hours without reserves.

 

The Cardinal takes off

The standard Cessna-like control layout leads to no surprises during the start up, taxi or take-off. Colin routinely uses 10 degrees of flap for take-off although it's not required by the manual. With full power applied and a 10 to 12 knot headwind we were off the ground in a credible 250 to 300 metres. With the runway behind flap is retracted at 200ft, with very little pitch change. The undercarriage follows - once again very little pitch change but it takes a good 14 seconds to cycle: if you're not expecting it, it leaves you wondering whether the undercarriage is really going to tuck away! The undercarriage is electro-hydraulically operated and like most Cessna series of similar configuration has had its share of problems. Hydraulic pressure holds the undercarriage up so, technically, if the pressure falls the undercarriage will drop - but that's not quite the end of the story. One of the big problems is that if there's a leak in the hydraulic system the hydraulic pump will pump all of the hydraulic fluid overboard believing that the undercarriage is partially retracted, leaving one in the embarrassing situation of being unable to retract or lower a piece of critical equipment, as the emergency manual pump requires hydraulic pressure.

There is a story about one owner who used to carry a golf club in the cabin as he had discovered that in the event of a hydraulic pump failure he could open the door slightly and use the golf club to hook the undercarriage down into the locked position; others have reputedly urinated into, or used their duty frees to top up, the reservoir. Fortunately Colin hasn't had to do this to date.

 

General Handling

Once cleaned up, 100mph is a good climb speed where the book quotes 925fpm as the maximum. We were climbing at 700 feet per minute with a power setting of 25in/2,500 rpm burning 12 US gallons per hour.

The aircraft has a distinctly more frisky feel to it than a 172; the ailerons in particular are more effective producing a good roll rate of 45 to 50 degrees per second. Pitch authority is good and is certainly more positive and less mushy throughout the speed range than a 172 (but not too much so), while directional stability is as good as any Cessna.

On levelling out the aircraft is a little reluctant to get 'onto the step'. Colin's preferred technique is to climb a little above the desired altitude then dive the height off to break what he calls the 'drag barrier'. At 3,000 feet 23 square (23"/2,300rpm) produces 150mph true, burning just under 10 US gallons per hour. 25 square ups this to just over 160mph. The manual gives 171mph for 75% power, which I suspect is a little optimistic; from what Colin experiences 150 to 155 appears to he about par for the course, maybe a little more at altitude.

Airborne visibility is as good as it gets from a high wing aeroplane. Moving the wing back certainly performed wonders in this respect, giving a far better sense of security particularly during turns. Unfortunately the prettier cabin and better seating position does little for noise attenuation.

Whilst it is possible to have a chat during the cruise, headsets would continue to my preferred option.

Having read the reservations on handling characteristics, I was keen to explore the slow speed approach envelope to see whether the problems were more perceived than real. Lowering flap and / or undercarriage results in very little pitch change - all very manageable. The undercarriage can be lowered at a healthy 140mph and does help to slow the aeroplane down. First stage of flap can be lowered at an even healthier 150mph, followed by 20 degrees and 30 degrees at 110mph. The aircraft is undoubtedly more sleek and laminar than its strut-carrying cousins, so it's quite useful to be able to introduce an element of drag particularly in the descent when speed does tend to increase quite rapidly.

When you bring the power back good aileron authority continues right through to the stall which, although a little more abrupt than in a 172, occurs at a modest 66mph with flaps up and power off and 57 with flaps down. In both cases there is a slight tendency for wing drop. However, there was nothing out of the ordinary, certainly not enough to make one suspicious of landing or approach characteristics.

The truth is that Colin lays great store in the safety margins built into the aircraft's handing, which, he says, allow him a margin of error particularly when operating under high workloads and in IMC. The aeroplane tends to look after itself. I am sure, however, there is an element of pilot skill in this: it just enables him a little latitude while he gets on with the job.

 

Getting it down

The final proof, however, would be the approach and landing. Descending gave me an opportunity of checking the engine-out glide performance. 85mph is the speed to aim for: this results in a very modest 600 feet per minute descent rate. Pretty docile for a performance RG.

When joining the circuit the speed depends on the environment, hut 100mph to 110mph within flap limiting work well, with undercarriage coming down as necessary in the descent to provide drag prior to circuit entry. Turning base go for 90mph and 20 degrees of flap leading to 80mph with 30 degrees of flap on finals and 70mph for the flare. With a fairly healthy crosswind to contend with then no, it is not as easy to land as a Cessna 172. Colin advised that I needed to flare quite markedly to get the main wheels on first and prevent any bounce. In the event the main wheels did touch first followed quickly by the nosewheel and we did what most first time 177 pilots do - a couple of little bounces before the aeroplane deigned to stay on the ground.

Colin tends to use 20 degrees of flap as 30 degrees flattens the landing attitude even more and makes touchdown more difficult. As Colin puts it, it's an aeroplane that needs practice and even when you're current greasers are not easy, although it has to be said that four and a half years of Colin's landings have yet to do any damage. The slightly more challenging landing characteristics are also reflected in the 16 knot crosswind limit, somewhat lower than that of a 172.

 

A Cardinal's sins and virtues

The Cl77 is an aeroplane I could grow to like. I have owned a Reims Rocket 172 in the past and always felt that the performance it offered came with a slightly agricultural presentation. Cessna did the business with the 177, particularly the RG version, which is a vast improvement over the Cessna 172RG Cutlass, which we reviewed in May 1997.

Although the latter is a capable aeroplane and a good training platform it attracted the nickname 'Gutless' due to the lack of improved performance when the undercarriage tucks up. The Cardinal overcomes this and offers better performance on 200hp and a good carrying capacity. Many berate the type and call it a 'Cessna Failure', but anything that sells over four thousand units must be rated a success, although this obviously pales into insignificance compared to the 35,000 to 40,000 - and still climbing - units sold under the 172 banner.

Once new owners acknowledge that there is a learning curve with the aircraft and that it's not quite as simple and straightforward as a Cessna 152 or 172 series aeroplane then the Cardinal is really rather an attractive proposition. Perhaps it's a little like a wolf in sheep's clothing. I can certainly understand why owners seen reluctant to part with them.

Power
Lycoming Fuel Injected Engine	IO-360-A1B6D rated at 200hp at 2,700rpm
Propeller: Constant Speed (diameter)	78 inches
Speed, Best Power Mixture
Top Speed at Sea Level	180mph / 156kt
Cruise, 75% power at 7,000ft	171mph / 148kt
Range, Normal Lean Mixture
Cruise, 75% power at 7,000ft, 60 Gal, No Reserves	945miles / 820nm 5.6hours @ 170mph / 147kt
Optimum range at 10,000ft, 60 Gal, No Reserves	1,210sm / 1,050nm 8.7 hours @ 139mph / 120kt
Rate of Climb at Sea Level	925fpm
Service Ceiling	17,100ft
Loads and Fuel
Empty Weight (Approximate)	1,660lb
Gross Weight	2,800lb
Useful Load	1,140lb
Baggage	120lb
Wing Loading	16.1lb / Sq Foot
Power Loading	14.0lb / HP
Total Fuel Capacity	61gal
Take-off
Ground Run	890ft
Total Distance over 50 Foot Obstacle	1,350ft
Landing
Ground Roll	730ft
Total Distance over 50 Foot Obstacle	1,350ft
Stall Speeds
Flaps Up, Power Off	66mph / 57kt
Flaps Down, Power Off	57mph / 49kt

 

This article was originally published in the August 1998 issue of FLYER.