No doubt about it, the original Cardinal was a flop. Suffering from poor performance and troubling aerodynamic qualities, the 177 quickly acquired a bad reputation that haunted the design for years. It could be said that it never really recovered; Cessna ended up discontinuing the Cardinal after 10 years, replacing it with the Hawk XP. Too bad, because the later Cardinals were much better than the originals, and superior to the Hawk XP, to boot.
History
The first Cardinals appeared in 1968. It was markedly different from other Cessna singles (and still is-none of the Cardinals unique features made their way into other designs). It had a stabilator, and a cabin that placed the pilot ahead of the wing leading edge for far better in-flight visibility. It also had no wing struts, like the much larger 210.
The intention was to replace the Skyhawk, which by then was 12 years old. The 68 Cardinal had a fixed-pitch prop and the same engine as the 172: a Lycoming O-320-E2D. Cessna was so confident that the Cardinal would succeed that the Skyhawk production line was actually shut down for a while in anticipation. Things didnt work out, however.
The 150-HP, fixed-pitch Cardinal was no Skyhawk. It didnt handle like a 172, and docile, friendly flying qualities have always been the Skyhawks strong suit. There were real problems with pitch control in the flare, and even experienced pilots found themselves running out of pitch authority. Plus, the airplane wouldnt climb we’ll at all.
Cessna cranked out 1,164 Cardinals that first year. By the time the 69 model year came along, however, the word had gotten around and no more than 250 were built in that or any subsequent year. Production eventually reached 2,752.
Its unfortunate that the popularity dropped so badly, because the later Cardinals got much better. Numerous changes were made to address the original models shortcomings, by and large successful.
The bad rep
Most of the 1968 Cardinals bad reputation was justified. The 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 is not a good trait in a plane flown by low-time step-up pilots, although its certainly acceptable in higher-performance airplanes. Stall speed was higher than the Skyhawks, too.
Although the book numbers for stall and rate of climb didnt look too bad, they turned out to be wildly optimistic. In the late 1970s, an accident involving an original model 150-HP Cardinal prompted a series of test flights that showed the 177 didnt quite live up to its performance figures-in fact, the tests showed that the 177 didnt even meet all of the FAA certification requirements (although they werent conducted by either FAA or Cessna, and no official action was taken as a result).
The test pilot measured the gross-weight rate of climb at 560 feet per minute, we’ll short of the manuals stated 670 FPM. Takeoff distances over a 50-foot obstacle were seriously understated as well. The accident in question involved a pilot who supposedly had operated the airplane as described in the manual, and wound up clipping the trees at the end of the runway. The tests proved that this was in fact the case-the book was wrong, the pilot followed it and crashed.
The 1968 Cardinal as originally delivered was quite sensitive on the controls, particularly in the pitch mode. 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.
To add insult to injury, the Cardinals useful load was less than that of the Skyhawk.
In sum, the 68 Cardinal didnt climb well, didnt handle like the airplane it was supposed to replace, couldnt carry as much, wasnt much faster, and had landing characteristics that could bite the unwary. No wonder the tried-and-true Skyhawk remained popular.
Backpedaling
Cessna quickly realized it had made a major gaffe with the Cardinal. It restarted the Skyhawk production line and set to work fixing the Cardinals problems. Under the so-called Cardinal Rule program, it retrofitted stabilator slots to Cardinals already in the field. This fixed the stabilator-stalling problem, though 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 engines increased mass and some shortcomings in the original airplanes useful load. The stabilator slots were incorporated, and the stabilator-to-wheel control linkage was changed to improve the pitch characteristics.
Despite the improvements, 1969 sales nose-dived to about 200, while Skyhawk sales rebounded to their former league-leading levels.
In 1970, Cessna made more major improvements and called the Cardinal the 177B. The 6400 series airfoil was changed to a more conventional 2400 series similar to the Skyhawks, and a constant-speed propeller was added for better takeoff and climb performance. More stabilator changes were made as well. At last, the Cardinal had all the makings of a good airplane.
From 1971 on, the Cardinal got only minor changes. In 1973, a 61-gallon fuel tank became optional, and cowling improvements boosted cruise speed from 139 to 143 MPH. In 1974, a 28-volt electrical system was added.
In 1975, speed went up again, but this was really the result of some creative number crunching by Cessna: The cruise RPM limit was increased so that 75 percent power could be obtained at 10,000 feet instead of 8,000 as before. At most altitudes, side by side under the same conditions, a 1975 Cardinal is no faster than a 1974 model.
At the time, Cessnas marketing department called the Cardinal the fastest 180-HP, fixed-gear airplane in the world. Not true-the Tiger was at least eight or nine knots faster, and it was about the same price.
Finally, 1976 brought a new instrument panel. The older panels had an odd glovebox arrangement that did little but rob panel space. The 1976 panel is a more conventional, full-width design.
Throughout this period the plane continued to be a slow seller, despite Cessnas successful efforts to fix the original Cardinals quirks. It was the only Cessna single that didnt lead its category in sales (Pipers Cherokee 180/Archer beat it handily, as did the upstart Grumman Tiger).
In 1977, Cessna finally gave up on the Cardinal. The Hawk XP was introduced (same performance, less attractive, worse handling, noisier, more cramped, much higher fuel consumption and engine maintenance, lower engine reliability and TBO). Meanwhile, Cessna added a bunch of ARC radios to the standard equipment list and boosted the Cardinals price by about 50 percent. Customers preferred the Hawk XP by a four-to-one margin. Price and competition from Grumman and Piper undoubtedly had a lot to do with the poor sales, but the Cardinals reputation was clinging to it.
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. No real surprise here: Average flyaway price of a Cardinal Classic was over $50,000, compared to just over $30,000 for a Tiger or just under $40,000 for an Archer. The Cardinal Classic only recently passed its original price. With average retail pegged at $52,500, it took about 20 years to regain its original value, which is pretty dismal price performance. Average retail for 1978 models pegs the Tiger at $53,000 and the Archer at $62,000. Relatively speaking, the Cardinal is becoming a better buy than it once was; Tiger and Archer prices have jumped significantly in the past few years, so they no longer hold a price advantage. The Tiger, in particular, had been much less expensive than the Cardinal and therefore a smart buy. With price parity, the buyer can choose the greater comfort of the Cardinal or the better speed of the Tiger without paying a premium either way.
Performance
The Cardinals performance is middle-of-the-road for 180-HP airplanes. Book cruise speeds range from 120 to 130 knots, while the 150-HP 177 is listed at 115 knots. Those numbers are nowhere near as good as the Grumman Tiger (139 knots), about comparable with the Cherokee 180/Archer, and better than the pokey Beech Sundowner.
Owners report real-world performance reasonably close to book figures, except for the 1968 model. Typical figures: 125 knots on 9-10 GPH. The 1968 model, judging from owner reports, is fortunate to cruise 105 knots.
Climb rate is about average for this class of aircraft-again, with the exception of the 1968 airplane, whose owners universally complain about its lethargic climb performance.
Owners typically report useful loads in the 850-950-pound range, depending on installed equipment. Thats slightly less than the Cherokee 180 or Grumman Tiger, and not enough to excuse the owner from careful consideration of weight and balance.
Assuming a fairly typical 900-pound useful load and 49-gallon tanks, the Cardinal has about 600 pounds for people and bags once the tanks are filled. Thats three FAA-standard people 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 (adults and kids).
With full tanks, the Cardinal has good range. The 49 gallons usable and typical 10-GPH fuel flow allow the Cardinal to fly four hours with reserve, 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-but at the expense of 66 pounds of payload. A typical 60-gallon Cardinal with tanks full can carry just 540 pounds of cabin load. The 1968 150-HP Cardinal (2,350 pounds) has a gross weight 150 pounds lower than the 177A and 177B. Empty weight is only a bit less, so the 177s equipped useful load may be as low as 750 pounds. Put in four 170-pounders and 70 pounds of luggage, and there’s zero-thats right, zero-left for fuel.
Legally speaking, the 177s converted to the 180-HP/constant-speed setup are even worse, since useful load may not be legally increased while the new engine/prop package is about 50 pounds heavier. But most pilots of the 180-HP 177s fly as if they have 177As or Bs. From the performance point of view, theyre perfectly safe doing that. (As far as the landing gear and wing spar go, were not so sure.)
Interior
A major design goal of the Cardinal was interior comfort, and the goal was achieved. The cabin is fully six inches wider than a Cherokees, and puts its sibling Skyhawk to shame. The baggage compartment is huge. From the pilots point of view, the Cardinal feels very spacious as well, since the wing sits higher and farther back, allowing excellent visibility out of the panoramic windshield. Unlike the other high-wing Cessnas, the pilots 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 down and to the side, and less high-wing blockage of vision above the airplane.
The tradeoff for a big cabin, of course, is speed. The main reason for the Tigers speed advantage over the Cardinal is that the latter has a bigger passenger compartment. Overall, the Cardinal is probably the roomiest four-place airplane made (not counting semi-six-seaters like the Bonanza).
Its also probably the easiest plane ever built to get in and out of. The doors are huge, and there’s no wing strut to get in the way. The floor sits lower to the ground than other high-wing Cessnas, so the step up is a small one. Tall people, however, will have to duck a bit to get under the low-slung wing.
Those doors require special care, however. All of the respondents to our request for comments noted that the wind can easily take one off. One pointed out that with both open and the airplane pointed downwind, the doors can act as fairly efficient sails.
Handling
The Cardinal generally wins praise from owners for its handling qualities. Despite the generally lighter control forces than other Cessnas, the airplane reportedly makes a fine instrument platform.
In truth, the pitch sensitivity and porpoising tendencies of the Cardinal have never really been completely tamed. Pitch control forces are light (particularly compared to the notoriously ponderous Skyhawk and Skylane), and Skyhawk pilots are sometimes surprised by the responsiveness and pitch authority.
On takeoff, the Cardinal must be rotated with firm wheel pressure, at least with two people in front and flaps up. This is, in part, because the pilot sits we’ll ahead of the wing; all that weight out front has its consequences. Dropping 15 degrees of flap for takeoff, however, will fly the Cardinal right off the runway without major yanks on the wheel.
In cruise flight, the Cardinal is a good 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 all fuel flowing from the left wing. Left-right switching every half hour may be necessary to maintain good lateral trim.
Otherwise, the Cardinals fuel system is well-designed. There’s a reservoir under the floor, which means that there’s essentially no chance of unporting as the result of maneuvering with low fuel. There is, however, a warning in the handbook about long nose-down descents with low fuel; it tends to run to the front of the wing tanks.
The tank vents are cross-connected to the opposite wing, and are led through the trailing edge where icing is not a concern.
Maintenance
Owner reports and service difficulty filings suggest the Cardinal is a fairly simple, low-maintenance airplane. (Ironically, the retractable-gear 200-HP Cardinal RG is a real maintenance bear, with almost four times the rate of service difficulty reports on file as the fixed-gear airplane.) Annual inspections typically run in the vicinity of $700-900 for the basic once-over, which is typical for this class of airplane at the moment. That figure, of course, varies widely. The engine and airframe have no major flaws that were aware of. The 180-HP Lycoming engine, in fact, is one of the most reliable of all. Parts arent a particular problem, but the Cardinal is a relative oddball: Finding spares is more difficult than for most Cessna singles.
Some things to watch out for:
McCauley prop inspection. It must be overhauled every five years or 1,500 hours. Check compliance on any airplane considered for purchase.
Oil pump gears. Pre-1976 Cardinals should be checked for compliance with AD 75-08-09 on the oil pump gears. The Cardinals engine model was not specifically called out in the vaguely-worded AD, and some mechanics may not be aware that the AD applies. Semantic hair-splitting aside, make sure this AD has been done.
Other generic ADs that apply to many aircraft. Stewart oil coolers, Cessna fuel caps, vacuum pumps, ELT batteries, etc., etc.
Water leaks through the windshield and door. Many owners reported being plagued with leaks. Check the sealant and any water damage.
That #@%*&# Bendix mag, as one owner put it. The 1975-78 Cardinal unfortunately came with the notorious Bendix dual magneto.
Some Cardinals, particularly those in humid coastal areas, have been afflicted with corrosion. See service bulletin SE 80-02 for details. Also, Cardinals built in 1977 and 1978 came with slick polyurethane paint jobs. A nice idea, but unfortunately Cessna failed to alodyne and prime the metal properly, and there was a rash of filiform corrosion on painted surfaces. By this time many if not most of these airplanes have been repainted, but be careful nonetheless.
Engine and fuel gauges. These are troublesome, and unfortunately the instrument manufacturer has gone out of business. Cessnas replacement gauges (hideously expensive, of course) are not internally lighted and therefore almost useless for night flying.
Clunking nose wheels. These can be cured with shims and/or new O-rings. Find a mechanic who knows Cardinals to do the job. The nose wheel is like no other Cessna nose wheel.
High engine temperatures. Owners sometimes report their CHTs run near redline in warm weather. (One says the number three cylinder runs especially hot.) This can be cured with an aftermarket exhaust pipe fairing that improves cooling air flow and reportedly drops temps by 75 degrees. (See the Mods section.)
Cracking stabilator balance arm brackets. New stainless steel ones replace the old aluminum ones. Cessna has issued a service bulletin calling for checks at 2,000 hours.
Owners gripe that the cowling is hard to take off and needlessly runs up their annual and repair labor bills.
One other major maintenance factor: ARC radios. Virtually all Cardinals came with avionics manufactured by Cessnas onetime captive ARC company. Starting in the mid-1970s, quality of ARC radios began to fall, reaching a nadir about 1977 or 1978, the last two years of Cardinal production. ARC gear, virtually across the board, rated dead last in our avionics owner surveys during that period, and there were big shake-ups at the ARC factory at the time. An ARC panel is a major liability in any 1974-78 Cardinal, in our opinion. Check reliability and repair records carefully in any aircraft considered for purchase. The good news here is that many owners have gotten fed up with the radios and replaced them with King or Narco equipment.
There are few notable ADs on the Cardinal. The most recent, and its a shotgun AD, is 98-2-8, which calls for inspection of the crank bore for corrosion. At the very least, its repetitive, and it could mean replacement of the crank.
Also recent is 98-1-6, calling for replacement of two-piece carb venturis with one-piece units.
Safety
As we noted above, the real safety concern with the Cardinal is pretty much limited to the original model. Pilots of unmodified 68 models should be very careful about climb rates, and when calculating takeoff distances take the information presented in the POH with a big grain of salt. Add at least 20 percent to every number to be on the safe side.
Also, pilots transitioning out of other Cessnas should be aware that the Cardinal feels quite different than the airplane theyre used to. The forces are light, and even with the stabilator slots its possible to get surprised on landing.
Past studies have shown that aside from these caveats, the Cardinal has an accident rate thats about average for this class of aircraft. The winner in the category, not surprisingly, is the Skyhawk, which has long held the title of safest four-place fixed-gear single.
To be more specific, an NTSB comparative study placed the Cardinals fatal accident rate at 2.4 per 100,000 flight hours, compared to the Skyhawks 1.5 per 100,000 hours. The same study also confirmed the Cardinals tricky landing characteristics: Of the 33 aircraft examined by the Board, the Cardinal came in 29th in landing accidents.
As with all statistics, though, these numbers cant be taken as hard-and-fast guides. Accident statistics can be very misleading. For example, a typical trainer will likely be involved in a greater proportion of landing accidents than a six-place retractable. This is not because the trainer is harder to land or less safe; its simply because the trainer is used to teach novices how to land airplanes, while six-place retracts are flown by experienced pilots.
Modifications
The most important modification for Cardinal fans is the 180-HP constant-speed engine and prop conversion for the 1968 model, which essentially converts it to the 177B configuration. Hundreds of 177s have been converted this way.
The conversion is quick and easy, basically a bolt-on job. Two different STCs are available from Avcon Conversions and Bush. The two are very similar. Both sell STC paperwork and kit parts; you buy an engine and prop elsewhere and do the labor yourself.
Horton Industries offers a STOL kit for the Cardinal consisting of a leading-edge cuff, conical wing tips and vortex generators on the vertical fin. The above-mentioned Bush also offers an STOL mod for the Cardinal, as does Sierra Industries.
There’s a burgeoning business in Cardinal speed mods. A Canadian named Roy Sobchuck of Maple Leaf Aviation came up with most of them. The mods include a nose strut fairing (and a claimed speed gain of 8 MPH), tailcone fairing (177B only, 7 MPH) exhaust stack fairing (2 MPH, 75 degree drop in engine temperature). The company also sells landing light covers, cowl cheek fairings, fuel drain fairings, ADF loop covers and main wheel pants for which minor speed increases are claimed.
Owner clubs
Cardinal owners have a choice of two clubs. The Cessna Pilots Association (www.cessna.org, (805) 922-2580), is the biggest, and publishes much useful technical info. However, most of it applies to other single-engine Cessnas, so the Cardinal owner may feel lost in the crowd of Skyhawk and Skylane buffs. For the true Cardinal fan, there is the Cardinal Club, 1701 St. Andrews Dr., Lawrence, Kans. 66047, (785) 842-7016. Since Newsletter secretary Phil Harrison travels a lot, he suggests using the fax to contact the club at (785) 842-1777. Wed consider both worthwhile for any Cardinal owner. E-mail at cardinalclub@juno.com or visit them on the Web at cardinal.mlink.net.
Owner comments
Since I became the sole owner/operator of my 1975 177B almost five years ago (after three years of partnership), I have flown an average of 80 hours per year; all VFR, some long cross-countries, but mostly 2-3 hour hops and local flights. Operating costs total $59 per hour, including fuel, oil, maintenance, insurance and hangar rent. I assist at annuals to keep the costs down. If the cost of added avionics and airframe upgrades is added, the total comes to about $72 per hour.
The Cardinal is a delightful airplane to fly, with good visibility and lots of room, reasonably good takeoff and climb performance, a comfortable cruise speed of about 125 knots true at 9-9.5 GPH, honest low-speed flying qualities, good control response in landing (but don’t flare at too high an airspeed-pilots used to 172s and 152s notice a pitch sensitivity with the 177).
Ive had two Cardinal-peculiar maintenance problems. First, the gauging systems for fuel, and oil temp/pressure are a problem. When a component goes bad, the whole system from float to gauge has to be replaced with a different, expensive Cessna design (the original vendor no longer supplies parts, and used parts are hard to come by). Second, the original equipment flush fuel caps let in rain water badly when the O-rings get old.
I cannot get excited about the so-called speed mods for the Cardinal.; the best thing one can do is make sure the airframe is rigged properly.
Membership in the Cardinal Club is a must-they publish an excellent newsletter full of useful information for other members, and sponsor an annual Cardinal fly-in/technical symposium. I also recommend the Cessna Pilots Association; they know more about Cessna piston airplanes that Cessna!
Jack M. Abercrombie
Hazelwood, Mo.
From 1970 to 1975 we owned an original 1968 Cardinal. We liked it so much that in 1977 we bought a 1975 Cardinal RG. This gives us two perspectives on what we believe is Cessnas best-ever four-place design.
We found the 1968 Cardinal to be very roomy, with unparalleled ease of entry and visibility. The view is so good because the pilot sits slightly in front of the wing, not under it as in the other Cessna singles.
With no wing strut to get in the way, and very large doors, entry and exit are easy. The only bad thing about the doors is that they are so huge, you must be careful of tailwinds while loading or unloading; they have the potential to act as sails.
By the time we bought our Cardinal, the slots had already been retrofitted to the stabilator, and consequently the flight characteristics were flawless. We never had any problems related to the stabilator stall which had given the Cardinal its bad reputation. The CG envelope is well-placed, so the only real loading concern is weight. Control response is reasonably light and responsive-in my opinion a great improvement over the Skyhawk. And the taxi characteristics are perfect.
During five years of ownership and over 500 hours of flying, we had no serious maintenance squawks. Just routine stuff like short-lived flashing beacons, a balky microswitch in the electric flap circuit, and loss of alternator power due to a slipping belt. Once we got several ounces of rain water in our fuel due to gas caps that did not seal well.
And, of course, the ARC radios are junk. When we bought our second Cardinal, the very first thing we did was replace every ARC radio with Narco. We strongly recommend that anyone purchasing a Cessna should remove all ARC electronics on general principle and avoid lots of frustration later.
Our biggest excitement with the Cardinal was a near non-takeoff in Rawlins, Wyoming on one of our numerous coast-to-coast trips. High, hot, and heavy conditions prevailed, and unknown to me, we took off on an ever-so-slightly uphill runway. The Cardinal lifted off in ground effect, but refused to climb for what seemed like an eternity. Once we realized we were flying uphill, we made a 180 and the ground dropped away.
But this demonstrates the only real problem with the early Cardinal: With 150 HP, it is dangerously under-powered. We have come to appreciate the safety aspects of having plenty of power available when you need it.
Later models changed to a 180 HP engine with a variable-pitch prop, which made a world of difference in the Cardinals get-up-and-go. But along with these improvements, Cessna reverted to the Skyhawk wing and undid some of the beauty of the Cardinals original design. Cessna originally chose the laminar-flow wing for the Cardinal because its center of lift was located farther aft so the pilot could sit in front of it. Substituting the Skyhawk wing in this aft location thus brought with it a forward change in CG. Addition of the heavier engine and prop exacerbated the problem. All of this resulted in heavier controls and a CG that could easily get too far forward if not monitored closely.
We like the handling of the laminar-flow wing. But if we had to choose between that and the bigger engine, wed take the bigger engine every time. Maybe the best of both worlds would be an early Cardinal modified to the larger engine.
Would we buy the Cardinal again? Absolutely! Its combination of price, cost of operation, performance, handling, reliability, and roomy comfort are mighty hard to beat. This is the model Cessna should be reviving.
Dave Black
Woodbridge, Va.
We bought our Cardinal (our first airplane) about a year and a half ago. I wanted to be sole owner, so the aircraft had to be inexpensive to operate. I learned to fly in Cessnas, and so my preference was for a high-wing airplane. I narrowed my search to a 1976 172M, which was the newest that I could afford without that notorious H2AD engine or a fixed-gear Cardinal. Eventually, we located a 1976 Cardinal.
The airplane had 1,407 TTAFE on it, and it was extremely clean. However, there were two things that concerned me: First, it had been top overhauled at 1,100 hours. The previous owner had flown it only 25 hours per year or so, and we were confident that this was the reason for the overhaul. A borescope and compression check revealed a good, healthy engine.
The other area of concern was resale value. I had read dated material about the 177 having poor resale value due to its poor initial showing. The Cardinal today is not the airplane it was when introduced: Its unlikely that there’s a single Cardinal flying that hasnt been retrofitted with the slotted stabilator, and many of the 1968 models have gotten engine upgrades. Judging by a recent issue of Trade-A-Plane, my Cardinal has appreciated $6-7,000 since I bought it; my insurance company agrees. It seems the Cardinal is finally getting the respect it deserves.
Our Cardinal was a factory demonstrator, fully loaded. I chose to replace most of the original ARC radios with King equipment, however. With the decent avionics, the airplane now meets all our needs. It makes a very comfortable two-person, long-range fuel plus tons of baggage machine. Three people with light luggage is also attainable. Load four on board, though, and its a toothbrush-and-underwear-only affair, even with a reduced fuel load.
The airplane is relatively roomy and comfortable. The doors open a full 90 degrees, which is great for loading but requires vigilance on windy days since there’s nothing to prevent the wind from catching one and taking it off.
Performance is right on the book numbers. My only beef is with the climb rate: I might be overly critical, but at 500-700 FPM at gross weight its a bit slow for me.
The handling is wonderful. The Cardinal flies like no other Cessna. Anyone comfortable with the stabilator-equipped Pipers should have no problem. The reputation for pitch porpoising on final is greatly exaggerated.
Hourly costs are hard to pin down since we havent owned the airplane very long. So far, the hourly cost including annuals, hangar, insurance, fuel and oil, engine reserve, and miscellaneous parts and maintenance is $52, or $96 including the loan payment. This assumes 150 hours per year. Our last annual was $900, but that included $250 for treatment with Corrosion X.
Frank Molnar, Jr.
Moore, Okla.
I have owned a 1975 Cardinal 177B since 1987. In that time, I have flown it over 1,500 hours. It has been a pleasure to own. the handling is light and stable. Its a good instrument platform and, for the most part, very forgiving on landing. Short fields and crosswinds are no particular problem.
It has huge doors which are both a blessing and a curse. Access to both front and rear seats is excellent. However, the doors get out of alignment easily and require creative sealing on a recurrent basis. Replacing the hinge pins helps some, but they are a constant problem.
The roomy interior is a delight on long flights. There’s plenty of room in the back for my two kids plus games, toys, pillows and so forth. I have replaced the original rear lap belts with three-point harnesses for their safety. The baggage compartment is roomy, unlike that of the Cardinal RG, leaving a temptation to overload it.
Total time on the airframe is 3,600 hours. It has been tied down outside for at least ten years in relatively dry California air, yet it shows almost no sign of corrosion. I do treat it with ACF 50 every three years. The plastic parts are a constant maintenance problem, however. All have been either repaired or replaced. All new interior plastic panels, wheel and brake fairings have been required. I added an exhaust stack fairing from C2 which helps keep oil and head temps in the green on hot summer days, but does nothing for cruise speed.
The Lycoming O-360 is about as bulletproof as they come. The TBO is 2,000 hours. Mine got a field overhaul at 2,200 hours and is now up to 1,400 hours with no problems.
The nose wheel has required constant attention. The design is not shared with any other Cessna, making bushings and the shimmy damper harder to find than most other parts. It clunks, wobbles and shakes if not treated with great care. The A200 autopilot is almost worthless, but is of some help in the clouds and on longer legs of a cross-country trip. If a good radio shop is available the ARC avionics can be kept in working order. They arent expensive to repair, but they are in the shop a lot and are next up for replacement on my list.
Annuals average $900-$1000 and parts are generally available and reasonably priced. Most of the parts are available from SanVal.
I belong to both the Cardinal Club and the Cessna Pilots Association, whose facility at Santa Maria, California offers both parts support and first-class maintenance facilities for the tougher problems.
The fixed-gear Cardinal is an almost fool-proof plane that looks great on the ramp and wont break the bank. It is roomy and a fine family plane, but if you want speed, look elsewhere.
Thomas C. Potter
Canyon Country, Calif.
Also With This Article
Click here to view charts for Resale Values, Payload Compared and Prices Compared.
Click here to view the Cessna 177 Cardinal features guide.