That’s a 1974 177B, above, thanks to owner Chris Berg. He said the Cardinal’s two best attributes are the size of the cabin (longer and wider than a 182) and the improved visibility in a turn compared to other Cessnas.
The short story of Cessna’s 177 Cardinal is it’s one of those should-have-been products that just never was. While the Cardinal is sleek, handsome and with decent payload and speed, it never quite pushed the 172 Skyhawk into retirement as Cessna had hoped it would. The 182 Skylane distorted the buying decision, too.
But 40-something years later, there are good reasons why the Cardinal makes for a satisfying ownership experience. It’s familiar enough where most shops can wrench it and for well-trained pilots who want more speed than a Skyhawk, it makes for a good go-places IFR platform.
You’ll pay a premium on the current market for Cardinals that have been restored, especially ones with flagship avionics and newer engines. Buy one that’s been loved and get the right transition training so you don’t prang it.
Skyhawk killer, not
Especially one wearing a modern paint scheme, the Cardinal with its racy sloped windshield, wide doors and strutless wings looks more modern than the newest Skyhawks coming out of Cessna’s Independence, Kansas, plant. Flash back to when the Cardinal appeared in the late 1960s, and when the Cessna 172 was long in the tooth, having been on the market for over 10 years. It was time for something new—which is just what buyers were looking for when the first Cardinals hit the dealer ramps.
The airplane was definitely a change from the 172 the market was used to. Besides being cleaner and strutless, the new model had a stabilator, just like Piper’s competing Cherokees did. With the wings placed aft of the main part of the cabin, the pilot sat ahead of the leading edge, which produced better inflight visibility than any of the previous Cessnas had—something we really appreciate whenever we strap into a Cardinal. The 1968 Cardinal had a fixed-pitch prop and a Lycoming O-320-E2D. It was designed with the 180-HP engine in mind, but Cessna had ordered 2000 150-HP engines from Lycoming—its first purchase from the company.
The 150-HP, fixed-pitch 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. Worse, 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). However, when flown and rigged properly, the 150-HP Cardinal actually outclimbed and outran the 150-HP 172.
Cessna produced 1164 Cardinals the 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. A total of 2752 were built, eventually. 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 nosewheel 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.
Cessna realized it had made a major gaffe with the Cardinal. It restarted the Skyhawk production line and set to work fixing the Cardinal’s problems. Under the so-called “Cardinal Rule” program, it retrofitted leading slots to stabilators on Cardinals already in the field. This fixed the stabilator-stalling problem, although pitch forces remained lighter than average for a Cessna.
More power, electrics
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 slots were incorporated and the stabilator-to-wheel control linkage was changed to improve the pitch characteristics. The nosegear/firewall area was also beefed up to prevent bent metal from bounced landings. This fix was offered as a retrofit to 1968 models via an early bulletin.
In 1970, Cessna made more major improvements, yielding the 177B. 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. 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 capacity became optional, and cowling improvements boosted cruise speed from 139 to 143 MPH. In 1978, a 28-volt electrical system was added—much preferred all these years later for integrated avionics retrofits from Dynon and Garmin.
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.
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. These days, big-screen glass means cutting-edge custom panels that Cessna never imagined in the early days. In 1977, Cessna focused marketing efforts on the Hawk XP, which had about the same performance, was less attractive, didn’t quite handle as crisply as the 177, noisier and had much higher fuel consumption and engine maintenance and a lower TBO. Still, Cessna added ARC radios to the standard equipment list and boosted the Cardinal’s price by about 50 percent. Customers preferred the Hawk XP by a four-to-one margin. In 1978, Cessna made one last-ditch effort to save the Cardinal, jazzing it up with some fancy interior appointments and radio packages—along with a higher price tag—and called it the Cardinal Classic. It sold only 79 of them.
Performance, ergos
The 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, step-up pilots. The stall speed was higher than the Skyhawk’s, too.
In the late 1970s, an accident involving an original model 150-HP Cardinal prompted a series of test flights (performed by an expert test pilot working for plaintiffs’ attorneys) in an attempt to prove that the 177 didn’t live up to its performance figures. 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. But because these trials weren’t conducted by the FAA or Cessna, no official action was taken against Cessna. It wasn’t until the early 1990s that the expert test pilot was proven wrong in court about his claims of the Cardinal’s short-field takeoff performance. Book cruise speeds range from 120 to 130 knots, while the 150-HP 177 is listed at 115 knots. Those numbers fall short of the Grumman Tiger (139 knots) and are about on par with the Cherokee 180/Archer and better than the Beech Sundowner. With full tanks, the Cardinal has decent but not exceptional range. The 49 gallons usable and typical 9- to 10-GPH fuel flow allow 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.
A typical 60-gallon Cardinal with tanks full can carry just 540 pounds of cabin load. The 1968 150-HP Cardinal (2350 pounds gross) has a gross weight 150 pounds lower than the 177A and 177B. Empty weight is only a bit less, so the 177’s equipped useful load may be as low as 750 pounds. Put in four 170-pounders and 70 pounds of luggage and there’s zero left for fuel.
Overall, the Cardinal is probably the roomiest four-place airplane made, not counting semi-six-seaters like the Bonanza or Cessna 210. The Cardinal cabin is fully 6 inches wider than a Cherokee’s and puts its sibling Skyhawk to shame. The baggage area is a good size and relatively easy to get to through a dedicated door. Speaking of doors, the big main cabin doors make it easy to slide in and out of the Cardinal’s cabin, but hang on to them—a gust of wind can damage the door and surrounding sheet metal when it opens violently.
Despite having lighter control forces than other Cessnas, the airplane makes a fine instrument platform, and better yet with digital autopilot retrofits. Pitch control forces are light (particularly compared to the Skyhawk and Skylane). On takeoff, the Cardinal must be rotated with firm wheel pressure, at least with only two people in front and flaps up. This is, in part, because the pilot sits well ahead of the wing; all that weight out front has its consequences. Dropping 10 to 15 degrees of flaps for takeoff, however, will require a much less vigorous rotation moment.
Despite the fuel-related wrecks we found in the NTSB reports, the Cardinal’s 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, which tends to run to the front of the wing tanks.
To nail landings, get training from someone who knows how to fly a Cardinal. Pitch control is quite effective and the nose comes up high in the flare, which can be sporty in the hands of ham-fisted newbs. Some Cardinals sport three-blade props, which adds another element. “I love the way it looks, but wouldn’t necessarily recommend it for most pilots. This is not because it results in lower cruise speeds, which I haven’t observed, but because of the significantly increased weight on the nose as well as the unnecessary drag during descent. Together, these make power- off landings a challenge requiring a large and well-timed pitch change between short final and flare,” 177B owner Chris Berg told us.
Maintenance, support
A couple of shotgun ADs (2000-06-01 and 99-27-02) deal with fuel valves and strainers; not a big deal. Another—AD 98-208—is a big deal and calls for inspection of the crank bore for corrosion on the fixed-pitch airplanes. At the least, it’s repetitive, and it could mean replacement of the crank. There’s also the mandatory Textron Service Bulletin SEL 57-09R1, Carry Through Spar Inspection, to spot cracking. We don’t suggest buying any Cardinal until this is properly eddy current inspected.
A popular power mod for the Cardinal is the one that converts the 150-HP O-320 model to the 180-HP constant-speed Lycoming O-360. The conversion is straightforward, basically a bolt-on job, so it’s no surprise that hundreds have been done.
To keep the big cabin doors from breaking, owners tell us money and effort is well spent on a Door Steward modification. It’s the installation of a gas spring attached to brackets mounted on the door and the airframe. When the door is unlatched, the gas spring gently but firmly opens the door to the full open position. Knots 2U (www.knots2u.com) and Aircraft Spruce (www.aircraftspruce.com), to name two vendors, sell the pair for $459.
For fleshing out technical questions, hands-down the best support for Cardinals comes from Cardinal Flyers Online at www.cardinalflyers.com. Paul Millner and Keith Peterson are long-standing Cardinal tech gurus who continue to make CFO one of the best support resources available among other type organizations. There’s also the active and resourceful Cessna 177 Cardinal Friends Facebook group, with almost 32,000 members. The first post we saw was a carry-through spar for sale.
Market
It’s tempting for shoppers to skip over a fixed-gear Cardinal for a 177RG retrac, but get an insurance quote first. A fixed-gear 177 could be more insurance friendly. But shop carefully. These are old airplanes and we’d want one that’s been very well maintained (with particular attention on corrosion inspection) and flown regularly.
Prices remain strong in winter 2024-25, with later-model refurbished models with low-time engines fetching north of $150,000.
CESSNA 177 ACCIDENTS: FUEL
We generally liked what we saw as we reviewed the 100 most recent accidents involving fixed-gear Cessna Cardinals (models 177, 177A and 177B). There were only seven runway loss of control events, tribute to controls that stay effective at low speeds—if a pilot knows what she is doing in a crosswind, the airplane won’t let her down.
There were only four overshot landing accidents—the drag from the big flaps can help salvage a good percentage of high and fast approaches. Three pilots crashed in IMC, one was VFR into IMC, one was CFIT—probably asleep with the autopilot on early in the morning when he hit the side of a mountain—and one got into a diving spiral in the clag, came out of the bottom and pulled, bending the wings in the process.
Where we did see concern was in fuel-related mishaps—19 of them, all but one involving running out of avgas. This has us puzzled. A Cardinal can carry a lot of fuel with five hours’ endurance with the mixture properly leaned.
Almost all of the fuel-exhaustion accidents involved pilots departing with partial fuel. In four of the accidents, the pilots “sticked” the tanks, but all of them used devices that were for another model airplane, not a Cardinal.
In one fuel-exhaustion accident, the pilot planned a 4.5-hour trip, well within the endurance of the airplane. However, about an hour into the flight he noticed some engine roughness and moved the mixture to full rich. The increased fuel consumption wasn’t good.
We were interested to note that in some accidents we considered to be severe, the injury levels to occupants were either minor or none. This appears to be an indication of good crashworthiness of the Cardinal design.
The corollary of effective controls at low speed is that if the pilot makes large control movements when landing, such as is common is less-responsive aircraft such as a Cessna 172 or the Piper Cherokee line, there is a good chance that the pilot is going to overcontrol, especially in pitch.
In addition, when flaring to land, the nose comes up and blocks visibility straight ahead, requiring the pilot to be ready for it and look slightly to the left. It’s not a big deal, and it’s one of things that should be covered in a good checkout.
The combination of effective pitch control and partial restriction to forward visibility has meant that a lot of Cardinals have been damaged on landing because the response to a hard touchdown or ballooning in the flare is often to move the yoke forward to lower the nose. However, the effective pitch control can cause the next thing to hit the ground to be the nosewheel. The pilot reacts by pulling back and pilot-induced-oscillation (PIO) starts. If not stopped, it often leads to damage to the nosegear, firewall (where the nosegear is attached) and a tail strike.
We were also concerned by the number of go-around loss of control accidents. Most involved pilots retracting all of the flaps suddenly and stalling or sinking into the ground, although loss of directional control figured in about a third.
We consider a good checkout in a Cardinal to be essential because, flown correctly, it lands beautifully and is one of the nicest handling airplanes in the sky.
