How Cessna 172 Birthed a Failure

The 177 saga provides a short course in not only the engineering, but the psychology of building a new design. While marketing furnishes valuable input on a program, it should be up to the slide rule crowd to determine if it can become a reality. #Cessna #Cessna172 #Cessna177
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.

[blublade]

I have over a thousand hours in the 172 . Have made trips from Florida to Arizona, Bahamas, Haiti and more and some full IFR approaches . I find most problems with the plane is the pilot .

[kentfuqua]

I worked at Cessna in 67-6&. Worked on the 172 line, moving sheet metal to the real craftsmen. Did fly the 210RG and love it-about 400 hours in it. Retired now and flying is a distant dream.

[stevejones]

I've owned my '68 31 years and love it. the recent spike in Cardinal prices demonstrate that other pilots love it. I've owned a 172, but getting in/out of a 172 is painful at my age, esp for back seaters. Also, the extra cabin width makes longer trips with other folks on board, MUCH more comfortable in the Cardinal. The visibility is FANTASTIC. And the airplane is BEAUTIFUL!

[dalgrim]

As someone who has actual time in the 177 Cardinal, I can say that it is actually a nice plane. Woefully underpowered at 150/160 though. It is not hard to fly but it is not a primary trainer. The only real failure of the cardinal was the management shoving that tiny engine in the early models and marketing it as a 172 type plane. It handles well in the air, has great visibility, and cruises at a decent speed. If you’ve got a decently long runway don’t hesitate to get one, throw a power flow on there and you’ve got yourself a great 2-3person touring plane.

[terryrobertson]

Customers: Why doesn't Cessna build something new? Cessna: Ok here is the new 177 Cardinal. Customers: This doesn't fly like a Cessna. Cessna: well Duh, what did you want?

[vut_zarco]

We had a Cardinal 177B. Not the RG as my dad distrusted retractable gear after hearing how many had failed to deploy fully from other pilots. It wasn't too slow and quite stable in choppy conditions. Great visibility and easy to get in and out of. Landings were tricky. You almost never cut the throttle fully on the landing flare as the lack of propwash over the flying tail actually...makes it...well less effective shall we say. Once I came in hot bounced cut the throttle and waited for the bird to settle which never happened. The nose dipped sharply down and I must have done 3 further violent hops before attempting the go around. As soon as I applied throttle the the tail came back into action and I just wanted to land at this point. I pushed the notice forward and reduced throttle by about 50% and she glided gracefully down for a full stop landing. The controller later remarked to my dad that I had perhaps 50m of runway left. Instead of doing what I did just do the go around. She loves to fly... not to land so much though.

[erictaylor]

My dad owned a 177RG in the 80's. It was actually a fairly good plane but it had some quarks that I pilot had to deal with.
It was a bit under powered so it took some time to climb in hot weather or high altitude. You could get off the ground at about 60 MPH but you had to get to 97 before it would climb out of ground effect. And to accelerate you had to get the nose down.
The real reason the 177 failed was they were trying to replace a simple to fly simple airplane (fixed gear fixed pitch propeller) with a complex airplane that took a lot more skill to fly safely.
There is a reason the 172 is the most popular trainer out there. The 172 is very good at what it was designed to do. Almost perfect, really.
If they had intended the 177 to replace the 182 I think it would have done much better. The 172 didn't need to be replaced. It would be like trying to do a remake of the Princess Bride. No matter what you do, it won't be as good as the original.
The 177 was quite a good airplane, but it wasn't a upgraded 172.

[charlesgarrity]

I bought a used C-177 in 1972 which I think was about 3-4 years old (150 hp). The first and only plane I've ever owned and sold it in 1979 as I was moving to NYC. Great ship EXCEPT I had a hard time making smooth landing at 40 degrees of flaps. The ship would porpoise as soon as I touch down. I switched to all landing with 30 degrees of flaps and the porpoising went bye-bye.

My old ship is still flying after 50 years and sometime after I sold it, it was reengined with a 180 hp engine. Good looking ship...

[henryostman]

I've owned a 177B Cardinal for nearly 40 years, it is a great plane, with excellent flying characteristics, a very comfortable cabin, the reliable Lycoming o 360 engine. It has a gentle stall and no tendency to drop a wing when stalled. The 180 hp engine and constant speed prop give it good takeoff performance, it is slippery and you need to watch your speed on landing or you'll float forever. Like all lower powered four seaters the rear seats are for kids weightwise even though the rear seat is very comfortable, it can handle three adults, four if the ladies leave their purse behind. Newer radios are much lighter than the original Cessna's, that helps. I might note that when Piper and Mooney restarted production in the 90s both did a lot of aerodynamic cleanup, this plane can go a lot faster if this was done. Most of my training was in Piper 150s and Cessan 152s and 72s and the 177 flies better than any of them. The first plane that I owned was an old straight tailed 182, that was powerful but I don't think it was much faster than the Card. but you could fill it up and take off but the gas bill was terrible and it felt like a heavy duty pickup on a bad country road. With just me or one pass aboard landing required a burst of power to get the nose up for the flair, fuel and oil consumption improved when I added a EGT and started to lean the engine out, I've done this with the Card. as well. I do not lust for the RG model, I don't want to deal will all of the gear problems and maintenance.

[johnmajane]

The 177 was not a failure once they put the 180 hp engine in it. Combine that with the constant speed propeller and you have an excellent airplane. The C-177RG is fairly fast, very comfortable and has a very good range. Yeah they are ground huggers taking off but that is the only downside that I can see. Look at the prices of C-177B now, they command insane prices for a reason.

[geraldscott]

Thanks for the information. I have a 1974 172M (with it's original panel) It is my third aircraft since 1987. I got my license at age 22 in 1981. Before the 172M, I had a 1967 172H, and before that a 1959 Cessna 150. The 1972 172M will be my last aircraft. I have read about some of the stuff in your video in magazines, but your video included a lot more details. I love the 172. It does everything I need, and is amazingly easy to fly. I have no problem with it's cruising speed, or load capacity, it would be nice to have a slightly better rate of climb, but it is what it is. One of the best aircraft ever built.

[docpalazola]

Got my complex rating in a '74 RG. No trouble at all transitioning from a Piper Cherokee to a Cardinal RG. Fun airplane to fly, fast and very sleek looking, even when sitting on the tarmac.
Thank you for the article.

[crooked-halo]

Got my PPL in a 172 & then had a choice for commercial between the school's Arrow or Cardinal. I did most of it in the Arrow but did log about 25-30 hours in the Cardinal RG. The Arrow was old, peeling paint, glided like a brick with its Hershey bar wing, but was cheaper. If I was going on a pleasure flight or overnight trip, I always took the school's Cardinal. It looked very cool so I thought I was more impressive. I also liked the cabin room compared to the Arrow. My first instruction in the 177 was "don't fly this like the 172, " so I had no problem transitioning. Mainly, I remember it being more pitch twitchy and less stable. It definitely didn't fly like a 172 but I never had a problem. Mainly I liked the way it looked. If you were checked out in the Cardinal, you were one of the "cool pilots" at Navarro College!

[SJR_Media_Group]

Love both Cessna 172's and 182's. Great aircraft for General Aviation. More than a few Private Pilots got their hours in and Licenses thanks to Cessna.

[mikescarborough]

As a student pilot I often felt like the aircraft (a 172 in my case) seemed to know what it was doing more than I did. In a way that's true when you consider how much aeronautical knowledge is built into the flight characteristics of the aircraft by way of its airframe. This video finally revealed for me how complex that engineering really was.

[ahdash]

it appears that i have stumbled upon a gem of aviation videos

[Badge]

I got my commerical rating using a 177 and a 177RG. I did not have any problems with them, if landing and you are solo I do remember very heavy elevator force for flair.

[kentd]

I always enjoyed the 177 RG as a nice little step-up from instructing and flying in the 172. The Eielson AFB Aeroclub had one (this was decades ago). The only gotcha that I ever saw was the spacious cabin looked like it could hold more than GW allowed. That is, it could be easy to overload if the pilot was basing things on volume rather than weight.

Thanks, Dwayne, for the story.

[davewilkirson]

I flew several 172's while getting my training. They were always great planes. My friend Mike owned a 1972 model and kept it in a large garage behind his house in Tom Bean, Texas. We flew often from his grassy 80 acres. I remember the alternator belt broke after taking off and a little red light illuminated on the dash. No problem. Did a 180 to downwind, turned base, and landed in the grass and putted back to the garage. It was fun days (1980s). I remember Mike said his dad paid about $10K for the 172 and I look today and those planes are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I rented a few at Addison's FBO back in the day but it isn't a priority for me anymore. I like attending the plane shows and checking out the military inventory. I have yet to see an F-22 Rapter. Eagles (F-15E versions, Tomcats, and most all of America's military planes) I have seen many times. Got to fly in a C-141 at Hickham to Johnston-Atoll for a Raytheon job I did in 1991. That was fun. Been to Oshkosh twice. It's fun stuff.

[raynus]

I've flown the 150, 152, 170, 172, 172RG, 177RG, 182, 206, and 207.
Of them all, the fixed gear 230hp 182 (O-470) would be my pick for a good, reliable GA aircraft. It's the best compromise for power, speed, economy, and capacity.
However, honorable mention should go to the Cardinal RG - it was quick, economical, and very pretty - really enjoyed flying it.