Training aircraft

[amillet]

my son 32 yr. old sheriff's deputy/paramedic son has expressed an interest in learning to fly.  I will soon have access to a 1968 Cessna 177 Cardinal for free.  What is your opinion as to its suitability as a trainer as opposed to a 172.  It does have the stabilator slots mod.

[amillet]

Also has 180 HP

[bonal]

I like the 177 I was looking to buy one before I found my Mooney I can't remember but I think they have a laminar flow wing. I think the early models were a bit unforgiving and the stabilizer mod was to correct that. With the 180 hp should be a good training platform

[garytex]

I found a 170 (4 place 145 hp taildradder Cessna high wing) much easier to learn to land (not counting the ground run) than the 150 (two place trainer).  Landing well involves both decelerating and going downhill at the same time.  The process of understanding how to wind up with no excess energy (speed) at 0 feet above ground level was easier for me to understand in the slightly heavier wing loaded 170.  I kept getting blown around in the 150, masking learning the process.  I think a 180 Hp 177 with two folks aboard would be great to learn in.  Free means less pressure to learn fast-- thats also great.  Grab it! 

[glafaille]

If it has the 180 HP mod and the upgraded stab it should be a nice flying plane, probably faster than the later Cardinals.  I say "go for it"!  Can't beat the price!  I would take the deal even without the mods.

[XXX]

amillet,

I was a partner in a 1970 fixed gear Cardinal for over 10 years and most of my PIC time is in that aircraft. It is a great flying plane and quite roomy (especially for the rear seat passengers). The stablilator with the slats has great control authority and the 180 horse Lycoming is an efficient machine. One thing to be conscious of is that it can get "heavy" on final so don't get behind the power curve. The Cardinal has a variable pitch prop and cowl flaps which will lend well to a Mooney transition in the future. The Cardinal is not particularly fast, yet it does look rather sexy on the ramp. I would certainly recommend it for training purposes.  

Here is a pic of the old gal...

Best,

Steve

[Ron McBride]

I have some time in a Cardinal also.  68 model with 150HP.  I don't remember cowl flaps.  It was fun to fly, just slow and very economical compared to the twin I was flying at the time.

Ron

[sw1024]

I did half of my IFR training in a 177 RG.  I really liked the airplane, very roomy.  Faster than a 172 and the prop/cowl flaps/retractable gear made it complex--so you have a bit more going on than a 172.  I found the Cardinal to be alot tougher to land than a 172.  My CFI owned the plane and had owned many other Cessna models previously--he thought the Cardinal was the toughest Cessna to land out of all of them--especially in crosswinds.  I seemed to make good landings or bad ones...not many in between.  So, tougher to learn in than a 172...but you learn/adapt either way.  

You mentioned that you would soon have access to one for free...that's fantastic, tell your son to go for it.

[capthaak]

I owned an RG and absolutely LOVE the Cardinal! In fact, I was looking for another RG when we came across the Mooney we currently own. Head and shoulders above the 172, even though it's a 68. (That model year gave the Cardinal it's bad name) but it looks like a nice plane, and can't beat the price! Heck, if somebody told me learn for free, I'd have done it in a Tri Pacer!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk