M20F Vs. Cessna 177RG........Thoughts?

[mschmuff]

I have been searching for an M20F and a friend asked if I had looked at a 177RG Cardinal.  I did all my commercial and CFI work in a 182RG but never flew or even heard of a 177.  Any thoughts/issues?  No leaking wings? Two doors, not as fast...Fuel burn? performance?

[John Pleisse]

Wah?

[mschmuff]

Help me out John, I'm new....Wah??? 

[Parker_Woodruff]

A Cessna 177 is an ok plane, but I'd sure as heck own a Mooney M20F before a Cardinal...especially as respects the dirt cheap to maintain Mooney gear.

[John Pleisse]

Quote: mschmuff

Help me out John, I'm new....Wah??? 

[Hank]

Quote: mschmuff

I have been searching for an M20F and a friend asked if I had looked at a 177RG Cardinal.  I did all my commercial and CFI work in a 182RG but never flew or even heard of a 177.  Any thoughts/issues?  No leaking wings? Two doors, not as fast...Fuel burn? performance?

[stevesm20b]

The only thing the Cardinal RG does better than the Mooney is, it is easier to get into and out of. The gear system on the Cardinal RG can be a nightmare if it starts having problems. The Mooney is a much more economical airplane to own and fly. And is a lot faster. If you don't need the extra leg room in the back, a "C" or "E" model Mooney can be purchased for a lot less money than the Cardinal.

[Immelman]

There is one reason why I'd pick a cardinal over an M20F: Aerial photography. If that were not one of my mission needs, I'd enjoythe greater speed and efficiency of the mooney.

[MooneyMitch]

Hello mschmuff.

I hope there is a Cardinal 177RG web site.  Not that I would know that.  With that said, you may want to ask the same question on that site.

I'm just afraid MooneySpace is a little biased!! 

[rbridges]

Quote: Mitch

 

I'm just afraid MooneySpace is a little biased!! 

[1964-M20E]

I looked at the Cardinal RG before I bought my Mooney.  I think they are real nice the two huge doors are nice.  I like the lines of the Cardinal and actually prefer a high wing plane to the low wing but as mentioned above if you do not plan on hauling 4 adults regularly then a C or E model is the way to go.  The cost for my Mooney was significantly less than any RG cardinal I looked at.

 I wonder if Al ever thought of putting the wing up top I guess you could make it work and keep the efficiency of the Mooney.

[DaV8or]

I have flown the Cardinal. Nice plane and only a little slower than a vintage Mooney. The big doors are a huge plus and the C177RG is the plane I'm getting when I get old and arthritic for sure. Hands down the easiest GA plane to get into and out of. Cessna retractables are known to be the most unreliable in the GA fleet, however with proper maintenance and close inspection and I'm sure you're fine. I believe the Mooney to be cheaper to be own and largely cheaper to buy as well. Perhaps not as well supported? The view downward is of course excellent, upward and over the nose sucks. I feel closterphobic in it, just as I do a Skylane. I am not a high wing fan. They fly about the same, except the Cardinal is more sensitive in the pitch IIRC. It's been many years.

If you bought a Cardinal you wouldn't be buying a terrible plane, it's just if you buy a Mooney, you're buying a better plane.

[kerry]

I really like the looks of the  177rg.  I've heard they all have problems with leaking doors and to carry a towell incase it rains.

[kerry]

I really like the looks of the  177rg.  I've heard they all have problems with leaking doors and to carry a towell incase it rains.

[flyguy241]

I will bet the insurance cost on the 177 RG is higher than a Mooney due to the Cessna retract issues.  I had an insurance agent tell me to steer away from anything Cessna with retracts because it will be much more expensive to insure.  I'm sure the newer aircraft do not have the problems the earlier ones had, but deserved or not, that is the stigma.

[jacobwall]

I have about 25 hours in a 177RG. The gear isn't the most reliable, as you all know. I believe it's hard to find a very well maintained 177RG, at least I never came across one. They fly very nicely, it's a bit odd that you climb out at an almost level pitch which can take some used to. I never came across a leaky door, entry is nice and easy. Personally, I really like the 177RG even with the gear issue. It's simple to fly, easy to recover, and at least in the one I flew was able to do 148ktas on 8gph LOP. It was a hard decision between going with a M20C or a 177RG but I got lucky finding my now partner, rob(aa777). 

[Piloto]

Your ditching survivability is much greater in a low wing plane. Even if the C177RG does not flip over the fuselage sinks up to wing leaving you with the air in your lungs to exit to the surface. The Hudson River ditching is a good example of survivability on a low wing plane.

 

José

[scottfromiowa]

I looked at the Cardinal pretty closely.  The early models had REAL problems with the Stabilitator(sp)...The first planes were also underpowered.  The "Cardinal Rule" "fixed" the control problems, but DOOMED the plane in sales...The 172 was outselliing it.  The plane was REALLY killed by the 201...

The gear was finally figured out in the later models, but few are available as owners LIKE these and don't part with them.  It IS slower than a Mooney.  The doors not only leak, but are prone to damage as they are BIG and catch wind and if they get away the pins SNAP and sheet metal gets messed up. 

The later models have EXCELLENT panel space (Superior to a Mooney) and a HUGE back seat and baggage area.  If there wasn't Mooney...I would strongly consider a LATE model 177...but there IS Mooney so it is a mute point.

[aerobat95]

I seriously considered a C177RG.  I absolutly love the way they look.  I love how easy it is to get in and I like the high wing for shade and rainy days.  However, I did not like the problems they sometimes have with the gear.  I also did not like that the doors were flimsy.  You think its hard to load baggage into a Mooney.....try loading a Cardinal more than one bag high.  Panel space is great in a cardinal though.  Speed is ok in a Cardinal but not as fast as a Mooney.  In the end I went with the Mooney because I love the looks and love the speed.  Good luck....if you do go with a Cardinal go with a '76 or newer.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: mschmuff

I have been searching for an M20F and a friend asked if I had looked at a 177RG Cardinal.  I did all my commercial and CFI work in a 182RG but never flew or even heard of a 177.  Any thoughts/issues?  No leaking wings? Two doors, not as fast...Fuel burn? performance?

[donshapansky]

Don't buy the 160hp fixed gear version, many years ago I took one in trade on my Bonanza and after one flight I took it to an aircarft auction and sold it unreserved, the thing refused to climb over 9000' and just hung in the air. It seems that wings needs a lot of power to work half decently in thinner air UGH!

[Lood]

I've never flown in one, but considered a C177RG when I was buying. A friend of mine put it to me rather straight: "One day, a Cardinal will get you into a place where it won't be able to get you out of again." Aparently, they need some runway in hot and high conditions. At least, that's the general word going around in SA.

[jax88]

The Cardinal RG was my second choice.  The biggest problem I had was finding one that was as good a value for the dollar as the M20F I purchased.  Seemed that most sellers were in love with the Cessna name and wanted me to pay for it.  The examples of Cardinals I was seeing in the $60k arena all needed work of some sort.

[WardHolbrook]

I've flown Mooneys and 177RGs and each has strenghts and weaknesses. Over all, for me, I'd go with the Mooney. The Cessna always seemed to me to be running out of "climb".

[DaV8or]

Quote: aviatoreb

Hi Mike, Why have you narrowed it to just Mooney or C177RG?  Have you ruled out all the other airplanes yet?  There are lots of other wonderful airplanes each with their own special traits and abilities, peculiarities and compromises.  When I was shopping for my current uber-plane my other finalist was a Bonanza V35B.