All the stabilators including all the '68s had slots put in them to keep them from stalling before the wing stalled. It was not an issue with the amount of up travel. If there is a Cardinal out there that does not have the slots in the stabilator, it is not conforming with the TC or AD (I have never heard of one that wasn't modified).

Vince

All the stabilators including all the '68s had slots put in them to keep them from stalling before the wing stalled. It was not an issue with the amount of up travel. If there is a Cardinal out there that does not have the slots in the stabilator, it is not conforming with the TC or AD (I have never heard of one that wasn't modified).

Vince

I believe that over 1000 '68s were produced before Cessna figured out they had a problem. All were recalled and Cessna paid for the all the changes.

Vince

I've been told the Powerflow exhaust is a very cost effective upgrade for the 150 engine.

It's fairly pricey but I've heard good things about it as well.

I love the way ROI seems to be getting applied to this airplane as though it is somehow different from any other. Nobody “makes their money back” on upgrades to airplanes, cars, boats, or golf carts. It’s something you put there because you want to have it while you own the vehicle. If you are waiting for something that will increase the value of the airplane by the amount that you spent for it, you will be waiting a very long time.

I love the way ROI seems to be getting applied to this airplane as though it is somehow different from any other. Nobody “makes their money back” on upgrades to airplanes, cars, boats, or golf carts. It’s something you put there because you want to have it while you own the vehicle. If you are waiting for something that will increase the value of the airplane by the amount that you spent for it, you will be waiting a very long time.

I see what you did there, John. Sneaky but I like it!

I had looked at 2 Cards..... Both had wing spar corrosion issues. Not sure if this was covered here, but is a major concern to the Cards & 210. Corrosion is the only thing that becomes a deal breaker for me...
I ended up finding a super healthy Skylane... Flown him, "Romeo" for almost 600 hrs. now.

Wing spar corrosion can happen to any airplane. I think you are referring to the carry through spar. There is an AD on the 210, but just a service bulletin on the Cardinal. In the 210 the headliner rest against the carry through spar and tends to gather moisture there, hence more corrosion in the 210. I have heard of 3 or 4 Cardinals that have had unserviceable carry through spars. I believe there is an allowance of .1" of depth of corrosion in the spar, once the corrosion is removed. All of the spars I have looked at, had at most light surface corrosion which cleans off easily with scotchbrite. In the Cardinal there is an access panel in the headliner behind the spar which allows easy access to inspect the spar.

Vince

O2 bottles mount on either side of the carry through spar with a covering of closed cell foam to smooth out the headliner in the T210. This foam was glued to the spar and would retain moisture if it got through the lap joints. Hopefully the 177 guys will catch a break from paying to do Textron’s research.

Wing spar corrosion can happen to any airplane. I think you are referring to the carry through spar. There is an AD on the 210, but just a service bulletin on the Cardinal. In the 210 the headliner rest against the carry through spar and tends to gather moisture there, hence more corrosion in the 210. I have heard of 3 or 4 Cardinals that have had unserviceable carry through spars. I believe there is an allowance of .1" of depth of corrosion in the spar, once the corrosion is removed. All of the spars I have looked at, had at most light surface corrosion which cleans off easily with scotchbrite. In the Cardinal there is an access panel in the headliner behind the spar which allows easy access to inspect the spar.

I do stand corrected.. It was the carry thru.. Both of the 177's I looked at had potholes in the Al. My A/P called off the pre-buy at that point...

Vince

Wing spar corrosion can happen to any airplane. I think you are referring to the carry through spar. There is an AD on the 210, but just a service bulletin on the Cardinal. In the 210 the headliner rest against the carry through spar and tends to gather moisture there, hence more corrosion in the 210. I have heard of 3 or 4 Cardinals that have had unserviceable carry through spars. I believe there is an allowance of .1" of depth of corrosion in the spar, once the corrosion is removed. All of the spars I have looked at, had at most light surface corrosion which cleans off easily with scotchbrite. In the Cardinal there is an access panel in the headliner behind the spar which allows easy access to inspect the spar.

I do stand corrected.. It was the carry thru.. Both of the 177's I looked at had potholes in the Al. My A/P called off the pre-buy at that point...

Vince[/quote][/quote]

I think you've really scored. I had a 74 FG Cardinal and they are great airplanes. So much more fun, enjoyable, and challenging to land than your typical Cessna. The huge doors and great visibility Up and Down are the bomb! The only thing I didn't like about it (aside from trying to remove the oil suction screen - geeezz!) was the Fat Profile of the wing. You've got the _Thin Wing_. Man...I'd learn to accept the few deficiencies of an early production airplane (even if that means its a practical two-seater) and fly the hell out of it. Cheaply! I wouldn't change a thing. And, when you stop for fuel and everyone ogles and pines over it, you can just grin and motor-up for another satisfying flight.

The 68 177 has its pluses and minuses. The pluses are 48 gallons usable which is 72 pounds more useable fuel than a 172 of the same year. Really need to watch fuel load when loading the cabin with people. Almost all of my flights are solo up to two adults and one light weight teenager which is easy to do.

The 150 horse 177 can be flown on regular 87 octane ethanol-free gas. Right now today I could fly it for about $18 an hour in gas.

Dad keeps a 182 for himself which I really appreciate the hp and constant speed, its a quieter airplane to boot.

Everything I have flown over the years, 205, 182, 172P, 172A, 172, 177, 177B, 150B and 152 I find the plain old 1968 177 one of the easiest flying of all of them (I grew up flying the 150B and quickly find the zone when flying the 150/152 series in windy conditions). The 182 and 205 take real physical effort when wrestling gusty crosswinds IMHO.

The 177 landing gear is like a giant sponge, taxing around and touchdowns are like riding in a Cadillac. All the flat spring gear Cessna ride like a crap in comparison with a jolt every crack in the ramp/runway.

I love the flat floor of 177/177B, I've spent many hours on my back working under the panel on them. With the cabin door open and the wheel pants off, you can literally roll up to the open door while seated in an office chair and look under the panel and work on the rudder pedal area.

It a great airplane for flatlanders east of the Rockies. It runs cheap, reliable O320E2D with fixed pitch, pretty much the same performance as a 172 with a better ride and ergonomics and longer legs. GFC 500 is not available for these. I've got an old Brittain in mine that keeps on working.

One thing I really don't like about the 177 series, too many engine hoses, 2 oil cooler, two fuel hoses, oil pressure sense hose, and fuel pressure sense hose. A 68 Cessna 182 has 2 whopping hoses.