Sell it as-is and move on?

If that's not in the cards, then PAR200B audio panel, GNX 375 GPS/transponder with dual G5s.

Its kinda funny. Every year I would fly my 150 horse 177 (1968) up to my friends place and fly back his 177B (1976). Every time I picked up the B I thought man thing is nice. Made me a tad jealous you might say.

When I bring back the B and fly home 150 horse one all I can (same day usually 20 minutes from landing the B model) think is, that mine is noisier (his has a thicker windshield and CS prop can reduce the noise too) but the climb wasn't that much better in the B. That CS prop is heavy and pricey. The O-360-1AF6D in it is not an engine I would intentionally buy (Bendix D2000/3000 magneto) and to me for the price I'd just buy a 182.

About the only real improvement the B has over the 68 is a way better carb air box and baffle design, rudder trim, and a bit more performance. That performance is pricy if you ever buy a prop and prop gov. I'm pretty sure there is a big upcharge to turn in the A1F6D for an engine with two independent mags.

All 177/B/RG have wet wings which suck to fix, if that ever becomes a problem.

You would really hate the turbo installation in my '76RG.

Vince

Its a balancing act, complexity vs performance. I don't think a guy should ever have to spend $1k+ on engine hoses on a 150/160/180 horse airplane. Cardinal engine installations are are a bit more complex than other airplanes with same engines, dual fuel pumps and a mess of hoses. The engine mount vibration isolators are pricey too but common to other Cessnas.

Its like anything else, once you can accept the costs the rest of the airplane shines.

I love Dad's 182 except the view sucks, I don't care for Continentals, and it takes more work to fly. (It has a GFC 500 with autotrim and man I like it) I really like the popping exhaust sounds of the 470, the 320 sounds like moped in comparison. The 360 in the 177B even has some snort to its sound.

In my experience, the 150HP Cardinals will perform as documented, but precise airspeed control is critical.

Keep doing what you’re doing. It’s the best thing for it.

Fly it!!

There is a real easy cheat. I let a guy that had never flown one in his life take mine home once. We flew around the pattern and he did a great job. For reference his personal machine is a Debonair and he was flying a 208 for hire at that point.

We started with 1/3 flap landings, then 2/3 and finally full flaps. Its super easy to get the nose gear out of the way and land mains first 1/3 to 2/3 flaps. The main gear will take a hell of beating and laugh. The nose won't.

With full flaps its really easy to three point or land nose first. Full flaps and high density altitudes can be problematic if you get into a high sink rate condition on final approach.

With that knowledge he was landing like a pro in no time.

The 177B I find takes a bit more caution as the drag of the CS prop is very noticeable at idle vs the FP prop on 150 horse. I've caught myself kind pumping the throttle a bit on final once as the sink rate at idle was way higher than what I was expecting. It was the only CS airplane I'd flown then.

Another thing I don't really like about the 68 177, the landing/taxi lights on the end of the wing. The GE4509s are kind of a joke way out there. I spend $1200 on LEDs for it and it was worth it. I fly about 30 hours a year in the dark.

I loved my '70 177B with the landing lights in the wing. On final, the light would be to the left of the centerline. When the light centered on the center of the runway, it was time to flare. It didn't matter how wide or narrow the runway was. It was easier to land at night than in the daytime, especially at an unfamiliar airport. It was a great airplane. I sold it to a guy who did traffic reporting in Salt Lake City. He was flying 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. He did overhauls at 4,000 hours whether the engine needed it or not. When he sold it, it had over 14,000 problem free hours on it.

Vince

There is a real easy cheat. I let a guy that had never flown one in his life take mine home once. We flew around the pattern and he did a great job. For reference his personal machine is a Debonair and he was flying a 208 for hire at that point.

We started with 1/3 flap landings, then 2/3 and finally full flaps. Its super easy to get the nose gear out of the way and land mains first 1/3 to 2/3 flaps. The main gear will take a hell of beating and laugh. The nose won't.

With full flaps its really easy to three point or land nose first. Full flaps and high density altitudes can be problematic if you get into a high sink rate condition on final approach.

With that knowledge he was landing like a pro in no time.

The 177B I find takes a bit more caution as the drag of the CS prop is very noticeable at idle vs the FP prop on 150 horse. I've caught myself kind pumping the throttle a bit on final once as the sink rate at idle was way higher than what I was expecting. It was the only CS airplane I'd flown then.

KCLW KSPG

Well, I can attest to that as we just replaced both landing lights. Not exactly fun. But had to be done. Can not get the panel lights to work, so who knows what is going on with those? Did find an 1100 hr 360, but would still need a prop and the STC--no idea how much that is. But it sure would be fun to get a 180hp on it if it could be done reasonably.

The good news is that I finally got her in it and flying

The 4509s should last a long time in the wing leading edge. The problem with the 4509 occurs when they are mounted to the cowling ('71 and later Cardinals). In the cowl the filaments vibrate too much and break. In 8 years of a '70 Cardinal ownership, I only had to replace one landing light, and I did a lot of night flying back then.

Vince

Glass panel. Sort of.