+1 on the doors, and as I mentioned above, since they are really quite complex formed, they can easily get DE-formed from abuse.
Other type-specific things to watch out for:
@Boscomatico
That’s great you found an opportunity to fly and to experience the Cardinal RG.
“I still have to get really familiar with it, and yet have to fly it IFR, but so far, so great. Anyone have any type-specific tips from real-life experience for me?”
Well, you seem to have gotten quickly the hang of it! 
The 177 RG’s are easy enough to fly; anyway here are some tips:
No guarantees given, your mileage might vary
Hi Tigerflyer,
yeah, let’s meet up again in spring and talk Cardinals!
Thanks very much also to huv, Michael and complex-pilot! That’s what I was looking for.
As a mere occasional renter, I am of course not so much interested in maintenance and stuff, but primarily in the flying bits i.e. how to get the most out of it, performance-wise, especially in terms of short field and soft field performance, cruise speed, etc.
What I was told beforehand was that landings can be a little tricky, but for a fact, I couldn’t find anything difficult about it.
As always, it helps to cross the fence on the low end of the recommended speed range. Initially, I was told 75-80MPH, but I immediately went to 70 (63 knots), at least when light and in low winds. That’s still about 1.3x Vso and it feels right and works very well.
Actually, it was the same when I started to fly a Mooney M20F many years ago. People (including the instructors) were telling all sorts of nonsense stories about landing it. I just held 65 knots over the fence, and the landings I made were short and among the softest I have ever done in any type of aircraft.
They also say the Comanche is difficult to land well; I would love to get my hand on one to see if that is true. As I said, so far, I haven’t found a tricycle type which really was difficult to land well. The C172 is probably among the more difficult ones..
In cruise, I tend to prefer high MP and lower RPM (2300ish), but I will experiment some more with other RPM settings. This aircraft has an EDM730, but so far, I havn’t become friends with it. Still have to find out how to do a proper lean procedure to LOP with it.
Good point on the doors, thanks!
boscomantico wrote:
I tend to prefer high MP and lower RPM (2300ish), but I will experiment some more with other RPM settings. This aircraft has an EDM730, but so far, I havn’t become friends with it. Still have to find out how to do a proper lean procedure to LOP with it.
I run my 177RG almost always @ 2500RPM, WOT, LOP (no GAMIs needed !) which tends to yield 135K – 140K TAS @ 8.5Gal/H (!).
The only other plane that betters this efficiency is the Mooney M20J, albeit with a much smaller cabin .
Michael wrote:
The only other plane that betters this efficiency is the Mooney M20J, albeit with a much smaller cabin
That’s a good point….the Cardinal is much roomier than other Cessna singles…(which actually have several inches less width than the M20 series…)
boscomantico wrote:
What I was told beforehand was that landings can be a little tricky, but for a fact, I couldn’t find anything difficult about it.
Very early models can be tricky because of lack of elevator authority. That was fixed with the slotted tailplane, which almost all Cardinals have, and with that fix they are not tricky at all.
Very early models can be tricky because of lack of elevator authority. That was fixed with the slotted tailplane, which almost all Cardinals have, and with that fix they are not tricky at all.
I think that needs a little re-wording. The very first Cardinal FG (68 model) was found to have the airflow wash-out over the stabilator during certain conditions in the flare. This was found to be due to application of full flap at low speed, enducing a crow-hop.
All of the affected aircraft where modified by Cessna FOC and slots where fitted at the front of the stabilator and the problem was completely removed.
However, the damage to the reputation was already done.
All later aircraft where supplied from new with a slotted stabilator and therefore have never been affected in the first place.
Like all of the tricycle gear single engine Cessnas the Cardinal is easy to fly and to land, but proved to be a difficult transition for some of the more ham-fisted pilots to move up from a 152/172 with a fixed tailplane to an all-moving stabilator design.
In the early days unfortunately Cessna sales staff and instructors did not communicate the difference well to the new wanna be Cardinal pilots.
Confusion about the history of Cessna Cardinal lasts to this day.
What are 177RGs like from grass and with shorter strips?
I finished my license in one flying from a grass field. (450m)
They are fine flying into short grass fields, as long as keeping it to a sensible MTOW.
It is a compromise, but entirely possible.
To be avoided are soft ground operations, as these tend to be really messy and small wheels will cut up the soft grass surface, too.
I guess that is the reason that during any wet periods RG’s might not be that welcome by a savvy grass field owner. 
One can visit grass strips a lot, but best when dry and surface is hard to avoid mess.
A 182/172 with spats can give quite a little bit more grass field usabillity, of course.
The ultimate short grass field tool like, for example a Piper Cup along with Tundra tyres is in a completely different league.
complex-pilot wrote:
They are fine flying into short grass fields, as long as keeping it to a sensible MTOW.
It is a compromise, but entirely possible. To be avoided are soft ground operations, as these tend to be really messy and small wheels will cut up the soft grass surface, too.
I guess that is the reason that during any wet periods RG’s might not be that welcome by a savvy grass field owner.
One can visit grass strips a lot, but best when dry and surface is hard to avoid mess.
+1
The wheels (6") are abit on the small side for this aircraft, so heavy AND soft field will makes things difficult. Aside that, no problemo whatsoever.
