Question for Paul McBride, the General Aviation News engines expert: Good day Paul, we are looking at a Cessna 177 with a 150-hp engine. Wish it was a 180 horsepower, but the plane only has 988 total hours.
It’s hard to find a plane with such low hours, but a little more horsepower would be nice.
Your thoughts?
Mike Pender
Paul’s Answer: Mike, thanks for your question regarding an engine upgrade on a Cessna 177 with the Lycoming 150-hp engine.
Needless to say, I can only offer my thoughts on the subject, but you’re the lucky one who will have to make the final decision.
There are companies that hold FAA STC conversions to upgrade engines and I recommend you refer to them for specific details.
However, there are many things to take into consideration before making your final decision. I’ll mention a few here for your consideration.
There is no doubt that aircraft performance will improve, in addition to a greater payload capacity, with a boost in horsepower.
Of course, you must consider possibly greater fuel consumption as well.
If you look at the cost of an upgrade, it may come as a shock because engine prices are costly. You would also be looking at a new prop and other airframe components that would be required by the STC.
When you factor in the labor costs to complete the conversion, you may have different thoughts about an upgrade.
There is one more important thing that you need to consider: Will spending this money to upgrade the aircraft now allow you to sell it for a greater price when you decide to sell it?
These are all difficult questions when it comes to a situation like yours, but they all need to be thought through before making your final decision.
While my response to your question may appear that I am not in favor of the upgrade, I’m just trying to open your mind to the important things that should be taken into consideration.
Hopefully my comments will offer some points that assist you in your final decision.
The image used for this article is a C177 RG, not a straight leg Cardinal. The RG version was never sold with a 150 hHp engine. The RG had the 200 Hp IO 360. Performance with that engine was good. With 180 Hp and fixed gear you won’t have that kind of performance, but it will be better than with the 150 on the nose. Whether the conversation is worth the cost depends somewhat on how long you expect to own the plane. The number of years you hope to spend flying happily versus years spent frustrated should be favored into your cost/benefit analysis.
Thanks for the comment Gary. I’ve corrected my mistake by replacing the RG image with a photo of a 1968 straight-leg 177. Thanks for reading General Aviation News.
Ben,
Thanks !!…I noticed, but some of don’t need pictures, …’just the facts’ !!
I think yes. Depends on airframe log books evt TT. 150 HP in these are particularly doggie. Be careful. Don’t forget the panel. If it’s got some nice avionics that’s a plus. I’ve a friend with one of these. It’s 360 turbo normalized. He goes up to the flight levels and sucks oxygen. But seriously. 180 HP and a good prop will make a nice plane out.of this. At my age those big doors look pretty nice. Watch the wind doesn’t fling door open
Cessna upgraded to a 180 hp engine in short order for the “straight legged” Cardinal, and for good reason. Trying to convert a current 150 hp engine is going to be very expensive, considering that a different propeller will also be required. If I were you, I’d look for another aircraft, unless you can get the one you’re considered at a ridicule low price! But also factor in the market value of that 150 hp engine and the prop.
Friend of mine purchased a C-172 with a Franklin 220 hp and had it and the prop overhauled. Lots of $$$$. Went for a flight in it and it climbs like crazy. However, in cruse it didn’t seem that fast maybe 120 kts. while burning a lot. We went on a flight of two with me in my Vans RV 160 hp and I left him in the dust burning 6 gph. (I didn’t know where he was because his radio failed) After landing 120 miles at our destination, he finally showed up 10 minutes later.
The 150 hp engine will try to kill you on a continous basis. I have seen them with DA of 4500 ft or higher and they go nowhere. At 9500ft DA it is a single seater.
I would wait until tbo time. Or if something else broke inside the engine, to make that decision. Might as well use what you have.
A PowerFlow exhaust upgrade would provide more power at a relatively small cost. Probably still have to re-pitch the prop, but is also relatively cheap. Upgrading the cylinders to higher compression pistons, assuming there is a STC, is another lower cost option.
At overhaul we did the Ram 160 HP STC, repitched the prop and installed the PowerFlow Exhaust. Very satifyed, no issues at all but you still need to use good judgement with full tanks, four occupants and DA.
One thing unsaid. What is the price of the plane? Is it a super bargain? That enters the equation.
These equations usually come down to cost vs actual gain vs reasoning.
As far as the airframe, about everything on an aircraft is visible from both sides, corrosion buckling, etc. And it’s either had the AD’s done or can be done.
Assuming its a clean airframe, the question for me would come down to how long I planned to own it. If it was going to be my “forever” plane, then yes, this 177 would get a fwf and csp as soon as the ink was dry on the sales contract.
I had a 74 Cardinal, with the 180hp. If you have a low time airframe, I’d definitely consider pulling the 150 out, sell it or offer it on partial trade for a 180. It makes all the difference. Good luck
The 177,150HP was built in 1967,the ’68 -177A , 180 HP, and ’69- 177B, 180 HP, const. spd prop,. refer to the type certificate A13CE.
The A – #1 thing to check is the main spar carry through inspection per the AD , FAA AD 2023-02-17
I would be concerned with corrosion on a 57 YO aircraft with less than 1,000 hrs.
I’d be more willing to buy one with 4,000 hrs, it having been flown and maintained.
There is no mention of any recent flight hours and annual inspection.
So, go look for a C177A.
The B model with the CS prop is the primo example of the welded leg Cardinal. 180 hp with the CS prop makes it a fairly capable AC. One item of note….if you the conversion know that that STC does not come with an increase in useful load unless I’m very much mistaken for a 177. That means the added weight of the 180hp motor eats into what you can carry. To me, if I had a 150hp Cardinal I’d wait till rebuild time then do high compression cylinders, a power flow exhaust, and some of the fairing speed mods…..way less than the cost of the 180hp conversion I would think and you’d gain at least 10 plus hp. Not full 180 power but fairly close with the original useful load.
The Model years for Cardinals are 1968 to 1978. Just like a car, the 2024 model years started production probably in October of 2023, but it is still a 2024 model. They don’t wait for the date to change before they start building them. Knowledgeable folks look at the serial number, not the manufacture date. The 1968 was the Cessna 177, and could be ordered with the Cardinal trim package (wheel pants, more instruments, etc), and had a 150 HP O-320, with a laminar flow wing.In 1969 the the plane officially was offered as the Cardinal and came standard with what was considered options the year before, and with a 180 Hp 0-360, a slightly beefier, landing gear box, and a 100 lb increase in payload, and was the 177A, with the same laminar flow wing. The 1970 had an O-360 with a constant speed prop, with a slight reduction in payload from the “69”, and was the 177B, however the wing was switched from a laminar flow to a more 172 like profile, and would remain like that on all Cardinals for the rest of the run. This was also the first year of the retractable gear Cardinal, the 177RG, which sported a 200 HP IO-360 with an increase in payload over the the fixed gear 177B, along with a much better cruise speed. That being said, there are STC’s to hang O-360’s on the 1968 model year, which will give better speed and climb performance, but at the loss of useful load, because the gear attach point is different, with no apparent STC to change it. Guy Mahr (RIP), who worked for Cessna and had over 6000 hours in Cardinals, had told me that in his opinion a 1968 177 with the 160hp upgrade and a PowerFlow exhaust, performed the same, if not better in some areas, than the stock 1969 177A. I own a 1968 177 Cardinal with the original O-320 and a PowerFlow exhaust. Does it handle like a 172? No, because it is not one, and it even handles differently than the 177B’s, but there is nothing dangerous about it. Saying it is underpowered is a matter of opinion and should be based on need and usage. A Ford Mustang Cobra owner will tell you that a 4 cylinder Mustang is underpowered, but if you are just using it to run back and forth to school, enjoy fuel economy, and looks, the car might be right for you.