Talk:Cessna 177 Cardinal

Safety?

Are small planes more safe or less safe than driving a car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.221.182 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 February 2007

177 and Cardinal, same aircraft or different aircraft

I have a manual for the Cessna "Model 177 and Cardinal". The specifications are listed separately and are slightly different. So, should they be treated as separate aircraft in the article? Rsduhamel (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they are basically the same aircraft I understand it was to do with marketing Piper Cessna tended to use the names only on those non-basic aircraft but it was mainly to do with trim and avionics fitted. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the Cardinal is merely the 177 with a list of options included as standard, mostly wheel pants, special paint scheme, tow bar and logo package. This is marketing only and not a different aircraft. Cessna did this with all their aircraft and generally didn't sell any "base models", all were the more expensive upgrades. they learned all this from GM! Incidentally the speed specs are different due to the lack of standard wheel pants for the base models, although if you actually fly them side by side you will find the wheel pants don't really add any speed, just weight - more marketing bumpf! . - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference help needed

I added a paragraph to the Incidents and Accidents section, but can't figure out how to display the reference properly at the bottom of the page. Can anyone help with it? Thanks. Madgenberyl (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the accident as it is not particularly notable, light aircraft crashes are not that rare and really needs other factors like notable occupants to be included. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case, why is there an accidents and incidents section? If only 'notable' incidents are to be included then the section heading should indicate that, otherwise it's misleading. The way it reads currently implies there's only ever been one fatal crash with this aircraft. Madgenberyl (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Because Notability is a guideline for inclusion we dont add notable to the section header as by definition it has to be notable to be included, just one of those funny wikipedia things. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's still misleading. The clear implication is that only one accident has ever occurred with this plane, which is ridiculous. Suggest a different title or an explanation that there have been many more accidents than are listed. Madgenberyl (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for accidents is found at WP:AIRCRASH. It wouldn't make sense to make it "Notable accidents", as the design and development is only the notable information as well, as are the "notable specifications" and "notable variants". Wikipedia only publishes notable information and the guidelines for what is notable for each subject varies by consensus. Over 4200 C-177s were produced and there have probably been close to 1000 accidents involving them over the years. Listing them all would be trivia, so we limit it to those that either involve people with biographies on Wikipedia or ones that result in rule changes, design changes, airworthiness directives or similar. The same sorts of criteria are used in car articles. Check the Ford Mustang article - they don't list everyone who has ever had an accident driving one for the same reasons. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is with having a section titled Accidents and incidents, and only one accident listed. According the information its very own section is what makes it misleading. The Mustang article does not have such a section, so I've no problem with that. The information is not there because it was an accident, but because it caused a change to aviation rules, which is what made it notable. The section should be removed as a section and the information moved elsewhere within the article, or the section title should be changed. Or a statement added that crashes are common and therefore not notable(!) Madgenberyl (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now I look at it again, this section doesn't belong on the page at all. The accident is notable because it changed licensing rules, and had nothing to do with the aircraft being flown - there's even a statement to the effect that the aircraft was not at fault. This paragraph should be in a page talking about aviation or licensing history, not in a discussion about Cessnas. Madgenberyl (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the accident could have happened in any light aircraft, but it did happen in a 177 and is a very notable accident, which is why it is included. If it had happened in a Cherokee, it would be listed in that article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cessna 177 Cardinal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214124431/http://www.aopa.org/ to http://www.aopa.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Number built.

There is no source for this number. Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide (2002) cites only 4240 built. Scottrzf (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Rob Simpson's Airlife's General Aviation (1995) gives production figures of 1164 Model 177s, 206 Model 177As, 1381 Model 177Bs, 1366 Model 177RGs and 177 Reims F177RGs - i.e. 4294 aircraft on page 120, although this may not include the prototype.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then this should be added to the references. I respect both your source and mine, but wonder which is more reliable. 50 aircraft is not a big deal, especially over a 4K spread and a 45 year ago end of production, but still...Scottrzf (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Scottrzf (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The listed serial numbers in the 177's three FAA type certificates (A13CE, A20CE, and A26EU) give a total of 4296; 1164 (177, including second prototype, but not the first), 206 (177A), 1383 (177B), 1366 (177RG), and 177 (F177RG). - ZLEA _T\^C 13:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)