Haven't flown either but did some research:

C-175: uses a geared engine which didn't do so well in the field (wide
opinions on why - some love it, some hate it, many are converted over to
O-360 engines). It's essentially a 172 airframe but cruises faster
(5-10 kts) and with a bit more useful load (don't quote me on the
latter). Otherwise, haven't heard of much difference in other ops
performance (useful load, handling, etc). Operating costs depend a lot
on how the engine has been run - definitely a research item.

C-177: very different. Cardinalflyers.com has extensive resources on
the history. The basic research is accessible to non-members. Overall,
it's a much different beast than the 172. The cabin is wider/more
comfortable, it sits lower and the doors are huge. The airframe has a
lot less drag and handling is said to be much smoother. Operating costs
for the fixed gear version aren't significantly more than a 172. The
1st year (1968)had a 150hp engine that left in underpowered. It'll hold
3 people and cruise a couple knots faster than a 172 but hot/high
performance must be examined before flight. The '69 model had a 180hp
fixed-pitch and lots of other improvements. It'll outspeed a 172 with
no problem and has much better useful load. The fixed-gear versions
after that had a constant-speed props but a different wing so not sure
if there's a speed gain (not much). The retractables are 10-15 kts
faster and feature 200hp in the later models. It won't haul as much as
a 182 but you'll burn less gas and have more elbow room for the ride.
The underpowered 1st year gave the design a bad rap.

My $.02.

Walt


Dave D wrote:
Yeah, me too. My club has a 177RG. It looks so cool. What's the difference
in performance, maintainance, and operating cost between it and a 182?

Dave


"John T" wrote in message
...

I've been flying nothing but 172's. Whats different about the C175 and

177?

John