I've got a few hours in a '68 177. I couldn't stand the airplane. It flew exactly like a 152 on the controls. It wasn't very fast. PIO could easily become an issue.
I think a new 177RG might be a better airplane. Still looking to get my hands on one.
152's PIO easy? Seems like a poor comparison.
I had about 200 hours in a 62 C150 before the 68 C177 came along, and like you, I hated the 177 at first. Only because it was so much
different. C177 takes much more precise pitch inputs to master the airplane, unlike any other Cessna I've flown. That's why almost all of the 177s have had some sort of firewall damage.
When doing power off simulated engine failures to landing, its not very forgiving on when you flare, its just difficult to arrest the decent without sink. That has to be part of the thin wing issue. Doing it at night makes it more difficult.
After you master pitch it's very fun to fly in handling. One of my best secrets to 177 flying is set a stable glide on approach, get your arm set in a position where all you need to do is bend your hand at the wrist to flare. If you pull up and down moving your whole arm like you can in every other Cessna you'll quickly be in BAD POI. I like the light & responsive feel of the ailerons and rudder. Pitch is very responsive but firm.
None of the fixed gear 177s are very fast IMHO.
1968 177 can be had about the same cost as a 197X 172. I'd personally rather have the 177 for comfort, but the 172 has fewer parts. In theory the O320 172 is cheaper maintain than an O320 177.
Only thing I dread about the 68 is the carb heat box/lower cowl. I believe most or all the 69s have the same design.
