210 or 337?

[SoonerAviator]

I'm not sure how sea worthy Lake amphibians are, that's why Lake is in the name and not ocean. From what I can see traveling in the Caribbean, high wings on floats are king if you want to land on the ocean. As for the Twotter... I can't afford it and it too is a handful with a sudden engine out. I have considered the Leza Aircam on floats though as a fun Florida plane, but I don't think it's much of an international traveller.

I'd think that just about water conditions that would take out a Lake Amphib would probably do the same to similar float-equipped aircraft. You aren't landing them in 3'+ swells, but 1' chop is doable. Besides, the Lake and Twotter are called amphibians for a reason, you don't have to land 'em in water. Either way, I'd rather find something amphibious (floats or hull) if I were planning to spend so much time over open water.

 

[Dav8or]

Hesitation at the worst possible time would make for a very bad day. Way better pilots than I am have done just that. Centerline thrust does have its issues, but you're less likely to find yourself upside down on takeoff.

Not just hesitation, but also freaking out and accidentally putting in the wrong input! Then things really go bad and there usually isn't coming back from that.

 

[Dav8or]

Either way, I'd rather find something amphibious (floats or hull) if I were planning to spend so much time over open water.

Why? Because you just like the idea of setting down wherever you like and pulling up to the beach, or because you think it's safer than a land piston single?

 

[SoonerAviator]

Why? Because you just like the idea of setting down wherever you like and pulling up to the beach, or because you think it's safer than a land piston single?

Yes, and maybe. I’d certainly like my odds of surviving an engine failure over water in a Lake Amphibian than I would in a C172. The chances of having an issue is low, but people avoid flying over the Great Lakes for the same reason.

As far as setting down wherever, it still doesn’t likely eliminate having to deal with customs and such, but island hopping is easier when you don’t need an airport on the island you’re going to.

I’m also using the Lake as an example of airframe. The salt water would like eat a Lake alive unless you were diligent about scrubbing it down with fresh water after each trip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jim.nelson]

Not just hesitation, but also freaking out and accidentally putting in the wrong input! Then things really go bad and there usually isn't coming back from that.

And if centerline thrust isn't such a good idea why is it on virtually all single engine aircraft? I think that seals it right there

 

[Pilawt]

I'm not sure how sea worthy Lake amphibians are, that's why Lake is in the name and not ocean.

Ever see the movie Hopscotch with Walter Matthau? Walter's spy character charters a Lake Buccaneer, piloted by Matthau's real-life stepdaughter Lucy Saroyan, from Sea Island GA to Bermuda. Other than the exaggerated range of a Lake as a plot device, there are some good aviation scenes in the movie.

But to your point ... many years ago I had some dual in a Lake LA-4-180 in Long Beach Harbor, landing and taking off next to the Queen Mary. That was rough; about as scared as I've been in an airplane. Then there were the motorboat nimrods running circles around us making it even rougher. I didn't like it at all.

The salt water would like eat a Lake alive unless you were diligent about scrubbing it down with fresh water after each trip.

Yes, we did that.

 

[JCranford]

I've somewhat seriously considered buying a 337 on two occasions. Neither of them were very good examples and I backed out. I WILL have one someday though. The fuel system on some of them is a bit complicated, the main gear doors can be a PITA, and the retract system can be somewhat troublesome to maintain if your mechanic isn't familiar, but I think they are sweet birds other than that. Seems like a lot of folks like the Uvalde gear door mod that removes the main gear doors altogether, and from what I've heard doesn't really cost you any speed. I think some of the later models had simplified fuel systems, but don't quote me on that. Anywho, I'm no expert on them, so take it for what it's worth. Not much.

Oh, if I recall correctly, some models have an electric cowl flap motor that is kind of a pain in the arse. I believe there is a mod to remove the motor and just have manual control for simplicity and reliability.

Other than THAT they sound awesome!

 

[KLRDMD]

Why? Just because it is quieter, or is the only reason you would buy a 337 in the first place is just because it is an affordable pressurized twin? Do you not put any value on the centerline thrust design? I have zero multi engine time and I really don't fly all that much. Maybe 40-50 hours a year. I think if I were to buy a traditional twin, I would likely end up in the NTSB reports like so many with twins do. I have not studied the problems relating to centerline thrust twins and engine outs very thoroughly, but on the surface they appear to be a better choice for someone like me. Perhaps not...

If you're unsafe in a conventional twin, you're unsafe in a 337 type twin as well. I'm not convinced that flying 40-50 hours a year makes you proficient in a single engine aircraft and certainly not in a twin. But others may feel differently.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Other than THAT they sound awesome!

Oh shut your pie hole JCrizzle. Most planes have a quirk or two to consider.

 

[mscard88]

We had O-2s (Air Force C-337s) when I was in Korea, a whole squadron of 'em. Cool airplanes.

Now for a story, happened around the early 80s I think. A Venezuelan Air Force pilot was going to an Air Force school at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery Al and bought a C-337 while there. Had it reconditioned etc. to near new condition. So he had a chain wrapped around the rear engine, goes to crank it up one day, and .....trashed it. He was sick as he had the thing in near perfect shape and would have taken it back to Venezuela soon.

 

[GRG55]

Question for you- My wife and I are planning to retire in about 8 years from now and when we do the plan is to spend the majority of the year in Florida. I have dreamed about exploring the Caribbean and the non pressurized 337 seems ideal for a guy like me with no traditional twin experience. I would only be flying with either myself, or my wife and I. Likely the back seats would never be used for people.

I would skip the pressurization and turbo engines just to make the purchase cheaper and also maintenance and annuals cheaper. It would seem that just operating at sea level all the time, the turbos and pressurization really isn't needed. Is this foolish thinking? Is the standard 337 really terrible in comparison?

An old (1975!) Flying/Richard Collins article about the non-pressurized, non-turbo 337 that I thought may be of interest:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=gi...hard collins cessna 337 vs other twins&f=true

 

[GRG55]

...freaking out and accidentally putting in the wrong input!...

There's been more than a few 337 fatals from this.

Don't assume a center line twin is immune from, or more forgiving of poor piloting technique or lack of recurrent training. It is as much a complex machine as any other entry level piston twin. Just like a simple Cessna 150 if you haven't mastered flying it, and keep those skills current, you are just as likely to kill yourself one day.

 

[Kritchlow]

There's been more than a few 337 fatals from this.

Don't assume a center line twin is immune from, or more forgiving of poor piloting technique or lack of recurrent training. It is as much a complex machine as any other entry level piston twin. Just like a simple Cessna 150 if you haven't mastered flying it, and keep those skills current, you are just as likely to kill yourself one day.

Well, not immune or forgiving... but face it. There will be no VMC roll which is a biggie in light twin flying.

Yup. Safer for the average GA pilot.

 

[denverpilot]

Well, not immune or forgiving... but face it. There will be no VMC roll which is a biggie in light twin flying.

Yup. Safer for the average GA pilot.

The accident numbers agree but not by as much as one would think. There were a bunch of accidents related to power loss early on.

Mentioned above, but worth mentioning again. The lack of much feedback from the rear engine (can’t really hear it, can’t see it) means that unless one leads power changes with it, you might not know both engines didn’t come up together.

This has led to quite a number of 337 accidents when the pilot never noticed the rear was gone, or that it was degraded.

Yes, they should have noticed on the engine gauges.

No, there’s not a very good explanation out there for why they didn’t that I’ve seen.

337 instructors today that I’ve talked to, will have the student lead all power changes with the rear engine, to alleviate not knowing the rear engine is dead, or that it is not willing to produce full power for — [insert any number of reasons here.]

If you move that rear engine handle and the aircraft performance changes appropriately, then you can follow with the front engine. If not, you’ve identified a problem that need fixing.

 

[Dav8or]

The accident numbers agree but not by as much as one would think. There were a bunch of accidents related to power loss early on.

Mentioned above, but worth mentioning again. The lack of much feedback from the rear engine (can’t really hear it, can’t see it) means that unless one leads power changes with it, you might not know both engines didn’t come up together.

This has led to quite a number of 337 accidents when the pilot never noticed the rear was gone, or that it was degraded.

Yes, they should have noticed on the engine gauges.

No, there’s not a very good explanation out there for why they didn’t that I’ve seen.

337 instructors today that I’ve talked to, will have the student lead all power changes with the rear engine, to alleviate not knowing the rear engine is dead, or that it is not willing to produce full power for — [insert any number of reasons here.]

If you move that rear engine handle and the aircraft performance changes appropriately, then you can follow with the front engine. If not, you’ve identified a problem that need fixing.

This where the engine monitoring system I use would be hugely beneficial. I have the EI MVP-50 and in addition to the graphic display and the warning lights, there is also an audio alert with a woman's voice (this is configurable) instantly telling you to check a problem with the engine. If you always started your 337 with the rear engine, the "bitching betty" would absolutely tell you if the rear engine quit in your headset. There would also be a yellow, or red light in your face depending on the problem, but a dead engine would be red. The MVP-50 does come in a twin version that can handle up to 12 cylinders of monitoring.

 

[Dav8or]

If you're unsafe in a conventional twin, you're unsafe in a 337 type twin as well. I'm not convinced that flying 40-50 hours a year makes you proficient in a single engine aircraft and certainly not in a twin. But others may feel differently.

OK, so you see no benefit to the center line thrust concept with regards to safety? Anyhow, don't fret to much, the idea of me flying around the Caribbean in a 337 is about 95% fantasy. I seriously doubt that in my retirement I'm going to want to pay for the care and feeding of two engines. I also doubt my wife will tolerate the discomfort very long. More than likely we will explore the Caribbean by commercial airline and boat.

 

[Dav8or]

An old (1975!) Flying/Richard Collins article about the non-pressurized, non-turbo 337 that I thought may be of interest:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=gituCyyowfUC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=richard+collins+cessna+337+vs+other+twins&source=bl&ots=CV_jEnvUx8&sig=MEiqjC9pvjGcLY0IUclf23-dm6A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZhtzi0uTZAhUGQ6wKHW2ICz8Q6AEwD3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=richard collins cessna 337 vs other twins&f=true

Thanks for posting that! It was fun to read. It was 1975 and people were a lot more optimistic about GA back then for sure. Mr. Collins seems pretty impressed with the 337, but one does have to wonder about the influence advertisers have on articles like these. I imagine Cessna was a big account back then.

 

[Dav8or]

There's been more than a few 337 fatals from this.

I'll have to look the reports up someday. It would be interesting to know exactly what these pitfalls are that killed people. Some here mentioned taking off with the rear engine off, but I have also read that the 337 is capable of taking off with one engine, at least near sea level. I suppose that's greatly dependent on how it's loaded too. I guess this would be no different than taking off in a single that was only developing partial power and plenty have done this too.

I suppose the most dangerous situation would be a rear engine failure during climb out. An unaware pilot might be tempted to try to maintain the climb rate and get close to stall? Making changes to pitch attitude still seems safer than what you have to do with a engine out in a traditional twin. I wonder if the poor safety record of the 337 is mostly from earlier days, or pretty consistent throughout it's history? Might it be like the Cirrus, in that modified training might greatly improve it's record?

 

[KLRDMD]

OK, so you see no benefit to the center line thrust concept with regards to safety?

There is benefit, just not the benefit discussed so far. The biggest benefit is in no adverse yaw upon an engine failure which results in an amazing single engine service ceiling. In a turbo (or pressurized) 337, you can *climb* on one engine. Lose an engine at altitude and you'll *drift down* to 18,700 ft (if memory serves). You're not doing that in any other twin that doesn't burn Jet-A. I recall climbing at about 500 FPM from 12,000 ft with one engine feathered in my P337 (at training weight).

The P337 is a great airplane, not expensive to purchase, fly or maintain and very comfortable and safe. But it is a twin and you need the same recurrent training as any other twin, ideally with an instructor experienced with P337s (which are few and far between). The same for any airplane, though. You really need a good Mooney instructor when training in a Mooney, etc. Some generic CFI that hasn't flown beyond the horizon in 20 years is not the guy to do this.