210 or 337?

[jim.nelson]

We're looking for our next aircraft. The mission is 450 miles about every two weeks with longer trips every month or so. We would like four seats with room in the back for all the extra stuff we seem to want to haul around. My wife refuses to step up on a wing and doesn't want to sit in back so that leaves only high-wings. She wants a twin due to all the water around us plus less pucker factor when crossing Lake Michigan. No overwing entry leaves the Skymaster 337. NA is fine.

However, I'm also considering an NA 210. While she doesn't care for twice the chance of an engine failure in the 337, she does like that flying with one engine out in the 337 is better than in the 210.

I guess the question comes down to, one big engine or two smaller engines? Everything else seems about the same as far as load carrying, annual airframe upkeep, and so on. Lower cost of entry vs. higher maintenance. Not considering resale, over 20 years things may even out? Am I missing anything?

 

[bnt83]

Wrong forum for any kind of objective opinions and comparison of these two aircraft. Few, if any, 337 fans or even experienced owners here.

 

[SoonerAviator]

You leaving the Commanders and Aerostars out of this?

 

[jim.nelson]

Wrong forum for any kind of objective opinions and comparison of these two aircraft. Few, if any, 337 fans or even experienced owners here.

It wasn't so much a request for comparison of the aircraft, but more a question about one big engine vs two small engines. I'd be happy in either aircraft and have always liked the looks of both.

 

[Clark1961]

de Havilland Dove - you'd be the only kid on the block with one

 

[Ted]

From an engine perspective alone, I'm not a fan of the Continental 360s. I've seen them having more problems then their equivalent Lycomings. Conversely, the big bore Continentals are very good engines and are generally pretty reliable. I would try to check out both of them and see what you think. Also, some 337s I think had conversions to big bore Continentals, and if you could find then I would be more inclined to go that route.

I like the Aerostar idea. A 600A would be a worthwhile consideration. You get a lot of speed and they're quite efficient for what they are, plus there's no climbing on the wing involved. @stratobee can give you his opinions. The problem with the Aerostar is that only having the pilots door can make loading and unloading more difficult.

 

[jim.nelson]

You leaving the Commanders and Aerostars out of this?

Love the Commander but the tail is too tall to fit in the hangar. I did a lot of research on the Aerostar but put it out of the running due to cost of ownership. I really like the looks and the go-fastness of it. Just too expensive for me to keep. And the wife doesn't like the idea of me falling out of the door into the prop.

 

[jim.nelson]

de Havilland Dove - you'd be the only kid on the block with one

In the early days of looking around I also considered the Twin Bonanza and Beech 18. The airstair, lounge, and potty in the T-Bone are all nice features. The hangar's 40 foot wide, 12 foot tall door is a little limiting.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Love the Commander but the tail is too tall to fit in the hangar. I did a lot of research on the Aerostar but put it out of the running due to cost of ownership. I really like the looks and the go-fastness of it. Just too expensive for me to keep. And the wife doesn't like the idea of me falling out of the door into the prop.

Is the Aerostar materially any more expensive to maintain than a 337? The easy way around falling out of the door into the prop is to not exit the aircraft with the engine running. I can't imagine a reason short of in-cabin fire to want to get out of a twin-engine aircraft with the prop still spinning.

 

[Clark1961]

In the early days of looking around I also considered the Twin Bonanza and Beech 18. The airstair, lounge, and potty in the T-Bone are all nice features. The hangar's 40 foot wide, 12 foot tall door is a little limiting.

A Dove was parked at FTG for years. I think it even had a pre-buy inspection once. Never saw it move under it's own power.

 

[James331]

Always thought the 337 was a sweet plane, that said its hard to argue with a nice 210

 

[jim.nelson]

Is the Aerostar materially any more expensive to maintain than a 337?

Excellent question. I do like the non-funky gear of the Aerostar plus it is totally sexy. The issue however is the 337 has two smaller engines whereas the Aerostar has two larger engines. You get where you're going sooner so the cost per mile could be about the same? Since I'm considering non-pressurized it could be back in the running. Thanks!

 

[mscard88]

Is the Aerostar materially any more expensive to maintain than a 337? The easy way around falling out of the door into the prop is to not exit the aircraft with the engine running. I can't imagine a reason short of in-cabin fire to want to get out of a twin-engine aircraft with the prop still spinning.

Flew one for a company that was pressurized. I even wasn't comfortable with the top portion of the door open and seeing the prop almost right there spinning. Got used to it eventually. Boarding passengers a bit of a pain. This particular company only had two seats as they removed the other two. Fun plane to fly and very stable instrument platform. Yes definitely don't exit with the motor running! Why would you anyway.

 

[James331]

I hear the Aerostar is also a little unforgiving, perhaps his hours and level of average proficiently would come into play?

 

[mscard88]

I hear the Aerostar is also a little unforgiving, perhaps his hours and level of average proficiently would come into play?

I never heard that James. I flew 310s & 402s prior to the Aerostar. The electric nose wheel steering was weird at first but easy to become comfortable with. It is fast so I guess one could get behind.

 

[Shepherd]

I love the 337.
Except for one flight, all my experience is in the military Oscar Deuce version.

 

[FormerHangie]

Given a choice between showing up in this:

or this

I know which one I'd pick.

With the big engines, you can always throttle back so they act like small engines. The opposite is not true.

 

[James331]

I never heard that James. I flew 310s & 402s prior to the Aerostar. The electric nose wheel steering was weird at first but easy to become comfortable with. It is fast so I guess one could get behind.

I got zero experience in the Aerostar but I do recall it being referred to as the deathstar by more than a few people, I just figured that wasn't a homage to George Lucas

 

[Salty]

Given a choice between showing up in this:

or this

I know which one I'd pick.

With the big engines, you can always throttle back so they act like small engines. The opposite is not true.

But you can't do a small engine overhaul when that time comes.....

 

[jim.nelson]

Turns out that the Aerostar is 12' 1" tall. I'll have to measure the hangar door to see how exact the 12' limit is. Maybe raise the nose to lower the tail when putting it away or some such.

 

[James331]

Turns out that the Aerostar is 12' 1" tall. I'll have to measure the hangar door to see how exact the 12' limit is. Maybe raise the nose to lower the tail when putting it away or some such.

Also look into readjusting the limit on the door.

I've gone through this a few times with my amphib, at 12'8" at the tail it will never fit in a standard issue bifold door with the default settings, BUUUUT if the airport MX guys adjust the screw limit or whatever it is on the door, it clears with enough margin for me to be cool with it.

 

[jim.nelson]

Also look into readjusting the limit on the door.

I've gone through this a few times with my amphib, at 12'8" at the tail it will never fit in a standard issue bifold door with the default settings, BUUUUT if the airport MX guys adjust the screw limit or whatever it is on the door, it clears with enough margin for me to be cool with it.

Unfortunately I have sliding doors on the hangar. Maybe I could cut a notch in just the right place without messing with the rails too much? All we need is a folding tail / folding wing STC.

 

[James331]

Unfortunately I have sliding doors on the hangar. Maybe I could cut a notch in just the right place without messing with the rails too much? All we need is a folding tail / folding wing STC.

Cheaper to sawzall the hangar.

I've pulled my tail down a couple times (by the stinger), and had a few people help push, it's sketchy and stupid, as in my girlfriend didn't even want to be around for it, slip, get stung by a bee, fart, whatever and you just burned 10-25k into sheet metal work, not worth it.

 

[FredFenster]

It could always be worse..

 

[Norman]

From the perspective of one who has crossed Lake Michigan and Lake Erie many times in a Cessna R182 without event I would suggest your wife take the train (Amtrak). As long as the engine has no issues there is nothing to be feared about sixty miles of water.

Sure, chit can happen at the most unfortunate time but consider the odds.

Sounds like wife is just plain afraid of not having her feet on the ground.

 

[mscard88]

Sounds like wife is just plain afraid of not having her feet on the ground.

It's all about her shoes Norm, the shoes!

 

[Tantalum]

From the perspective of one who has crossed Lake Michigan and Lake Erie many times in a Cessna R182 without event

Funny, out here KAVX is a very common destination... but *just* far enough that unless you spend half the route climbing and the other half descending (to and from about 12K) then you'll be out of glide range for a little bit

It is a little unsettling, and I prefer the full gambit of life preservers and a life raft.. because the Pacific is cold!! but there are people who make the trip with just a cheapo life jacket and have no problems

Ultimately, a well taken care of engine shouldn't completely crap out. Even if you lose a valve or magneto you'll have *some* power.. at least enough to hopefully get within glide range or at least enough time call for help

 

[Norman]

It's all about her shoes Norm, the shoes!

De agony of de feet. Pointy toes and all that.

 

[SkyDog58]

Funny, out here KAVX is a very common destination... but *just* far enough that unless you spend half the route climbing and the other half descending (to and from about 12K) then you'll be out of glide range for a little bit

It is a little unsettling, and I prefer the full gambit of life preservers and a life raft.. because the Pacific is cold!! but there are people who make the trip with just a cheapo life jacket and have no problems

Ultimately, a well taken care of engine shouldn't completely crap out. Even if you lose a valve or magneto you'll have *some* power.. at least enough to hopefully get within glide range or at least enough time call for help

Heck, when I lived out there and flew from TOA I knew people who wouldn't get much above AVX pattern altitude for that trip.

 

[Norman]

Funny, out here KAVX is a very common destination... but *just* far enough that unless you spend half the route climbing and the other half descending (to and from about 12K) then you'll be out of glide range for a little bit

It is a little unsettling, and I prefer the full gambit of life preservers and a life raft.. because the Pacific is cold!! but there are people who make the trip with just a cheapo life jacket and have no problems

Ultimately, a well taken care of engine shouldn't completely crap out. Even if you lose a valve or magneto you'll have *some* power.. at least enough to hopefully get within glide range or at least enough time call for help

Want to see cold water? Lake Superior is said to never give up her dead. Just ask the mariners who sail the Great Lakes before ice stops them.

I would not want to overfly that pond in winter.

I have full admiration for both USCG and Canadian Coast guard people who do their best in winter conditions to keep shipping lanes open.

 

[mscard88]

Want to see cold water? Lake Superior is said to never give up her dead. Just ask the mariners who sail the Great Lakes before ice stops them.

I would not want to overfly that pond in winter.

I have full admiration for both USCG and Canadian Coast guard people who do their best in winter conditions to keep shipping lanes open.

Lived in Duluth as a kid, Superior was pretty well frozen in winter except the shipping channels where the ore ships would operate. Usually frozen. Remember a VW Bug going out a bit too far and went for a dip.

 

[SkyDog58]

Want to see cold water? Lake Superior is said to never give up her dead.

Yeah but that's only when the gales of November come early.

 

[Tantalum]

Heck, when I lived out there and flew from TOA I knew people who wouldn't get much above AVX pattern altitude for that trip

haha yeah I've heard of people making the run at 1,500 to look for whales and stuff.. I'll admit, I bet the view would be cool doing that trip down that low.. but not for me!

 

[SkyDog58]

How wuss of you...

I mean wise... how wise of you.



My CFI and I spotted a huge blue whale one time in the channel and went down a bit for a closer look. Amazing! Saw a few much smaller gray whales a couple of other times.

 

[mscard88]

How wuss of you...

I mean wise... how wise of you.


My CFI and I spotted a huge blue whale one time in the channel and went down a bit for a closer look. Amazing! Saw a few much smaller gray whales a couple of other times.

I saw a whale one night in the enlisted club. Actually a table full of them. Think they were blue too because no one asked them to dance.

 

[Velocity173]

Been dreaming about P337s recently. Probably should get off my but and get my ME first though.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1317403/1973-cessna-p337

 

[stratobee]

Aerostar is a wonderful aircraft. Flies like nothing else - all push-pull rods, like a little jet. Built like tank - you get a descent from ATC, you just push the nose over and take the speed. No need to throttle back - the yellow arc and Vne is crazy high. Honest plane that's safe as long as you fly it by the numbers. They don't like to get slow with that thin wing, so as long as you respect that, you're good. Even so, it's so honest and will tell you it's not happy close to stall and start to buffet. You can't really miss it - and that's why it's certified without a stall warner by FAA. But if you go past that point, you're on your own.

That said, the engine compartments are tight and they need people who know what they're doing to work on them. They have 2x turbos per engine, so they'll cost a little more to maintain. Pressurization is a game changer, and not a very maintenance heavy item, so I think anyone is crazy for even considering a non-pressurized one. It's so nice to be able to go to FL250 and just be above the weather and not have to suck oxygen. The 601P's are the misers - they're really sipping fuel up there (that's what I had). But if you need a little more performance, get a 700 model with the 350hp. They burn a bit more, but have excellent performance. Some of them can even touch 280kts. And they climb on one engine up to 14000ft, which makes them safe planes in all environments.

A few years ago I would say the 700 wasn't in the cards for someone without a huge budget, but today they are. The depressed twin market makes them perhaps the best bang for buck. I loved my Aerostar.

 

[Velocity173]

Aerostar is a wonderful aircraft. Flies like nothing else - all push-pull rods, like a little jet. Built like tank - you get a descent from ATC, you just push the nose over and take the speed. No need to throttle back - the yellow arc and Vne is crazy high. Honest plane that's safe as long as you fly it by the numbers. They don't like to get slow with that thin wing, so as long as you respect that, you're good. Even so, it's so honest and will tell you it's not happy close to stall and start to buffet. You can't really miss it - and that's why it's certified without a stall warner by FAA. But if you go past that point, you're on your own.

That said, the engine compartments are tight and they need people who know what they're doing to work on them. They have 2x turbos per engine, so they'll cost a little more to maintain. Pressurization is a game changer, and not a very maintenance heavy item, so I think anyone is crazy for even considering a non-pressurized one. It's so nice to be able to go to FL250 and just be above the weather and not have to suck oxygen. The 601P's are the misers - they're really sipping fuel up there (that's what I had). But if you need a little more performance, get a 700 model with the 350hp. They burn a bit more, but have excellent performance. Some of them can even touch 280kts. And they climb on one engine up to 14000ft, which makes them safe planes in all environments.

A few years ago I would say the 700 wasn't in the cards for someone without a huge budget, but today they are. The depressed twin market makes them perhaps the best bang for buck. I loved my Aerostar.

Definitely don’t get slow. Saw one stall in a turn about 10 ft up while landing at OSH in 2009. Looked like a carrier landing. Everyone in the crowd let out a collective gasp. I totally expected the gear to collapse or push up into the wings. Guess that goes back to being built like a tank.

 

[ktup-flyer]

Been dreaming about P337s recently. Probably should get off my but and get my ME first though.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1317403/1973-cessna-p337

Just give me your velocity before you get one

 

[stratobee]

Definitely don’t get slow. Saw one stall in a turn about 10 ft up while landing at OSH in 2009. Looked like a carrier landing. Everyone in the crowd let out a collective gasp. I totally expected the gear to collapse or push up into the wings. Guess that goes back to being built like a tank.

The main gear and wings are really strong. I seem to recall there hasn't been a breakup of an Aerostar in the air ever, but I could be wrong.

Now, the front gear is a little weaker and they have a tendency to show cracks there, so something to inspect on a pre-buy.