Arbiter419
Cleared for Takeoff
Have a small amount of time in a Pressurized Mix-master. Loved it. Flies as straight as an arrow when both are turning. Just handles like a heavier 182. Always a treat when I get to fly it.
Any skymaster fans here??
- Thread starter Kritchlow
- Start date
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
Limited by certification standards to 20,000 ft in the pressurized model. It will maintain 18,700 ft (and full pressurization) on one engine at gross weight.
The 1967 T337 had a service ceiling of 33,000 feet
Pressurization is one thing I really wish I had in my bird. I'm jealous... I technically have a higher operating ceiling (FL250) but I never go over FL190 because I just don't like being on O2 that high. It gets nasty in the 20s if you have any sort of oxygen system issue and the masks are not super comfortable.
Great looking plane! Congrats again!
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
I've been told by a number of friends that once you go to a pressurized airplane, you'll never go back. I believe it !
16,000 - 19,000 ft is a really sweet spot anyway and with a 6,000 - 8,000 ft cabin at those altitudes, there's no fatigue that I would see even when on oxygen previously.
kgruber
Final Approach
I worked for a wealthy woman who owned a FBO. She bought a Skymaster and told me to go get it. What I remember most is how long the gear took to cycle all the doors and gear.
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
From the POH: "Normal landing gear extension time is approximately 9 seconds."
Lindberg
Final Approach
I think they very cool. But looking at Controller, they don't seem to be ridiculously cheap.
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
I think they very cool. But looking at Controller, they don't seem to be ridiculously cheap.
They aren't ridiculously cheap, they're fairly priced. 337s are different and "different" has always sold at a discount even when it is better.
stratobee
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,112
- Display Name
Display name:
stratobee
I always liked them and was going to get one as my first twin (until I got side railed by the Commander). Hard to beat that bang for the buck. And as Ken mentioned - once you go pressurized, you never go back.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Yeah, I know the C-336 is slow, and kinda funny-looking with its nose-up cruise attitude (wing incidence was increased in the C-337). But I admire its simplicity ... and I just like this photo.
Neal Howard
Cleared for Takeoff
Non owner heresay, but I heard lose either engine on climbout, you're going down.
On one engine it'll climb about like a Cherokee 140 on a hot day... not much performance but still climb.
txflyer
En-Route
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,509
- Location
- Wild Blue Yonder
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly it like you STOL it ♦
That's what I heard recently from our A&P no less that they will NOT climb on one engine.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
gotta train people on the rudder some way.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
That's what I heard recently from our A&P no less that they will NOT climb on one engine.
The 337A has a SE climb of 360fpm, gross weight at 59F. These planes have an approximate useful load of 1600 lbs, so at a lighter weight it will perform better.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
A true classic.
We actually agree on something!
jsterner
Pre-Flight
In the mid-60's I spent an hour in the back seat of one of the early 336's before the age of headsets and I blame some of my hearing loss on that hour. Oh, that and 30 yrs of racing.
Jerry
Oh, that and 30 yrs of racing. Jerry
txflyer
En-Route
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,509
- Location
- Wild Blue Yonder
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly it like you STOL it ♦
Thanks.
That's on the anemic side and I assume those numbers are given from a test pilot at sea level in a good performing (new) aircraft?
I'm not trying to down them, I've always liked them for the concept of a push-pull but still these rumors hang on down through aviation folklore.
In the mid-60's I spent an hour in the back seat of one of the early 336's before the age of headsets and I blame some of my hearing loss on that hour.
Jerry
I feel your pain.........
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
That's actually pretty darned good. Have you looked at the single engine climb rate of other twins ?
Seneca (220 HP) 253 fpm
P Baron (325 HP) 270 fpm
Cessna 340 (310 HP) 315 fpm
Cessna 414 (310 HP) 290 fpm
Aerostar 601P (300 HP) 240 fpm
Dav8or
Final Approach
Exactly! Most piston twins struggle on one engine. I had read that the 337 is fantastic when it's modified with two IO-520 engines and that single engine climbs were more like ordinary single engine climbs in this case.
OkieFlyer
En-Route
That's pretty awesome, but I don't think it's fair to expect anything like that from a twin. Most of us have a climb rate of way less than none when the fan quits. 300+ fpm with a toasted engine and no yaw to go with it sounds brilliant!
I just couldn't bring myself to consider the ability to climb up to a safe altitude, take it around the pattern , and make safe landing, anything near "anemic."
JHW
En-Route
You can fly pretty well on the rear engine. No so with only the front running.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
It's true. It has to do with airflow separation on the fuselage (IIRC). The Cessna Engineer that wrote the books on development at Cessna discussed it.
Thanks.
That's on the anemic side and I assume those numbers are given from a test pilot at sea level in a good performing (new) aircraft?
I'm not trying to down them, I've always liked them for the concept of a push-pull but still these rumors hang on down through aviation folklore.
It's no different from the anemic OEI performance of all the lower power twins, and better than a Seminole. The only one I flew was an old O-2 with no insulation, and it was loud as hell, but that was my only complaint with it.
IIRC Riley did a 520 conversion on it, and someone put a PT-6 on the back too and made baggage nose.
I always thought a PT-6 on the back of a P-337 would be pretty excellent.
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
All discussion of one engine inoperative conditions in the POH mentions "either engine"; no where does the POH state that one engine gives better performance than the other.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
It may be that they just publish numbers for the worse case scenario.
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
Could be. And that's specifically the P model, not sure if T or N/A are different ???
If there is a difference which I could believe in the difference between 'clean air' and 'dirty air', I'm sure as is typical with regular multi figures, they are reported for worst case.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
What he said was this:
"Early in the C-336 development, everyone was taking bets on which engine would give the best single-engine climb. Dave Bierman, chief engineer of Hartzell Propeller Company [...], put his money on the rear engine. He explained, 'The rear propeller has no blockage behind it, its diameter is two inches greater, its inflow velocity if favorably reduced, and it promotes better airflow attachment to the bluff afterbody of the rear cowl' [...]. Later he proved to be right and collected the doubters' money! Initial test results showed the rear engine to have a 24% rate-of-climb advantage over the front-engine-only operation!"
For the 1967 337B, Cessna quoted sea level rates of climb of 1250 fpm on both; 335 on front engine only; and 415 fpm on rear engine only.
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
Something changed between the 336 and the P337. From the P337 POH:
PROPELLERS: Diameter
78 inches (front)
76 inches (rear)
In the P337, the rear prop is two inches less diameter than the front.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
That must have been changed between the original C-336 prototype and the C-336 as certified.
From the C-336 TCDS:
McCauley constant speed full-feathering installation propeller limits
(a) (Front) McCauley D2AF34C46/76C or D2AF34C60/76C
Diameter: not over 76 in., not under 74.5 in.
No further reduction permitted
(b) (Rear) McCauley D2AF34C56/L76C or D2AF34C61/L76C
Diameter: not over 76 in., not under 74.5 in.
No further reduction permitted
The TCDS in your P337 says:(a) (Front) McCauley D2AF34C46/76C or D2AF34C60/76C
Diameter: not over 76 in., not under 74.5 in.
No further reduction permitted
(b) (Rear) McCauley D2AF34C56/L76C or D2AF34C61/L76C
Diameter: not over 76 in., not under 74.5 in.
No further reduction permitted
1. McCauley constant speed full-feathering propeller installation
Propeller Limits
(a) (Front) McCauley D2AF34C308/90DEA-12
Diameter: not over 78.0 in., not under 76.5 in.
No further reduction permitted
(b) (Rear) McCauley D2AF34C305/L78CBA-2
Diameter: not over 76.0 in., not under 74.0 in.
No further reduction permitted
Propeller Limits
(a) (Front) McCauley D2AF34C308/90DEA-12
Diameter: not over 78.0 in., not under 76.5 in.
No further reduction permitted
(b) (Rear) McCauley D2AF34C305/L78CBA-2
Diameter: not over 76.0 in., not under 74.0 in.
No further reduction permitted
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Notice the article says the larger diameter prop was used "in development". For the finished product see the TCDS.
Ya know guys....... For some reason I never connected the dots. BUT... The Skymaster would make the perfect test bed for my powerplant...... Buy one with a trashed motor and install the prototype.... Run the siht out of it like I do with my Zenith, only I would have a extra wide margin to get it back on the ground if one of the motors has a " unplanned disassembly"
:wink2:....
Hmmmm.... Now to start looking for a 337 with a bad motor but a good airframe...
:wink2:....Hmmmm.... Now to start looking for a 337 with a bad motor but a good airframe...
Last edited:
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
Now to start looking for a 337 with a bad motor but a good airframe...
Pressurized, booted with one engine apart and the other 300 SFREM:
1976 P337G
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Skymasters have been used for a number of -- um, interesting things.Ya know guys....... For some reason I never connected the dots. BUT... The Skymaster would make the perfect test bed for my powerplant...... Buy one with a trashed motor and install the prototype.... Run the siht out of it like I do with my Zenith, only I would have a extra wide margin to get it back on the ground if one of the motors " unplanned disassembly"
Hmmmm.... Now to start looking for a 337 with a bad motor but a good airframe...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Mizar
http://turbo-wing-development.org.magnamentis.com/Memberarea/23300-a-cessna-337.html
Last edited:
KLRDMD
Pre-takeoff checklist
On my P337, the left wing tank feeds the front engine and the right wing tank feeds the rear engine.
Is there a crossfeed like on a conventional twin ?