Cessna 337 Ownership

So MPG only slightly worse than my 182 while hauling turbos and pressurization around.

Not bad.

How about for a naturally aspirated one?
 
In that case I suppose former owners who sold in despair shouldn't be allowed to post either.

Apelsin Elise said:
Cessna 337 is probably the most controversial airframe in GA. Do not listen to non-owners.

It's a great airframe. It flies beautifully. Takeoffs are deafening, but pull the props back in cruise and it's as quiet as any other light twin with direct drive engines. Visibility is unmatched. STOL performance is unreal. Useful load can be limiting depending on a particular airframe, but it is impossible to load it out of CG.

25 gph will get you 190 KTAS above 17,000 ft in a P-Skymaster. Pull everything back to max cruise and it does 130 KTAS at 15 gph. Also, P-Skymaster will comfortably land and take off from ANY airfield in high country Colorado with lots of runway to spare even in a heat of the summer. Try that in most of the other light twins :) Especially in Glenwood Springs...

Shutting down one engine in a 337 is a non-event. P-versions can climb on one (either one) at 16,000. Mine does.

Engine bays are tightly packed, but not enough to add much to the maitenance.

If you choose to get the pressurized version, it will spoil you rotten.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
In that case I suppose former owners who sold in despair shouldn't be allowed to post either.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to silence anybody.

Any type has bad apples, 337 is no exception. If you have owned a basket case - please feel free to share your experience.

What I'm trying to point out, though, is the fact that very few other types get dirt thrown at them by people who never flew or owned them. Thus the "type controversy".

There are five Skymasters at my home field, each one loved by their owners. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Additional benefits of the Cessna 337 compared to other light twins (and some heavy singles):

1. Cabin entry is easy. No stepping on the wing. No crawling through the cabin. Later models have split-airstair door - the easiest way to get in for older passengers. Also - faster preflight.

2. Easy taxi on narrow taxiways. Not mowing grass with props as in conventional twins.

3. Rear prop is always heated :)

4. Pilot and co-pilot sit in front of the wing, which gives great visibility in all phases of flight (ok, Aerostars and Twin Commanders have that too).

5. Counter-rotating props. No P-factor. No critical engine either :)

6. Minimal penalty for flying with gear down. All gear doors but one are in a closed position with gear down (less drag). Makes flying on one engine even easier. Landing gear is very strong.

7. Later models have extremely simple fuel system: 4 tanks in each wing, interconnected. Fuel selectors stay "ON" all the time, except for checking crossfeed on preflight. Fuel tanks are internal aluminum - no bladders, no leaky wet wing.

8. Passengers really like the unrestricted view below when flying in the/over the mountains.

And, well, since all twin drivers are super-invincible highly trained proficient macho aviators anyway, I will not even mention the centerline thrust :) No one else did in this entire thread, so I guess it does not matter.
 
Skylane81E said:
So R&W,

Can you share some realworld numbers for say fuel burn, speed, and UL?
Click to expand...



bnt83 said:
22-24 gph @ 155 im guessing
Click to expand...

Both of mine would do 160 to 165 knots TAS on 20gph (65% power). The block to block fuel burns were dead on aat 20 gph, so if you flew 2.2 hours you would use 44 gallons when refueling.

Useful load was above 1600 pounds IIRC.
 
A comparison of market performance shows the Skymasters lag far behind 210's, 310's and Travel-air/Barons in residual value as a percentage of original cost. If they were as attractive as the current advocates suggest, why would they not have performed better in the market?

Apelsin Elise said:
I'm not trying to silence anybody.

Any type has bad apples, 337 is no exception. If you have owned a basket case - please feel free to share your experience.

What I'm trying to point out, though, is the fact that very few other types get dirt thrown at them by people who never flew or owned them. Thus the "type controversy".

There are five Skymasters at my home field, each one loved by their owners. YMMV.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
A comparison of market performance shows the Skymasters lag far behind 210's, 310's and Travel-air/Barons in residual value as a percentage of original cost. If they were as attractive as the current advocates suggest, why would they not have performed better in the market?
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own likes and taste in everything from homes, electronics, cars, boats and airplanes.

Where others see disadvantages others see value. I owned a Bayliner Pilothouse Yacht while I was in the states. Go over to the boating world and watch the mouth foaming and keyboard tourettes start when a boat owner says he is happy with his Bayliner. Yet the Bayliner offers more for the money than it's counterparts.

I liked the Skymasters, if I was looking for another plane would consider another one without hesitation.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Both of mine would do 160 to 165 knots TAS on 20gph (65% power). The block to block fuel burns were dead on aat 20 gph, so if you flew 2.2 hours you would use 44 gallons when refueling.

Useful load was above 1600 pounds IIRC.
Click to expand...

Awesome, not much worse fuel economy than my single, and a bigger plane with 400 pounds more load.

Unfortunately I kind of doubt it would be as happy puttering along at 9-10gph as my Skylane when I'm just puttering around not going anywhere.
 
For all of those who say that 337's suck I have only one suggestion:

BAT 21
 
Who said a 150 sucks? I wanna have a word with that dude :D
 
That's why you eliminate the individual preferences and analyze the market as a whole.

RotorAndWing said:
Everyone has their own likes and taste in everything from homes, electronics, cars, boats and airplanes.

Where others see disadvantages others see value. I owned a Bayliner Pilothouse Yacht while I was in the states. Go over to the boating world and watch the mouth foaming and keyboard tourettes start when a boat owner says he is happy with his Bayliner. Yet the Bayliner offers more for the money than it's counterparts.

I liked the Skymasters, if I was looking for another plane would consider another one without hesitation.
Click to expand...
 
I learned in a J3 but I was 15, didn't even know what "shoehorn" meant. I'll say one thing though, people always ask why you fly a J3 from the back seat and my answer is - have you ever sat in the front seat of a J3?

I swear, I've never seen two instructors get up there the same way twice.
 
wabower said:
A comparison of market performance shows the Skymasters lag far behind 210's, 310's and Travel-air/Barons in residual value as a percentage of original cost. If they were as attractive as the current advocates suggest, why would they not have performed better in the market?
Click to expand...

Looks.

With 337 Cessna discovered that safety and performance do not sell. Looks do. This applies to all airplanes, not just new. Buyers go for the look of the airplane and then seek rational reasons to justify their decision.

Skymasters look... different.
 
Last edited:
Is this a first-hand observation from being actively involved in GA at the time?

Apelsin Elise said:
Looks.

With 337 Cessna discovered that safety and performance do not sell. Looks do. This applies to all airplanes, not just new. Buyers go for the look of the airplane and then seek rational reasons to justify their decision.

Skymasters look... different.
Click to expand...
 
Apelsin Elise said:
Looks.

With 337 Cessna discovered that safety and performance do not sell. Looks do. This applies to all airplanes, not just new. Buyers go for the look of the airplane and then seek rational reasons to justify their decision.

Skymasters look... different.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


Kinda goes with the old joke "Why did they put the twin tail on the Shorts 330?" "Looks" :D
 
I seem to remember that V-Tail Bonanzas looked different too. Why were the results so different?

Apelsin Elise said:
No. This is a first-hand observation from reading a lot about Cessna model history. Care to offer a counterpoint?
Click to expand...
 
Apelsin Elise said:
Looks.

With 337 Cessna discovered that safety and performance do not sell. Looks do. This applies to all airplanes, not just new. Buyers go for the look of the airplane and then seek rational reasons to justify their decision.

Skymasters look... different.
Click to expand...

According to the linked document (author unknown - appears to have been someone part of the original design and development team for the 336):

"Many pilots ridiculed the safety features, implying that they are macho pilots capable of handling engine-out emergencies in conventional twins. The rather staid appearance of the airplane could not compare with the sleek lines of the C-310 and other twins of that era, and this was a drawback."

http://www.consultresearch.com/SkymasterHistory.pdf

The author of that document also claims that if they had anticipated retractable gear would be desired from the beginning they would have gone with a low wing design on the 336.
 
wabower said:
I seem to remember that V-Tail Bonanzas looked different too. Why were the results so different?
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. V-tail looks beautiful. Ask the owners. Ask the aspiring future owners. V-tail sold the airplane.

Who cared that V-tail was structurally deficient? No one.
Who cared that it offered no performance gains over the standard tail? No one.
Who cared that V-tail Bonanzas made rear passengers throw up in turbulence? No one.
Who cared about the CG range issues in the V-tail Bonanzas? No one.

Not even 337 owners dare to call their planes beautiful. Thus the low market values.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
I seem to remember that V-Tail Bonanzas looked different too. Why were the results so different?
Click to expand...

Marketing. Beech had a far better marketing department then Cessna. Their marketing (Beech) was also able to convince people of the purported "Beech Quality" pretty much along the lines a Cadillac convinced people that their cars were "quality".
 
And the Starship? How could a plane with such great looks and hoop-la possibly fail?

Apelsin Elise said:
That's the whole point. V-tail looks beautiful. Ask the owners. Ask the aspiring future owners. V-tail sold the airplane.

Who cared that V-tail was structurally deficient? No one.
Who cared that it offered no performance gains over the standard tail? No one.
Who cared that V-tail Bonanzas made rear passengers throw up in turbulence? No one.
Who cared about the CG range issues in the V-tail Bonanzas? No one.

Not even 337 owners dare to call their planes beautiful. Thus the low market values.
Click to expand...
 
Apelsin Elise said:
That's the whole point. V-tail looks beautiful. Ask the owners. Ask the aspiring future owners. V-tail sold the airplane.

Who cared that V-tail was structurally deficient? No one.
Click to expand...

They got that fixed a year or so ago.

Who cared that it offered no performance gains over the standard tail? No one.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

Who cared that V-tail Bonanzas made rear passengers throw up in turbulence? No one.
Click to expand...
Not me, buy your own or marry me if you want to ride shotgun.

Who cared about the CG range issues in the V-tail Bonanzas? No one.
Click to expand...
Not the people who cared more about fuel capacity. The N onward has the CG issues, it was consciously done to accommodate the demand for more fuel.

Not even 337 owners dare to call their planes beautiful. Thus the low market values.
Click to expand...

Function over Form typically sells planes... in most cases. (Some are just too ugly for the function positives to overcome the form negatives)

:D
 
The Mousketeer line should be examined in this context as well. Why was it such a turd?
 
Pilots are perhaps the most conservative bunch there is. The Starship was just too much of a leap. Plus it was overpriced and overweight at the time. Sad that it didn't make it, because it was a wonderful thing. Just a little too far ahead of its time. But, just look at its nearest cousin, the Piaggio P180 Avanti II. This is a plane that beats everything in its class hands down - it flies faster than a jet and burns 40% less fuel, has almost standup cabin and is dead quiet inside. It looks cool and is single pilot. Still, people stay away in droves (as Goldwyn used to say). They buy the King Air that looks like it's stuck in the 50's instead. Because it looks like a plane in their mind. People just can't deal with much innovation in aviation...

Also look at every fanboys drool obsession - they want the TBM850, The PC12 or Mirage. They want low wing - high wings remind them too much of their Cessna training days - they want to emulate the airline/jets and try to look cool. Hence the Cirrus. Had the Cirrus been a high wing and emulated the 182 more, it wouldn't have sold even half as much. Promise. That's the reality.
 
bartmc said:
They got that fixed a year or so ago.


Incorrect.


Not me, buy your own or marry me if you want to ride shotgun.


Not the people who cared more about fuel capacity. The N onward has the CG issues, it was consciously done to accommodate the demand for more fuel.



Function over Form typically sells planes... in most cases. (Some are just too ugly for the function positives to overcome the form negatives)

:D
Click to expand...

Priceless. Thank you. I could not ask for a better proof.
 
wabower said:
The Mousketeer line should be examined in this context as well. Why was it such a turd?
Click to expand...

Beech tried to fill a "niche" and didn't really put the effort into it. Same as Cadillac when they tried to get into the small car market (remember the Catera?)

BTW, there are some very devoted pilots and owners to the small Beech line. Again, where some see negatives others see opportunity.
 
stratobee said:
Pilots are perhaps the most conservative bunch there is. The Starship was just too much of a leap. Plus it was overpriced and overweight at the time. Sad that it didn't make it, because it was a wonderful thing. Just a little too far ahead of its time. But, just look at its nearest cousin, the Piaggio P180 Avanti II. This is a plane that beats everything in its class hands down - it flies faster than a jet and burns 40% less fuel, has almost standup cabin and is dead quiet inside. It looks cool and is single pilot. Still, people stay away in droves (as Goldwyn used to say). They buy the King Air that looks like it's stuck in the 50's instead. Because it looks like a plane in their mind. People just can't deal with much innovation in aviation...

Also look at every fanboys drool obsession - they want the TBM850, The PC12 or Mirage. They want low wing - high wings remind them too much of their Cessna training days - they want to emulate the airline/jets and try to look cool. Hence the Cirrus. Had the Cirrus been a high wing and emulated the 182 more, it wouldn't have sold even half as much. Promise. That's the reality.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Again, the market ignores the fan boys as well as the no-way-Joses and examines the macro rather than the micro. a
RotorAndWing said:
Beech tried to fill a "niche" and didn't really put the effort into it. Same as Cadillac when they tried to get into the small car market (remember the Catera?)

BTW, there are some very devoted pilots and owners to the small Beech line. Again, where some see negatives others see opportunity.
Click to expand...
 
Speaking of quiet cabins... Pusher prop designs such as Long-EZ, Velocity, Beech Starship and Piaggio Avanti got something right in the sound department. Even caging the front engine in a Cessna 337 makes for a very quiet cabin. Still, the market votes against such designs because they do not look like conventional "real" airplanes.
 
Skylane81E said:
They only suck when shoehorn myself into one.

Had I known better when I was younger I would have stopped growing 6inches sooner.
Click to expand...

Bubble windows help incredibly. Unless you are talking about height :D

PS I wouldn't mind having a 337 as a "third" airplane just for the looks
 
Last edited:
Apelsin Elise said:
Speaking of quiet cabins... Pusher prop designs such as Long-EZ, Velocity, Beech Starship and Piaggio Avanti got something right in the sound department. Even caging the front engine in a Cessna 337 makes for a very quiet cabin. Still, the market votes against such designs because they do not look like conventional "real" airplanes.
Click to expand...



Longeasy is the second loudest I've ever flown in.

A sparsely upholstered tiny composite tube where the engine is inches behind your head (aft passenger) is anything but quiet.

FOD picked up by tires thrown into props = many pusher designs
 
Last edited:
Just some general comments:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
My understanding is that the centerline rating has gone away - for a multi engine rating you will need to take the checkride in a conventional twin now. Others may be able to update us on that issue.
And as far as an underpowered pos - my Fat Albert The Apache with original 150hp engines resembles that description. Yet he meets my needs nicely and he thrashed his way across the country for many decades hauling passengers and freight before being put out to pasture with me. And he still manages the 1200nm trek from Mi to Fla with seeming ease. Quiet he is not, however - NC headsets are de rigueur.
In my eyes he is handsome.
 
Apelsin Elise said:
Looks.

With 337 Cessna discovered that safety and performance do not sell. Looks do. This applies to all airplanes, not just new. Buyers go for the look of the airplane and then seek rational reasons to justify their decision.

Skymasters look... different.
Click to expand...
whatever the design goals were, in the end the 337 offers neither safety nor performance so it seems to be one of the few airplane designs that offers no compromises. It manages to be slow, thirsty, ugly, and maintenace hungry all in one convenient package.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top