Cessna 337 Ownership

RotorAndWing said:
Same as Cadillac when they tried to get into the small car market (remember the Catera?)
Click to expand...
that's actually a very apt comparison. a chevy cavalier with a cadillac grille

the skymaster was far too much plane being built in the single-engine factory. Cessna made incredibly good twin engine planes, in the factory for twin engine planes.
 
JHW said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually I could describe a Beech Travel Air using that exact description!
 
RotorAndWing said:
Actually I could describe a Beech Travel Air using that exact description!
Click to expand...
you seem very fixated with my airplane. Yet as wayne says, travel airs and twin comanches sell at a marked premium to 337's and for good reason. There are no undiscovered values in GA, the market is very efficient at assigning value.
 
JHW said:
you seem very fixated with my airplane. Yet as wayne says, travel airs and twin comanches sell at a marked premium to 337's and for good reason. There are no undiscovered values in GA, the market is very efficient at assigning value.
Click to expand...

Gee, you seem very fixated on 337's. the very mention of one and the mouth foaming followed by the keyboard Tourette's begins.

The "market premium" for a POS Travel Air makes the 337 that much more attractive in my opinion.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Gee, you seem very fixated on 337's. the very mention of one and the mouth foaming followed by the keyboard Tourette's begins.

The "market premium" for a POS Travel Air makes the 337 that much more attractive in my opinion.
Click to expand...
sure, who would want a plane that has more baggage space and goes faster on less gas with more reliable engines:rolleyes:

you seem to think I don't like 337's because i have something else. actually it's the opposite, I have something else because I'm intimitely familiar with 337's
 
In that case you might want to buy some and wait until the market reevaluates its opinion of value to agree with yours. You might make a small fortune.

RotorAndWing said:
Gee, you seem very fixated on 337's. the very mention of one and the mouth foaming followed by the keyboard Tourette's begins.

The "market premium" for a POS Travel Air makes the 337 that much more attractive in my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
JHW said:
sure, who would want a plane that has more baggage space and goes faster on less gas with more reliable engines:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your Travel Air is a glorified Bonanza.

My whole point here is to show how inane your rants are on a particular aircraft. While you enjoy trashing others because they happen to see something differently you bristle when someone says something negative about your chosen aircraft.
 
wabower said:
In that case you might want to buy some and wait until the market reevaluates its opinion of value to agree with yours. You might make a small fortune.
Click to expand...

Not really. I don't ever see the market recovering and right now for those who want a C337 it's a good time to buy. And I don't buy aircraft based upon "the market", I buy what I want.

If I was to ever buy another plane I would buy another 337, no problem.
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
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.
Click to expand...

Slow? P-Skymasters are 190-195 Ktas airplanes. Riley Skyrockets are 210+ Ktas airplanes. How fast is your Travel Air?

Also, can you do 2000 fpm climbs in your Travel Air? Can you fly on one at 16,000 ft? Will you fly it to Telluride in July?

Skymasters have many exceptional qualities. Travel Air has none.
 
Frankly, about the only reason C337 are undervalued IMHO is because the majority of small piston twins are used for training in some form or another, a maket which the C337 doesn't fit into.

No flight school will buy one train students in.

No pilot will buy to build multiengine time when sights are set on higher employment flying more complex aircraft.
 
For purely personal reasons I fly the plane I want to fly as well, and know it won't ever be popular with the masses. OTOH, I also know it has earned a good reputation over its 60-year history and continues to be very popular among certain user groups. Since I continue to improve it ($$$) it's also important to me that and that it has enjoyed good performance in the market compared to most others.

RotorAndWing said:
Not really. I don't ever see the market recovering and right now for those who want a C337 it's a good time to buy. And I don't buy aircraft based upon "the market", I buy what I want.

If I was to ever buy another plane I would buy another 337, no problem.
Click to expand...
 
RotorAndWing said:
Your Travel Air is a glorified Bonanza.

My whole point here is to show how inane your rants are on a particular aircraft. While you enjoy trashing others because they happen to see something differently you bristle when someone says something negative about your chosen aircraft.
Click to expand...
I don't bristle at all. The travel air has warts like any other model, and it's not a "glorified bonanza" actually it's inferior in many ways to many bonanzas.

choosing an airplane is all about trade-off's. If my family would take a little less stuff with them on trips I'd have a twin comanche, the benchmark in light twin effiency. Unfortunately with no nose baggage we can't fit in one so we have a travel air which is the 2nd most efficient choice. Were we to step up to something with 337-like fuel burn it would be something with much more space (seneca) or much more speed (baron/310).

The 337 simply doesn't offer any quantifiable advantages in any given category. It has about the same room for people and bags as a twin comanche but is far less efficient. It requires more maintenance than similar models (I have thousands of hours of servivce history showing our 5 337's at about 60% of the dispatch reliability of the dozen 310's and aztecs in the same service). And decades of service history show a worse safety record for 337's than either PA30's or D95's in non-training service.

The 337 really has no quantifiable advantage on any metric, hence it's low valuation. But again as wayne says, if you are right and the world is wrong then you should have no problem buying up a fleet of 337 inventory for very little investment.

there's nothing wrong with an enthusiast preserving an oddball machine. Just look at the corvair clubs. But the corvair guys would not try to make the case that the corvair has quantifiable advantages over a ford escort for taking the kids to school. They recognize it for what it is, a failed experiment abandoned by its manufacturer and turned into a cult hobby. You should do the same with your cult hobby.
 
In that case why has the N/A 337 retained a significantly higher % of value than the P? Why do both trail the Beech by a wide margin?

Apelsin Elise said:
Slow? P-Skymasters are 190-195 Ktas airplanes. Riley Skyrockets are 210+ Ktas airplanes. How fast is your Travel Air?

Also, can you do 2000 fpm climbs in your Travel Air? Can you fly on one at 16,000 ft? Will you fly it to Telluride in July?

Skymasters have many exceptional qualities. Travel Air has none.
Click to expand...
 
Apelsin Elise said:
They do not. Check Controller.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Check pricing guides.


Who cares?
Click to expand...

Buyers do. That's why the prices are depressed compared to others.

Since when market values determine aircraft qualities?
Click to expand...

When have they not been a major determinant?
Click to expand...
Priced some quality jets from the 70s lately?
Click to expand...

Which comparable light-jet twins are you including in your study? How are helicoptors doing?
 
JHW said:
The 337 simply doesn't offer any quantifiable advantages in any given category.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's talk quantifiable advantages. P-Skymasters:

1. 190-195 Ktas airplane on 225 hp engines and 25-28 gph.
2. 2,000 fpm real world climb rates (with intercoolers).
3. STOL runway requirements under 700ft.
4. Vso ~ 46 Kias with STOL kit.
5. Single engine ceiling of 18,700 ft.
6. Almost 10 hour endurance at max cruise.
7. No Vmc.

What are the quantifiable advantages of the Travel Air? Care to share?
 
wabower said:
[market values] When have they not been a major determinant?
Click to expand...

I have nothing against others making their buying decisions based on "the higher the better" prices. These guys make it possible for me to buy a fast pressurized twin with unbeatable STOL capabilities for $70K.

My operating expenses are way less than any comparable p-twins but let's keep it a secret :)
 
Last edited:
Do you always use the same measuring stick to compare Turbo/Pressurized and N/A airplanes, or are you making an exception in desperation on this thread?

Apelsin Elise said:
Ok, let's talk quantifiable advantages. P-Skymasters:

1. 190-195 Ktas airplane on 225 hp engines and 25-28 gph.
2. 2,000 fpm real world climb rates (with intercoolers).
3. STOL runway requirements under 700ft.
4. Vso ~ 46 Kias with STOL kit.
5. Single engine ceiling of 18,700 ft.
6. Almost 10 hour endurance at max cruise.
7. No Vmc.

What are the quantifiable advantages of the Travel Air? Care to share?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Do you always use the same measuring stick to compare Turbo/Pressurized and N/A airplanes, or are you making an exception in desperation on this thread?
Click to expand...

I'm not using any measuring stick. Airplanes are airplanes.

Could you please share with us the quantifiable advantages of the Travel Air? (compared to anything you wish)
 
wabower said:
Do you always use the same measuring stick to compare Turbo/Pressurized and N/A airplanes, or are you making an exception in desperation on this thread?
Click to expand...

I hint no desperation. I like my turbos. I love my pressurization. What are you proud of in your Travel Air?
 
Apelsin Elise said:
I hint no desperation. I like my turbos. I love my pressurization. What are you proud of in your Travel Air?
Click to expand...

One cabin door, climing over the wing, bigger baggage, seeing both engines and a combustion heater that gets HOT?
 
Apelsin Elise said:
Ok, let's talk quantifiable advantages. P-Skymasters:

1. 190-195 Ktas airplane on 225 hp engines and 25-28 gph.
2. 2,000 fpm real world climb rates (with intercoolers).
3. STOL runway requirements under 700ft.
4. Vso ~ 46 Kias with STOL kit.
5. Single engine ceiling of 18,700 ft.
6. Almost 10 hour endurance at max cruise.
7. No Vmc.

What are the quantifiable advantages of the Travel Air? Care to share?
Click to expand...
wow you are really reaching. That would be compared to a P-baron not a travel air. I guess the P-baron could be slowed to those speeds and then you could leave all the quick drains open in-flight to try and match your plane's miles per gallon

Alternatively I also have an aeronca champ maybe you would like to compare with that?
 
JHW said:
I guess the P-baron could be slowed to those speeds and then you could leave all the quick drains open in-flight to try and match your plane's miles per gallon
Click to expand...

You are kidding, right? Have you ever flown P-Baron?
 
JHW said:
wow you are really reaching. That would be compared to a P-baron not a travel air.
Click to expand...

I am answering your questions. You keep changing the subject.

Since you have accused 337 of having no quantifiable advantages, I have listed some for you. Could you please do the same for your Travel Air?

If not, I just assume it is a quite average light twin with no exceptional qualities sold at a market premium for questionable "Beech quality".

BTW, P337 quantifiably beats P-Baron in a few qualities. And vice versa.
 
Apelsin Elise said:
IIf not, I just assume it is a quite average light twin with no exceptional qualities sold at a market premium for questionable "Beech quality".
Click to expand...
I currently own one of each (Baron and a 170)....while I love my 170, wen it comes to maintenance, I'll take that 'questionable' Beech quality over pretty much anything Cessna has produced of the same vintage.
 
I hate to interject actual operational experience into a religious debate, but here is my comparison operating a small fleet of light twins hauling freight to semi-improved airstrips. I'm separating out the piston aeroplanes on their own as that is how we kept our metrics..


1991 fleet:
  • 2 senecas
  • 5 337's
  • 9 310's
  • 11 aztecs
  • fleet dispatch reliability 84%
  • 6 full-time maintenance engineers on staff
  • 2 pilots with maintenance engineer licences spending more than half time turning wrenches
1993 fleet:
  • 2 senecas
  • NO 337's
  • 11 310's
  • 12 aztecs
  • fleet dispatch reliability 92%
  • 4 full-time maintenance engineers on staff
  • 2 pilots with maintenance engineer licences mostly flying
  • tonnes hauled up 5% vs 1991
Note that we replaced (5) 337's with (3) conventional twins and hauled more freight with fewer people.

And yes, jhw posting here was one of my 2 pilot/engineers. The kid knows all those airplanes inside and out.
 
w_privett said:
I hate to interject actual operational experience into a religious debate, but here is my comparison operating a small fleet of light twins hauling freight to semi-improved airstrips. I'm separating out the piston aeroplanes on their own as that is how we kept our metrics..


1991 fleet:
  • 2 senecas
  • 5 337's
  • 9 310's
  • 11 aztecs
  • fleet dispatch reliability 84%
  • 6 full-time maintenance engineers on staff
  • 2 pilots with maintenance engineer licences spending more than half time turning wrenches
1993 fleet:
  • 2 senecas
  • NO 337's
  • 11 310's
  • 12 aztecs
  • fleet dispatch reliability 92%
  • 4 full-time maintenance engineers on staff
  • 2 pilots with maintenance engineer licences mostly flying
  • tonnes hauled up 5% vs 1991
Note that we replaced (5) 337's with (3) conventional twins and hauled more freight with fewer people.

And yes, jhw posting here was one of my 2 pilot/engineers. The kid knows all those airplanes inside and out.
Click to expand...

And this proves what? All I can see is that there are no Beech airplanes on this list. And that Aztecs rule.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I currently own one of each (Baron and a 170)....while I love my 170, wen it comes to maintenance, I'll take that 'questionable' Beech quality over pretty much anything Cessna has produced of the same vintage.
Click to expand...


Wait till you pull the wing bolts...
 
Some of us blessed with excessively LNG torsos are punished for our ability to reach the top shelf at Walmart by being too big to fly the B products without bending our necks. I freely admit that I am unusual in that regard.

A 337 appeals to me for several reasons, the speed, payload and fuel burn are all within spec for me, the short field performance appeals to me, maintenance doesn't scare me off, and I do like the oddball nature of the thing. I have wanted one since before I knew they were cheap, so the cheap part is gravy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top