Cessna 337 Ownership

Fearless Tower said:
You do know the wing bolts aren't mandatory for 91 ops, right?
Click to expand...
I've heard discussions that make it seem as though that belief is still open to interpretation - and that per 14 CFR 43.10(a) and 91.403(c) the Beechcraft inspection and replacement schedules regarding the wing bolts (5 year inspection, 10 year re-inspection, 15 year mandatory replacement) constitute a "life-limit" that is applicable even under Part 91.

Others argue that it's not and won't be until Beech completely re-writes their manuals to reflect recent standards for ICA and "Airworthiness Limitations Sections" - but Beech's original intent certainly seems clear regardless.

Of course it all depends on the standards of maintenance and regulatory enforcement in your geographic area - i.e. the jurisdiction of your local FSDO.

It also depends on whether you approach the maintenace on your aircraft from the perspective of accepting the knowledge and experience of the people who designed, certified, and manufactured it versus your own personal knowledge and experience as a pilot and owner, businessman,
CPA, doctor, lawyer, whatever - and with just how much you feel comfortable "getting away with" not doing something recommended by people who just might know more about it than you do.
 
PS I've worked on several different Cessna 337's over the years, as well as a Travel Air or two, and of course many Barons, etc.

At a shop I worked for many years ago, we also had an encounter once with a supposedly one-of-a-kind Beech Travel Air that had been modified with 250 hp IO-540's (maybe -C4B5's just like out of an Aztec?) Never seen anything so tightly shoe-horned into a cowling! The Duke we regularly maintained wasn't that bad - at least from the mechanic's perspective - the bills the owner got for the Duke were still always higher.

In any case, IMHO all of the aircraft in question here are MUCH more fun to fly than to work on! On the whole, still in my "professional" opinion, none of them are any signficantly worse than the others to work on, but I also believe that the bad rap the 337 gets is not deserved and except for jacking it up to swing the gear, almost everything on it maintenance-wise is easier than on a Travel Air.

-just my 2 cents...
 
Having owned a travel air I thought I would give my 2 cents.a close friend of mine owns a 337. My travel air was about 5 knots faster in cruise on about 5 GPh less fuel.both aircraft had prop ads to contend with I found the travel air quieter with less vibration.I always wanted a 337 but found a travel air at the right price.Since have gone back to a small single now that I am retired.
 
The Cessna 337 basic airframe is a great design and even looks cool, so cool that I have a scale model of one hanging from the hangar ceiling.

Fresh out of his shop, got to fly a pair of Jack Riley's customized twin turbo/twin intercooled, pressurized Super SkyRocket models at 4000 FPM (4000) climb to the flight levels, to cruise quietly in AC comfort, with no headsets at 300 mph, back in the early 1990s.
 
Last edited:
At the golf range overlooking the approach yesterday, saw a 337 (or maybe the museum 02) circling the airport. The thought occurred to me that very few are based at KADS, and I rarely see one anywhere else. Where do most of them live?
 
RotorAndWing said:
Wrong forum to ask about this. Be prepared for rehashed OWT and "expert advise" from people that never owned or even flew in one. Standby for "myths" and downright lies.

I've had 2, a 1966 "A" model and a 1974 "G" model. Go over to the 337 forum for a realistic conversation on the airplane.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I've never owned one and therefore have nothing to contribute WRT the flight characteristics or ownership costs but Brad Z's comment rings true for me (you may or may not be an exception;)). Two different owners I've known and one who was planning to buy one when he lost his medical for good fit the "weird" category pretty well. Perhaps eccentric would be more accurate though.
 
wabower said:
At the golf range overlooking the approach yesterday, saw a 337 (or maybe the museum 02) circling the airport. The thought occurred to me that very few are based at KADS, and I rarely see one anywhere else. Where do most of them live?
Click to expand...
the ones privett operated mostly lived in the workshop
 
wabower said:
At the golf range overlooking the approach yesterday, saw a 337 (or maybe the museum 02) circling the airport. The thought occurred to me that very few are based at KADS, and I rarely see one anywhere else. Where do most of them live?
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, there used to be a really active O-2 group at KAPA and I haven't seen them in years.

I haven't seen a 337 or O-2 in flight in at least a decade, other than maybe at OSH.
 
The museum emptied their hangar and flew everything they own for last night's show including the O-2. One of the guys who helps maintain it said the techs all enjoy working on it (as compared to other 337's) because the interior panels all snap out and allow easy access to stuff that is otherwise difficult to reach.

denverpilot said:
Come to think of it, there used to be a really active O-2 group at KAPA and I haven't seen them in years.

I haven't seen a 337 or O-2 in flight in at least a decade, other than maybe at OSH.
Click to expand...
 
denverpilot said:
Come to think of it, there used to be a really active O-2 group at KAPA and I haven't seen them in years.

I haven't seen a 337 or O-2 in flight in at least a decade, other than maybe at OSH.
Click to expand...
I think they are all tucked away in T-hangars around the country. I can honestly count on the fingers of 1 hand how many 337s/O-2s I have seen in person on the ramp or in the air in the last 10 years....but with two fatal crashes on the front page of CNN in the last few months, they are obviously out there flying.

The 337 reminds me of the Jeep Wagoneers we used to have when I was a kid. You still see lots of '70s and 80's cars driving around on the roads today.....extremely rare to have a Wagoneer sighting.

With that said, the most recent one I saw was a P337 in the shop getting annualed alongside my Baron. The shop guys said it was decent shape and no big maintenance issues. Like R&W said, depends alot on the owner(s) and maintenance history. Any airplane can be a hangar queen regardless of builder if you don't take care of it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
With that said, the most recent one I saw was a P337 in the shop getting annualed alongside my Baron. The shop guys said it was decent shape and no big maintenance issues. Like R&W said, depends alot on the owner(s) and maintenance history. Any airplane can be a hangar queen regardless of builder if you don't take care of it.
Click to expand...

Very true.

Many years ago I had an acquaintance that owned a 75 C-210. Local mechanic hated working on it, hated all 210's and would go on about what "junk" they were. The fellow's 210 stayed down a lot for various maintenance issues the local mechanic blamed on the 210.

Fellow takes 210 to another nearby airport and puts the care under another shop, problems begin going away and the reliability of the 210 went up, way up. :rolleyes:
 
wabower said:
The museum emptied their hangar and flew everything they own for last night's show including the O-2. One of the guys who helps maintain it said the techs all enjoy working on it (as compared to other 337's) because the interior panels all snap out and allow easy access to stuff that is otherwise difficult to reach.
Click to expand...
the ones I used to fly pipeline inspection in had most of those panels thrown away. made inspection and removal of small animals much easier
 
This recent Skymaster article I wrote for Aviation Consumer should answer some 337 questions. Take Care. BT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top