Cessna 337

[Skylane81E]

I want one


That is all

 

[Henning]

I have a friend with one...it's what made me by mine. I was told he sold 8-10 of them to the US forest Service. They claimed it was the only light twin that could lose an engine and still climb out of the Grand Canyon. It is an impressive 2500 fpm climber and 225 knots at altitude.

The one he was building was a real hot rod with 325hp engines. I tried to talk him into using a Formula 1 type scoop for the rear engine but he didn't think people would accept the look.

 

[Morne]

I want one


That is all

Ditto.

NA, turbo, P-model...whatever. I just love the idea of it and the look.

 

[Henning]

If I could get my hands on one of Jack's hot rod P-337s It would be cool, I really wish I could put it on Amphibs. If I could put a 337 on floats I would have had one long ago, but I would want turbos for high mountain lakes. Shame, if owner experimental opens up I may give it a go, even as Reasearch R&D for new technology development with a (G?)TSIO 520 up front and electric back.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The one he was building was a real hot rod with 325hp engines. I tried to talk him into using a Formula 1 type scoop for the rear engine but he didn't think people would accept the look.

Or the drag.

 

[Henning]

Or the drag.

It's very efficient with the processing of that drag into pressure for 325/300 heat in the back. Electric can vent out the belly and streamline everything nicely providing heat and light thrust. Could also go PT-6 on algae oil up front and see how well that does throttled back. I know for a fact there is STCd algae fuel for our jets.

 

[Jthamilton]

Well just got off AOPA getting my insurance for the upcoming tr182 purchase. Thought I would ask about coverage for p337 despite my low time.

Total time 360 hours mostly high perfomance. Retract and multi around 10 hours. Waiting to get the new 182 to finish my IFR.

So with 70k hull coverage it would be $5,000. So I kinda did the math bumping up the hull coverage to $120,000 and wow does $6000-$7000 sound little steep. Think I will stick to my original plan to build time and some experience and save a little cash.

Brent I'm just going to drool over yours for a few months.

 

[Morne]

If I could get my hands on one of Jack's hot rod P-337s It would be cool, I really wish I could put it on Amphibs. If I could put a 337 on floats I would have had one long ago, but I would want turbos for high mountain lakes. Shame, if owner experimental opens up I may give it a go, even as Reasearch R&D for new technology development with a (G?)TSIO 520 up front and electric back.

I'll bet you could put floats on the straight leg 336 with little trouble...

 

[Henning]

Well just got off AOPA getting my insurance for the upcoming tr182 purchase. Thought I would ask about coverage for p337 despite my low time.

Total time 360 hours mostly high perfomance. Retract and multi around 10 hours. Waiting to get the new 182 to finish my IFR.

So with 70k hull coverage it would be $5,000. So I kinda did the math bumping up the hull coverage to $120,000 and wow does $6000-$7000 sound little steep. Think I will stick to my original plan to build time and some experience and save a little cash.

Brent I'm just going to drool over yours for a few months.

You can just buy liability and self insure the hull the first 75-100hrs/ 1st year. You will pay far less after a year claim free with those hours flown. I self insured the first 75 hrs in the 310 until I went to Osh, then I bound full up low deductible for $1700.

 

[Fearless Tower]

You can just buy liability and self insure the hull the first 75-100hrs/ 1st year. You will pay far less after a year claim free with those hours flown. I self insured the first 75 hrs in the 310 until I went to Osh, then I bound full up low deductible for $1700.

This is an excellent point. You are certainly accepting some risk, but by far the biggest chunk of the insurance premium goes to the hull.

Only problem is if you plan to finance the airplane they will probably require hull coverage.

 

[Skylane81E]

Ditto.

NA, turbo, P-model...whatever. I just love the idea of it and the look.

Yep, sell the 182, get a 337 and a J-3...


When I strike it rich

 

[Ted]

Well just got off AOPA getting my insurance for the upcoming tr182 purchase. Thought I would ask about coverage for p337 despite my low time.

Total time 360 hours mostly high perfomance. Retract and multi around 10 hours. Waiting to get the new 182 to finish my IFR.

So with 70k hull coverage it would be $5,000. So I kinda did the math bumping up the hull coverage to $120,000 and wow does $6000-$7000 sound little steep. Think I will stick to my original plan to build time and some experience and save a little cash.

Brent I'm just going to drool over yours for a few months.

That's the first year. Once you have the first year under your belt, insurance will drop significantly. If you think you want one of these after the TR182, just buy the 337 and be done with it. It will save you money in the long run vs. buying the TR182 and then trading up.

I wouldn't recommend the self-insured route. Yes, it is an option. However, as a new pilot in the plane you have the highest probability of pranging it. Do you want to buy a plane twice? Just suck it up for the first year.

 

[wabower]

Yeah, what do those underwriters know about exposure to loss of low-time-in-make-model pilots anyway? If anybody wants to hear some first-hand experience about how that plays out, Doc Bill Mitchell in Waco might be a pretty good guy to contact.

You can just buy liability and self insure the hull the first 75-100hrs/ 1st year. You will pay far less after a year claim free with those hours flown. I self insured the first 75 hrs in the 310 until I went to Osh, then I bound full up low deductible for $1700.

 

[Jthamilton]

I myself want to build some meaningful instrument time before putting myself and family in a situation I'm not ready for. They will still be around next year.

Right now I want to be able to fly myself and my little boy around in the evenings and weekends without costing a fortune. We will be Traveling and hopefully moving to Steamboat springs, Co next year. I will need something to travel back to Tulsa to check on some things on monthly basis. The 337 would be nice and quick aircraft to make the trip....after I pay some dues.

Seeing Brent Ramseys p 337 here at RVS definitely makes you think though. It's a beautiful aircraft.

 

[Red Air Rambo]

Jon,

Lose an engine over the Rockies, in the wx, at night, or over water and you'll be in that situation...call John at Recurrent Training Center 1-800-727-1014 he is a retired ATC controller and owns a 337 (used to also own a P337). As far as I know they have the only 337 sim in the country. Go do the course before you decide...it's only 4 days if you hustle and regardless it's some great instrument/sim time...John enjoys being ATC. I would also shop insurance after you do the course and get some time in the plane (try Falcon), we have three IP's on Riverside current in the 337. If you can handle a TR-182 you can do a P-337, I'll help.

Brent

 

[Red Air Rambo]

Yep, sell the 182, get a 337 and a J-3...


When I strike it rich

I'm thinkin of putting the 182 on floats when I win the Lotto! But a 336/7 on floats would be cool!

 

[Ted]

I would seriously consider just buying the twin first if that's the direction you want to head. We're talking a 337 here, not an MU-2.

Signed,

Someone who bought his Aztec at 225 hours total time with only prior experience in a Mooney, 172, and PA28

 

[westslopeco]

I myself want to build some meaningful instrument time before putting myself and family in a situation I'm not ready for. They will still be around next year.

Right now I want to be able to fly myself and my little boy around in the evenings and weekends without costing a fortune. We will be Traveling and hopefully moving to Steamboat springs, Co next year. I will need something to travel back to Tulsa to check on some things on monthly basis. The 337 would be nice and quick aircraft to make the trip....after I pay some dues.

Seeing Brent Ramseys p 337 here at RVS definitely makes you think though. It's a beautiful aircraft.

Welcome to Steamboat, even though you haven't moved here yet! I think a turbo 337 would make a great Steamboat aircraft. I am a member of the flying club here, and we have a TR182 (in addition to a straight leg 182 and a R172K). I haven't had a chance to fly the Turbo yet, but have never had a problem flying the normally aspirated planes around the Rockies. Of course I only fly day VFR, I think that the risks of flying night or IFR in the Rockies in a single engine aren't worth it (just my opinion, others may think they are acceptable).

Tony

 

[wabower]

Lose a fuel line in a twin in any of those same circumstances and you're in even worse shape. BTDT.

Jon,

Lose an engine over the Rockies, in the wx, at night, or over water and you'll be in that situation...

 

[Jthamilton]

Thats what many of the professional pilots i know keep telling me. None would fly at night or over mountains with only one engine. That really echoes in my mind even though I doubt I would do any hard ifr or night flying.

All these darn choices can drive ya crazy.

 

[Morne]

Lose a fuel line in a twin in any of those same circumstances and you're in even worse shape. BTDT.

Depends on the fuel system. Over on the SOAP forum a guy related a story about a 337's fuel line rupturing (he noticed a sharp increase in fuel flow to that engine) so he just elected to shut that engine down. The 337 does not suffer much of a ceiling hit OEI, unlike other twins, so it was no big deal.

You have to remember that part of the 337's heritage is combat duty as the O-2. In that environment, having a fuel system designed to take flak is a plus. You can shoot holes in 3 of the 337's tanks and she'll still fly.

 

[DouglasBader]

Having flown them in a combat environment, I'll disagree about the performance and survivability, and well as the hardiness of the airplane. They're light Cessnas. Don't think of the airplane as any more.

Thats what many of the professional pilots i know keep telling me. None would fly at night or over mountains with only one engine. That really echoes in my mind even though I doubt I would do any hard ifr or night flying.

I see private pilots dismissing professional pilots on those counts quite often, but it's well to remember that most of us have more than a few hours in light airplanes in the past, and many of us, in the present, too.

I'll certainly fly over mountains on one engine, and I'll fly at night on one engine, though not over the mountains at night, and frankly I'd just as soon not fly over the mountains at night in a light twin, either.

Despite what some have said about the USFS being enamored with the O2/337, that wasn't ever the case; neither was the CDF/Calfire enamored with the airplane. It's chief appeal to both was the visibility, which is excellent in the Skymaster. They're not stellar airplanes on one engine, though they do better than some.

Someone mentioned it doing well in the Grand Canyon with an engine out. Having done a fair amount of flying in the Grand Canyon (including a lot of landing down inside the canyon in multiple locations), and having done a fair amount of firefighting (including some in the Grand Canyon area), I can tell you there's nothing stellar about the O2 in the Grand Canyon area. There's a reason that the USFS is using King Air's now for Leads, and the BLM is using them for ASM platforms...not Skymasters.

 

[flyingmedic]

Actually I seem to recall that the Multi PTS was updated a few years ago to remove that ability. Any Multi checkride now has to be done in a plane with a published Vmc, center line thrust limited ratings no longer are issued.

Not true...... And further, it's Center Thrust, not Center LINE Thrust

 

[tonycondon]

Not true...... And further, it's Center Thrust, not Center LINE Thrust

Explain Page 6 in the Private Pilot PTS then...

Removal of the “Limited to Center Thrust” Limitation​

The removal of the “Limited to Center Thrust” limitation at the private
pilot certificate level requires an applicant to satisfactorily perform the
following AREAS OF OPERATION and TASKs from the private AMEL
and AMES PTS in a multiengine airplane that has a manufacturer’s
published V​

​

​

​

MC speed.
AREA OF OPERATION I: PREFLIGHT PREPARTATION
TASK H: PRINCIPLES OF FLIGHT-ENGINE INOPERATIVE
AREA OF OPERATION X: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
TASK B: ENGINE FAILURE DURING TAKEOFF BEFORE Vmc
(SIMULATED)
TASK C: ENGINE FAILURE AFTER LIFT-OFF (SIMULATED)
TASK D: APPROACH AND LANDING WITH AN INOPERATIVE
ENGINE (SIMULATED)
AREA OF OPERATION XI: MULTIENGINE OPERATIONS
TASK A: MANEUVERING WITH ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE​

TASK B: VMC DEMONSTRATION)

 

[RotorAndWing]

From FAA Order 8900.2

Section 2. Conduct Practical Test/Certification Functions

32. Limitations

b. Center Thrust. A certificate issued for a multiengine class or aircraft type rating based
on a practical test in a multiengine airplane which has no published minimum controllable
airspeed (VMC), as determined by the manufacturer, must bear the limitation “AIRPLANE
MULTIENGINE LAND - LIMITED TO CENTER THRUST.” (See Figure 7-15.)
(1) To have a center thrust limitation removed from an airman certificate, an applicant
must have logged the required training and performed a practical test in a multiengine airplane
having a published VMC as determined by the manufacturer.
(2) The civilian and U.S. military aircraft listed below have no VMC established by the
manufacturer. Other aircraft not listed, and for which there is no published data on VMC, are also
restricted to center thrust only.
• C-336 Cessna Skymaster;
• C-337 Cessna Super Skymaster;
• T-2B/C Rockwell Buckeye;
• T-37 Cessna 318;
• T-38 Northrop Talon;
• F-4 McDonnell-Douglas Phantom;
• F-111 General Dynamics;
• F-18A Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas Hornet;
• A6-E Grumman American Intruder;
• A-10 Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II; and
• F-15 McDonnell-Douglas Eagle.
(3) The center thrust restriction is not placed on the airman certificate when the airplane
has a VMC established in its TCDS or published in its approved flight manual.
(4) If the holder of a certificate with the center thrust restriction can show that the
limitation was issued in error, the limitation can be removed upon application by the airman. A
new temporary airman certificate is issued without the center thrust limitation.
(5) The examiner must consult the managing FSDO if there is any question whether the
airplane requires a center thrust limitation. If necessary, the FSDO may contact the FAA, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Certification Branch (AFS-810), at 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591 (phone: (202) 267-8196 or (202) 267-8212)
to inquire whether a certain airplane requires a center thrust limitation.

 

[Skylane81E]

Explain Page 6 in the Private Pilot PTS then...

Removal of the “Limited to Center Thrust” Limitation​

The removal of the “Limited to Center Thrust” limitation at the private
pilot certificate level requires an applicant to satisfactorily perform the
following AREAS OF OPERATION and TASKs from the private AMEL
and AMES PTS in a multiengine airplane that has a manufacturer’s
published V​

​

​

​

MC speed.
AREA OF OPERATION I: PREFLIGHT PREPARTATION
TASK H: PRINCIPLES OF FLIGHT-ENGINE INOPERATIVE
AREA OF OPERATION X: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
TASK B: ENGINE FAILURE DURING TAKEOFF BEFORE Vmc
(SIMULATED)
TASK C: ENGINE FAILURE AFTER LIFT-OFF (SIMULATED)
TASK D: APPROACH AND LANDING WITH AN INOPERATIVE
ENGINE (SIMULATED)
AREA OF OPERATION XI: MULTIENGINE OPERATIONS
TASK A: MANEUVERING WITH ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE​

TASK B: VMC DEMONSTRATION)

I have a center line thrust limitation, I must do the above to remove it and fly "normal" twins

 

[RotorAndWing]

Explain Page 6 in the Private Pilot PTS then...

Removal of the “Limited to Center Thrust” Limitation​

The removal of the “Limited to Center Thrust” limitation at the private
pilot certificate level requires an applicant to satisfactorily perform the
following AREAS OF OPERATION and TASKs from the private AMEL
and AMES PTS in a multiengine airplane that has a manufacturer’s
published V​

MC speed.
AREA OF OPERATION I: PREFLIGHT PREPARTATION
TASK H: PRINCIPLES OF FLIGHT-ENGINE INOPERATIVE
AREA OF OPERATION X: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
TASK B: ENGINE FAILURE DURING TAKEOFF BEFORE Vmc
(SIMULATED)
TASK C: ENGINE FAILURE AFTER LIFT-OFF (SIMULATED)
TASK D: APPROACH AND LANDING WITH AN INOPERATIVE
ENGINE (SIMULATED)
AREA OF OPERATION XI: MULTIENGINE OPERATIONS
TASK A: MANEUVERING WITH ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE​

TASK B: VMC DEMONSTRATION)

As it says, that is to remove the limitation if the airman's certificate already has the limitation in place.

 

[tonycondon]

I have a center line thrust limitation, I must do the above to remove it and fly "normal" twins

yea...now that i read a little more closely, i find that i've been mis-reading that particular section, for god knows how long. disregard, ignore whatever i say, since I don't know what I'm talking about anyway

 

[Henning]

Yeah, what do those underwriters know about exposure to loss of low-time-in-make-model pilots anyway? If anybody wants to hear some first-hand experience about how that plays out, Doc Bill Mitchell in Waco might be a pretty good guy to contact.

Yep, that is a hazard of the breed. It is so easy one becomes complacent; no plane I know tolerates complacency. It was not the airplane that bit him, IIRC there were no injuries and the plane is in service again. Rather than being the V Tailed doctor killer of lore, she rather gave him a smooth exit and recovery from his own error.

 

[Henning]

Thats what many of the professional pilots i know keep telling me. None would fly at night or over mountains with only one engine. That really echoes in my mind even though I doubt I would do any hard ifr or night flying.

All these darn choices can drive ya crazy.

I do not do hard IFR in the mountains even in a light twin. I am accused of being risk tolerant but I think Bruce going IFR into mountain ski towns in a Seneca without SVT is way more risk than I like.

 

[Dr. O]

The 337 is just another way to do the GA light twin - neither good nor bad, just different...
The engine reliability issues are dependent primarily on the pilot and secondarily on a 337 wise/sharp mechanic...
I could (likely) get good service from a 337 - assuming it started out in good shape... I do a lot of my own work so I poke around the plane and have a feel for how things are going and often find small issues before they become big ones... I also pay for my own gas, so I don't need that last 5 knots of speed - easing back on the throttle early in climbout does wonders for longevity...

The second ad looks like a lot of airplane for the money... You could do worse...

 

[Henning]

I'll bet you could put floats on the straight leg 336 with little trouble...

Physical, not a problem either way; technical, either has the same issue with the rear prop picking up water. There will be ways around this in the future.

 

[LJS1993]

Nice video about the 337.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR828wv6I0U&feature=related

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Jon,

Lose an engine over the Rockies, in the wx, at night, Brent

In that scenario in a plane with a 6800ft single engine ceiling you're pretty much out of luck. In WX at night and IFR on a route with a 16k MEA it only means you won't see the hill you are about to hit.

 

[bbchien]

I do not do hard IFR in the mountains even in a light twin. I am accused of being risk tolerant but I think Bruce going IFR into mountain ski towns in a Seneca without SVT is way more risk than I like.

Nah. I stay oriented and in protected space.

But SVT isn't going save your butt if you lose an engine on the VOR DME approach to KASE. You have to do the load calculation for climb gradient on one fan, and plan your miss higher than standard, accordingly.

And doing the calculation while you are doing the approach isn't going to help.

There is no excuse for thinking it through. My SE climb gradient on one blower, at 500 undergross, from 10,200 to LINDZ is pretty surprising!

 

[wabower]

I think twin owners are required to take the pledge that they will post that "IFR over the mountains at night hanging by my jock strap " crap at least once per year. I've asked quite a few if they can refer me to the Flightaware log of their last trip in those conditions, so far with no luck. :wink2:

In that scenario in a plane with a 6800ft single engine ceiling you're pretty much out of luck. In WX at night and IFR on a route with a 16k MEA it only means you won't see the hill you are about to hit.

 

[Everskyward]

I think twin owners are required to take the pledge that they will post that "IFR over the mountains at night hanging by my jock strap " crap at least once per year. I've asked quite a few if they can refer me to the Flightaware log of their last trip in those conditions, so far with no luck. :wink2:

I don't have a jockstrap but I could post some.

 

[wabower]

No prob, I have a spare that is new in the box, and pretty sure you can find some volunteers here who will help pin it up for alteration.

I don't have a jockstrap but I could post some.

 

[Red Air Rambo]

I think twin owners are required to take the pledge that they will post that "IFR over the mountains at night hanging by my jock strap " crap at least once per year. I've asked quite a few if they can refer me to the Flightaware log of their last trip in those conditions, so far with no luck. :wink2:

I personally don't do mountains and night anymore (since I quit flying F-16's) but the guy who sold it to me did...of course he grew up in the mountains and it was normal for him. Iraq made me so sick of night flying that my own personal rule for X/C flying is that if I'm not at the bar by 1700 I've messed something up. I don't know where the 6800' single engine stuff came from, the P337 is 16,000'. I've lost a turbo on the back and it maintained 19,000' no problem. (hose blew off)

 

[jhausch]

Physical, not a problem either way; technical, either has the same issue with the rear prop picking up water. There will be ways around this in the future.

Thats what I was gonna mention... the spray into the prop...

I saw a video of an amphib pusher gyro once. They'd strung a tarp between the pontoons like the trampoline on the front of a sailing cat. I suppose at gyro speeds one could do that...