Cessna 337

[Henning]

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...

What if I told you I could do it as a retractable soft foil in a very low drag variable geometry conjoined wing sets from extrusions... :toothpick:

 

[wabower]

I would catalog it with your post about time required for gear swing and wheel bearings.

What if I told you I could do it as a retractable soft foil in a very low drag variable geometry conjoined wing sets from extrusions... :toothpick:

 

[Threefingeredjack]

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)

That was for a 337D. And it was from an old Cessna spec book.

 

[LJS1993]

Okay guys old topic but another member and I were discussing planes and the 337 came up again. I really like the idea of flying something with two engines and the 337 looks and seems like a great plane. Here's a scenario and you give me your opinion. Let's call this LJS1993's Path To Flying

1. Purchase 337
2. Get all training in 337



Okay, your thoughts. Crazy? Absurd? Out of the ordinary?

 

[N747JB]

All my 2300 hours of multi time is in conventional engine on each wing Cessnas, but I had an offer to trade a couple NICE 337's for my old 414A and I was told, "Put a metal trash can over your head and have your kids beat it with sticks for a couple hours." That would simulate flying a 337. I looked at them briefly, not much room inside, basically 4 passengers, not much luggage, 210 speeds with 310 maintenance costs. I would definately fly in one for an hour or two before I committed to buying one. I think you can buy one cheap right now, but you can buy just about any piston twin cheap, heck you can buy a nice 421C for under $300K, way under.

Okay guys old topic but another member and I were discussing planes and the 337 came up again. I really like the idea of flying something with two engines and the 337 looks and seems like a great plane. Here's a scenario and you give me your opinion. Let's call this LJS1993's Path To Flying

1. Purchase 337
2. Get all training in 337



Okay, your thoughts. Crazy? Absurd? Out of the ordinary?

 

[DouglasBader]

The 337 is somewhat maligned, but it's a good airplane. It handles and flies well.

I never cared fore the 421. It's singe engine performance is far from stellar, and the 414 isn't significantly better. Even the RAM conversions aren't exceptional.

Some feel that the 337 is far too loud; I disagree. Whether one is dealing with engines on each side or fore and aft, the sound is still there. Most of my 337 flying has been with reduced power, as the object was endurance and stealth, rather than speed (12 hour endurance, if flown properly), so not as noisy as someone wrapping everything out to beat the Jones to the next town. Never the less, it's really not that loud an airplane, especially with the props in sync and pulled back.

Most of the issues that surround the 02 and Skymaster series revolve around misunderstanding, rather than fact. A number of them have made forced landings or crashed as a result of fuel mismanagement. That's entirely preventable. Same for the gear, which is essentially the same as most the single Cessna retractables in function. Mishaps have occurred when takeoffs were attempted on one engine, not having ensured that the rear engine was developing power before applying power on the forward engine. Again, very preventable, easily addressed through proper procedure and practice.

I operated as part of a fleet of sky masters that saw high usage, and which routinely took engines through to TBO in fairly short order with minimal problems. Regular flying and consistent, standardized practices helped a great deal. The airplanes were regularly flown in hostile locations that were intolerant of errors; it wasn't the kind of place where one would ever wish to risk an off-field landing. The equipment was essential, and had to be reliable. It needed the performance, as operations were always at max gross weight. The airplanes always delivered, and had an outstanding reliability record.

My impression of the airplane before flying them was quite different than after. I came away from flying them with a definite appreciation for the design. Despite what the popular opinion of them might be, they're great light twins if maintained properly and flown properly.

 

[wabower]

Seems to me that the desirability of the 337 is highly contingent on the management of one's expectations. If you expect it to perform like a Colemill-powered short-body Baron, you're doomed to a life of disappointment.

If you're willing to accept the more modest real-world will-do can-do, you may like it much better. If you somehow think that in-line thrust automatically makes it safer than others, you might want to read the NTSB history book that documents many of the ways that pilots have figured out to disprove that theory.

All my 2300 hours of multi time is in conventional engine on each wing Cessnas, but I had an offer to trade a couple NICE 337's for my old 414A and I was told, "Put a metal trash can over your head and have your kids beat it with sticks for a couple hours." That would simulate flying a 337. I looked at them briefly, not much room inside, basically 4 passengers, not much luggage, 210 speeds with 310 maintenance costs. I would definately fly in one for an hour or two before I committed to buying one. I think you can buy one cheap right now, but you can buy just about any piston twin cheap, heck you can buy a nice 421C for under $300K, way under.

 

[Ted]

Okay guys old topic but another member and I were discussing planes and the 337 came up again. I really like the idea of flying something with two engines and the 337 looks and seems like a great plane. Here's a scenario and you give me your opinion. Let's call this LJS1993's Path To Flying

1. Purchase 337
2. Get all training in 337



Okay, your thoughts. Crazy? Absurd? Out of the ordinary?

I forget if you already have your Private or not. If you do, I'm not seeing a problem.

If you don't, well, it might be harder to find a CFI who would do it. I would personally, just understand that it's going to be a long time before you solo and get your private. Also keep in mind that it will be a while before you get to solo.

Wayne's comments on managing expectations are accurate. It's a plane. Like any other plane, it has pluses and minuses. If its pluses happen to attract you and its minuses don't bug you, have at it. But I would suggest looking at other options. The Aztec comes to mind.

 

[Skylane81E]

Okay guys old topic but another member and I were discussing planes and the 337 came up again. I really like the idea of flying something with two engines and the 337 looks and seems like a great plane. Here's a scenario and you give me your opinion. Let's call this LJS1993's Path To Flying

1. Purchase 337
2. Get all training in 337



Okay, your thoughts. Crazy? Absurd? Out of the ordinary?

It's what I would do if I had a twin budget

 

[Henning]

Okay guys old topic but another member and I were discussing planes and the 337 came up again. I really like the idea of flying something with two engines and the 337 looks and seems like a great plane. Here's a scenario and you give me your opinion. Let's call this LJS1993's Path To Flying

1. Purchase 337
2. Get all training in 337



Okay, your thoughts. Crazy? Absurd? Out of the ordinary?

If you want a 337, that would be the best way to go about it.

 

[LJS1993]

The 337 is somewhat maligned, but it's a good airplane. It handles and flies well.

I never cared fore the 421. It's singe engine performance is far from stellar, and the 414 isn't significantly better. Even the RAM conversions aren't exceptional.

Some feel that the 337 is far too loud; I disagree. Whether one is dealing with engines on each side or fore and aft, the sound is still there. Most of my 337 flying has been with reduced power, as the object was endurance and stealth, rather than speed (12 hour endurance, if flown properly), so not as noisy as someone wrapping everything out to beat the Jones to the next town. Never the less, it's really not that loud an airplane, especially with the props in sync and pulled back.

Most of the issues that surround the 02 and Skymaster series revolve around misunderstanding, rather than fact. A number of them have made forced landings or crashed as a result of fuel mismanagement. That's entirely preventable. Same for the gear, which is essentially the same as most the single Cessna retractables in function. Mishaps have occurred when takeoffs were attempted on one engine, not having ensured that the rear engine was developing power before applying power on the forward engine. Again, very preventable, easily addressed through proper procedure and practice.

I operated as part of a fleet of sky masters that saw high usage, and which routinely took engines through to TBO in fairly short order with minimal problems. Regular flying and consistent, standardized practices helped a great deal. The airplanes were regularly flown in hostile locations that were intolerant of errors; it wasn't the kind of place where one would ever wish to risk an off-field landing. The equipment was essential, and had to be reliable. It needed the performance, as operations were always at max gross weight. The airplanes always delivered, and had an outstanding reliability record.

My impression of the airplane before flying them was quite different than after. I came away from flying them with a definite appreciation for the design. Despite what the popular opinion of them might be, they're great light twins if maintained properly and flown properly.

If the opportunity arose would you have one for your own personal usage?

 

[LJS1993]

I forget if you already have your Private or not. If you do, I'm not seeing a problem.

If you don't, well, it might be harder to find a CFI who would do it. I would personally, just understand that it's going to be a long time before you solo and get your private. Also keep in mind that it will be a while before you get to solo.

Wayne's comments on managing expectations are accurate. It's a plane. Like any other plane, it has pluses and minuses. If its pluses happen to attract you and its minuses don't bug you, have at it. But I would suggest looking at other options. The Aztec comes to mind.

Well unfortunately this scenario is considering I do not have a PPL but want to train specifically in a plane that I like. Now keep in mind this would be after flying in it with the seller and having a highly knowledgeable individual check it out.
However, I get what you are saying about training right into that type. It would be costly and take a pretty open minded CFI to take a guy right into that type of plane. Who knows maybe the complexity would be too much for me to handle at first.
As for that Aztec I would buy that in a heartbeat if I had that cash.

 

[spinfire]

If the props rotate in opposite directions does this mean limited P-factor? Except for OEI operations?

 

[DouglasBader]

If the opportunity arose would you have one for your own personal usage?

I would; I was looking at one for purchase last year, in fact. That one was a 336, with fixed gear, rather than a 337, but it was a smoking deal at the time. I didn't end up taking it, and was glad after, but it had nothing to do with the airplane; it was the seller.

I had a student years ago who really wanted one. He was a psychology professor who had the money to fly and buy, and he thought the idea of learning in his own sky master and owning it would be a good idea. He didn't end up doing that; he learned in a 172 and I'm nor sure if he ever bought a sky master or not.

In my opinion, you'd be better off learning the basics in a single engine airplane, and then moving to a twin when you're ready. You can certainly learn in one, but I wouldn't recommend it. I'd also recommend getting your multi in something that's not centerline thrust only, because a multi engine rating is about more than that, and you're missing out on some important material.

If you'll only ever fly the Skymaster, then it's not a bad course of action, but I do think that to do all your learning in that airplane might be a handicap.

If the props rotate in opposite directions does this mean limited P-factor? Except for OEI operations?

Not really; if anything it's more noticeable in the sky master than it is in a conventional twin.

 

[Ted]

Well unfortunately this scenario is considering I do not have a PPL but want to train specifically in a plane that I like. Now keep in mind this would be after flying in it with the seller and having a highly knowledgeable individual check it out.
However, I get what you are saying about training right into that type. It would be costly and take a pretty open minded CFI to take a guy right into that type of plane. Who knows maybe the complexity would be too much for me to handle at first.

The seller giving you a checkout will not be sufficient to the insurance if you don't have a PPL, nor would it be legal for you to solo after a seller's checkout (unless the seller was an MEI and could sign you off for solo flight after providing the appropriate instruction).

It would require an MEI who's willing to think outside the box. As I said, I would do it, but many wouldn't.

As for that Aztec I would buy that in a heartbeat if I had that cash.

If you don't have the money for my Aztec, you definitely don't have the money for a 337.

 

[Henning]

If the opportunity arose would you have one for your own personal usage?

Thing is it's marginally powered at 220hp. Riley does a 520(I think) conversion that you'll see one of come for sale now and again. It's like a Seneca performance wise, a scant notch above a base twin trainer.

 

[wabower]

No. For me the costs and hassles outweigh the benefits, and the market has long-since voted on the desirability of the breed.

If the opportunity arose would you have one for your own personal usage?

 

[Morne]

No. For me the costs and hassles outweigh the benefits, and the market has long-since voted on the desirability of the breed.

At least a substantial part of that "vote" has been that flight schools don't want them because their graduates would be centerline thrust limited. For those with ATP aspirations that is a negative. For those who don't want to buy a bird abused by students, it is a positive.

It is not the perfect plane, nor even the perfect light twin, but it has advantages. Modifications like the Riley Rocket mitigate one of the criticisms, namely that it was slightly underpowered.

Late models even fixed the complicated fuel management issues.

Remove the gear doors and another high incident rate failure mode goes away.

Like any bird, you have to understand what it can do and can't do. Know the common problems to that breed, and every breed has them, and you can minimize a lot of risk up front. The rest is on the pilot, who can be equally good or bad in any bird on any given day.

 

[Henning]

Well, small point, but the truth is the small charter market like the Seneca where the market voted for the Seneca and a 'tamed down twin' to fill what turned out to be a insufficient market demand. The Army liked it because it was economical and had the capability to lift the radios of the day.

 

[wabower]

Were you around when the original vote was cast by the marketplace?

Do you really think the flight schools were the voters rather than those being trained?

Did the market vote on the airplane that Cessna built (like the 172, 182, 310 and all the varients thereof) or some much-money-modified derivative bearing somebody else's name and developed years later?

And when all that mod money is spent, is it a real-good plane or just another so-so example of something that sounded good when Cessna developed the concept but just didn't work out as planned? Similar to their 303 that also laid an egg in the market?

All of the big manufacturers have developed such planes in their history. Have you ever heard of the Duke, Starship, pressurized Mooney, Piper Mojave to name a few?

Almost all of the orphaned airplanes have their staunch core of owners and defenders, as do Chevy Vegas and Ford Pintos.

At least a substantial part of that "vote" has been that flight schools don't want them because their graduates would be centerline thrust limited. For those with ATP aspirations that is a negative. For those who don't want to buy a bird abused by students, it is a positive.

It is not the perfect plane, nor even the perfect light twin, but it has advantages. Modifications like the Riley Rocket mitigate one of the criticisms, namely that it was slightly underpowered.

Late models even fixed the complicated fuel management issues.

Remove the gear doors and another high incident rate failure mode goes away.

Like any bird, you have to understand what it can do and can't do. Know the common problems to that breed, and every breed has them, and you can minimize a lot of risk up front. The rest is on the pilot, who can be equally good or bad in any bird on any given day.

 

[DouglasBader]

The sky master isn't any more orphaned than the 210, or 207, or 206, or 152. They were in demand when produced, and are in demand now.

Quite a few are still working.

 

[bbchien]

....as do Chevy Vegas and Ford Pintos.

Whoa. That be hittin' HARD.

 

[wabower]

Cessna stopped building piston airplanes for two reasons. The first was that the dogs wouldn't eat them, the second was in protest to the lack of a statute of repose. Which group included the 337?

The sky master isn't any more orphaned than the 210, or 207, or 206, or 152. They were in demand when produced, and are in demand now.

Quite a few are still working.

 

[DouglasBader]

Got it. I thought you were trying to be serious. Dogs wouldn't eat them. Your'e a funny guy.

 

[spinfire]

Cessna stopped building piston airplanes for two reasons. The first was that the dogs wouldn't eat them

Note that this is actually a firm requirement for Ted DuPuis. Wouldn't want his bird devoured from the inside...

 

[Ted]

Note that this is actually a firm requirement for Ted DuPuis. Wouldn't want his bird devoured from the inside...

That's why I won't buy a Cirrus. Dogs like eating them - all that plastic and leather. I also can't buy aircraft with wood wings, same reason - they confuse it for a bone.

That said, the fact that you don't see pusher/puller aircraft in much of anywhere beyond the 337 does illustrate the point that there's not much of a benefit. If there were, you would be seeing more of them.

I like to use transport category aircraft as an example for best practices, simply because they are designed around general principles that do work the best. The airlines want aircraft that are going to be safe, efficient, and cost-effective. Having multiple engines either located on the wing or by the tail (or some combination thereof) has been shown to work well. You could have a turboprop twin as a pusher/puller, and the lack of any of those indicates to me that it doesn't work well enough to convince any companies that do this for a living to adopt such a concept. There is enough variation in aircraft design between high wing/low wing, turboprop/jet, rear engine/wing engine, etc. that if it did work very well, I would expect to see more examples.

 

[Henning]

Sometimes what seems like a good idea just doesn't prove out. It filled a niche roll and it appears from market price and availability, there are a stable enough quantity of them on the market to fill the niche. If I could put one on amphibs...

 

[wabower]

It's simple to determine which airplanes were discontinued due to unfavorable reception in the market and those that were discontinued to protest tort law. Only those produced later than 1985 were victims of the protest. 337's weren't in that group.

Got it. I thought you were trying to be serious. Dogs wouldn't eat them. Your'e a funny guy.

 

[Henning]

It does a lot of things not real well, mostly for lack of power but also of a bit of inefficiency of design. Better would be to shaft the rear engine forward to a contra-rotating prop forward. I also want the whole left side to flip open.

 

[Ted]

It does a lot of things not real well, mostly for lack of power but also of a bit of inefficiency of design. Better would be to shaft the rear engine forward to a contra-rotating prop forward. I also want the whole left side to flip open.

What good would that do? It would add a lot of weight and complexity, that's for sure. I'm not seeing any tangible benefits.

 

[Henning]

What good would that do? It would add a lot of weight and complexity, that's for sure. I'm not seeing any tangible benefits.

I can put it on floats and it is slightly more efficient aerodynamically on several small counts. Maybe a 985 up front?

 

[Jim Logajan]

It's simple to determine which airplanes were discontinued due to unfavorable reception in the market and those that were discontinued to protest tort law. Only those produced later than 1985 were victims of the protest. 337's weren't in that group.

According to my research, Cessna didn't produce any piston twins after 1986. On that basis there wasn't anything wrong with the 337 market that wasn't also wrong with all the other piston twins.

Let me put my research into the form of a few trivia questions:

(1) What were the top two Cessna twin engine piston aircraft models they ever produced, in terms of units sold after WWII?

(2) What were the three longest running production runs of Cessna twin engine piston aircraft models?

(3) How many twin engine piston aircraft has Cessna produced after 1986?


OK - need help? I started here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cessna_models

And to make this even easier, and assuming the numbers I got from Wikipedia are reasonably accurate, and I didn't miss any important models, I constructed the following table, in no particular order:

Model number: Years produced (number of years, inclusive) Number built

310: 1954-1980 (27) 6321
337: 1963-1982 (20) 2993
402: 1966-1985 (20) 1535
303: 1978-1986 (9) 315
411: 1962-1968 (7) 301
401: 1966-1972 (7) 404
421: 1967-1985 (19) 1901
414: 1968-1985 (18) 1070
425: 1980-1986 (7) 236
441: 1977-? (?) 362

To claim or suggest that Cessna's second best selling twin piston engine model over the course of 20 years had some sort of "unfavorable market reception" is a perverse definition of that phrase.

It might be more reasonable to claim that the missions that the 337 best fit simply dried up. This is a market reason divorced from where the engines are mounted. The longevity and sales numbers don't seem to support the assertion that the market disliked the engine locations, but rather that the economics shifted.

 

[Henning]

According to my research, Cessna didn't produce any piston twins after 1986. On that basis there wasn't anything wrong with the 337 market that wasn't also wrong with all the other piston twins.

Let me put my research into the form of a few trivia questions:

(1) What were the top two Cessna twin engine piston aircraft models they ever produced, in terms of units sold after WWII?

(2) What were the three longest running production runs of Cessna twin engine piston aircraft models?

(3) How many twin engine piston aircraft has Cessna produced after 1986?


OK - need help? I started here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cessna_models

And to make this even easier, and assuming the numbers I got from Wikipedia are reasonably accurate, and I didn't miss any important models, I constructed the following table, in no particular order:

Model number: Years produced (number of years, inclusive) Number built

310: 1954-1980 (27) 6321
337: 1963-1982 (20) 2993
402: 1966-1985 (20) 1535
303: 1978-1986 (9) 315
411: 1962-1968 (7) 301
401: 1966-1972 (7) 404
421: 1967-1985 (19) 1901
414: 1968-1985 (18) 1070
425: 1980-1986 (7) 236
441: 1977-? (?) 362

To claim or suggest that Cessna's second best selling twin piston engine model over the course of 20 years had some sort of "unfavorable market reception" is a perverse definition of that phrase.

It might be more reasonable to claim that the missions that the 337 best fit simply dried up. This is a market reason divorced from where the engines are mounted. The longevity and sales numbers don't seem to support the assertion that the market disliked the engine locations, but rather that the economics shifted.

The market for the mission did not dry up, it is still being built for and supplied by Piper with over 5000 copies built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Seneca

 

[DouglasBader]

Bear in mind that a lot of the 337/02 family saw military service.

Some of it is still in military service and flying military missions.

 

[wabower]

What "mission change" are you asserting that caused the demise?

According to my research, Cessna didn't produce any piston twins after 1986. On that basis there wasn't anything wrong with the 337 market that wasn't also wrong with all the other piston twins.

Let me put my research into the form of a few trivia questions:

(1) What were the top two Cessna twin engine piston aircraft models they ever produced, in terms of units sold after WWII?

(2) What were the three longest running production runs of Cessna twin engine piston aircraft models?

(3) How many twin engine piston aircraft has Cessna produced after 1986?


OK - need help? I started here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cessna_models

And to make this even easier, and assuming the numbers I got from Wikipedia are reasonably accurate, and I didn't miss any important models, I constructed the following table, in no particular order:

Model number: Years produced (number of years, inclusive) Number built

310: 1954-1980 (27) 6321
337: 1963-1982 (20) 2993
402: 1966-1985 (20) 1535
303: 1978-1986 (9) 315
411: 1962-1968 (7) 301
401: 1966-1972 (7) 404
421: 1967-1985 (19) 1901
414: 1968-1985 (18) 1070
425: 1980-1986 (7) 236
441: 1977-? (?) 362

To claim or suggest that Cessna's second best selling twin piston engine model over the course of 20 years had some sort of "unfavorable market reception" is a perverse definition of that phrase.

It might be more reasonable to claim that the missions that the 337 best fit simply dried up. This is a market reason divorced from where the engines are mounted. The longevity and sales numbers don't seem to support the assertion that the market disliked the engine locations, but rather that the economics shifted.

 

[Red Air Rambo]

IMHO...Usually the people that are the biggest rock throwers at the 337 have neither flown or owned one.

 

[Jim Logajan]

What "mission change" are you asserting that caused the demise?

I don't wish to assert that was the cause, merely that it is one of many more reasonable explanations than a claim about unfavorable market reception. I don't see any strong support in the statistics for the latter claim.

But in response to your question I will say that by "mission change" I was thinking more along the lines of prospects at first wanting twin engines for reliability over hostile terrain with more docile engine-out handling, but they eventually decided that the extra safety was coming at too high a cost. Or the prospects realized the extra safety really wasn't there after all, so the "safety margin" part of the mission requirements was dropped. In either of these cases the shift in requirements affects all twin engine airplanes, not just the 337. (Yeah, I've abused the "mission change" phrase.)

You seem to be saying that the market essentially voted with its feet away from the 337. If it did, it seems to have taken its time making its vote known to Cessna management.

 

[wabower]

The yearly production numbers dropped significantly during the last five years of production that ended in 1980, even though Cessna's all-time high unit sales were in 1979 and 1980. The manufacturers only produce what their salesmen (whether factory-direct or dealers) can sell, and the sales force can only sell what the customers will buy. IOW, Alpo's worst fear (dogs won't eat it) came to pass.

FWIW, the 310 was discontinued a year later and the 303 that was to be Cessna's latest and greatest laid a huge egg as well, but that was largely due to the recession that impacted all manufacturers starting in 1982.

PS: You might tell Mr. Wiki that he forgot to list ~1,900 340's and several other types in his list of Cessna twins

I don't wish to assert that was the cause, merely that it is one of many more reasonable explanations than a claim about unfavorable market reception. I don't see any strong support in the statistics for the latter claim.

But in response to your question I will say that by "mission change" I was thinking more along the lines of prospects at first wanting twin engines for reliability over hostile terrain with more docile engine-out handling, but they eventually decided that the extra safety was coming at too high a cost. Or the prospects realized the extra safety really wasn't there after all, so the "safety margin" part of the mission requirements was dropped. In either of these cases the shift in requirements affects all twin engine airplanes, not just the 337. (Yeah, I've abused the "mission change" phrase.)

You seem to be saying that the market essentially voted with its feet away from the 337. If it did, it seems to have taken its time making its vote known to Cessna management.

 

[bbchien]

IMHO...Usually the people that are the biggest rock throwers at the 337 have neither flown or owned one.

Well, I can tell you I've flown two of them. And my head hurt both times.....I did not have my ANRs with me. In fact, it was about 20 years before ANRs became available.....I saw no reason to go back to one.

If you deny that they are NOISY mothers, I'll know YOU'RE not objective, too.

 

[wabower]

And some people don't need all day to look at a horse-shoe, no matter whose horse it was made for.

Or as the guy asked his wife "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

IMHO...Usually the people that are the biggest rock throwers at the 337 have neither flown or owned one.