Cessna 337

LJS1993 said:
Hey guys this aircraft is very interesting. Have any of you flown in this plane or possibly own one? How do they compare to other twin engined aircraft?

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...1968-CESSNA-T337/1184219.htm?dlr=1&pcid=12706
Click to expand...

I've owned 2, a 1966 and a 1974, both normal aspirated.

They are great airplanes. Mine would average 20 gph at 160/165 knots.

There are a lot of myths pertaining to the 337, mainly by folks who have never flown one. A couple of the myths are the rear engine overheats and the noise level is too high in the cabin.

I'm not a fan of the turbo version, but if your needs dictate having one then it's a personal choice.

Just looking at this one I wouldn't bother. Over priced, run out engines. Someone is going to dump a bunch of money into this machine.

With the twin market in the dumps, shop around, there are better buys.
 
LJS1993 said:
What have I done on this one? Is there some kind of rivalry with this plane also? I know there are some issues with the Grumman Tiger around here but what's the deal with this Cessna?
Click to expand...

You're just gonna get a bunch of nonsense from non owners. If you want the truth ask an owner or former owner.
 
I have often wondered about them. How do they do with one of the fans out? Will it maintain altitude?
 
Foxhole said:
I have often wondered about them. How do they do with one of the fans out? Will it maintain altitude?
Click to expand...

The 337 climbs better on the rear engine (OEI) versus the front. It will climb with either engine inop provided proper speed is maintained and the gear is not cycled.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've owned 2, a 1966 and a 1974, both normal aspirated.

They are great airplanes. Mine would average 20 gph at 160/165 knots.

There are a lot of myths pertaining to the 337, mainly by folks who have never flown one. A couple of the myths are the rear engine overheats and the noise level is too high in the cabin.

I'm not a fan of the turbo version, but if your needs dictate having one then it's a personal choice.

Just looking at this one I wouldn't bother. Over priced, run out engines. Someone is going to dump a bunch of money into this machine.

With the twin market in the dumps, shop around, there are better buys.
Click to expand...

How about this one?

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Multi+Engine+Piston/1967/Cessna/337/1545596.html
 
Had fire trucks sitting at the approach end once when the nosegear didn't com down properly on a poorly maintained one I was a passenger in. It dropped into place about 100' from landing.

Owner/pilot had already shut down the front engine and bumped the key switch to get the prop in the best position for avoiding a prop strike. He was in WAY over his head financially.
 
LJS1993 said:
Hey guys this aircraft is very interesting. Have any of you flown in this plane or possibly own one? How do they compare to other twin engined aircraft?

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...1968-CESSNA-T337/1184219.htm?dlr=1&pcid=12706
Click to expand...

Over the years I have maintained 2 different 337s both turbo versions, (TSIO-360-?) both had the same problems as the Piper Arrow III, run them hard at 41Hq for take off and you won't run them long.

Never exceed 38" and you will get decent usage, but they still don't go to TBO with out major repairs to the turbo versions.
 
Tom-D said:
Over the years I have maintained 2 different 337s both turbo versions, (TSIO-360-?) both had the same problems as the Piper Arrow III, run them hard at 41Hq for take off and you won't run them long.

Never exceed 38" and you will get decent usage, but they still don't go to TBO with out major repairs to the turbo versions.
Click to expand...

Since the early turbo versions were limited to 32", and the later ones were limited to 37" I don't see that as a problem.
 
Roomy (but baggage space nonexistent if 5th & 6th seats installed) ... easy entry-exit ... sensational visibility for a twin ... somewhat noisy inside ... mechanically complex (especially landing gear and control cables) ... stable and easy to fly, but not particularly speedy for the power.

The center-line-thrust configuration is a great safety feature, in my opinion -- but it's not idiot-proof.

If you're not already multi-rated in a conventional twin, a rating obtained in a C-336/337 would be limited to center-line-thrust only.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
If you're not already multi-rated in a conventional twin, a rating obtained in a C-336/337 would be limited to center-line-thrust only.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tonycondon said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what a friend who owns one told me
 
The only real thing I didn't like about them was noise, it could be because the one I flew was originally an O-2 and didn't have noise insulation, but whereas I could fly in my Travelair without headsets and still converse, that wasn't so in the Skymaster, wasn't really louder than the 207 though so.... The other thing I didn't like was working on the back engine, that was as bad as a Mooney for inflicting injuries.

Flying they do fine. The biggest problem with them is the same as any plane, pilots. Just like Cirrus pilots get complacent with an 'intrinsically safe' design. Example, one guy who kept insisting that he could take off on the back engine no problem. His demonstration did prove he could take off, it also showed that on a 95* day it wouldn't be able to climb out and he took out the wires at the end of a 3300' strip.
 
Henning said:
The only real thing I didn't like about them was noise
Click to expand...
They're all noisy, and it's a distinctive growling sound, inside and out -- probably results from the rear prop turning in the opposite direction through the slipstream from the front. Those TCM IO-360s are not particularly quiet anyway (210 HP @ 2800 RPM), and the cabin is attached to two of them. :eek:
 
I flew them quite a bit; great airplane. They fly very nicely.

Ours were mostly highly modified, had three seats, no baggage, lots of equipment inside, and attachments and gear all over the outside, plus extended fuel tanks (about 12 hours endurance, depending). We had glass, heads-up displays, and a host of other features not discussable. Even heavy, they flew quite nicely, even on one engine. Lots of long hours in those airplanes. They're easy to fly, surprisingly light and responsive on the controls for a light twin. I enjoyed them a lot more than I thought I would.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Since the early turbo versions were limited to 32", and the later ones were limited to 37" I don't see that as a problem.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected I was believing the Piper numbers applied here too.

What AOPA thinks of the 337.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h6yODA&usg=AFQjCNH1Zm1FE188dojzb83sAl97Ez1zXQ


a quote from the article

And while the 337's fuel system has at least been reliable, such praise cannot be lavished upon its engines. Early on, the IO-360s gained a reputation as hot-running, crack-prone powerplants. Before the B-suffix engines were introduced in the late 1970s, there were numerous reports of broken crankshafts and connecting rods. Even today, service difficulty reports point to cracking cases, sheared crankshafts, head-to-barrel separations, and general engine mayhem. The normally aspirated IO-360s have a published time between overhaul of 1,500 hours, but don't bet big money on it. Most operators report needing top-end work enroute to TBO.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
I stand corrected I was believing the Piper numbers applied here too.

What AOPA thinks of the 337.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h6yODA&usg=AFQjCNH1Zm1FE188dojzb83sAl97Ez1zXQ


a quote from the article

And while the 337's fuel system has at least been reliable, such praise cannot be lavished upon its engines. Early on, the IO-360s gained a reputation as hot-running, crack-prone powerplants. Before the B-suffix engines were introduced in the late 1970s, there were numerous reports of broken crankshafts and connecting rods. Even today, service difficulty reports point to cracking cases, sheared crankshafts, head-to-barrel separations, and general engine mayhem. The normally aspirated IO-360s have a published time between overhaul of 1,500 hours, but don't bet big money on it. Most operators report needing top-end work enroute to TBO.
Click to expand...

Interesting. My '74 had 1800+ hours on it (rear engine) when I sold with no top end or bottom end work ever being done on it. The new owner has put another 250+ on it with no problems. My '66 went well beyond TBO on both engines.

Owners in the Skymaster forum are reporting equal results with their IO-360's far exceeding TBO times with little or no problems. :dunno:
 
Pilawt said:
They're all noisy, and it's a distinctive growling sound, inside and out -- probably results from the rear prop turning in the opposite direction through the slipstream from the front. Those TCM IO-360s are not particularly quiet anyway (210 HP @ 2800 RPM), and the cabin is attached to two of them. :eek:
Click to expand...

The 2800 rpm is take off power. After takeoff rpm is reduced to 2400 or 2500 rpm, same range as most other engines.

My 2 337's had very quiet cabins (I added super sound proofing) and I could hold a conversation at normal voice levels without head sets while in flight.
 
Rotor, have some specialty shops evolved for the 337 fleet?
 
RotorAndWing said:
Interesting. My '74 had 1800+ hours on it (rear engine) when I sold with no top end or bottom end work ever being done on it. The new owner has put another 250+ on it with no problems. My '66 went well beyond TBO on both engines.

Owners in the Skymaster forum are reporting equal results with their IO-360's far exceeding TBO times with little or no problems. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Tell us what the "B" fix was.
 
And while the 337's fuel system has at least been reliable, such praise cannot be lavished upon its engines. Early on, the IO-360s gained a reputation as hot-running, crack-prone powerplants.
Click to expand...

Our 337 series went to TBO in virtually every case. We operated them in some very hostile areas, reliably. The engines weren't babied, either. Blacked-out diving idle descents, steep climbs in extremely hot desert locations, and so forth; the engines stood up to everything we did to them, and they ran to TBO. Usually they were running strong and hard when we changed them out for new.
 
DouglasBader said:
I flew them quite a bit; great airplane. They fly very nicely.

Ours were mostly highly modified, had three seats, no baggage, lots of equipment inside, and attachments and gear all over the outside, plus extended fuel tanks (about 12 hours endurance, depending). We had glass, heads-up displays, and a host of other features not discussable. Even heavy, they flew quite nicely, even on one engine. Lots of long hours in those airplanes. They're easy to fly, surprisingly light and responsive on the controls for a light twin. I enjoyed them a lot more than I thought I would.
Click to expand...

AirScan?
 
The 1 to have:

Spectrum SA-550 - built by Spectrum Aircraft Corporation of Van Nuys, California, it was an extensive single-turboprop engine conversion of a Reims FTB337G constructed in the mid 1980s. They removed the nose engine, lengthened the nose, and replaced the rear engine with a turboprop.
 
tonycondon said:
Any Multi checkride now has to be done in a plane with a published Vmc, center line thrust limited ratings no longer are issued.
Click to expand...
When did they change that?

I have heard that F-18 guys used to be able to get MEL ratings that were limited to CL thrust only based on their Navy time.
 
Wow, all those Adam owners are going to be disappointed to get this news when their airplanes are completed.

tonycondon said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I have a centerline thrust restriction from my AF years and a P-337. A wonderful plane to fly and the Angel Flight passengers love it for it's ease of entry. The Riley remanufactered models cleaned up the AD's, sound-proofed, air-conditioned, speedbrakes, intercooled (my rear engine runs 10 degrees cooler than the front), and STOL kit really makes a nice A/C + 225hp on both engines. I would reccomend looking at those if you want one. They run 200-210 knots at 20,000 ft @ 75% power 30 gph or 180-190 kias 24 gph @ 65% power (you can back it down and get much lower and greater range). Stall is 48 KIAS dirty. Lose an engine and they fly the same but 20 kias slower. The P models had 5 seats and I've had them filled with bags (5th seat is a kids or 100lbs or less adult). Skymaster.com is the biggest seller and I believe Jack Riley's son still remanufactures some as the Riley Skyrocket II. The main thing I've noticed is a lack of familarity with A&P's due to not reading the service manual and not replacing simple items like the alternator restart batteries and fuses. It's not a P-210. Good luck with your search and remember you pay for what you get, it's all about the maintenance and a 40 year old aircraft require's extensive checks for corrosion...try to get a high country or dry country one.

Cheer's,
Brent
 
I will say you have me thinking after seeing your beautiful aircraft last weekend.

I would like to show the spouse sometime when time allows.

I've read several reviews and one thing for sure is the loyalty among previous and current owners.

Jon
 
DouglasBader said:
Our 337 series went to TBO in virtually every case. We operated them in some very hostile areas, reliably. The engines weren't babied, either. Blacked-out diving idle descents, steep climbs in extremely hot desert locations, and so forth; the engines stood up to everything we did to them, and they ran to TBO. Usually they were running strong and hard when we changed them out for new.
Click to expand...

People will never believe what an engine can tolerate; what breaks and what doesn't. I don't think people really much understand mechanical spark engines anymore. Anyone who ever owned an old British vehicle ignited by the touch of a Lucas set of points understands it's the little details that keep you from blowing up. There is a factor of efficiency being found at higher CHTs as well, too cold has more problems with rings as well as too rich.
 
The 337 is a SCREAMING DEATHTRAP !!!!!........ Only pilots who can't fly real twins will go near them...... (There, this thread was getting too friendly. :D )


Actually, I knew a guy who had one of the Riley conversions and it was an absolute dream. I had heard some of the myths surrounding them but quickly learned they were not as noisy as advertised, (Of course at the time I was spending hours at a whack sitting in a helicopter.) Nice travelers too.
 
I stopped by to visit Jack with my Travelair he did, he remembered it. He was working on a P-337 with TSIO 520s did anything become of that STC wise?
 
Henning said:
I stopped by to visit Jack with my Travelair he did, he remembered it. He was working on a P-337 with TSIO 520s did anything become of that STC wise?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jthamilton said:
I will say you have me thinking after seeing your beautiful aircraft last weekend.

I would like to show the spouse sometime when time allows.

I've read several reviews and one thing for sure is the loyalty among previous and current owners.

Jon
Click to expand...


Anytime...We can take her for a demo flight if you want.

Brent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top