Skymaster Opinions

OkieFlyer

OkieFlyer

En-Route
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,225
Location
Lindsay, OK
Display Name
Display name:
Andrew L.
I'm getting dangerously close to making a deal on a '67 C-337 Skymaster. I get a lot of varying opinions from others I have talked to about these planes. So far, most of the negative sentiments I hear are not shared by those who own them, other than the goofy 210 style landing gear. I haven't had a thourough pre-buy inspection done yet, but I will. It is owned by an old A & P who also owns the most meticulous Bonanza I've ever seen, so I'm thinking the Skymaster has been well cared for. I think they are awesome airplanes, what to yall think? Any of you guys ever flown one or owned one?

Yes, it's sitting in the pasture by all the junked planes. He was painting his hangar floor when the pic was taken. You can see it has a Robertson STOL kit as well.

n5477S_Skymaster[1].jpg
 
OkieFlyer said:
I think they are awesome airplanes, what to yall think? Any of you guys ever flown one or owned one?
Click to expand...

I for one have always loved the mixmaster ... don't know squat about them except, like you say, most people don't like 'em. There is something about them that I love ... maybe I just saw BAT 21 too many times as a child. I was just a pup when I started reading about flying. At the time, people were coming around to the idea that twins were death machines that no mere mortal should fly. The mixmaster was the exception - a twin fit for the rest of us. And it looks COOL!

Hope the pre-buy is clean and you love her ... she's beautiful in the picture.
 
I have owned 2, a 1966 and a 1974, both normal aspirated. They are great airplanes in my opinion. I averaged 165kts on 20gph.

The landing gear is very stout and should pose no problems as long as it's correctly maintained. The model you are looking at has the hydraulic power pack with an engine driven pump (front engine). There is an option for a rear engine pump as well.

The TCM IO-360's are a very reliable engine. It's not unusual to fly them well past TBO (1500 hours).

Most of the time the bad rap you hear on a Skymaster is by people who have never flown one. There are alot of OWT out there on them, most untrue and unfounded.
 
i had a few flights in a pressurized version. lots of fun to fly.
 
BTW, both engines are low time, and props are almost new. The old fella that owns it is starting to lose his health. He said he just wants to enjoy his beautiful Bonanza until he can't do it anymore. Makes me sad, but what a great plane to go out in. He did all the annuals for our local flight school for years, and is well respected among the guys at the airport young and old. He's letting it go for a rediculously low price which would be a total red flag if it were anyone else's plane, but Leonard is as genuine as they come. I'm excited to here from some guys who like Skymasters :)

Anyone have pics of their 337?
 
Last edited:
I like how they fly too.

Maintenance seems to be the albatross around their neck. If the ol' guy kept up on it, that's good. I warn you mildly against getting wrapped up emotionally in his story, just 'cause we all do it.

You want a 337. You want the best 337 your money can purchase. You do not want it because you want to "help the old guy out". Just keep repeating that to yourself. ;)

I think a lot of single-engine owners trade up to them and find themselves way behind the money-power curve and let a lot of things get "deferred". Then it snowballs and the things that should have been done, aren't.

I flew in a Mixmaster that had this problem. Two gear extension failures, fire trucks rolled, nose-gear light came on at 50' AGL after stopping the front engine and getting the prop horizontal. I wasn't PIC, in fact I was in the back seat and never want to do THAT again.

Pilot/Owner was WAY in over his head financially. He couldn't afford to fix the gear.

Highly recommend you talk to Cessna Pilot's Association about who to get the pre-buy done with. They have folks they know who know that airplane and its quirks, inside and out.

Getting a good 3rd party assessment of the bird by a 337 expert, not just any ol' Cessna mechanic, seems prudent. Even if it costs a bit.

It'd get you used to the higher maintenance bills up-front, too. ;)

And if you're serious about it, find at least one other 337 -- maybe two -- to compare that one to. Join CPA. Get in their 337 forum and talk to other 337 owners and read, read, read.

This is really no different advice than any other type. I'm just reiterating it because once the emotions start, we ALL need "the speech". This is a business transaction first. :D
 
bbchien said:
Don't do this. Maintenence is a killer on this setup.
Click to expand...

are they really more maintenance than, say, your Seneca II with the same engines? or do Skymasters just seem to have higher occurrences of being neglected and sold cheap?
 
bbchien said:
Don't do this. Maintenence is a killer on this setup.
Click to expand...


Bruce, do you or have you owned a 337? Or are you well acquinted with the type in some other way?

I just want to be sure your statement is based on reliable information or personal experience, rather than just what you've heard. No disrespect intended. :)
 
bbchien said:
Don't do this. Maintenence is a killer on this setup.
Click to expand...

tonycondon said:
are they really more maintenance than, say, your Seneca II with the same engines? or do Skymasters just seem to have higher occurrences of being neglected and sold cheap?
Click to expand...

My two Skymasters were extremely good on maintenance, no more than any other twin in that category. As far as working on them it was no different than a 200 series Cessna.

The key on any airplane is proper maintenance.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
My two Skymasters were extremely good on maintenance, no more than any other twin in that category. As far as working on them it was no different than a 200 series Cessna.

The key on any airplane is proper maintenance.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the consensus from the 337 owners so far. Pay a little extra attention to the gear, otherwise it's no different than any other light twin.

Here's what other owners had to say to a poster in another forum.

I wonder if any of the people that replied to your POST ever owned a Cessna 337. I have had my Skymaster for about 5 years. Most of the bad thing THEY say about Skymasters are not true ie. high maintenance, hot rear engine, etc. I will put my Skymaster up aginest any twin for fuel consumption, easy flying and safty. I am also an A&P and maintain my own aircraft so I get to see first hand any maintenance problems. If you want to learn more about Cessna 337's go to this site www.skymaster.clara.net/skym.htm
you will find some good info.
Fred


I also find that those that list the cons of the C337 really don't have a clue what they're talking about b/c the have never owned or flew one. The 337 is the safest, most reliable twin out there. Funny, its the only production aircraft the military ever adopted. I own one and also a C310. While the 310 is faster, it also burns 26GPH as opposed to the 337 @ 18GPH at a cost of about 20 knots. Wait till you're in actual IMC on approach to a busy airport (single pilot) and lose an engine, then let me know how you feel about asymetrical thrust!! The 337 just slows down a little, but you're gonna have your hands full with the 310. Do yourself a favor and get a couple of hours in 337 before making up your mind, then you'll have firsthand experience. By the way, my C310 is up for sale.
Good sailing,
Flyboy530


I have a Cessna 421C AND. 337 Skymaster. I have owned several other planes: Beech Queen Air, Debonair---Piper Chiefton, Aztec, Cherokee Six---Cessna 310/320, 206,207,210,401.
In my opinion the 337 is the BEST plane for personal owner flown use for someone who does not fly everyday. It flies like a 210. With one engine it flies like a 182 ( with no see-saw drama ). It is NOT a hanger queen like some of other twins I had (Beech and Piper).
Hope this helps !

Ben Tankard
 
the "only production aircraft the military ever adopted" is a bit of a stretch...
 
OkieFlyer said:
I'm getting dangerously close to making a deal on a '67 C-337 Skymaster. I get a lot of varying opinions from others I have talked to about these planes. So far, most of the negative sentiments I hear are not shared by those who own them, other than the goofy 210 style landing gear. I haven't had a thourough pre-buy inspection done yet, but I will. It is owned by an old A & P who also owns the most meticulous Bonanza I've ever seen, so I'm thinking the Skymaster has been well cared for. I think they are awesome airplanes, what to yall think? Any of you guys ever flown one or owned one?

Yes, it's sitting in the pasture by all the junked planes. He was painting his hangar floor when the pic was taken. You can see it has a Robertson STOL kit as well.

View attachment 22765
Click to expand...

Of the items I would check out on this airplane is the drooping gear doors. Doors are held closed by hydraulic pressure, if the system has a small leak they will bleed down over time. You can actually cycle the gear doors on the ground with the emergency gear handle (same as a 210).

Just something to consider.
 
Have you read the reviews of the 337 in Aviation Consumer? They offer fact based objective reviews based upon owner surveys, accident history, AD's, etc. It's a great source of unbiased information.
 
AcroBoy said:
Have you read the reviews of the 337 in Aviation Consumer? They offer fact based objective reviews based upon owner surveys, accident history, AD's, etc. It's a great source of unbiased information.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Aviation Consumer is very biased.

It's been a while since I read the Aviation Consumer on the 337, but it contained inaccuracies.

The best information is from the owners and operators.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I have to disagree. Aviation Consumer is very biased.

It's been a while since I read the Aviation Consumer on the 337, but it contained inaccuracies.

The best information is from the owners and operators.
Click to expand...

Well, owners and operators will tend to be biased towards their planes too... I'd say that the most likely group would be *former* owners and operators, but you'll get some who loved it and some who hated it for nearly every aircraft type.

As with most things, there are three stories: Yours, mine, and the truth.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Cessna 310 was one, the Piper Aztec was another, as was the Beech Baron, Twin Bonanza, Queen Air.
Click to expand...

Pilawt said:
Cessna 172 ... J-3 Cub ... DC-3 ... Navion ...
Click to expand...

Boeing 247, 377, 707, 747, Douglas DC-2, DC-4, DC-5, DC-6, DC-7, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, Gulfstream I through V, King Air, Beech 18, Lockheed 18, Diamond DA40...

I think it's safe to say that there are MANY production aircraft that have been adopted or adapted by the US military.
 
Last edited:
Ok guys, let's not get hung up on the "Only production aircraft the military adopted" part. We know that's not accurate. We should move past it. :D

I gaurantee, the gear actuation and gear doors will be among the first things I will check. I will be involved on all the inspections and maintenance on this bird as well, so I will see first hand any problems we encounter.
 
A 337 sounds like an unusual first plane to purchase. The centerline thrust concept was great, but obviously never got much traction. You can still read Aviation consumer as well as much as you can from other sources and make your own decisions.

Parts availability and cost of maintenance are big factors with any older twin. Your pre buy inspection will be critical.
 
Yeah, everybody knows those guys have no dog in the fight and can be counted on for a disinterested evaluation.

I got 165 knots on 15.7gph (ROP) and couldn't ever figure out why I'd want the added expense and hassle of a 337. I flew my hangar neighbor's 337 on one eval trip and didn't think the kid would ever stop pumping gas into it when we returned.

Rotor&Wing said:
I have to disagree. Aviation Consumer is very biased.

It's been a while since I read the Aviation Consumer on the 337, but it contained inaccuracies.

The best information is from the owners and operators.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I got 165 knots on 15.7gph (ROP) and couldn't ever figure out why I'd want the added expense and hassle of a 337. I flew my hangar neighbor's 337 on one eval trip and didn't think the kid would ever stop pumping gas into it when we returned.
Click to expand...

So the 337 burns 4.3 gallons more per hour than a Cessna 180, but when you flew it the consumption went way up????:dunno:

Must have been one loooooooooonnnggggggg evaluation flight. :rolleyes:
 
Steve said:
the "only production aircraft the military ever adopted" is a bit of a stretch...
Click to expand...
There were significant difference between the two airplanes.

Never flown a 337 but I have some 0-2 time. IIRC 90 is the speed you want to stay above on one engine.

I wasn't impressed by the performance for the fuel burn. I also doubt the performance number given here.
 
It was a T210 vs a 337 on a trip that I'd flown many times before. The difference in fuel burn was significantly greater than the numbers you reported. And I understand that the bad publicity the airplane received from those mean old aircraft publications was nothing more than fabrication. Has Cessna ever produced any other airplane that fared that poorly in the marketplace?


Rotor&Wing said:
So the 337 burns 4.3 gallons more per hour than a Cessna 180, but when you flew it the consumption went way up????:dunno:

Must have been one loooooooooonnnggggggg evaluation flight. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Has Cessna ever produced any other airplane that fared that poorly in the marketplace?
Click to expand...

Define "poorly". By production numbers the 337 did well.

Cessna 337- 2,993 produced
Cessna 303- 315 produced

If you're comparing brand against comparable brand:

Piper Seneca- 4,354 produced
Beechcraft B95 TravelAir- 720 produced
Piper Twin Comanche- 2156 produced
 
wabower said:
I got 165 knots on 15.7gph (ROP) and couldn't ever figure out why I'd want the added expense and hassle of a 337.
Click to expand...

I need the big useful load. The only singles that will carry my loads safely while still being able to carry plenty of gas are Cherokee 6, C210, and a couple of the Comanche models. I wasn't really considering twins at all until this 337 was presented to me, and I think it's worth looking into. If it indeed checks out, I can buy a heck of a lot of gas for the money I'm saving versus any of those models listed above, and do so with the safety of another engine, roomy cabin, and huge useful load. Once again, IF it checks out.
 
I don't agree with your "buy a lot of gas with the difference" premise for several reasons. My counter-argument would be that you won't have to buy nearly as much gas if if you buy a single, and will have a hell of a lot less chance of writing big checks for the other engine and systems that you don't have to maintain if you buy a twin.

OkieFlyer said:
I need the big useful load. The only singles that will carry my loads safely while still being able to carry plenty of gas are Cherokee 6, C210, and a couple of the Comanche models. I wasn't really considering twins at all until this 337 was presented to me, and I think it's worth looking into. If it indeed checks out, I can buy a heck of a lot of gas for the money I'm saving versus any of those models listed above, and do so with the safety of another engine, roomy cabin, and huge useful load. Once again, IF it checks out.
Click to expand...
 
By market performance, I mean resale prices, not production numbers.
Rotor&Wing said:
Define "poorly". By production numbers the 337 did well.

Cessna 337- 2,993 produced
Cessna 303- 315 produced

If you're comparing brand against comparable brand:

Piper Seneca- 4,354 produced
Beechcraft B95 TravelAir- 720 produced
Piper Twin Comanche- 2156 produced
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
By market performance, I mean resale prices, not production numbers.
Click to expand...

Again, compared with what ?

Senecas, 310s and short-barons are the closest competitors, they dont seem to sell at premium prices these days.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Bruce, do you or have you owned a 337? Or are you well acquinted with the type in some other way?

I just want to be sure your statement is based on reliable information or personal experience, rather than just what you've heard. No disrespect intended. :)
Click to expand...


The back engine is a true PITA to work on and doesn't ventilate very well, If it has the TSIO 360 the normal warning of operate 65% power holds true.
Sound proofing... the plane needs to have good sound proofing or ANR headsets. The one I flew was a noisy beatch, but it was an O-2.
 
weilke said:
Again, compared with what ?


Senecas, 310s and short-barons are the closest competitors, they dont seem to sell at premium prices these days.
Click to expand...

Nothing sells at premium prices these days. The mixmasters were heavily discounted back when other make/models were bringing decent prices.
 
Henning said:
The back engine is a true PITA to work on and doesn't ventilate very well, If it has the TSIO 360 the normal warning of operate 65% power holds true.
Sound proofing... the plane needs to have good sound proofing or ANR headsets. The one I flew was a noisy beatch, but it was an O-2.
Click to expand...

The "overheating rear engine" is an OWT. The 336's had a different cowling arraignment that led to overheating, however that was corrected on the 337.

As far as engine work, I found the rear engine more assessable than the front. The rear engine uncowls in 5 minutes and everything is at eye level.

The 0-2's were devoid of insulation, therefore noisier. My '66 and '74 were quieter in flight than my Cessna 210.
 
My question for Okie is who will maintain the plane after he buys it. If the current owner isn't available to work on it, who will? Has he trained somebody to take over? Whether or not the airplanes are difficult to maintain, there's no question that they are different to maintain.

I don't know how many mechanics are competent to work on them, but I can point to quite a few that aren't. I wouldn't want to be in Smallsville, OK with a one-of-a-kind airplane that requires special knowledge.
 
wabower said:
My question for Okie is who will maintain the plane after he buys it. If the current owner isn't available to work on it, who will? Has he trained somebody to take over? Whether or not the airplanes are difficult to maintain, there's no question that they are different to maintain.

I don't know how many mechanics are competent to work on them, but I can point to quite a few that aren't. I wouldn't want to be in Smallsville, OK with a one-of-a-kind airplane that requires special knowledge.
Click to expand...


This is a fair assesment IMO
 
wabower said:
I don't agree with your "buy a lot of gas with the difference" premise for several reasons. My counter-argument would be that you won't have to buy nearly as much gas if if you buy a single, and will have a hell of a lot less chance of writing big checks for the other engine and systems that you don't have to maintain if you buy a twin.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense Wayne, and in almost every situation, I would agree 100%. In this case, even if it needs a major overhaul, it's still cheaper than a good low time cherokee 6 or C210. With the reliable low time engines and new props, I wouldn't expect any big checks to be written any time soon on those items. Obviously it's still possible to have problems in that regard, but I think it's worth the risk on this aircraft. If nothing too major goes wrong in the next few years, then I can burn up gas for 6 or 7 years before I even approached the initial price on one of the singles. I haven't revealed just how cheap this thing is for fear of not getting any real opinions on Skymasters. Everyone would just skip straight to telling me to run away. I was saving that for the end. :wink2:

wabower said:
My question for Okie is who will maintain the plane after he buys it. If the current owner isn't available to work on it, who will? Has he trained somebody to take over? Whether or not the airplanes are difficult to maintain, there's no question that they are different to maintain.

I don't know how many mechanics are competent to work on them, but I can point to quite a few that aren't. I wouldn't want to be in Smallsville, OK with a one-of-a-kind airplane that requires special knowledge.
Click to expand...

Another valid question Wayne.

The current owner is available. He's old and tired, but still of sound mind and somwhat able bodied and will be tinkering with his Bonanza in the hanger next door right up till he kicks the bucket. He may not turn the wrenches on it, but I'm confident he can pass his knowledge to the 3 mechanics and myself before he quits hanging around the hangar. I'm not sure that's even necessary. We have one mechanic that's worked on nearly everything there is including this 337, and has 40,000+ hours in just about anything with wings. Between the 3 A&Ps on the field, the current owner, and myself, I honestly think it shouldn't become an issue. Thanks Wayne.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I don't know if anybody cares at this point, but here's the latest on the 337.

We got it ferried up to KCHK for a closer look. The engines purr like kittens. Front engine has about 1650 hrs, and the rear engine has about 275 hrs, compressions are on the money on both engines. The props are perfect and practically new. It came with new King radios (not installed). Interior looks great (new side panels).

So far the only things we've found wrong with it is a couple of motor mounts that need to be replaced and one of the fuel selectors isn't working right. The paint is pretty faded as well, but not necessarily in need of a repaint right off the bat. The mechanic is going to get it on jacks this week and cycle the gear, so we will see how that goes. (crossing fingers) If that checks out, I may well make an offer.

For now I would be buying half ownership, and we would like to take one or two more partners after we get it annualed and in the air.

Does that sound like it's worth 15K (my half) to yall?
 
It's all a-ok then, can't go wrong with a cheap twin ;) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top