What is wrong with this plane?

Unfortunately, the Skymasters are for some reason hated by most people except the ones who fly them. I've never seen such dislike for a single airframe, for no other reason than that it's perceived as ugly. I've always thought they look pretty cool in an utilitarian way. And anyone who's seen the film BAT 21, would probably agree. There are only a handful twins you can take to any kind of surfaces or short dirt strips, and the 337 and the Aero Commanders excel at this.

I've been thinking of of getting an old 336 (the fixed gear version) to have as a second plane for when my Commander is in the shop. They're pretty rare on the market, but when they come on they're normally very cheap. Dead simple systems and airframe.
 
stratobee said:
I've been thinking of of getting an old 336 (the fixed gear version) to have as a second plane for when my Commander is in the shop. They're pretty rare on the market, but when they come on they're normally very cheap. Dead simple systems and airframe.
Click to expand...
Did you ever consider just getting a CE-500?

They are dirt cheap (for jets) these days, very capable and higher dispatch reliability than a Turbo Commander (less time in the shop).
 
GRG55 said:
Took some persistence and patience to find the right Aztec. 1979, 5500 hours when I bought it in 2012. Complete logs. Never had a time from when it left the factory that it was inactive for an extended period. Not a "high time" plane, nor a hangar queen either. There are more airplanes for sale than pilots with money to buy them right now.

Not saying a 47 year olf 421 averaging ~50 hrs a year is necessarily a bad airplane, but...
Click to expand...

The inactive this is really silly, frankly I've had mine sit in the hangar for a entire winter with zero problems. My old plane hung out in its hangar while I was living out of country, also didn't fall apart. Sitting out on the ramp in the elements with control surfaces flapping in the wind, yeah that's bad, but sitting properly put away in a nice hangar that ain't hurting anything.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Did you ever consider just getting a CE-500?

They are dirt cheap (for jets) these days, very capable and higher dispatch reliability than a Turbo Commander (less time in the shop).
Click to expand...


I don't think this
1675152.jpg


Is in the same ball part, even remotely, as this

Cessna-Citation-500.jpg


Money wise, MX wise, fuel wise, hangar wise, or training wise.
 
James331 said:
I don't think this
1675152.jpg


Is in the same ball part, even remotely, as this

Cessna-Citation-500.jpg


Money wise, MX wise, fuel wise, hangar wise, or training wise.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but I was talking specifically to Stratobee, who owns an older Turbo Commander.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
They were used in the Vietnam fiasco as a FAC or liaison plane. .
Click to expand...

Yes they were, as a FAC and PSYOPS. We also had them at a base I was stationed at in South Korea, think it was the 19th TASS, during and after the VN 'Police Action'. They were replaced there in '74 by OV-10s. USAF and ANG units flew it into the 80s. Some were flown by the Navy and foreign countries.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Of course not, but I was talking specifically to Stratobee, who owns an older Turbo Commander.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.
Wouldn't you need to be flying more than a few people on some good size legs to make a jet make sense?

Checkout_my_Six said:
Oh....get a PC-12 and be done with it already. :D
Click to expand...

Grear plane, but for a pt91 dude I'd get a small king air or MU2 before the 12, bang for the buck wise.
 
stratobee said:
Unfortunately, the Skymasters are for some reason hated by most people except the ones who fly them. I've never seen such dislike for a single airframe, for no other reason than that it's perceived as ugly. I've always thought they look pretty cool in an utilitarian way. And anyone who's seen the film BAT 21, would probably agree. There are only a handful twins you can take to any kind of surfaces or short dirt strips, and the 337 and the Aero Commanders excel at this.

I've been thinking of of getting an old 336 (the fixed gear version) to have as a second plane for when my Commander is in the shop. They're pretty rare on the market, but when they come on they're normally very cheap. Dead simple systems and airframe.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I would think a 337 would be the last plane someone would want to fly from a dirt strip. You are blowing all the debris right at the rear engine and propeller. I too have always liked the looks of the 337 though.
 
I like the twin tail look, but I'd rather have a twin tail with the engines on the wing and a rear loading door.
 
That might be a wee bit bigger than what I am picturing!
 
I like the look of the 337, and I also generally like the idea of centerline thrust. I don't think I've ever seen one in person, however. Does the rear engine get as much cooling as the front?
 
No the rear engine runs little bit warmer than the front engine
 
Dav8or said:
What's so bad about the engines? Same one that goes in the Piper Arrow and I'm sure many other planes.
Click to expand...

The IO-360 Continental was probably the worst engine they ever made. They go through cylinders like no tomorrow, especially the turbo ones. When you have to buy 12 new cylinders every few hundred hours the beauty of the 337 starts to fade.
 
I just watched Bat-21 last night certainly made me want to go for at least a ride. There is one parked in the grass along a runway here that I have video of when I flew in and out of there 20+ years ago they may have moved it once. :rolleyes:
 
Grum.Man said:
The IO-360 Continental was probably the worst engine they ever made. They go through cylinders like no tomorrow, especially the turbo ones. When you have to buy 12 new cylinders every few hundred hours the beauty of the 337 starts to fade.
Click to expand...

Part of that is because the POH tell the owners to operate it in the "dumb" range.
 
Grum.Man said:
The IO-360 Continental was probably the worst engine they ever made. They go through cylinders like no tomorrow, especially the turbo ones. When you have to buy 12 new cylinders every few hundred hours the beauty of the 337 starts to fade.
Click to expand...

So they are up to par with the 550 in the Cirrus?
 
Nothing wrong with a lyc, just you never see them in many of the high power airplanes.
 
The C500 is a money eater when it comes to engine overhaul and fuel burn. The TC's are a bargain compared.
 
Grum.Man said:
The IO-360 Continental was probably the worst engine they ever made. They go through cylinders like no tomorrow, especially the turbo ones. When you have to buy 12 new cylinders every few hundred hours the beauty of the 337 starts to fade.
Click to expand...

It may be the worst engine they made, but it can't be all that bad. I don't hear a ton of bitching from the guys running the turbo version of this engine, or the Cirrus SR-20 guys. I bet if you just run these LOP those cylinders will go the TBO. Since the plane in the OP needs a new panel, an EI MVP-50 engine monitor would be high on my list for that panel. If I were short on cash, I would do it before anything else in that panel.

If I lived in Florida, I would buy this plane in a heart beat. (assuming clean pre buy) I'd use it to cruise all up and down the Caribbean. Ideal for me. Lots of visibility downward and I like the centerline thrust. As to the cabin noise, that's what a good set of ANR headsets are for.
 
Pilawt said:
Same as in the R172 series (T-41B, Reims Rocket, Hawk XP).
Click to expand...

Yep and how do they hold up? I don't pay attention to Cessnas much, so I don't know, but is the 172R considered a black sheep to be avoided like the Cessna 175 is due to a lousy engine?
 
stratobee said:
Unfortunately, the Skymasters are for some reason hated by most people except the ones who fly them. I've never seen such dislike for a single airframe, for no other reason than that it's perceived as ugly. I've always thought they look pretty cool in an utilitarian way. And anyone who's seen the film BAT 21, would probably agree. There are only a handful twins you can take to any kind of surfaces or short dirt strips, and the 337 and the Aero Commanders excel at this.

I've been thinking of of getting an old 336 (the fixed gear version) to have as a second plane for when my Commander is in the shop. They're pretty rare on the market, but when they come on they're normally very cheap. Dead simple systems and airframe.
Click to expand...
The 336 may seem appealing but I wouldn't touch one. The 337 was designed to iron out all of the issues the 336 had.

I would not have hesitated at the opportunity to take one off a grass or dirt strip. The rear prop sits up higher than the front and you can always just get a bit of speed going before you pour the coals on to avoid any major nicks or dings.
 
noobJohn said:
...I keep telling myself I need to get the daughter through college first.
Click to expand...

Wait, I just noticed the "get the daughter through college first" part...
That has to be the worst excuse for not buying a plane that I've ever heard. Let her accumulate debt! Then, after college and with all that debt, she'll be less capable of following in your footsteps and buy airplanes...Solves two problems/teaches two lessons at once!
 
I'd be scared about the way he flies that thing;

"Fuel flow 12gph at cruise each"
 
Fearless Tower said:
I know two current owners that would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

No doubt the CE500 can be great value. If I could afford or needed the capabilities for an entry jet, I would look no further.

But the older JT15D engines burn about 3x as much as the TPE331. They are of course faster, but the earlier ones are not speed demons. They're only about 50-80kts faster than a more modern Commander and that comes at almost 100gal more per hour. Later on they gained a bit of speed, and the Citation 550 is a decent performer. Also, the JT15 engines are more to overhaul per hour. For newer Citations like the M2 and the CJ-series, the delta shrinks. They're very efficient on fuel for a jet. But then one has to deal with the purchase price…
 
tawood said:
Wait, I just noticed the "get the daughter through college first" part...
That has to be the worst excuse for not buying a plane that I've ever heard. Let her accumulate debt! Then, after college and with all that debt, she'll be less capable of following in your footsteps and buy airplanes...Solves two problems/teaches two lessons at once!
Click to expand...

fg_089.jpg


You're the one in red, right?
 
If she's just going to a state school, has half decent grades and doesn't have a silver spoon, she should qualify for quite a few grants and scholarships to the point she probably could pay for her own schooling with a part time job.

I'd also want to make sure the path she wants to go down even requires a degree.
 
I hear you but.... let's not wander too far off topic. Skymaster! Cessna should have had Ricardo Montalbán do commercials.
 
Too bad the FAA won't allow us to move certified airplanes into the E/AB category. It seems this plane's engine issues could be fixed with an engine swap. Lycoming IO-390s or Continental IO-470s maybe. I know there are some out there with big bore engines, I don't remember which ones, that made the plane come alive. I think there is an STC for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top