What is wrong with this plane?

This is a rhetorical question, right? :)

(In before the Skymaster bashing)

Only thing I see right off hand is that you are going to be in need of a panel overhaul in the next couple years. Also the missing logs pre-1996 will cause some people to run away.
 
I don't like missing logs, but that was 20 years ago, so not huge...be aware that I believe that this is a plane that "maintenance cost / price" is at a higher ratio than most...especially if you think of it like a single (which I guess goes without saying).
 
I'm just surprised at the low price. Less than a lot of 172s. 3 times the expense, I'm sure.
 
Wow, not shabby, biggest issue I would have would be the panel is...lacking.

Well for that price, and with what dynon seems to be doing, probably could put a Skyview into it before 2020, if dynon keeps trending the way they are, a 337 with full glass, that would be one heck of a bird!

But for that price I really don't see how you could loose, presuming the prebuy was good.

That would be a super fun first plane, always wanted to fly one.
 
I like Mixmasters. I had an opportunity to fly a couple owned by my Uncle Sam, back in 1971-72. They are an honest airplane, have no bad habits, can be flown with one engine.
On the downside they are a little more expensive to maintain than something like a 310, and they certainly are noisier.
 
Shepherd said:
I like Mixmasters. I had an opportunity to fly a couple owned by my Uncle Sam, back in 1971-72..
Click to expand...

One of those gray ones in SE Asia? We had a squadron of them at Osan Air Base, later replaced by OV-10s.
 
Put your daughter through college???? If you buy that, you won't even be able to afford her high school graduation gown. Unless of course your an A&E mechanic and have a very secure and good source of income, like government or medicine, maybe law if your any good at it.

I hafta say though, for some reason I have always liked those planes and wished I could have afforded one.

-John
 
Are there some crazy ADs on 337s or something?

Looks like a simple non pressurized, non booted, non AC, light twin, you're got 400hp worth of care and feeding, but I don't get why it's going to bankrupt anyone, heck for 39k seems like a lot of machine for the $
 
Don't like the no logs,the skymaster can be a maintenance headache ,if it wasn't maintained well. As for the college thing,buy the airplane before you pay for tuition ,or the college will take all your money.
 
Never worked on one, but the other guys here say they're horrible. Access to the rear engine stuff is especially bad.
 
I loved flying the Skymaster. If you buy it, please, let me ferry it home for you.

I flew a 1965. Very similar to the one you have there. Never had any issues but I only flew it for a few months. I liked the engines and got 20gph in cruise.
 
Gear parts are also hideously expensive now. But I have nothing against the airplane. It does rate as the only aircraft I've ever been in that had the first trucks rolled. (Due to a nosegear problem... But that airplane had a lot more wrong with it than just the nosegear.)
 
What, you're going to stuff your family into that little thing when cabin class comfort can be yours for not that much more? http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search...model=421A&listing_id=2152244&s-type=aircraft

Seriously, it's kind of like why old yachts don't go for all that much money. Those who can afford to operate them want a newer one, and even if it only sells for Skyhawk money, the operating costs are still that of a light twin, and a fairly old one at that. There just aren't that many buyers for twins these days, and the Skymaster is kind of idiosyncratic.
 
Any light twin is a complicated machine to maintain. I researched the 337 when I was evaluating buying a first twin.
In brief:
- If you get a twin rating in it you will be restricted to centreline thrust airplanes (basically the Skymaster);
- it's pretty noisy because the passenger cabin is sandwiched between two engines;
- the engine TBO is rather short;
- I noted a LOT of "top overhauls" well before TBO;
- Loved the easy access to the cabin
- If you have maintenance money to burn there are pressurized versions out there, and the ultimate 337 might be the Riley Rocket conversions.
 
Somedudeintn said:
I like that one! I don't want to try to guess the operating costs though.
Click to expand...

+1
I'm not sure I'm up for owning and maintaining those geared Continentals.
 
FormerHangie said:
What, you're going to stuff your family into that little thing when cabin class comfort can be yours for not that much more? http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search...model=421A&listing_id=2152244&s-type=aircraft

Seriously, it's kind of like why old yachts don't go for all that much money. Those who can afford to operate them want a newer one, and even if it only sells for Skyhawk money, the operating costs are still that of a light twin, and a fairly old one at that. There just aren't that many buyers for twins these days, and the Skymaster is kind of idiosyncratic.
Click to expand...

I don't know the 337 or 421s that well, however I'll take a shot in the dark and jump on the non pressurized, non booted pusher,puller band wagon, mx money wise, YEARS before I touch a 1960s plane with words like "pressurized" "FIKI" AND "GTSIO" in the description.
 
At some point apparently DeltaHawk was going to do Diesel conversions for these, which would make this a very interesting airplane. But I don't see that on their site now.
 
Thanks for the input, folks. As EdFred noted, it was almost a rhetorical question. I needed to be reminded of the potential downside. Is there a movie like "The Money Pit" based on buying an airplane?
 
GRG55 said:
+1
I'm not sure I'm up for owning and maintaining those geared Continentals.
Click to expand...
They aren't bad if start with good overhauls and take care of them, if you try to run them at 75-80% power, you may have checkbook issues.
 
the only problem I see with that....you'd need to be a mechanic to afford that.
 
N747JB said:
They aren't bad if start with good overhauls and take care of them, if you try to run them at 75-80% power, you may have checkbook issues.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. That 421 is a 47 year old airplane with less than 2500 TT...the very definition of a hangar queen. Checkbook issues almost guaranteed methinks
 
GRG55 said:
I hear ya. That 421 is a 47 year old airplane with less than 2500 TT...the very definition of a hangar queen. Checkbook issues almost guaranteed methinks
Click to expand...
Even the newest 421C is 31 years old. I didn't really look at the ad, but depending on who did the engines and how long ago they were done, it could be a decent airplane for the money. I am not a fan of the A models, no nose baggage, no FIKI, and a weird panel arrangement. But for a "cheap" pressurized cabin class plane, that one fits the bill, especially either the nifty blue interior!! :eek:
 
GRG55 said:
I hear ya. That 421 is a 47 year old airplane with less than 2500 TT...the very definition of a hangar queen. Checkbook issues almost guaranteed methinks
Click to expand...

So is most of the fleet, if you have a plane built in 1980 or earlier, unless it has >10,000hrs it wasn't exactly a daily flyer, thus a "hangar queen", and if it's got over 10k on the clock is a "high time" aircraft. Some peoples kids....

Most people I know have older planes with under 4K hours on them and they do quite well MX wise. My old plane had under 3k on the clock and was built in the 40s, shy of replacing a cylinder once and oil changes and a occasional ELT battery, I really didn't have to do anything on it
 
All shopping should begin with a shopping list (as opposed to the way my wife does it). Does this plane meet your mission? Do you have access to a mechanic familiar with the type? Do you plan to do owner maintenance and or ONA's? Finally, I read that although they don't have any more engine out accidents that other twins, they appear to have more fatalities as a result. Something about pilots don't recognize the emergency as quickly.
 
They pretty have all the disadvantages of a twin with little if any advantage.
 
They were used in the Vietnam fiasco as a FAC or liaison plane. Twin engine thought to be safer than a single at low altitude over the jungle ,especially while in slow flight. They were seen somewhat after this war but due to bad engines and being very LOUD inside they pretty quickly dissapeared. Better off with an older shrike. Nice airplane , easy flyer. This could easily be a vietnam vet with lots of hours and possible accident history, hence no decent logs. Could be a money sewer.
 
James331 said:
So is most of the fleet, if you have a plane built in 1980 or earlier, unless it has >10,000hrs it wasn't exactly a daily flyer, thus a "hangar queen", and if it's got over 10k on the clock is a "high time" aircraft. Some peoples kids....

Most people I know have older planes with under 4K hours on them and they do quite well MX wise. My old plane had under 3k on the clock and was built in the 40s, shy of replacing a cylinder once and oil changes and a occasional ELT battery, I really didn't have to do anything on it
Click to expand...

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