Why are Cessna Skymasters not liked? Or are they?

Chrisgoesflying

Chrisgoesflying

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
1,343
Location
The Lone Star State
Display Name
Display name:
Chrisgoesflying
First of all, I am far from being ready to upgrade to a twin. My mighty little Cherokee will be fine for another 5 or so years. However, I still keep half an eye on the twin engine market just to stay informed and to imagine all the non-stop trips I will be able to make lol.

One plane that keeps popping up super cheap is the Cessna Skymaster. Just saw one today again, mid time airframe, low time engines, 68 model for $50k and fresh annual. Most of the flyable examples I see are in the $50k to $100k region - much less than many of the conventional twins with similar useful load.

I know it's slow compared to most conventional twins, that's a big negative but aside from that, why do these planes have a bad rep and sell for so cheap?

Would love to hear your thoughts especially if you have any first hand experience with that type of plane.
 
rear engine issues with cooling is one thing I have heard. Also don't forget about the rear engine when on the take off roll
 
Get an O-2 and go to airshows as a show plane. Cheap warbird.
 
Many people love them. There are some real practical advantages. If you're not on top of your game, there is a period of time when an engine loss might very well be troublesome. The vulnerability is different, and I think less in centerline thrust. There is no Vmc roll.

My very first CFI flew one. He loved it, quirks and all. He was an outstanding guy and very smart.
 
They cost a metric ton in maintenance. I asked around and was told you're not going to save any money long term with them even at that price delta.
 
I've not had the chance to fly in one, but have talked to a couple of owners. Those who have them tend to be huge lovers of them. I do get the appeal if you want twin redundancy without the VMC risk. I think the issue is that they don't have enormous cabins and they have the fussy Cessna landing gear issues of the 210 182RG vintage as I understand it. Still, it's potentially a way to build retract twin time to be ensurable in something else and also to give you that "options when one engine quits over bad terrain" equation.
 
I’ve always loved the look but never flown one. The push/pull is intriguing. I’ve talked with owners and they “of course” loved them. All said that training makes takeoff knowledge of the rear engine no sweat. They are loud and slow. There is some Riley Rocket upgrade on some that speeds them up a bit.
 
I think they're awesome! Very STOL capable twin, I'd have one in a heartbeat.
 
Just up the road from me.. this one would be pretty cool. One of a very few riley rocket 337 out there.

Folks here know I'm not a big high wing fan, but I'd be pretty happy with something like this... (so why don't you buy it then??) - good question! I'm chicken to carry that kind of responsibility

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...odel=T337G&listing_id=2408542&s-type=aircraft

upload_2022-9-28_19-42-55.png
Love the utilitarian look.. and with the wing mostly behind the pilot's head this one actually one have genuinely good visibility



btw - I find those maintenance arguments to be silly. Unless you are buying a C-172 or PA-28 every plane is going to have it's maintenance challenges and headaches. Get over it.
 
Tantalum said:
btw - I find those maintenance arguments to be silly. Unless you are buying a C-172 or PA-28 every plane is going to have it's maintenance challenges and headaches. Get over it.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I will say I have about 6-8 hours in a Sky Master, Riley Rocket conversion. It was sweet, except once when we lost electrical in IMC. We eventually got it back, and a hand held GPS (for hiking) kept us on track.
 
Was just looking at that one on TAP earlier after seeing this thread. Would definitely be a fun ride.
 
Popular in Florida for overwater flights. I think the dudes from Miami who used to patrol for Cuban refugee boats had a fleet of them.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Popular in Florida for overwater flights. I think the dudes from Miami who used to patrol for Cuban refugee boats had a fleet of them.
Click to expand...

There's a reason the military used them as "Observation" planes - visibility must be incredible. High wing, but it's behind you, giving visibility down AND up. And I assume you can even see into the turn unlike other high wings.
 
Zeldman said:
I agree.

I will say I have about 6-8 hours in a Sky Master, Riley Rocket conversion. It was sweet, except once when we lost electrical in IMC. We eventually got it back, and a hand held GPS (for hiking) kept us on track.
Click to expand...
I'm really loving this one.. I keep coming back to it. It really has everything I want.. two engines FIKI, AC, and as a bonus won't have the "but it's a twin, it'll kill you!" issue. Thing is proper bad ass

Buy it for $150K and immediately drop another $10K for two G5s... or maybe GI-275. Otherwise it's perfect. I'm not impressed by glass. I'd put a good 200 hrs on it year one

If only I had the cajones!!
 
The C-119 Flying Boxcar is one of my favorite planes... this is like a mini-me distant cousin version of it
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Was just looking at that one on TAP earlier after seeing this thread. Would definitely be a fun ride.
Click to expand...
My only *real* concern is no real luggage space and four seats. We often fly with another couple or family member. A weekend trip for four adults might concern me.

Anyone with some experience in one, @Zeldman ? Any recollection of what the realistic useful and luggage volume there is behind the rear seats?

and yeah on the overwater flights, or winter night trips back from a day of skiing at Mammoth. Twin engines really help with the over water and night over mountains comfort.
 
Tantalum said:
My only *real* concern is no real luggage space and four seats. We often fly with another couple or family member. A weekend trip for four adults might concern me.

Anyone with some experience in one, @Zeldman ? Any recollection of what the realistic useful and luggage volume there is behind the rear seats?

and yeah on the overwater flights, or winter night trips back from a day of skiing at Mammoth. Twin engines really help with the over water and night over mountains comfort.
Click to expand...

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/194017531/1969-cessna-337-piston-twin-aircraft This one has cargo pods for luggage so apparently you can install that to relieve your concern.
 
Maintenance, landing gear, rear engine cooling, cont io360 not exactly bullet proof, not easy access to engine, unique systems. Should be taken to mechanic shop who specializes in them, not many.
 
Tantalum said:
That poor plane has really been rode hard and put away wet hasn't it..! Cargo pod aside it looks like there is a small section behind the seats to jam stuff
Click to expand...

You should buy it and return it to it's former glory. Bring a weed eater.
 
There might be one at my field that is going to go on sale and it is tempting but possibly a lot of non a/p owner work done on it.
 
I had the same thoughts about buying a 337 as the OP. It looked like a great deal, and had all kinds of new avionics, and twin engine redundancy.

The seller of the one I was looking at talked me out of it, more or less. He said that annuals are 12-15k.

A buddy of mine that flew them said that annuals were no so bad with lots of help and whatnot.

So I called the local shop. The owner/mechanic said that the last one they did was around 16k and took six months waiting for a turbo.

So I rent still.

--Matt
 
Seeing as though I’ve never owned one, or even flown in one, I cannot speak from the brain.
That said, speaking from the heart, I would absolutely love to own one. Probably my favorite GA airplane (within reason).

Love the look, safety aspect, and that unique sound on throttle up !!
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Well, that would do it for me. $12k for a standard annual is a no-go, even for a twin.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's pretty steep. I'm curious to know what a non-turbo unpressurized one costs for the annual.
 
Consulted with a few locals with 337 experience given that the one above is a stone's throw from me. Unfortunately the consensus seems to be that they're very maintenance heavy. Too bad
 
Speaking of 337s, posted to faceballs by KMTO this morning (they occasionally post pictures when something interesting shows up on the ramp):

chemtrail 337.jpg

Mosquito control. Uh-huh. More like Mind control. So much for "chemtrails aren't real".
 
It is one of the very few twins a 70+ pilot can own. At that age, no one wants to insure retracts, no matter how much TT or ratings you have. The early ones were fixed gear.
 
Tantalum said:
Anyone with some experience in one, @Zeldman ? Any recollection of what the realistic useful and luggage volume there is behind the rear seats?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the one I flew was over 20 years ago so I have no recollection of useful load or fuel planning. It had the rear seats removed so only a comfortable 4 place. The times I flew it was to take the owners wife somewhere when the regular pilot was not available. I remember placing her 2 or 3 bags behind the rear seats.

One thing I do remember is this particular plane had some sort of recall or AD on the engines. The rear engine was affected and had to be pulled and either crank bearings replaced or crank replaced. Which I remember took all winter to get done.

The checklist had the rear engine throttle advanced until rolling, then front engine throttle advanced.
 
Zeldman said:
The checklist had the rear engine throttle advanced until rolling, then front engine throttle advanced.
Click to expand...
I was reading that this was done after some people hadn't realized the rear engine wasn't running and attempted inadvertent single engine take off :eek:

It's a cool plane for sure. I still wonder if maintenance truly is that bad


and for some fun while we're here. Sorry this isn't media subforum!!!



...I still want one
 
Tantalum said:
It's a cool plane for sure. I still wonder if maintenance truly is that bad
Click to expand...

Hard to imagine anything else -- all of the "reliability and inexpense" of the cessna RG froglegs, coupled with the "reliability of legend because we're not high-strung at all" of the Conti Turbo 360s from the Senecas (without the nacelle room or access to cooling air for the aft engine)

The rest is a chopped up P210 cabin and a pair of tail booms?

:D I still likey for some reason though.
 
Jim K said:
Speaking of 337s, posted to faceballs by KMTO this morning (they occasionally post pictures when something interesting shows up on the ramp):

View attachment 111066

Mosquito control. Uh-huh. More like Mind control. So much for "chemtrails aren't real".
Click to expand...

I'd have guessed that the fans are additional cooling for the rear engine. :)
 
Regarding the maintenance costs you have to take into account that the 336/337 range encompasses a LOT of different airplanes, and it's not apples to apples.
  • You can't be comparing a pressurized, turbocharged 337 to oh let's say a 310A, that would be more equitable to a P-baron, or 340 etc, of which a 16k annual WILL be routine, that's just the class of aircraft it is.
  • A 337 without a turbo or pressurization is far, far cheaper to maintain and will be on par with any other light twin (no light twins are "cheap" to maintain)
  • A 336 will be even cheaper still, with no complex Cessna RG to maintain, being fixed gear, but you'll eat up some more costs in fuel as they aren't exactly speed demons.

So when someone is throwing out numbers for cost to maintain you need to bear in mind *which* Skymaster they're discussing and then equate it to a comparable class of aircraft. If you do that, then you'll see that no, Skymasters don't cost considerably more to own than other aircraft in their equivalent class.
 
I was about to purchase a 336 ,had trouble getting anyone to insure it. Got one quote for 4800 for 50k hull value.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
You can't be comparing a pressurized, turbocharged 337 to oh let's say a 310A, that would be more equitable to a P-baron, or 340 etc, of which a 16k annual WILL be routine, that's just the class of aircraft it is.
Click to expand...
An interesting (and correct) postulation, but that begs the question: why choose one over a P-Baron or 340 and vice versa?
 
asicer said:
An interesting (and correct) postulation, but that begs the question: why choose one over a P-Baron or 340 and vice versa?
Click to expand...
People's reasoning can be their own, but for me it would be for STOL performance, visibility, and history.
frfly172 said:
I was about to purchase a 336 ,had trouble getting anyone to insure it. Got one quote for 4800 for 50k hull value.
Click to expand...
It's always experience dependent, how much multi time do you have? Also after you have a 100 hours in type insurance usually drops off a cliff, so that's usually a "first year" only price that goes down subsequently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top