My mom worked at Gibbs Flying Service in at MYF when I was a child. Sometimes I’d go to work with her, and I’d be allowed to ‘help’ the linemen or wander around looking at airplanes. There were some Cessna 337 Skymasters on the ramp. I thought they were the coolest propeller-driven airplanes imaginable. I just knew I’d have one when I grew up. Of course that didn’t happen. I’ve never even sat in one.
Pilots, have you ever flown one? Pilots who have not flown them and non-pilots, have you ever ridden in one? What are they like?
Like a complicated, dangerous over weight 206. To fly safely, you need to follow it’s needs carefully, be ever vigilant, more so than other small
“C” type planes IMO.
Best to keep maintenance top notch, more so than average for most planes. You know, the difference between a play airplane and a working plane.
I found this AOPA article on the 337. They seem to disagree with your first paragraph. But as to the second, the say good luck reaching TBO on the engines, and you need to have the gear system debugged before putting any money down on one. ‘Don’t even consider putting money down on a Skymaster unless you’ve had the gear and engines gone through thoroughly, and even then, be sure to budget liberally for the first year’s ownership.’
I am a pilot, but have not flown or ridden in one. I have however seen one up close as it was in the local hangar getting an annual inspection done. They are not like most other multi-engine airplanes because the engines are in-line and thus it doesn’t have the single-engine yawing moment that normal multi-engine airplanes have.
From what I understand, the rear engine cooling can be an issue on some years and they really don’t perform very well on a single engine. The engines are not in-line vertically so when running on only one engine, the pitch becomes the critical factor - not the yaw as in normal twins.
I’ve seen, and especially heard, a couple flying. The rear prop makes a hell of a racket chopping up the wake of the front prop. It’s almost as bad as a pusher plane like an Avanti.
USAF used a lot of them in Vietnam as ground-attack directors, and they even had their own smoke rockets hung from racks under the wings.
My instructor had one, or someone at his airport did. He took me up in it a couple of times in my multi training because someone overbooked the Aztec.
It’s been a long time, and the only thing I remember about it was the sound.
Something about the back prop cutting the front’s wash was just extremely loud.
I always liked them and wanted one, but the opportunity for a different twin came along and I took it.
Rode in one in Alaska out to one of the radar sites. Old hands there told me they always keep an eye on the pilot; something about making sure he turns on the fuel for both engines before attempting takeoff.
I might be ms-remembering, I have only flown 54 different types, I’m old & I get cornfused easily.
Yeah, not in yaw, but in making sure you bring up the rear engine first, watch the temps, need to be able to notice the partial loss of the rear engine while heavy or on short strips because if you are looking out the windows, yah, I know that is not a requirement any more but I digress, you can be in big trouble before you notice the gauges. IMO
But, I think a C-180 is an all around better Cessna than almost any other, a 150 HP Cessna 150 straight back Texas conversion with tundra tires would be the best bush plane if really long distances are not needed. Also a 56 C-172 just because they are about as honest an airplane ever made since WWII. IMO
The 337 is almost as popular as the Piper Apache with the original 150HP engines. At least they were Lycoming engines.
My older sister used to be an assistant editor on Flying Mag. Ziff Davis Publishing. She even did some a/c reviews.
But, if you like them, get one & keep it flying as too many aircraft are being lost over the years because there are not enough.
people willing to keep odd ball old stuff going if it is not a special plane of some sort.
The little I got to mess with one was not in a well maintained, working plane but I was not happy in the left seat. I can see no advantage in the 337. Center line thrust has some pluses over other types of set ups but Cessna did not hit the mark, or even the target with the 377. I don’t think that without the Military requisition, Cessna would have bled red on that airplane for sure…
Well, Cessna built 2,993 337s between 1963 and 1982, and only 532 of them were O-2s. It seems to have been pretty popular in the civilian market.
I do see the advantage of CLT. According to the AOPA article you don’t see 337s ‘heading for the weeds’ in an engine-out situation, and a 337 has a higher single-engine ceiling than traditional twins.
The disadvantages I see are:
[ul][li]Noise. (Not having been in one, I hadn’t thought of it.)[/li][li]Lack of cargo space, since there’s an engine where baggage would normally be;[/li][li]It seems the 337 requires more power – and more fuel – to reach speeds similar to other twins.[/ul][/li]
But it’s the sexiest twin out there. I love the way they look.
