Interesting Proposition

[OkieFlyer]

First, a little back story:
Have you ever known anybody with more money than sense? Well, there's this local pilot/doctor/engineer that gets a kick out of buying all kinds of planes, flying them around for a while and selling them. He's got all kinds. A couple Saia Marchettis, a pair of Aztecs, Ercoupe, C-180, Piper 235, and a few others. There are always planes coming in and planes going out of his hangar. He's not really what you'd call an airplane dealer, just seems to like to fly all different kinds of planes, then sell them for what seems to be too little profit to make any of it worthwhile from a business standpoint. It's really kind of weird, and he's a bit eccentric. I know the guy fairly well, but not well enough to call him a friend.

Which brings us to today.

I went over to KCHK to pick up my plane from annual, which is where he's based. He pulled up in his golf cart and we started shooting the bull. He looked my 182 over and graciously complimented me on getting a good deal on a very low time airframe. We shot the bull for a bit and I mentioned that my family will be looking to upgrade in the near future due to needing more seats. He said, I got what you need, I'll be back. He drove off in his golf cart. I was kind of shaking my head, thinking that's typical Scott for ya. A bit later I heard an engine start in the direction of his hangar, and then another engine start. I'm thinking he's going to bring over one of this Aztecs, which are nice, but burn too much gas for me. Well, he rolls up in a pretty decent looking C-337. My first thought was to kind of blow it off. I'm not currently entertaining owning any kind of twin. However, I didn't want to be rude, so I walked around it with him and chewed the fat a bit. Pretty good looking plane actually. After what I considered to be enough time humoring him, I kindly said I have to get back to work finishing up on my plane. As we were parting ways, he says "what would you think about a straight trade?" My first question was why. He replied "I hate mix masters. They're ugly. I just bought from a guy that was in a bind over some legal issues, and I need it out of the way for two planes coming in this weekend."

Don't know a ton about the plane yet. Front engine around 600 hrs, rear around 800 hrs. Both props around 300 hours. He spent some money making sure the gear was up to snuff. Avionics are nothing fancy, but IFR certified. Old GPS. Navomatic AP that works. Paint is not great, but it's at least as good as mine.

I will mention that the guy is known to be pretty anal about mechanical things and spends the money to fix stuff right. That's coming from the mechanics. Same guys that work on my plane and are guys I've known for years.

So, I guess I find myself considering it. Maybe. Possibly. Heck, I don't know. Nah. Well......

 

[tspear]

A few questions:
1. Can you make use of the additional capability?
2. Can you afford the training to make use of the second engine from safety?
3. What is the difference in the avionics?
4. Have you looked at the market values?

Tim

 

[eman1200]

very interesting!

 

[James331]

Unless I was trying to start a drop zone, I'd take a 337 over a 182 any day.

As far as if it's a good deal, need more info on your 182, but if it's a basic 182, yeah I'd do it.

 

[OkieFlyer]

A few questions:
1. Can you make use of the additional capability?
2. Can you afford the training to make use of the second engine from safety?
3. What is the difference in avionics?
4. Have you looked at the market values?

Tim

1. Yes, for the most part. Do really need a twin? No. I would be fine (if not better off) with a C-205, C-206, Cherokee 6/Lance.
2. Yes.
3. My plane has steam gauges, Narco Nav/Comm and transponder, no AP, non-certified Garmin 696 GPS. She's plain Jane.
4. Not really. This all literally took place a few hours ago. So I haven't had time to do any research.


Mine is a 1962 C-182E. About 2000 TT airframe. About 600 SMOH. About 400 SPOH. Basic avionics. IFR certified, but no certified GPS. No autopilot. Paint is 6/10 from 1971. Interior is 6/10 also from 1971. Always hangared. A bit of an ugly duckling, but mechanically sound and SUPER clean inside the fuse and wings with ZERO corrosion. I believe I could get 45K for it as is. More with fresh paint and interior.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Trade him. Fly the 337 for weeks, months, years. Like it, keep it; don't like it, sell or trade for your dream plane. It's a dollars game, nothing else. This is your golden opportunity to upgrade. But still do your diligence.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Trade him. Fly the 337 for weeks, months, years. Like it, keep it; don't like it, sell or trade for your dream plane. It's a dollars game, nothing else. This is your golden opportunity to upgrade. But still do your diligence.

Here's my reservation: I know I can sell a C-182 any day of the week. If I take a chance on a 337 and don't like it much, I don't know that I can sell it anytime soon. From what little I've seen, I don't think they move very quickly.

I'll need to take some time and think it over and do some research. In the mean time, I'm sure he'll let me take it out for a spin (figurative). Wanted to get some thoughts from my POA brethren also while I mull it over.

 

[Briar Rabbit]

Here's my reservation: I know I can sell a C-182 any day of the week. If I take a chance on a 337 and don't like it much, I don't know that I can sell it anytime soon. From what little I've seen, I don't think they move very quickly.

I'll need to take some time and think it over and do some research. In the mean time, I'm sure he'll let me take it out for a spin (figurative). Wanted to get some thoughts from my POA brethren also while I mull it over.

How far are you from Chandler OK? Have a friend there that used to fly one commercially that could be helpful, or at least interesting to talk to about it.

 

[OkieFlyer]

How far are you from Chandler OK? Have a friend there that used to fly one commercially that could be helpful, or at least interesting to talk to about it.

72 miles as the crow flies. If you think he'd want to talk, I'm game.

 

[James331]

1. Yes, for the most part. Do really need a twin? No. I would be fine (if not better off) with a C-205, C-206, Cherokee 6/Lance.
2. Yes.
3. My plane has steam gauges, Narco Nav/Comm and transponder, no AP, non-certified Garmin 696 GPS. She's plain Jane.
4. Not really. This all literally took place a few hours ago. So I haven't had time to do any research.


Mine is a 1962 C-182E. About 2000 TT airframe. About 600 SMOH. About 400 SPOH. Basic avionics. IFR certified, but no certified GPS. No autopilot. Paint is 6/10 from 1971. Interior is 6/10 also from 1971. Always hangared. A bit of an ugly duckling, but mechanically sound and SUPER clean inside the fuse and wings with ZERO corrosion. I believe I could get 45K for it as is. More with fresh paint and interior.

Do the trade.

Go take it for a spin with the wife, wager you'll end up with it in you hangar.


Worse case you could still probably fire sale price the 337, and get more than you would normally for the 182.

Besides its a good chunk more plane and way more fun.

 

[Theboys]

Wouldn't mind the 337 myself!

 

[GRG55]

I ended up choosing an Aztec, but every pilot + family is different. Best feature about the 337 is the access to the cabin. If you fly a 182 now, your family will not want to start climbing over a wing to get in.

Worst feature is the cabin noise from being sandwiched between the engines. The pressurized 337s are noticeably quieter, but that's a lot of expense to maintain.

I just got back from a weekend trip with a friend who owns a G1000 NA 182. Impressive single, no doubt about it (and I mean the way it flies & roomy comfort, not the gadgets). But it can't do what I frequently haul in my twin.

But if you are regularly having to leave stuff behind on family trips because of lack of useful load, perhaps a twin is something that makes sense. Perhaps.

 

[ktup-flyer]

I ended up choosing an Aztec, but every pilot + family is different. Best feature about the 337 is the access to the cabin. If you fly a 182 now, your family will not want to start climbing over a wing to get in.

Worst feature is the cabin noise from being sandwiched between the engines. The pressurized 337s are noticeably quieter, but that's a lot of expense to maintain.

I just got back from a weekend trip with a friend who owns a G1000 NA 182. Impressive single, no doubt about it (and I mean the way it flies & roomy comfort, not the gadgets). But it can't do what I frequently haul in my twin.

But if you are regularly having to leave stuff behind on family trips because of lack of useful load, perhaps a twin is something that makes sense. Perhaps.

I've got a 182R, and fly an Aztec F somewhat regularly. The 182 is stable and has pretty good (1311lb) useful load, but the Aztec is in another league. Not fast by any means, but they're about as rock solid as you can get.

 

[GRG55]

I've got a 182R, and fly an Aztec F somewhat regularly. The 182 is stable and has pretty good (1311lb) useful load, but the Aztec is in another league. Not fast by any means, but they're about as rock solid as you can get.

That's interesting. This fairly new 182 (2011 model, I believe) had a useful load of only 1065 lbs.
Although glass panels are reputed to be lighter than steam gauges, it would seem the leather seats and other interior fittings have bloated the empty weight of the plane compared to earlier variants?

 

[tspear]

Take the wife and kids up in the 337. If they like it, take the deal.

Tim

 

[frfly172]

Go for the 337. They're a good plane if properly maintained Fuel burn is about 25 GPH in cruise. Go on the skymaster site for all the info you'll ever need on skymasters.

 

[asicer]

Although glass panels are reputed to be lighter than steam gauges...

Not really. There's a ~14lb standby battery, the fact that you need 2 of everything and you've only gotten rid of half the six-pack. Plus each component is packed in cast metal.

 

[tspear]

Not really. There's a ~14lb standby battery, the fact that you need 2 of everything and you've only gotten rid of half the six-pack. Plus each component is packed in cast metal.

When I switched from steam gauges to glass on an Aerostar, the plane went down over 45lbs net.
You see the same on the King Air conversions to the G1000. Depending on model, any where from 100-300 lbs is what I have read.

Tim

 

[asicer]

When I switched from steam gauges to glass on an Aerostar, the plane went down over 45lbs net.
You see the same on the King Air conversions to the G1000. Depending on model, any where from 100-300 lbs is what I have read.

Perhaps, but @GRG55 was asking about the 182 specifically. The 182T POH gives
GMA1347 audio panel 3.1lb
GIA63 nav/com/gps #1 5.4lb
GIA63 nav/com/gps #2 5.4lb
GTX33 transponder 4.0lb
GEA71 eng/airframe unit 2.2lb
GDU1040 PFD 6.5lb
GDU1040 MFD 6.5lb
GRS77 AHRS 2.6lb
GMU44 magnetometer 0.3lb
GDC74A ADC 3.6lb
GDL-69A datalink 2.8lb
KTA810 TAS 8.8lb
SBY batt 14.0lb
G1000 cockpit reference guide 1.5lb
=============================
total=66.7lb

...while the stuff is replaces (from the 182S POH) is:
KX155 radio installation #1 11.4lb
KX155 radio installation #2 8.9lb
KMA26 audio panel 6.5lb
clock/OAT 0.3lb
annunciator 0.5lb
blind altitude encoder 0.8lb
DG 7.6lb
VSI 0.7lb
KLN89B GPS 5.5 lb
KT76C transponder 5.3lb
tachometer 1.0lb
MP gauge 1.0lb
oil temp/press gauge 0.8lb
=========================
total=50.3lb

 

[overdrive148]

Can you fit it in your hangar??

 

[Grum.Man]

The rear engine in those is pretty notorious for giving up way before TBO so keep that in mind. There seems to be a cult following for them but there also seems to be more on the market than cults as you see them rotting away at just about every airport. I would expect you could sell it for similar money as you would your 182 but not much more in this economy.

 

[GRG55]

The rear engine in those is pretty notorious for giving up way before TBO so keep that in mind. There seems to be a cult following for them but there also seems to be more on the market than cults as you see them rotting away at just about every airport. I would expect you could sell it for similar money as you would your 182 but not much more in this economy.

"Rotting away at just about every airport" is most certainly not confined to 337s.

Airplane's of every description, and particularly ancient light twins, are a common site. I see far more Apaches, early model Aztecs, twin Comanches and 310s in that state than I do 337s. Engines & props are gone and often the airframes have become donors for organ transplants.

The prices for older light twins collapsed during the 2008/09 financial crisis and have never really recovered. High performance singles of similar age, time and equipment go for a significant premium compared to light twins now. That goes a long way to offset the higher fuel and maintenance imo.

 

[Ted]

Just to refresh my memory, this is a retract, correct? I thought all the 337s were, but the main gear on that I can't tell from the photo.

Personally, I'd say that sounds like a worthwhile trade if you feel the values were about equal. You were thinking about a 205. This should give you the cabin you're looking for, similar speeds/fuel burns (although a little faster overall, as I recall). I'm not a fan of mixmasters but in this case it could make a whole lot of sense for you. As you pointed out, the negative is that if you don't like the plane, it may be harder to sell. However most of the upgrade options you're considering I think will have similar concerns in my opinion. A 182 is very popular. 6-seaters are less popular (other than Bonanzas), and that's reflected in the prices.

I'd say go for it if the plane seems good. One thing I would suggest is that when you get your multi rating, get it at a pilot mill with some sort of conventional twin. That way you won't have the restriction on your cert of "Limited to centerline thrust" that you'd have if you take the checkride in a 337.

 

[GRG55]

The 336 was fixed gear, but after one model year Cessna made it a retract and called it a 337.

 

[Grum.Man]

"Rotting away at just about every airport" is most certainly not confined to 337s.

Airplane's of every description, and particularly ancient light twins, are a common site. I see far more Apaches, early model Aztecs, twin Comanches and 310s in that state than I do 337s. Engines & props are gone and often the airframes have become donors for organ transplants.

The prices for older light twins collapsed during the 2008/09 financial crisis and have never really recovered. High performance singles of similar age, time and equipment go for a significant premium compared to light twins now. That goes a long way to offset the higher fuel and maintenance imo.

no not at all, but there seems to be a LOT more dilapidated 336/337's around here than any other twin. I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I saw an Apache. There is still a pretty strong case for using those as trainers. Lots of rotting Aztecs too though.

 

[RyanB]

3-3-7-November-Hotel or 7-November-Hotel, doesn't roll off the tongue too easy. Might give you something else to chew on for awhile.

Jk.

 

[OkieFlyer]

I appreciate all the input so far. This is a tough one. I gotta tell ya that the MX, or potential MX issues, on a twin retract is a little scary to me. It's particularly concerning on a model that is known to have some quirks with the gear, and with the rear engine. I don't think a light twin makes sense for me financially, and I wouldn't consider one to be "necessary" for my mission. If it weren't for the straight across trade, I wouldn't even consider it. I'm leaning toward passing on this.

@Ted DuPuis Yes, it is a retract. Similar sized cabin to the 205 I've been wanting. Burns another 5-6 gph and goes about 20 kt faster. I've been hearing that gear and the complex gear door arrangement can be expensive and troublesome to maintain. Some say the rear engine can be troublesome, but reports vary on that. To your point about the 205 being just as difficult to sell, you're probably right. However, with the simplicity of the big fixed gear single and MX not much different than the 182, I have a hard time imagining that I would not be happy with one for years to come. I'm less convinced that I'd be happy with, and be able to afford the 337. The last thing I want to do is put too much of a financial burden on my family, and I definitely wouldn't want the bird to sit in the hangar awaiting the fundage to fix something. The 205 is not a big jump. It's just a big 182, and owning one shouldn't be much different than what I have now. Does that make any sense??


Additionally, I might be a little chicken sh*t.

 

[OkieFlyer]

3-3-7-November-Hotel or 7-November-Hotel, doesn't roll off the tongue too easy. Might give you something else to chew on for awhile.

Jk.

Well, you have a point there.

 

[Pilawt]

3-3-7-November-Hotel or 7-November-Hotel, doesn't roll off the tongue too easy. Might give you something else to chew on for awhile.

My callsign (Seven Yankee Quebec) is a sobriety test for controllers ...

 

[bnt83]

Wouldn't mind the 337 myself!

An old boss in Wagner SD has one so it must not be too bad. Or he is just making a killing spraying with his 188B.

I think they are cool. Two Cont. IO360 overhauls would be tough to swallow.

 

[tspear]

Additionally, I might be a little chicken sh*t.

If you are having doubts about the budget impact; then you probably should not do it.
Go onto a Cessna forum (I do not know which one for the 337) and find some realistic budget numbers. If you get a wide range of numbers, use the most scary ones as a starting point.

Here is why I say this. The 182 is a nice solid plane, it fits the current mission. It likely will fit the current mission for years to come.
Airplanes are generally not going up in price/value. In fact, most models have continued to slide. So when you outgrow the 182, there will be other planes available.

I jumped from a Cirrus SR20 to an Aerostar; mostly flying under schedule. When I no longer needed the fixed schedule, I started to calculate the cost before I pulled the plane out of the hangar. At that point I knew I would eventually make a bad choice because of the financial costs, so I sold the plane. If you are having those doubts now, I do not think it will get better later.

Tim

 

[bnt83]

The 336 was fixed gear, but after one model year Cessna made it a retract and called it a 337.

The 336 has a cooling fan mounted fwd of the spinner on the rear engine and no cowl flaps.. I saw a nicer looking one for sale a while back but the numerous parts made of unobtainium could prove troublesome.

 

[Ted]

@Ted DuPuis Yes, it is a retract. Similar sized cabin to the 205 I've been wanting. Burns another 5-6 gph and goes about 20 kt faster. I've been hearing that gear and the complex gear door arrangement can be expensive and troublesome to maintain. Some say the rear engine can be troublesome, but reports vary on that. To your point about the 205 being just as difficult to sell, you're probably right. However, with the simplicity of the big fixed gear single and MX not much different than the 182, I have a hard time imagining that I would not be happy with one for years to come. I'm less convinced that I'd be happy with, and be able to afford the 337. The last thing I want to do is put too much of a financial burden on my family, and I definitely wouldn't want the bird to sit in the hangar awaiting the fundage to fix something. The 205 is not a big jump. It's just a big 182, and owning one shouldn't be much different than what I have now. Does that make any sense??

One thing that I've found over the course of the past couple thousand hours of aircraft ownership/management (and watching others) is that you have good planes and bad planes. It's often times hard to tell which one you have until you get into it, but a lot of it is also making your own luck by how you maintain the aircraft, preventative maintenance you do, and your maintenance philosophy. Of course, you have no idea how this airplane was maintained by the previous owners, and having gotten it from someone who had legal trouble doesn't sound great to start. But it's also naturally aspirated and no de-ice. So really the only system you're adding is retarctable gear, although you are doubling the number of engines and associated parts/systems. You're not adding turbos or pressurization (thems is big dollar systems...) so that helps.

 

[OkieFlyer]

If you are having doubts about the budget impact; then you probably should not do it.
Go onto a Cessna forum (I do not know which one for the 337) and find some realistic budget numbers. If you get a wide range of numbers, use the most scary ones as a starting point.

Here is why I say this. The 182 is a nice solid plane, it fits the current mission. It likely will fit the current mission for years to come.
Airplanes are generally not going up in price/value. In fact, most models have continued to slide. So when you outgrow the 182, there will be other planes available.

I jumped from a Cirrus SR20 to an Aerostar; mostly flying under schedule. When I no longer needed the fixed schedule, I started to calculate the cost before I pulled the plane out of the hangar. At that point I knew I would eventually make a bad choice because of the financial costs, so I sold the plane. If you are having those doubts now, I do not think it will get better later.

Tim

That's pretty much in line with my train of thought. Having owned a plane for a few years now, I think I have a good idea how much plane I can handle on my income. While I haven't fully investigated the 337, I have a strong feeling it would be pushing the limits of my budget at this time. If further investigation bears that out, it's enough to make me walk. I don't let toys burden my family financially.

Still, tough to walk away from a strong upgrade that involves no cash.

 

[Pilawt]

The 336 was fixed gear, but after one model year Cessna made it a retract and called it a 337.

They also changed the wing incidence, and shortened the ventral fins. 336s look like they're plowing nose-up in cruise, while 337s have a more nose-down deck angle.

The 336 has a cooling fan mounted fwd of the spinner on the rear engine and no cowl flaps.

It was an interesting rear-engine cooling system on the 336 (below). The 337 has cowl flaps and a cooling scoop on the top that looks like an upside-down P-51.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Can you afford the maint & operating expense and risk of unknown expense to use it to step up to your next plane? This guy is in a time crunch, you don't have to be. Put it up for sale as soon as you take possession.

You're smart to be scared. Just don't let it override your logic. Balance.

 

[mondtster]

Here's my reservation: I know I can sell a C-182 any day of the week. If I take a chance on a 337 and don't like it much, I don't know that I can sell it anytime soon. From what little I've seen, I don't think they move very quickly.

My suspicion is that this guy feels the same way, and wants your 182 because it will be easier to get rid of.

Not saying that the deal might not be good for you though. You'll have to decide that. Decide what kind of flying you intend to do, and buy the airplane best suited for that purpose. Don't let emotion or the idea of a "really good deal" influence the decision.

 

[NoBShere]

On a side note, your 182 is realistically 45K? I have never bought a plane because I thought it would be too expensive, you may have just changed my mind!

 

[hotprops]

check the useful load on that specific aircraft.i once flew one that was over gross with just me and full fuel !

 

[ktup-flyer]

On a side note, your 182 is realistically 45K? I have never bought a plane because I thought it would be too expensive, you may have just changed my mind!

$50k is easily enough for a plane. That's at the low end for a 182, but lots of Cherokees out there for that.