210 or 337?

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by jim.nelson, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,718
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    I doubt I’ll ever upgrade to a twin. Last year I went on a XC in a 310 and got all spun up about owning a twin but the reality is, it’s just not in the budget. The twins that I like (601P / P337) would easily push over 40K a year to operate. As much as I’d like to make that work, just ain’t gonna happen.

    I’ll be with the Velocity for some time to come.
     
  2. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,398
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    I think I'd rather have the Velocity, to be honest.
     
  3. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,718
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    I like it. 160 kts and 1,000 nm is nice but I keep saying, it would be so cool to bust into 200 kt territory...and not worry about losing an engine over the mountains. ;)
     
  4. denverpilot

    denverpilot Tied Down

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    51,971
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    I assume new or newish is out of the budget. For your mission if you’re not coming west often or can limit loads to two people plus stuff, the little Tecnam twin sips fuel compared to traditional twins. Not fast though. But if all you’re wanting is a second engine for the lake...
     
  5. rpadula

    rpadula En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,667
    Location:
    Suwanee, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PancakeBunny
    I was thinking the same thing. Saw one recently on YouTube. Looks like a little brother to the Partenavia P68.
     
  6. Kritchlow

    Kritchlow Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,395
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kritchlow
    Never flew either, but have always loved the 337.
     
  7. LDJones

    LDJones Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    10,996
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jonesy
    Since when is that an impediment to expressing an opinion here??!
     
    Todd82, Matthew K, mscard88 and 2 others like this.
  8. Mtns2Skies

    Mtns2Skies Super Moderator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,903
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mtns2Skies
    Cessna 337 vs Cessna 210...

    Why not both?
     
    GRG55, Zeldman and mscard88 like this.
  9. mscard88

    mscard88 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    23,226
    Location:
    Alabama
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
     
  10. denverpilot

    denverpilot Tied Down

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    51,971
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    There’s a group of folks here who bought one and put it on leaseback to a club. No grass is growing under it. It’s flying all the time. Heard it up today.

    I hear it has some performance and load carrying limitations at this altitude especially with only 100 HP Rotax per side, but it looks like it’s holding up pretty well to the beating it’s getting as a multi trainer.
     
  11. Shopshirt

    Shopshirt Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    260
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shopshirt
    I've had a thing for 337's and Twin Commanders since I was a kid. Every once in awhile a think about the P337.

    You know what I think would really make that Tecnam a rockin' little twin would be the diesels from the DA62.
     
  12. GRG55

    GRG55 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,528
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    I am surprised a naturally aspirated 100hp per side twin is attractive at your altitude. But then the single engine service ceiling of many light twins is probably below grade for much of the year at your airport?

    I am at 4000 ft ASL and we had one trainng college here using them. But they replaced them with a pair of Seneca IIs with turbo 360s last year.
     
  13. GRG55

    GRG55 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,528
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    What would make it a rockin' little twin would be turbocharged Rotaxes.
     
  14. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,746
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Display name:
    My hangar neighbor is one of the partners in the Tecnam. Operating cost makes it attractive. As for OEI performance, if a training twin isn't turbo'd it's drifting down around here in the summer. Keep it light and fly early in the day. Lots of folks seem to accept the risk of not getting a restart and that does happen occasionally.
     
  15. GRG55

    GRG55 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,528
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    Given the aging light twin fleet, the Tecnam looks like a really interesting and attractive option for a trainer.
     
  16. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,746
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Display name:
    Fuel burn of a single and they are charging ~250 $/hr. Maybe not laughing all the way to the bank but having a chuckle. Section 179 tax advantage on the purchase and it's cash flowing above op costs.
     
    denverpilot and GRG55 like this.
  17. JustinD

    JustinD Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    700
    Location:
    Port Orange, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JustinD
    I don’t own a 337 but toss me in the like it boat, went for a ride in one once. Just such an iconic look. But I have no good insight to really offer


    Also just want to say a piper matrix/mirage are low wings that don’t require stepping on the wing!
     
  18. schmookeeg

    schmookeeg Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,565
    Location:
    Hipsterdelphia PDX
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mike Brannigan
    You sure it was a T-Bone? I've never seen one with a potty.
     
  19. donjohnston

    donjohnston Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2013
    Messages:
    846
    Location:
    Panama City, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Don
    You just need to step up to an XL-RG. I see 200 enough that it's not surprising (I flight plan for 197).

    If you really want the extra engine, get a V-twin. ;)
     
    Velocity173 likes this.
  20. frfly172

    frfly172 Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    13,976
    Location:
    mass fla
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ron keating
    I like the 337, can be a little noisy ,and burns 25 gph,not that fast. For a light twin it’s operating costs,including maintenance can run high.
     
    edo2000 likes this.
  21. Matthew K

    Matthew K Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Messages:
    734
    Location:
    Georgia
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Broke Engineer
    So I'm just putting it together that you own a velocity:D...got any pics of yours?
     
  22. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,718
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    3EE3758B-AE78-48BB-B380-C9ADCEC5586A.jpeg 87A476B2-8B4E-4798-AB53-F67FAC9015B7.jpeg 22F38954-25D7-46AA-8EAA-A4EF6B632F1B.jpeg
     
    Radar Contact, GRG55 and Matthew K like this.
  23. Dav8or

    Dav8or Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,135
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    I think the one thing that has been skipped over in this thread is the unique advantage the 337 has over other twins with regards to engine out emergencies. The average single engine pilot with say 40-50 hours a year and BFR every two years is far more likely to survive an engine out in a 337 then in something like a Aerostar. I know that if I were willing to take on the care and feeding of a second engine and I were flying over the ocean, or the Great Lakes a lot, the 337 is the only twin I would consider.

    It really is a shame that the FAA won't allow us to decertify planes and have them operate like E/AB. There are a variety of engines that would really improve the 337 IMO. The Lycoming IO-390 and the Continental IO-470 come to mind. I think the 337 is the ideal average Joe Caribbean cruiser and in this role I would not need, or want turbos, or pressurization.
     
  24. Jeff Cutler

    Jeff Cutler Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    152
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jeff
    Other things to consider (as I look at twins):

    1. Single engine at full gross, at blue line when the wheels are sucked up (sea level?) at 250 fpm clime rate or more.
    2. Weather capability, FIKI or at least boots and alki
    3. Non-Turbo, but strong enough engines to get in the low teens (see #2)

    I keep coming back to the Barron E55, for 'affordable' entry twin.
     
  25. KLRDMD

    KLRDMD Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ken Reed
    Get the 337, but get the pressurized version. If you learn to manage the TSIO-360 engines they are fine and live long happy lives. It is a safe, comfortable, quiet and reasonably efficient airplane. Unlike most here, I have actually owned one and may own one again in the future although I have a Baron now.
     
  26. SoonerAviator

    SoonerAviator Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Messages:
    5,216
    Location:
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SoonerAviator
    I’ve never heard anyone call the 337 “quiet”, lol.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  27. KLRDMD

    KLRDMD Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ken Reed
    The pressurized version is very quiet.
     
  28. OkieFlyer

    OkieFlyer En-Route

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,116
    Location:
    Lindsay, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Andrew L.
    I looooooove 210s, but I also really dig the Skymaster. If the wife prefers a twin and it fits the mission, I'd go for the 337.

    I've somewhat seriously considered buying a 337 on two occasions. Neither of them were very good examples and I backed out. I WILL have one someday though. The fuel system on some of them is a bit complicated, the main gear doors can be a PITA, and the retract system can be somewhat troublesome to maintain if your mechanic isn't familiar, but I think they are sweet birds other than that. Seems like a lot of folks like the Uvalde gear door mod that removes the main gear doors altogether, and from what I've heard doesn't really cost you any speed. I think some of the later models had simplified fuel systems, but don't quote me on that. Anywho, I'm no expert on them, so take it for what it's worth. Not much.

    Oh, if I recall correctly, some models have an electric cowl flap motor that is kind of a pain in the arse. I believe there is a mod to remove the motor and just have manual control for simplicity and reliability.

    edit: One of the 337 I looked at had a Robertson STOL kit from the factory. Pretty impressive numbers on that as I recall. Just FYI in case you run across one.
     
  29. Kritchlow

    Kritchlow Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,395
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kritchlow
    I think the 337 is a great airplane for the average GA guy who doesn’t keep up on training as he should (nobody here of course).

    I love the airplane and would love to own one. Wish Cessna still made them.
     
  30. denverpilot

    denverpilot Tied Down

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    51,971
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    The 337 can also bite a non-proficient pilot in the butt in a different way. There were a number of accidents where the rear engine quit and the pilot didn’t seem to be aware of it and the reduced power they had.

    The training always had you lead with the rear engine on power changes, especially takeoff and go around, so you knew if you really had two operable engines.

    I had a bad experience in someone else’s 337 that was poorly maintained once and while it wasn’t an engine issue, it was a gear issue, I don’t think I could ever love that thing after that. That moron tried to kill four of us in multiple ways that day.

    I got to see the inside of an accident chain where the male gear finally popping down and locked about 100’ AGL on final, broke the chain. Since it was in a 337, I won’t say I have an animosity toward them, but call it “neutral” and usually I at least LIKE most airplanes.

    Not really fair to the airplane but that thing had so many bad squawks... at least I learned what a poorly maintained privately owned and operated aircraft does when someone finally decides to go fly it. Gear failed twice, radios didn’t work right, A/C unit was yanked out of the rear with a gaping hole surrounded by insulation and crap (afterward I realized that probably wasn’t done legally) and only time I’ve ever had fire trucks out on the runway for a landing that was very likely to end up sliding down the runway on the nose.

    Yep. It ruined me on 337s. I’d have to know the owner REAL well and trust them to get into one again. Maintenance is high compared to a simple single and lots of people get in over their heads paying for it all. Can happen in any airplane. I just happened to fly with some guy who should’ve sold it and bought something he could afford to maintain. I was young and dumb. Thankfully I survived it.

    Mountains, snowstorm, dead radios, lighting having some issues, night falling, gear failure for the second time on the trip, declared emergency, plan to land with the front engine shut down... total fustercluck of a flight.
     
  31. Tx_Flyboy

    Tx_Flyboy Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    45
    Location:
    Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Localizer

    Ken!

    You are back at owning a Baron...how does it compare to the P337 you owned? how about the Twinco & the seneca III?

    also, why did you move away from the lancair and back to a piston twin?
     
  32. SoonerAviator

    SoonerAviator Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Messages:
    5,216
    Location:
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SoonerAviator
    I figured that's what you were referring to. The non-P's are usually described as a bit deafening due to being positioned in the middle of a Continental sandwich.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
  33. KLRDMD

    KLRDMD Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ken Reed
    I didn't like the Lancair at all, sold it pretty quickly. Just never was comfortable in that airplane. Each of the twins was good in it's own right and was the right airplane for me at the time. The Seneca III was my first twin and I had a partner. He lost his job and I wasn't sure I wanted to own a twin outright so I sold it. It was a good airplane though. The Twin Comanche was very efficient for a twin and served me well. I really needed to upgrade to a better autopilot to use it seriously and the price to do that was 50% of the hull value of the airplane so not worth it. Right now I have a lower time, non-equity partner and he couldn't reasonably get insured in a pressurized twin so a P337 was out (and P-Baron and 340 I was looking at) but insurance on a Baron, 310 or Seneca was reasonable and I was looking at all three. The right Baron came along before the right Seneca or 310 did.
     
  34. Dav8or

    Dav8or Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,135
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    Question for you- My wife and I are planning to retire in about 8 years from now and when we do the plan is to spend the majority of the year in Florida. I have dreamed about exploring the Caribbean and the non pressurized 337 seems ideal for a guy like me with no traditional twin experience. I would only be flying with either myself, or my wife and I. Likely the back seats would never be used for people.

    I would skip the pressurization and turbo engines just to make the purchase cheaper and also maintenance and annuals cheaper. It would seem that just operating at sea level all the time, the turbos and pressurization really isn't needed. Is this foolish thinking? Is the standard 337 really terrible in comparison?
     
  35. KLRDMD

    KLRDMD Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ken Reed
    Personally, I wouldn't buy a 337 that isn't pressurized. I would recommend a Twin Comanche for that mission, maybe a Travel Air or if you can find one, a Geronimo conversion Apache.
     
  36. SoonerAviator

    SoonerAviator Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Messages:
    5,216
    Location:
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SoonerAviator
    Sounds like a Lake Amphibian or Twotter would be ideal if you're spending that much time exploring the Caribbean. :)
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  37. Dav8or

    Dav8or Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,135
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    Why? Just because it is quieter, or is the only reason you would buy a 337 in the first place is just because it is an affordable pressurized twin? Do you not put any value on the centerline thrust design? I have zero multi engine time and I really don't fly all that much. Maybe 40-50 hours a year. I think if I were to buy a traditional twin, I would likely end up in the NTSB reports like so many with twins do. I have not studied the problems relating to centerline thrust twins and engine outs very thoroughly, but on the surface they appear to be a better choice for someone like me. Perhaps not...
     
  38. Dav8or

    Dav8or Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,135
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    I'm not sure how sea worthy Lake amphibians are, that's why Lake is in the name and not ocean. From what I can see traveling in the Caribbean, high wings on floats are king if you want to land on the ocean. As for the Twotter... I can't afford it and it too is a handful with a sudden engine out. I have considered the Leza Aircam on floats though as a fun Florida plane, but I don't think it's much of an international traveller.
     
  39. jim.nelson

    jim.nelson Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Egg Harbor, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim
    I truly appreciate all the comments and advice. The centerline thrust is not as big a factor as fitting in the hangar and ease of passenger entry. A 310 (etc.) would fit the mission except for the difficulty of entry for the mobility challenged. A 340 or 400-series to get an airstair is too much aircraft and expense. The 337 seems to be the only option after all other twins are excluded. The P vs. non-P is a good question. I'm tending toward P337 for the fatigue reduction and comfort. More expense but I think it's worth it.
     
  40. jim.nelson

    jim.nelson Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Egg Harbor, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim
    I agree, and that's a valid concern. While an engine-out on takeoff in a conventional multi-engine aircraft is no big deal for someone who flies a lot and is at the top of their game, I don't fly for a living. Hesitation at the worst possible time would make for a very bad day. Way better pilots than I am have done just that. Centerline thrust does have its issues, but you're less likely to find yourself upside down on takeoff.