Any skymaster fans here??

Kritchlow

Kritchlow

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
7,729
Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Title speaks for itself. I LOVE that airplane, but truly not sure why.
 
Last edited:
Re: Any spymaster fans here??

Holy crap... Spymaster???? Damn spell check. Obviously it's Skymaster.
 
I was seriously looking at one. My needs and circumstances were complicated, however. So, I went another direction for practical purposes but not for any distaste for the Skymaster.

I know that many dislike the plane for varied reasons. Nevertheless, slightly different circumstances would have made the plane a good choice for me.

I'm still a fan (and therefore perhaps also an outcast).
 
billz.gif
 
No need to fantasize about it, you can live the skymaster dream right now. Just put a metal trash can over your head and get your kids to beat on 2 sides with broom handles. When you need a break, get them to stop banging and give them some $100 bills to burn. Then repeat.

Just remember, aviation is a small community. There are no undiscovered gems, no bargains. The market is very efficient at assigning value. You can't hardly give away a skymaster, there are reasons for that.
 
There's two of them on my home field. I was talking to my mechanic about them and he told me he a bit of a specialist with them. I followed him over to a close by airport (KPWA) where he was finishing up a 2 year refurbishment project.

The plane was pretty sharp, I got to climb all around it and he gave me the rundown and history of the planes. There were 2 completed planes there and one of them had the surveillance equipment racks and gun/missile pods attached. I'm guessing it's for airshows and what not.

The rest of the hangar and adjacent hangar were full of fuselages and parts. New parts that were purchased from the Air Force when they decommissioned them. So most likely if you need a part you go to that guy. He said it takes about 1500-2000 hours to refirbish one, they have about 15 fuselages all stacked up so I'm guessing if he wanted to he could spend the rest of his life redoing them and still not be done.

Anyhow, cool thing to see.
 
The owner of VKX has one. I've never seen him fly it, but I did see him test fire it once a few months ago. I can't imagine they are economical for 99% of GA flyers.
 
I've seen more of them rotting on ramps or pushed aside than flying examples, probably a reason, that said I'd love to take one for a spin.
 
I think they're cool. I've wondered too, do you need an MEL to fly one? It does have two engines, obviously, but very different from a conventional twin. And when you're flying one, it logs as a twin I imagine. Is the front engine the critical engine? Any idea how they fly on the pusher alone?

Mere curiosity, as I'm not inclined to buy one. I'd bet the mx is a killer on them?
 
They do require a MEL to fly but if you get your rating in one it think you are limited to centerline thrust only.
 
ettsn said:
I think they're cool. I've wondered too, do you need an MEL to fly one? It does have two engines, obviously, but very different from a conventional twin. And when you're flying one, it logs as a twin I imagine. Is the front engine the critical engine? Any idea how they fly on the pusher alone?

Mere curiosity, as I'm not inclined to buy one. I'd bet the mx is a killer on them?
Click to expand...

I asked similar questions. If I remember right he said it's not advisable but it will fly/takeoff with a single engine. He also said maintenance is on par with other older twins... whatever that means.
 
I purchased a Skymaster after losing an engine in a single and landing off field...decided I didn't want to try that again. It is a great plane though expensive to fly and maintain. Still, the acquisition cost offsets the maintenance costs somewhat compared to other twins. One concern is the looming possibility of a wing spar AD similar to the 400 series which would cost as much to comply as to purchase one. If that was not an issue, I would buy one in a heartbeat. Easy to fly, forgiving, and neat looking. Also, they have a decent payload and range. You can get pressurized, Riley conversions for great prices but insurance will be a bit more. Advantage is speed and comfort (much quieter). Look for a well maintained 337 or they will quickly break your bank. Still, overall a great and safe twin!!
 
JHW said:
Just remember, aviation is a small community. There are no undiscovered gems, no bargains. The market is very efficient at assigning value. You can't hardly give away a skymaster, there are reasons for that.
Click to expand...

This is true, but can be said equally for almost all piston twins these days. If it's not a Baron, Twin Comanche, or Seneca, good luck with the sale! And if it is one of these more desirable twins, it will be priced at or below their single engine siblings.

Oh yeah, Seminoles, Dutchesses and DA-42s are still of value for only because of flight schools and the DA-42 just because it's "new". The Jury is still way, way out on the P2006T.

Basically the way I see it, the 336/337 suffers pretty much all the same headaches and performance woes as most of the small engine twins. Apparently, once you put proper size engines on it, it performs great and people have come up with a number of STCs to address much of it's factory short comings.

The stock 337 is not efficient, and it's never lived up to the hoped safety advantage it's designers envisioned, but it does offer an awesome view of the ground that most twins can't match and it is pretty neat looking. I still believe that the average 40-50 hour a year private pilot is better off in a 337 than a traditional twin from a safety point of view.

To me it seems like a nearly ideal Caribbean island hopper for the private pilot.
 
Art VanDelay said:
+1000 !!!!!
I'm a fan of them too , so long as someone else is footing the Mx bills !
Click to expand...

I've owned 2, a '66 "A" model and a '74 "G" model. Both were normally aspirated.

I would average 160-165 knots TAS with a fuel burn of 20gph. As far as maintenance, next to my 310Q probably the most maintenance friendly airplanes I've owned (I'm an A&P/IA, doing my own maintenance)

Both of mine I redid the interiors and used the dense insulation which cut the noise considerably. I could take off my headset and hold a normal conversation with my passengers.

It's a 4 place airplane with adequate luggage area. If you need more there is a belly pod.

I've flown the turbo and pressurized models, a bit more maintenance but good airplanes.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've owned 2, a '66 "A" model and a '74 "G" model. Both were normally aspirated.

I would average 160-165 knots TAS with a fuel burn of 20gph. As far as maintenance, next to my 310Q probably the most maintenance friendly airplanes I've owned (I'm an A&P/IA, doing my own maintenance)

Both of mine I redid the interiors and used the dense insulation which cut the noise considerably. I could take off my headset and hold a normal conversation with my passengers.

It's a 4 place airplane with adequate luggage area. If you need more there is a belly pod.

I've flown the turbo and pressurized models, a bit more maintenance but good airplanes.
Click to expand...

I have 0.6 hours in one back in 1997. I liked the airplane, they've always seemed neat to me. Very different than what you typically see on most ramps.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
billz.gif
Click to expand...
Lol

JHW said:
No need to fantasize about it, you can live the skymaster dream right now. Just put a metal trash can over your head and get your kids to beat on 2 sides with broom handles. When you need a break, get them to stop banging and give them some $100 bills to burn. Then repeat.

Just remember, aviation is a small community. There are no undiscovered gems, no bargains. The market is very efficient at assigning value. You can't hardly give away a skymaster, there are reasons for that.
Click to expand...
The Cirrus has a louder cabin than the 337. I'm not sure what you flew but it must have sucked.

OkieAviator said:
There's two of them on my home field. I was talking to my mechanic about them and he told me he a bit of a specialist with them. I followed him over to a close by airport (KPWA) where he was finishing up a 2 year refurbishment project.

The plane was pretty sharp, I got to climb all around it and he gave me the rundown and history of the planes. There were 2 completed planes there and one of them had the surveillance equipment racks and gun/missile pods attached. I'm guessing it's for airshows and what not.

The rest of the hangar and adjacent hangar were full of fuselages and parts. New parts that were purchased from the Air Force when they decommissioned them. So most likely if you need a part you go to that guy. He said it takes about 1500-2000 hours to refirbish one, they have about 15 fuselages all stacked up so I'm guessing if he wanted to he could spend the rest of his life redoing them and still not be done.

Anyhow, cool thing to see.
Click to expand...
I believe you spoke with Dan. Nice guy and extremely knowledgeable.

ettsn said:
I think they're cool. I've wondered too, do you need an MEL to fly one? It does have two engines, obviously, but very different from a conventional twin. And when you're flying one, it logs as a twin I imagine. Is the front engine the critical engine? Any idea how they fly on the pusher alone?

Mere curiosity, as I'm not inclined to buy one. I'd bet the mx is a killer on them?
Click to expand...
Yes, you need an ME rating. The Centerline Thrust limitation is no longer issued so you will need to grab it in a conventional twin.
bburnett said:
They do require a MEL to fly but if you get your rating in one it think you are limited to centerline thrust only.
Click to expand...
Can't get your ME rating in one anymore.

I really enjoyed the airplane but only got about 40 hours in type. 165TAS @ 20gph was typical. It's was a great 4 person+bags kind of plane.
 
Last edited:
Love the sky master,nice airplane as long as you keep up on the mx. A little loud inside the cabin.
 
Last edited:
BTDT......

N1ZM.... 33 years ago... Was not too expensive to run and did GREAT aileron rolls.... ;);).....:D...

Got it in a repo.....:):)
 
Love 'em.

Heard a lot of negative about 'em, but not from people that have owned 'em.
 
Neal Howard said:
It handles just like a 182RG.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, but with a faster climb speed and climb rate, faster cruise and it goes a lot further when you lose an engine . . .

I just bought a pressurized one last week. 10 hours in it so far and it is a great, very comfortable, reasonably fast and efficient twin.

Turbocharged
Pressurized
Intercooled
Air Conditioned

P337

And it is not a small airplane, I'm 5'10".
 
KLRDMD said:
Pretty much, but with a faster climb speed and climb rate, faster cruise and it goes a lot further when you lose an engine . . .

I just bought a pressurized one last week. 10 hours in it so far and it is a great, very comfortable, reasonably fast and efficient twin.

Turbocharged
Pressurized
Intercooled
Air Conditioned

P337

And it is not a small airplane, I'm 5'10".
Click to expand...

Good luck.
 
KLRDMD said:
Pretty much, but with a faster climb speed and climb rate, faster cruise and it goes a lot further when you lose an engine . . .

I just bought a pressurized one last week. 10 hours in it so far and it is a great, very comfortable, reasonably fast and efficient twin.

Turbocharged
Pressurized
Intercooled
Air Conditioned

P337

And it is not a small airplane, I'm 5'10".
Click to expand...

Congratulations! Very cool. What is the ceiling on one of those?
 
RudyP said:
Congratulations! Very cool. What is the ceiling on one of those?
Click to expand...

Limited by certification standards to 20,000 ft in the pressurized model. It will maintain 18,700 ft (and full pressurization) on one engine at gross weight.

The 1967 T337 had a service ceiling of 33,000 feet :yikes:
 
KLRDMD said:
Limited by certification standards to 20,000 ft in the pressurized model. It will maintain 18,700 ft (and full pressurization) on one engine at gross weight.

The 1967 T337 had a service ceiling of 33,000 feet :yikes:
Click to expand...
That's pretty impressive...

And your plane looks great!
 
Non owner heresay, but I heard lose either engine on climbout, you're going down. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top