Cessna 337 Ownership

jonnyjetprop

jonnyjetprop

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
1,076
Location
Apopka, FL
Display Name
Display name:
John
A friend is thinking of buying a Cessna 337. I'd love to hear from current owners about your ownership experience. Yes, I'm a member of CPA and I just signed up on www.337skymaster.com

What kinds for problems are you guys having with maintenance? I'm also looking for a shop in New England to do a pre buy. Who are the top guys for maintenance?

Thanks in advance.

John
 
if you want a preview, put a metal trash can over your head and have your kids beat on both sides with broom handles. Then take a break to burn a fistful of $100 bills, take a file and gouge some skin off your hands and arms. Grab the trash can and repeat as necessary until you feel like coming back to ask about a twin comanche, travel air, baron, 310, darn near anything else.
 
I thought I might be interested when they were first introduced, but fortunately a hangar neighbor who was part of our "Mike-Row MX team" bought one first.

I made one trip with him because we both needed to go to some town in Iowa at the same time. I volunteered to pay for the fuel, thinking the trip times would be substantially lower than for my T210. Wrong. $$$$
 
jonnyjetprop said:
A friend is thinking of buying a Cessna 337. I'd love to hear from current owners about your ownership experience. Yes, I'm a member of CPA and I just signed up on www.337skymaster.com

What kinds for problems are you guys having with maintenance? I'm also looking for a shop in New England to do a pre buy. Who are the top guys for maintenance?

Thanks in advance.

John
Click to expand...

Wrong forum to ask about this. Be prepared for rehashed OWT and "expert advise" from people that never owned or even flew in one. Standby for "myths" and downright lies.

I've had 2, a 1966 "A" model and a 1974 "G" model. Go over to the 337 forum for a realistic conversation on the airplane.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Wrong forum to ask about this. Be prepared for rehashed OWT and "expert advise" from people that never owned or even flew in one. Standby for "myths" and downright lies.

I've had 2, a 1966 "A" model and a 1974 "G" model. Go over to the 337 forum for a realistic conversation on the airplane.
Click to expand...

Well, I saw the pressurized one they used for fire patrol at my airport in the shop more than in the air when it was supposed to be in the air. They had cooling issues with it, put the scoop on, cylinder issues and were always fiddling with the A/C (Government guys wouldn't ride unless they A/C worked).
 
RotorAndWing said:
Wrong forum to ask about this. Be prepared for rehashed OWT and "expert advise" from people that never owned or even flew in one. Standby for "myths" and downright lies.

I've had 2, a 1966 "A" model and a 1974 "G" model. Go over to the 337 forum for a realistic conversation on the airplane.
Click to expand...

Oh, type specific forum conversations rarely give realistic discussions.

I asked the same question about Bonanza vs Comanche on both forums.... wildy different answers.
 
bartmc said:
Well, I saw the pressurized one they used for fire patrol at my airport in the shop more than in the air when it was supposed to be in the air. They had cooling issues with it, put the scoop on, cylinder issues and were always fiddling with the A/C (Government guys wouldn't ride unless they A/C worked).
Click to expand...

Any airplane can be problematic if not adequately maintained. I've seen more than my share of junk Bonanzas and Barons so should I assume that all Bonanzas and Barons are junk?
 
I used to take care of a guys T337G and, as a mechanic, I didn't think it was anything out of the ordinary. Certainly no worse than something like a 320. I never dealt with them but there are a couple of wing AD's that affect airplanes that have had certain STC's installed and there is a repetitive eddy current inspection on the spars of certain serial numbers so you might want to check that stuff out.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Any airplane can be problematic if not adequately maintained. I've seen more than my share of junk Bonanzas and Barons so should I assume that all Bonanzas and Barons are junk?
Click to expand...

Adequately maintained is an understatement. It required round the clock care.

Out of all the shops on earth, they would be my number one pick to wrench on my aircraft.

Now if you think a ham fisted pilot and/or the mission it was used for is to blame. We might find some common ground. But considering the the Fleet of 182s, 172s, 150s, T182s, 182RGs, 210s and a King Air had the same mechanic and none of the issues, I'd disagree with your assumption of the MX department.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
Wrong forum to ask about this. Be prepared for rehashed OWT and "expert advise" from people that never owned or even flew in one. Standby for "myths" and downright lies.

I've had 2, a 1966 "A" model and a 1974 "G" model. Go over to the 337 forum for a realistic conversation on the airplane.
Click to expand...
au contraire. first solo was in one. Flew pipeline inspection in one for seemingly endless hours, weeks, months. It is the biggest POS I have ever flown or ridden in.
 
I was heavily interested in buying one before I got my Commander, so researched the models a lot. I also joined the Skymaster Forum and got a lot of good advice there. You should def ask questions over at that forum.

Great airplanes that got a bit misunderstood. And because pilots are a conservative bunch, people assumed the funny looks made it a bad aircraft.
But the truth is it's a rugged little thing, safer when operated correctly and with bush qualities few other twins can match. There aren't that many twins you can take into grass and gravel fields, but the 337 is one. Speaking of that, gravel spray from the main LG does tend to nick the rear prop.

Bad things:

1. IO-360 is not the best engine. Manageable, but not as solid as other Lycomings.

2. No baggage compartment unless you install the belly pod. Normally people remove on or two seats to make room for it in cabin.

3. Rear seats are a little cramped. It's really a comfortable 4 place tourer.

4. Rear engine suffered from overheating in the early models and the rear cowl flap actuator is a notorious culprit. Many just wire them open all the time.

5. Some uncertainty about the upcoming Cessna wing spar inspection SID's. For part 91 it's not a problem yet, but is/will be for part 135.

6. Noisy. Both inside and outside.

Good things:

1. Great short field performers.

2. Safe.

3. Cheap to buy.

4. Relatively cheap to maintain.

5. Great visibility.

6. Small footprint and will fit in smaller hangars.

The Cessna gear retraction got a lot of shtick from people, but the fact is that it won't give you more trouble than anything else if maintained correctly. This was the consensus from most owners.

I forget which model - I think the G and F - the turbocharged ones have a ceiling of 30000ft and are great performers. The pressurised P337 is also a nice traveller. It doesn't fly as high (ceiling 20000ft), and is a little heavier, but has great speed up high. Plus it's the cheapest pressurised twin you can buy and once you've tried pressurisation there's no going back. Makes for a much quieter and relaxing ride.

Again, there aren't many twins that can cruise at decent speed with a fuel burn of 20gals/total, so cheap to run.

As a side, there are STC aux tank modifications and drop tanks for the 337 that take the fuel capacity to ridiculous levels. If you're hell bent on traveling far non stop, this mods can make your 337 manage trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic flying if you are so inclined.
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
au contraire. first solo was in one. Flew pipeline inspection in one for seemingly endless hours, weeks, months. It is the biggest POS I have ever flown or ridden in.
Click to expand...

Can we discuss the POS Travel Airs as well? :rolleyes2:

At least the 337 will fly on one engine, unlike the underpowered Bonanza with the extra engine........:rofl::rofl:


Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how someone can mention an airplane type and then watch those come out foaming at the mouth with keyboard tourette's syndrome. :dunno:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Can we discuss the POS Travel Airs as well? :rolleyes2:

At least the 337 will fly on one engine, unlike the underpowered Bonanza with the extra engine........:rofl::rofl:


Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how someone can mention an airplane type and then watch those come out foaming at the mouth with keyboard tourette's syndrome. :dunno:
Click to expand...
actually the travel air flies quite well up to 6K on either engine. The 337 will as well, but only on the rear. The front engine is only there to make additional noise.

There are no bargains in general aviation, the market is remarkably efficient at assigning value. And you can't give away a 337.

to the other "expert" poster, the reason the io-360 isn't as reliable as "other lycomings" is because it's a continental:rolleyes:
 
stratobee said:
Bad things:

1. IO-360 is not the best engine. Manageable, but not as solid as other Lycomings.

2. No baggage compartment unless you install the belly pod. Normally people remove on or two seats to make room for it in cabin.

3. Rear seats are a little cramped. It's really a comfortable 4 place tourer.

4. Rear engine suffered from overheating in the early models and the rear cowl flap actuator is a notorious culprit. Many just wire them open all the time.

5. Some uncertainty about the upcoming Cessna wing spar inspection SID's. For part 91 it's not a problem yet, but is/will be for part 135.

6. Noisy. Both inside and outside.
Click to expand...

1. The TCM IO-360 is a very reliable engine, the key is maintenance.

2. Depends. If you want a 6 seater with very cramp back seats then no baggage. Most people operate them as 4 seaters and the baggage is adequate

3. Agree.

4. The rear engine overheating issue was on the 336, not the 337. The 337 has an entirely different cowl arrangement. Again, cowl flap actuators are not a problem if maintained properly.

5. Yes.

6. No noisier than other airplanes. Both of mine I removed the interior and put in super sound proofing insulation. In cruise you could remove your headsets and talk in a normal voice. In comparison I briefly owned a Cessna 210 that I didn't do the interior, it was deafening to fly even with headsets.

stratobee said:
Good things:

1. Great short field performers.

2. Safe.

3. Cheap to buy.

4. Relatively cheap to maintain.

5. Great visibility.

6. Small footprint and will fit in smaller hangars.

The Cessna gear retraction got a lot of shtick from people, but the fact is that it won't give you more trouble than anything else if maintained correctly. This was the consensus from most owners.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
RotorAndWing said:
1. The TCM IO-360 is a very reliable engine, the key is maintenance.
Click to expand...


Please... I've seen an O-320 flying for 30 years without a wrench on it other than oil changes, besides the oil leaks, slight vibration, induction leaks, poor fuel/air distribution, IT RUNS FINE. :lol: obviously the Cont IO360 is a lemon :rolleyes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
No, Travel Airs are POS death traps!! :rofl:
Click to expand...

The problem I have with that statement is...

A) it does fly nice, feels very stable, and can shoot instrument approaches like a 737 from what I have experienced

and

B) what is the basis for your argument besides a simple statement...explain death traps
 
CaptLabrador said:
The problem I have with that statement is...

A) it does fly nice, feels very stable, and can shoot instrument approaches like a 737 from what I have experienced

and

B) what is the basis for your argument besides a simple statement...explain death traps
Click to expand...

Underpowered, maintenance nightmares, noisy and too many vibrations, over priced parts, non standard cockpits, combustion heaters, etc........:rolleyes:
 
I've been out of the 337 loop for a long time. It's really like any other aircraft, there will be a lot them that are way behind. Finding an expert on the aircraft will help a lot in selecting a good ship. I didn't mind working on them.

Maybe you should recommend that he get a Malibu then see how bad it gets trashed here.
 
kmead said:
I've been out of the 337 loop for a long time. It's really like any other aircraft, there will be a lot them that are way behind. Finding an expert on the aircraft will help a lot in selecting a good ship. I didn't mind working on them.

Maybe you should recommend that he get a Malibu then see how bad it gets trashed here.
Click to expand...

The bu is probably a good comparison, it is a bit of an oddball too.

Personally I like 337s and if I can ever afford to have a twin I would love to find one in need of some TLC to play with.

Do recommend against getting the initial multi rating in one though, seems a centerline limitation would be a bugger.
 
Skylane81E said:
I like 337s and if I can ever afford to have a twin I would love to find one in need of some TLC to play with.
:thumbsup:

That makes two. My biggest beef is I really would need a lot of help on the rear engine. Climbing up and down ladders over and over and standing for long periods is not my bag.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bnt83 said:
Skylane81E said:
I like 337s and if I can ever afford to have a twin I would love to find one in need of some TLC to play with.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup:

That makes two. My biggest beef is I really would need a lot of help on the rear engine. Climbing up and down ladders over and over and standing for long periods is not my bag.
Click to expand...

Too bad you are so far away, we could split one, you can have the front engine I'll take the rear!
 
yep it's a fine plane if you are lusting after something with all the room of a twin comanche but that is slower, uses more fuel and needs more maintanence.

to summarize the above tit-for-tit:

337 fan: people who criticise them have never even seen one

me: actually i learned to fly in one, flew them hundreds of hours and maintained several of them for several years

337 fan: yeah, well, beechcrafts are junk, so take that
 
Skylane81E said:
Too bad you are so far away, we could split one, you can have the front engine I'll take the rear!
Click to expand...

Oy. Someday when I win.... Well anything really.

Isn't that how the first twin rating was issued? Two single engine pilots spit the work teaching themselves?

Ok so that wasn't funny.
 
bnt83 said:
Oy. Someday when I win.... Well anything really.

Isn't that how the first twin rating was issued? Two single engine pilots spit the work teaching themselves?

Ok so that wasn't funny.
Click to expand...

Someday when SWIMBO has a steady job...

I could afford the buy in right now, but storage, and fuel, and insurance, and parts...

Oh and I have no multi privileges so add training to the list:rofl:

It may well happen someday, but not anytime soon!
 
In my case, its probably the only twin I could fly safely...

 
Fly from the right? or would it make a difference?
 
VanDy said:
Fly from the right? or would it make a difference?
Click to expand...

Might help, but I imagine that from his past statements about difficulty putting large amounts of pressure on his legs that working the rudders OEI would be painful.
 
Skylane81E said:
Might help, but I imagine that from his past statements about difficulty putting large amounts of pressure on his legs that working the rudders OEI would be painful.
Click to expand...


I see. Thanks
 
VanDy said:
I see. Thanks
Click to expand...


Having never actually performed OEI ops in a convential twin I can't say for sure but covering the throttles with my left while trying to flare on landing with the hook won't work.
 
bnt83 said:
Having never actually performed OEI ops in a convential twin I can't say for sure but covering the throttles with my left while trying to flare on landing with the hook won't work.
Click to expand...

Worked quite well for a guy I used to know who is in the same boat as you. Feds demanded a check ride. He performed well and was never asked to do another.

Never say 'can't'.
 
So R&W,

Can you share some realworld numbers for say fuel burn, speed, and UL?
 
Cessna 337 is probably the most controversial airframe in GA. Do not listen to non-owners.

It's a great airframe. It flies beautifully. Takeoffs are deafening, but pull the props back in cruise and it's as quiet as any other light twin with direct drive engines. Visibility is unmatched. STOL performance is unreal. Useful load can be limiting depending on a particular airframe, but it is impossible to load it out of CG.

25 gph will get you 190 KTAS above 17,000 ft in a P-Skymaster. Pull everything back to max cruise and it does 130 KTAS at 15 gph. Also, P-Skymaster will comfortably land and take off from ANY airfield in high country Colorado with lots of runway to spare even in a heat of the summer. Try that in most of the other light twins :) Especially in Glenwood Springs...

Shutting down one engine in a 337 is a non-event. P-versions can climb on one (either one) at 16,000. Mine does.

Engine bays are tightly packed, but not enough to add much to the maitenance.

If you choose to get the pressurized version, it will spoil you rotten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top