Cessna 337

The ones here today with hard points might come in handy. ;)

Otherwise, no thanks. Had my fill of 337 the time the nosegear wouldn't go green. Twice.
 
Man guys it seems like my threads routinely start up some good discussions which is great. :) After all this talk I've learned quite a bit about this aircraft and the what seems are the pluses and minuses. So far I've learned the noise his horrifically loud and that the push/pull configuration offers no further issues with stability then your standard twin. I've learned the military loved using them for awhile along with many fire agencies but dropped them in favor of better aircraft. I also learned the nose gear is undependable and that the market slowly closed on this type of aircraft. Excellent discussion!!!
 
The market didn't slowly close on the airplane; they're still in use today, still popular. The military didn't lose the use for them; they're still in support of military operations today in various locations, including on behalf of the United States.

The 02 is a vietnam-era airframe, though it's seen a lot of use in subsequent conflicts too.

It's really not that loud inside.
 
bbchien said:
Well, I can tell you I've flown two of them. And my head hurt both times.....I did not have my ANRs with me. In fact, it was about 20 years before ANRs became available.....I saw no reason to go back to one.

If you deny that they are NOISY mothers, I'll know YOU'RE not objective, too.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that...Bose ANR headsets were the 1st mod...and they work great! I flew it with regular David Clarks initially but the Bose make all the difference in the world.
 
denverpilot said:
The ones here today with hard points might come in handy. ;)

Otherwise, no thanks. Had my fill of 337 the time the nosegear wouldn't go green. Twice.
Click to expand...


It's just like the 210, you just have to stay up on the maintenance...I just have one green light for all three gear indications. What model was it and did you pump it down?
 
Last edited:
Try one and see if you like it. If it meets your expectations, it could serve you well. None of the twins are perfect.

LJS1993 said:
Man guys it seems like my threads routinely start up some good discussions which is great. :) After all this talk I've learned quite a bit about this aircraft and the what seems are the pluses and minuses. So far I've learned the noise his horrifically loud and that the push/pull configuration offers no further issues with stability then your standard twin. I've learned the military loved using them for awhile along with many fire agencies but dropped them in favor of better aircraft. I also learned the nose gear is undependable and that the market slowly closed on this type of aircraft. Excellent discussion!!!
Click to expand...
 
Red Air Rambo said:
IMHO...Usually the people that are the biggest rock throwers at the 337 have neither flown or owned one.:confused:
Click to expand...

Actually I think it's the mechanics who bled on the back engine that cuss the loudest. We had a T-337 on the ramp that I occasionally had to work on that was hatefully full of sharp edges.
 
I don't think I ever bled on that back engine. I had one quit, but never bled on it, though I did work on them. I thought it had good access, as everything is wide open back there, when the cowl comes off. Easy stuff.
 
There is also the STCed firewall hatch too. That would really open up the back engine
 
I'd just make sure it had the RIGHT crankshafts...
 
denverpilot said:
On the air conditioned models wasn't there a huge pile of stuff mounted on the aft bulkhead ahead of the rear engine?
Click to expand...

I don't know about the factory air conditioning,...but the Riley conversion does have a box with two outlets mounted from the roof...does'nt bother me...5th passenger headroom is not affected...seems to work well.
 

Attachments

  • rileyair.jpg
    rileyair.jpg
    3.1 KB · Views: 41
It also has a bottle to collect the water from the humidity...it releases on landing...line guy's go "your plane is leaking" I say.."it's just marking it's spot".:idea:
 
I am trying to decide between a supper low time 1969 T337D, 1974 P337G or a Cherokee 6-300. We live in Santa Barbara and will be flying to Oregon, Texas, pretty much all of the west lots of shorter trips, some mountain, some short field. Maybe even the east coast if realistic. 50% of the time just me solo and 50% with wife, 2 kids gear and 1 German shepherd. Any advice to help me with the decision would be greatl appreciated.
 
JCC said:
I am trying to decide between a supper low time 1969 T337D, 1974 P337G or a Cherokee 6-300. We live in Santa Barbara and will be flying to Oregon, Texas, pretty much all of the west lots of shorter trips, some mountain, some short field. Maybe even the east coast if realistic. 50% of the time just me solo and 50% with wife, 2 kids gear and 1 German shepherd. Any advice to help me with the decision would be greatl appreciated.
Click to expand...
The pressurized version of the 337 would be my choice.
 
JCC said:
I am trying to decide between a supper low time 1969 T337D, 1974 P337G or a Cherokee 6-300. We live in Santa Barbara and will be flying to Oregon, Texas, pretty much all of the west lots of shorter trips, some mountain, some short field. Maybe even the east coast if realistic. 50% of the time just me solo and 50% with wife, 2 kids gear and 1 German shepherd. Any advice to help me with the decision would be greatl appreciated.
Click to expand...
Without knowing your operating cost limitations, I think a 337 sounds great for what you want to do, it's an incredibly versatile aircraft.
 
Cool plane the 337, flying enigma and all - being named after the FAA alteration form.

I've looked into both, and if I was a GSD with a loving family, I'd sure appreciate being in the -6. I'd get plenty of room to run around.
 
Sorry about the odd posting style. I just joined and need to learn my way around the site.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
Click to expand...
We need higher standards of training for new members. Before being allowed to post solo, they should receive dual instruction in such areas as "POA code words", "secret handshakes", "inside jokes", "hanger vs. hangar", "elementary, intermediate and advanced Grumman bashing" and "techniques of posting while under the influence".

o_O
 
Perhaps the decoder ring got lost in the mail

I have not flown a 337 and there don’t apear to be any in my neck of the woods to go have a look see. Theoretically, the space, useful load and safety of the 2 solo capable engines sound good but? The online reviews are rather limited compared to other options, most seem to love them or hate them. Every time I cross them off my list I end up putting them back on again. I really just want a safe, comfortable, economical solution to do business trips and family adventures.
 
337 is a twin, so more expensive to fly/maintain, but 'safer'..
Also has better G forces, so aerobatics are a possbility.
I have read that they are really loud at times.
Cooler looking IMO
More fun to fly, I'd guess.
Wondering if possible issue finding odd '337 only' parts? If so, plane could be down for extended periods.

6-300 should be cheaper to maintain, quieter, etc., (I'm assuming)

If money and loudness were not issues, I'd get the 337.

You mention mountain destinations in your post. I'm guessing you've checked into a 182. They sound like they check most of your boxes....other than the German Shepherd having it's own chair ;)
 
Last edited:
The cabin volume story got its start with the original O-2, where the military stripped it down. The civilian ones are better, especially the later versions. Two good ways to decrease the cabin volume are thicker windshields and three bladed props. Friend of mine has an early turbo 337 with those two additions and it’s a very reasonable noise level inside, good enough to not really need headsets.

Plenty of parts out there. Like all twins, value is down, so some owners will sell a TBO plane to the scrappers. Those planes can provide a good parts inventory. Commodore Aerospace has enough spare parts on hand to piece together a bunch of airframes if needed, so that really isn’t much of a concern. A mechanic familiar with the high wing retract Cessna singles shouldn’t have much issue with these planes. Like any airframe, how well the previous owner kept up on maintenance will determine if a particular 337 is a gem or a chunk of coal.
 
How about the Stolifter?
DJYBV2_XUAEwsnp.jpg
 
ateamer said:
What does this mean? “Better G forces”?
Click to expand...


Flight Load Factors
Flaps Up: +3.8g, -1.52g Flaps Down: +2.0g (I believe actual numbers)
which I'm glad you inquired, as it prompted me to look it up...and it falls in the normal, not acrobatic category. I was watching a documentary some time ago (don't remember where), and they were performing some pretty swift maneuvers in the 337. To the point I thought it was aerobatic capable, like a war plane so to speak.
Still somewhat better than 6-300 on the negative rating though I believe...but not in a sense that it would dictate much more safety.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_factor_(aeronautics)
 
Last edited:
I always thought these would be cool with a PT6 on the back and no front engine, and a canard on the front
 
I read somewhere the operating costs are high, but two io-360s shouldn’t be that bad, so what’s the deal there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top