Cessna Skymaster - good? bad? why or why not?

That's a sweet looking sky master! I only flew one once and it was pretty nice! I love the way they look. Just one of those iconic GA planes in my opinion
 
Noisy cabin ,not enough speed for the fuel burn,but I love them.
 
Catalo said:
That's the bad thing about teaching for a part 141 university. Students don't have to do anything. Line service does it. There is always full fuel and with just two people its never an issue. With dispatch you dont get to have the students make a go or no-go decision because they won't dispatch the plane.
Click to expand...

And we wonder why we have some of the performance, W&B and fueling related crashes we do.

But that's the "new" way to teach, no pilot left behind :confused:
 
James331 said:
And we wonder why we have some of the performance, W&B and fueling related crashes we do.

But that's the "new" way to teach, no pilot left behind :confused:
Click to expand...
After seeing how a 141 university runs im glad I didn't go through the program. ATP gets a bad rep but I did my private at american flyers then finished everything else with atp. Though I dont think instructing for a 141 program is much better.
 
Unit74 said:
There are those who love them, and those who talk chit about them. Kinda like my Ttail Lance. And like my Lance, most who talk chit have never flown one.
Click to expand...

Love Lances! FBO where I taught and flew 135 had 2 Lances. Used for 135 and flight instruction. I used one for my commercial and CFI training. Fun to do ground reference maneuvers in them. Under 135 used to pick up deceased people, sometimes in a coffin, sometimes covered in a sheet (yikes!).
 
mscard88 said:
Love Lances! FBO where I taught and flew 135 had 2 Lances. Used for 135 and flight instruction. I used one for my commercial and CFI training. Fun to do ground reference maneuvers in them. Under 135 used to pick up deceased people, sometimes in a coffin, sometimes covered in a sheet (yikes!).
Click to expand...

That's a rather different definition for 'angel' flights...:rolleyes:
 
GRG55 said:
That's a rather different definition for 'angel' flights...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, sometimes wasn't fun at all. First one was a 10 year old boy. Very sad.

But most didn't complain about the bumps or my landings at least. ;):)
 
I have read about a conversion, I'm not 100% if there is an STC, or if it was just field approved, where they put big bore engines on a Skymaster and turned it into the plane people really wanted. Fast, climbs like a bat out of hell and excellent single engine performance. Sounds like a fantastic mod for the 337.

I love the 337 and it is the only twin I would consider besides all it's drawbacks and mediocre safety record. It's different, it looks cool and I believe I personally am more likely to survive a sudden engine out scenario in this plane than a conventional twin.
 
Dav8or said:
I have read about a conversion, I'm not 100% if there is an STC, or if it was just field approved, where they put big bore engines on a Skymaster and turned it into the plane people really wanted. Fast, climbs like a bat out of hell and excellent single engine performance. Sounds like a fantastic mod for the 337.

I love the 337 and it is the only twin I would consider besides all it's drawbacks and mediocre safety record. It's different, it looks cool and I believe I personally am more likely to survive a sudden engine out scenario in this plane than a conventional twin.
Click to expand...

You might be thinking about the Riley Skyrocket and Super Skyrocket. The former added much needed intercoolers to the stock turbocharged engines. The latter involved replacing the engines with 520s. The Super conversions were not as popular as the Skyrockets. The extra weight reduced useful load, the fuel burn cut the range and the high drag airframe resulted in only a modest cruise speed increase for the cost. The biggest improvement was climb performance though.

Bottom line, if you want a pressurized cabin class twin there are other Cessna models that are better than the re-engined 337.

Not sure the single-engine fatality statistics are completely conclusive, but I understand the 337 is no better in that respect than comparable conventionally configured light twins.
 
Pilawt said:
-- Won't fit in a standard T-hangar.
Click to expand...

Got about 400 hours in MixMasters flying whale survey off the coast of Florida. I like them. Not sure if I'll ever pony up to get one of my own though. We used to keep them in T-hangars. Not sure of their size, but they looked like all the other T-hangars I've ever seen.
 
GRG55 said:
You might be thinking about the Riley Skyrocket and Super Skyrocket. The former added much needed intercoolers to the stock turbocharged engines. The latter involved replacing the engines with 520s. The Super conversions were not as popular as the Skyrockets. The extra weight reduced useful load, the fuel burn cut the range and the high drag airframe resulted in only a modest cruise speed increase for the cost. The biggest improvement was climb performance though.

Bottom line, if you want a pressurized cabin class twin there are other Cessna models that are better than the re-engined 337.

Not sure the single-engine fatality statistics are completely conclusive, but I understand the 337 is no better in that respect than comparable conventionally configured light twins.
Click to expand...

No doubt a reduction in gross weight and also range, but seems to me the climb and single engine performance is worth it to me, but I guess it depends on ones mission.

I think many of the single engine accidents were due to poor single engine performance. Light twins seem like a balance between performance, economy and safety with safety often being taking a back seat ironically. This airplane seems no different.
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
No doubt a reduction in gross weight and also range, but seems to me the climb and single engine performance is worth it to me, but I guess it depends on ones mission.

I think many of the single engine accidents were due to poor single engine performance. Light twins seem like a balance between performance, economy and safety with safety often being taking a back seat ironically. This airplane seems no different.
Click to expand...

I think there remains the mistaken impression among many that the second engine on a light twin can fly the airplane out of trouble in all circumstances...or at least it should be able to. I most often fly mine light. And I have the attitude that if an engine quits during the take off or initial climb my worst option is no worse than an engine failure at the same phase of flight in a single.

The safety issues are applicable to light GA airplanes overall, not just light twins. For cars the government started mandating safety improvements, and the public eventually started to expect and demand them. For airplanes it seems the regulations sometimes hamper the ability to install safety improvements.

For example, it seems there is no legal way for me to install 4-point seat belts in my Aztec. If anyone knows of a system for the PA-23 please let me know.
 
mscard88 said:
Love Lances! FBO where I taught and flew 135 had 2 Lances. Used for 135 and flight instruction. I used one for my commercial and CFI training. Fun to do ground reference maneuvers in them. Under 135 used to pick up deceased people, sometimes in a coffin, sometimes covered in a sheet (yikes!).
Click to expand...


At least they didn't complain about your technique....
 
James331 said:
Ya don't know whatcha don't know I guess.

But for me, if I have a 1hr flight, carrying a extra 300lbs or more around with me just doesn't make sense, and can prove more dangerous.

Also I see lots of folks who don't plan for crap just fill er' to the tabs and let er rip.

Huge disservice for students instructed this way, they don't learn fuel management and real world performance planning.

I used to default tanks to 1/4, rent dry, students would fuel for their mission, and plan to have it back on the ramp with 1/4 tanks, screw up and you ether have to go fuel up, or you give some fuel away.
Click to expand...

Really depends on the plane and the mission. Sometimes, it's great to fully top off at an airport that has inexpensive 100LL. Plus, heavier plane = higher maneuvering speed, so there's additional safety in that.

There's the convenience factor too. I'll top off the tanks for a 1 hour flight, so I can do another 1 hour flight, and then a third 1 hour flight without having to refuel every time.

This all assumes that W&B is within range and aircraft is not over gross, of course.
 
Whatever happened to 'Rotor&WIng' ? He was always good for a spirited defense of the Skymaster.

The PSM is a very different plane from the regular 337. They have a following with a near religious devotion to the type.
 
N659HB said:
I hear they're loud as hell inside the cabin.
Click to expand...

Having flown in one, not too awful. I suspect the pressurized one is a little less noisy.

ElPaso Pilot said:
eBay Motors sellers who are high-volume sellers have access to bidder information for all bidders participating in a particular eBay Motors transaction. These dealers may contact you about the vehicle you bid on or to discuss additional inventory that might be of interest to you.
Click to expand...

I find that part distasteful.

Shepherd said:
My buddy, Mitch, had klaxon hidden inside the rear cowling. When he was ready to light up the rear engine, he would lean on the button, and seismic recorders 2 counties away would register the noise.
Click to expand...

Awesome.

Catalo said:
That's the bad thing about teaching for a part 141 university. Students don't have to do anything. Line service does it. There is always full fuel and with just two people its never an issue. With dispatch you dont get to have the students make a go or no-go decision because they won't dispatch the plane.
Click to expand...

I fear for those kids a little because of this garbage.

Fearless Tower said:
Maybe with the recent MC change, he'll come back.
Click to expand...

Recent MC change? Must have missed that one.

Anyway... mixmaster...

The only one I've ever flown in, the owner wasn't maintaining the gear properly. Guess who got fire trucks rolled at night after circling for a half hour trying to get a nosegear light? It came on at about 50' AGL in the flare.

Quite comfortable even in back. (We were swapping seats around on different legs of the out and back trip.) Not as fast as I might have thought. Did very well pointing it west out of BJC and going straight over the Rockies. Flew similar to a heavy aileron 182.

If he'd have maintained it better, it would have been a nice airplane.
 
GRG55 said:
I think there remains the mistaken impression among many that the second engine on a light twin can fly the airplane out of trouble in all circumstances...or at least it should be able to. I most often fly mine light. And I have the attitude that if an engine quits during the take off or initial climb my worst option is no worse than an engine failure at the same phase of flight in a single.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but you actually are worse off than the typical piston single because you will be landing into whatever at a much higher speed.

What should have happened is, all the light twins with four seats should have been sold with two seats and all the twins with six seats should have been sold with only four, but that is not what the market demands. Like I said above, the safety part of the engineering balance gets downgraded in favor of potential utility.
 
Dav8or said:
I get what you are saying, but you actually are worse off than the typical piston single because you will be landing into whatever at a much higher speed.
Click to expand...
No offense, but it is really silly to make statements like a single is safer or a twin is categorically safer.

What really matters is the decisions made by the pilot. Some pilots are safer in singles and others are safer in twins....and then there are some pilots who wouldn't be safe in any flying contraption.
 
Fearless Tower said:
No offense, but it is really silly to make statements like a single is safer or a twin is categorically safer.

What really matters is the decisions made by the pilot. Some pilots are safer in singles and others are safer in twins....and then there are some pilots who wouldn't be safe in any flying contraption.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I think the single is safer, I don't think it is. GRG55 said-

And I have the attitude that if an engine quits during the take off or initial climb my worst option is no worse than an engine failure at the same phase of flight in a single.
Click to expand...

And I'm just pointing out that when a twin hits the dirt it's going to do so at a very much higher speed than the typical piston single, so he is worse off. Of course the argument always is that the functioning engine will allow a return to landing on a runway, but that doesn't always work out depending on density altitude, gross weight and pilot proficiency.
 
midcap said:
Why did the skymaster's have such a poor safety record?
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the same reasons that other light twins don't have such a great record- under powered single engine performance leads to stalls. In addition, poor pilot procedures have led some to attempt take off not knowing the rear engine wasn't running. One would think a pilot would notice the reduced sound and vibration and the poor acceleration and the engine needles on zero, but this type of accident has happened more than once. They also crash the same as other planes due to running out of gas, VFR into IMC, icing, low level maneuvering and all the other stupid pilot tricks.
 
Dav8or said:
I get what you are saying, but you actually are worse off than the typical piston single because you will be landing into whatever at a much higher speed.

What should have happened is, all the light twins with four seats should have been sold with two seats and all the twins with six seats should have been sold with only four, but that is not what the market demands. Like I said above, the safety part of the engineering balance gets downgraded in favor of potential utility.
Click to expand...

Really?

1977 Bonanza A36; 6-place, gross weight 3600, stall clean 62 kts, stall gear + flaps 52 kts
1996 Mooney M20J; 4-place, gross weight 2900, stall clean 62 kts, stall gear + flaps 58 kts
1979 Aztec J; 6-place, gross weight 5200, stall clean 61 kts, stall gear + flaps 55 kts.

The figures for the singles are from the AOPA website, the figures for the Aztec are from my POH.

My twin actually has the cabin space and useful load to carry 6 + bags + enough fuel to get somewhere, although the most common W&B for me is 500 to 600 lbs below gross since I fly it out of a 4000 ASL field.

I don't regard the A36 to be a 6 place airplane (if you fill the seats and add any baggage you can carry enough fuel for one lap around the circuit) nor do I regard the Mooney to be a 4 place airplane, so maybe the singles should have been sold with fewer seats too? ;) :)
 
Mason said:
The higher GW contributes to more momentum at the same speed when coming to a sudden stop.
Click to expand...

One can't avoid F=ma. But one would hope to avoid a sudden stop, regardless of how many engines one is riding along with.
 
If you can beg, borrow or steal a ride in a 337 with the 317 hp conversion, do it.
 
0104599-v40-6.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cessna-337-Pressurized-Skymaster-II/104599

Ever since working on this one as a young A&P student, I've been fascinated :)
 
Unit74 said:
Hard to buy a plane off eBay. That's like heading to a Tiajuana for some cheap, aehegmn, you know..... And then going raw dawg hoping you don't get the gift that keeps on giving. Your chance of getting burned is very high.

Or in other words, a prebuy is basically impossible unless the deal is made outside eBay. You win an auction, as is where is then find a complete show stopper and you are contractually obligated to pay up. Not to mention it's a pressurized bird!

My oh my......
Click to expand...
I just spit my o j onto my phone as i read that. I just moved out of My parents house and I'm very stressed, I feel obligated to thank you for that solid three minutes of solid laughter you just gave me.
 
Hi, I've owned two Skymnasters - a 1968 Turbo and a 1973 Pressurized model. Loved them both. You hear a lot of people talk badly about 'Mixmasters', but in my research when someone denegrated the plane I asked had they ever owned or flow one, and invariably they had not even been in one. So I started seeking out only people that either owned one or at least had owned one, and every person said it was their favorite plane. Talked with a guy who had a King Air 200 and a Pilatus PC-12, but when I told him I flew a P337 he couldn't stop raving on how that was his favorite plane he'd ever owned. They are super fast - 205kts on just two 225HP motors and 22GPH vs a Cessna T310 that isn't pressurized and 212kts with two 325hp motors and 30gph. The T337 has a service ceiling of a whopping 30,000ft, though the P337 is limiited to FL200 due to pressurization limitations. I have a Seneca 3 right now, which is a darn nice plane, but I don't LOVE it like a Skymaster - and I miss the convenience of pressurization.
 
It's also an option for ex fighter jocks with a centerline thrust restriction on their MEL rating.
 
This was a worthy necro-post. Ima seek out a Skymaster for a ride. Did a P&P flight where I swapped a pup with a guy in an orange one. Cool contraption up close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top