Flew a Skymaster yesterday

Toby

Toby

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
1,068
Location
Long Island, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Toby Speed
Yesterday I was having breakfast in the airport diner and talking to a guy who "lives" in a nearby hangar with his Skymaster and Long EZ. My instructor was running late, so when Walter asked me if I wanted to go for a ride in his airplane first, I said sure.

This was my first time flying a multiengine, and it wasn't all that different from the other planes I've flown. He started her up, but I took off, flew us to Southold, flew us back and landed. Working the prop is just like in the Decathlon. It's actually a pretty lazy plane to fly, because you don't need a lot of rudder and it's very stable in the air. We were cruising around 180 (or more?) mph, covering a lot of farmland very quickly.

We flew it faster in the pattern than I'm used to, but then on final we slowed down very quickly when we added some flaps. We just added 1/3 flaps -- any more than that, and he told me we'd drop down at too steep of an angle. Another difference I found in landing was that I maintained my pitch attitude until quite close to the ground before rounding out. I guess that was also to keep us from thudding down.

After we landed, my instructor got in with his video camera and the three of us flew to NYC to make a film of Christo's Gates in Central Park. We were supposed to go tomorrow, but yesterday was clear and sunny, so we took advantage of the weather. I took off and got to do the flying again from the right seat (I made my instructor sit in the back. Nyah, nyah!). We circled around the park two or three times at 6,500 feet and flew home. I had to watch out for traffic departing LaGuardia. Man, those jets are huge, even seen from 6,500 feet while they're still on the runway!!

He took some stills and is interspersing them with the video and setting it all to music. If he sends it to me, I'll try to post it somehow so you all can see. I couldn't really appreciate the Gates, because I have trouble distinguishing colors and couldn't quite see it, but most of you will be able to. I don't get to see the rainbows in the clouds, either. :-(
 
Remember Toby:

Skymaster, Mixmaster, Deathmaster. :)

Just a few lovely nicknames for the plane.
 
Toby said:
Anthony -- why those names??
Click to expand...

Not Anthony but....

Skymaster because that's what it was named.
Mixmaster because it looks like a kitchen mixer.
Deathmaster I don't know.

There are other names but not for me to say.
 
Toby said:
Anthony -- why those names??
Click to expand...

Its got a little bit of a reputation, but I've never flown one, so just hearsay on my part. My guess would be that the centerline thrust lures people into thinking it flies just like a single and if one engine goes, it probably does not. Also, it has a hard time keeping the rear engine cool and requires a good amount of maintenance to keep in the air. A few years ago, actually several, there was a thread on the AOPA board about derogatory aircraft names and that one always amused me. Cool plane though. I've always had a little fascination with the 337.
 
I really don't like the names. The Skymaster is a great plane, much of it's reputation comes from sub-standard maintenance. The plan requires the mechanic to be both skilled and familar with the 337 for the plane to be well maintained. Yes, the accident rates have been mostly due to pilots trying to take off with just one engine running.

check out:
http://www.skymaster.org.uk/
http://www.337skymaster.org/
 
jdwatson said:
I really don't like the names. The Skymaster is a great plane, much of it's reputation comes from sub-standard maintenance. The plan requires the mechanic to be both skilled and familar with the 337 for the plane to be well maintained. Yes, the accident rates have been mostly due to pilots trying to take off with just one engine running.

I think the names are funny, just like Traumahawk, etc. Maybe justified, maybe not, but it is aviation lore and sometimes the legends are based on facts or someone's version of it. No intent to defame, just entertain. As I said, I think they are cool airplanes, but like the C-310, you see a lot of them gathering dust at airports for a reason.
Click to expand...
 
The Skymaster was never popular because it has much higher fuel mileage specifics than standard configuration twins. The rear IO-360 Continental runs hot unless meticulous attention is paid to the baffling and a 7 lead CHT/EGT is installed. So owners run the rear engine rich to keep things cool.

Amazing its safety record is no better than that of the normal configuration multi. Why? When the rear engine quits on the takeoff roll, the pilot has to look for the "cold" engine (there's no yaw), pitches for departure and gets mush. Vysse rear and Vysse front are not identical to VyAll Engines. There is actually an AD out for that (changing the manual, and advancing the rear throttle first).

Additionally, from a practical point of view, there is no place to put baggage. None. And you have two oscillators hard coupled to the cabin --->noise. Nonetheless, it is a good short/rough field operator...just doesn't have much of a market because the Cessna Turbo 180 is as fast, drinks less fuel, carries more, and gets off quicker.

The market reflects this position. They are relatively inexpensive to own, and if you're crossing a big pond, it's an option. Still, it's an airplane. It was used as a dual 50 caliber machine gun ship in VietNam, as the O-2. They took a heckofa beating and brought their crews home.
 
Yeah, that rear engine saved many FACs lives. I like it's look. I would love to have a chance to fly one. This past weekend I was out at Currituck, NC (9W7/ONX) and there was a Skymaster (N337NH). Pretty plane.

I suspect that commercial operators could value time in a conventional twin over one with centerline thrust.
 
It's an exact build at the Cessna 421 Market. Cabin size, power, range, fuel load. But, it has going for it- that it's not 20 years old. It has going against it - it's new.
 
The market reflects this position. They are relatively inexpensive to own, and if you're crossing a big pond, it's an option. Still, it's an airplane. It was used as a dual 50 caliber machine gun ship in VietNam, as the O-2. They took a heckofa beating and brought their crews home.[/QUOTE]
======================================================

Right on Bruce. Actually, most had rockets to mark targets for the fast movers. AF used them to control and coordinate air strikes. Wouldn't doubt the twin .50s, but the ones I worked with mainly marked targets with rockets and worked ground targets for us.

Best,

Dave
A-36TN ADS
 
The ones we had for pilot recovery were .50s. They and Puff and the three helos are responsible for many being with us today.
 
Did the O-2 have more engine(s) than the 337?

I can't imagine a 165 kt cruise speed as a forward observer aircraft in today's environment. That can't be a fun assignment.

Chip
 
gibbons said:
Did the O-2 have more engine(s) than the 337?

I can't imagine a 165 kt cruise speed as a forward observer aircraft in today's environment. That can't be a fun assignment.
Click to expand...

The 0-2 was the military designation for the C-337. Its the same plane. There's a bunch of old ones sitting up at Greeley, CO. Wonder why they are there.

Those FAC's were all heroes, IMHO.
 
Toby said:
Yesterday I was having breakfast in the airport diner and talking to a guy who "lives" in a nearby hangar with his Skymaster and Long EZ. My instructor was running late, so when Walter asked me if I wanted to go for a ride in his airplane first, I said sure.

This was my first time flying a multiengine, and it wasn't all that different from the other planes I've flown. He started her up, but I took off, flew us to Southold, flew us back and landed. Working the prop is just like in the Decathlon. It's actually a pretty lazy plane to fly, because you don't need a lot of rudder and it's very stable in the air. We were cruising around 180 (or more?) mph, covering a lot of farmland very quickly.

We flew it faster in the pattern than I'm used to, but then on final we slowed down very quickly when we added some flaps. We just added 1/3 flaps -- any more than that, and he told me we'd drop down at too steep of an angle. Another difference I found in landing was that I maintained my pitch attitude until quite close to the ground before rounding out. I guess that was also to keep us from thudding down.

After we landed, my instructor got in with his video camera and the three of us flew to NYC to make a film of Christo's Gates in Central Park. We were supposed to go tomorrow, but yesterday was clear and sunny, so we took advantage of the weather. I took off and got to do the flying again from the right seat (I made my instructor sit in the back. Nyah, nyah!). We circled around the park two or three times at 6,500 feet and flew home. I had to watch out for traffic departing LaGuardia. Man, those jets are huge, even seen from 6,500 feet while they're still on the runway!!

He took some stills and is interspersing them with the video and setting it all to music. If he sends it to me, I'll try to post it somehow so you all can see. I couldn't really appreciate the Gates, because I have trouble distinguishing colors and couldn't quite see it, but most of you will be able to. I don't get to see the rainbows in the clouds, either. :-(
Click to expand...

Got to fly a few Riley SkyRockets (turbo-intercooled C337s) as a new private pilot with Mr. Riley out of Palomar... 4000 fpm climb and 300 mph. Case would be closed there except the best of the pristine reconditioned birds were a half million $.
 
jdwatson said:
I really don't like the names. The Skymaster is a great plane, much of it's reputation comes from sub-standard maintenance. The plane requires the mechanic to be both skilled and familar with the 337 for the plane to be well maintained. Yes, the accident rates have been mostly due to pilots trying to take off with just one engine running.
Click to expand...

You forget to mention that the mechanic also needs to be a contortionist to work on the back engine. The 337 is an ok airplane at best. They are kinda cheesily built, but no worse than any other Cessna I guess. My main qualm with flying them is the noise, my qualms with maintaining them are many fold. I took care of 2 337s, 1 336 and an O-2. If I never work on another it'll be too soon. I got more cuts working on them than any other planes for some reason.

Personally, I attribute the accident rate on the 336/337s to the mentality of the people who buy them. "It's 'inherently safe' therefore I don't have to be. It has centerline thrust so I can do what ever I want with power combinations..." While this may not be true of all of their drivers, it is of many of them. Usta have one good ole boy, if he believed half the single engine performance BS he used to spout about his plane (cruise the airplane on a single at 4.5 gph, single engine takeoff @gross from a 2500' strip...) he's sure to become one of these Skymaster statistics.

Remember as well, if you get a multi rating in it, your license is restricted to centerline thrust, and that time won't apply as "Multi" should you use it applying to an airline.

It really is a bastard stepchild of a plane due mostly to the costs of maintaining them. I know shops that turn them away or only work on them T&M (time and materials) with no estimates. Parts support for them is sketchy as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top