That makes complete sense to me.
D

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:SFPMf.104270$QW2.67043@dukeread08...
Cessna even tried to install floats for the Alaskan market,
I took my seaplane training from their test pilot at Grand
Lake of the Cherokees in NE Oklahoma. He told me that the
rear prop just could not handle the water spray and it never
was certified.


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:GpOMf.104262$QW2.383@dukeread08...
| It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine
was
| not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just
reduced
| performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it
was
| noisy inside.
|
| It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
|
| I would tend to agree with this. Cessna marketed the plane
to the
| multi-engine fringe; supposedly directed to those who
wanted the reliability
| of a multi-engine airplane with none of the headaches
associated with
| conventional twin training and flying.
| On the surface it appeared to be a good idea, but I think
Cessna missed the
| mark with their estimated market share. I don't remember
any noticable
| decrease in multi training due to the arrival of the early
336, or even
| later when the 337 came on the scene. I do remember
someone tacking on a
| turbo on the 337 that attracted a few buyers, not nothing
to write home
| about.
| All in all, I think the airplane was an Edsel for Cessna
and a misadventure
| to say the least :-)
| Dudley
|
|