Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more of
a winner. Why did it flop?


Dallas

It made a poor multi trainer for FBOs because the FAA would not issue
"full" multiengine ratings to students who took their checkrides in it.

-Robert

Just what did the FAA issue then?

"Dallas" wrote in message
k.net...
Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more
of
a winner. Why did it flop?


Dallas



My old CFI said guys would forget to start the back engine or not notice
that it would quit and end up crashing, true or not I don't know but it was
his story. I always thought it was an odd looking piece.

--------------------------------------------------
DW

Just what did the FAA issue then?

A 'centerline only' thrust limitation to the ME rating.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Just what did the FAA issue then?

A multi-engine rating limited to centerline thrust.

Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more
of a winner. Why did it flop?

My old CFI said guys would forget to start the back engine or not notice
that it would quit and end up crashing, true or not I don't know but it was
his story. I always thought it was an odd looking piece.

To that I would add that I personally think the 200 hp O-360's are not
enough power for the size and weight of the aircraft.

We had a 337 and I flew it quite often on charter.
I don't remember any FBO's in our area using a 336 or a 337 for multi-engine
training. You could fly these airplanes with a checkout and your regular
multi-engine rating or you could qualify simply in the airplane itself with
a center-thrust rating that the FAA created just for the 336/337 series.
It was extremely stable and easy to fly and had none of the critical engine
aspects of a regular twin.
Dudley Henriques

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
It made a poor multi trainer for FBOs because the FAA would not issue
"full" multiengine ratings to students who took their checkrides in it.

-Robert

"john smith" wrote in message
...
Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been
more
of a winner. Why did it flop?

My old CFI said guys would forget to start the back engine or not notice
that it would quit and end up crashing, true or not I don't know but it
was
his story. I always thought it was an odd looking piece.

To that I would add that I personally think the 200 hp O-360's are not
enough power for the size and weight of the aircraft.

Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of the engines that was a bit
costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT carefully on takeoff
because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up an engine problem during
the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!

Dudley Henriques

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



"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "john smith" wrote in message
|
...
| Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it
should have been
| more
| of a winner. Why did it flop?
|
| My old CFI said guys would forget to start the back
engine or not notice
| that it would quit and end up crashing, true or not I
don't know but it
| was
| his story. I always thought it was an odd looking
piece.
|
| To that I would add that I personally think the 200 hp
O-360's are not
| enough power for the size and weight of the aircraft.
|
| Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of the
engines that was a bit
| costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT
carefully on takeoff
| because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up an
engine problem during
| the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!
|
| Dudley Henriques
|
|