Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

Naw, if you're a regular multi, a centerline thrust is no big deal. It
requires
no additional ratings. I teach in both. It flies like a heavy 210.

I think the reason it didn't make it, was performance and room. It was
not
a spectacular performer on both. On one it needed to be flown correctly. It
also
doesn't have any baggage room. I always felt alot of vibration, and used the
"sychrophaser" to move the center of the vibration as far as possible from
the
left front seat

Al


"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
Just what did the FAA issue then?
A 'centerline only' thrust limitation to the ME rating.

Not only that, but if you have a regular multiengine rating, you still
can't fly the thing unless you get a type rating (or somesuch) for it.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

Dudley Henriques wrote:
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





I had a flight instructor who was ex german air force, who had tons of
German multi jet time, but the engines were not laterally far enough
apart and the FAA told him his hours and experience was considered
"centerline thrust only".

This is anecdotal, but refutes that the centerline thrust limitation was
specific to the Cessna 336/337/0-2 airframe.

Dave

"Dave S" wrote in message news:E2ZMf.635


This is anecdotal, but refutes that the centerline thrust limitation was
specific to the Cessna 336/337/0-2 airframe.

Dave

Dudley didn't say the ME rating with centerline thrust limitation was
specific to the 336/337. He said "...you could qualify simply in the
airplane itself with a center-thrust rating that the FAA created just for
the 336/337 series..." There's a big difference.

Ref: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=150

"Cessna called the layout concept Centre Line Thrust, as the nose mounted
tractor and rear fuselage mounted pusher engine eliminated asymmetric
handling problems normally experienced when one of a twin's engines fails.
The concept was recognised by the US FAA which created a new centre thrust
rating for pilots to be rated on the type. "

"The Model 336 Skymaster first flew on February 18 1961, but significant
improvements to the design were made before production aircraft were
delivered."

Robert M. Gary wrote:
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

That and despite the advantages of not having any asymmetric thrust
issues, it doesn't fly any better single engine than most twins.
The rear engine is prone to overheating as well.

All Cessna's ending in 7 are odd birds.

On 2006-03-02, Ron Natalie wrote:
All Cessna's ending in 7 are odd birds.

I wouldn't say the Cardinal is odd.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Well, 140 is definitely even.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-03-02, Ron Natalie wrote:
All Cessna's ending in 7 are odd birds.

I wouldn't say the Cardinal is odd.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Ron

The Cardnel had a elevator stall problem until they put slots on it.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:21:40 -0500, Ron Natalie
wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:
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

That and despite the advantages of not having any asymmetric thrust
issues, it doesn't fly any better single engine than most twins.
The rear engine is prone to overheating as well.

All Cessna's ending in 7 are odd birds.

"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

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.