Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

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
|
|

"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

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
|
|

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
|
|

All in all, I think the airplane was an Edsel for Cessna and a misadventure
to say the least

I don't know why you are saying this. How many Edsels were build and
sold by Ford? Compare that with the many hundreds of Skymasters that
were build and sold.

I do remember someone tacking on a
turbo on the 337 that attracted a few buyers, not nothing to write home
about.

There are hundres of Skymasters with Turbos both pressurized and
non-pressurized (P337).

Gerd (ex Skymaster owner)

"gwengler" wrote in message
ups.com...
All in all, I think the airplane was an Edsel for Cessna and a
misadventure
to say the least

I don't know why you are saying this. How many Edsels were build and
sold by Ford? Compare that with the many hundreds of Skymasters that
were build and sold.

I do remember someone tacking on a
turbo on the 337 that attracted a few buyers, not nothing to write home
about.

There are hundres of Skymasters with Turbos both pressurized and
non-pressurized (P337).

Gerd (ex Skymaster owner)

Although there are obviously some Skymasters out here, I believe this will
pass in context as a fairly good analogy.
The 336/337 program in no way whatsoever fulfulled the market share
envisioned by Cessna during the concept stage of the airplane's design and
marketing phase.
The analogy I believe is fairly close to being correct for the Edsel.
:-)
Dudley Henriques
(ex Skymaster Check Pilot)

Jim Macklin wrote:

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.

Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she can't detect
the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of far more than
50% of most performance attributes. I'd really not want to fly with a
pilot who was that out of touch with their airplane.


Matt

But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a POH
change to require all take-offs lead with the rear throttle.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| 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.
|
| Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she
can't detect
| the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of
far more than
| 50% of most performance attributes. I'd really not want
to fly with a
| pilot who was that out of touch with their airplane.
|
|
| Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a POH
change to require all take-offs lead with the rear throttle.

Yes, I've heard and read that also. Still hard for me to believe a
pilot could be that out of touch with their aircraft... I know I'd
surely have noticed if my Skylane suddenly lost 115 hp.


Matt

There are pilots who fly once a day and some who fly once a
month. Some pilots are very good and others, sad to say,
are more concerned with the stock market crash, than their
up-coming airplane crash.

The Cessna company marketed the 337 to the non-professional
businessman pilot as an easy to fly safer twin. It wasn't
possible. Since Vmca is well below Vyse, any multiengine
pilot should consider Vyse as the speed of concern [blue
line] rather than the redline at Vmca. Yaw control is not a
problem if the pilot understands the performance goal.




"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a
POH
| change to require all take-offs lead with the rear
throttle.
|
| Yes, I've heard and read that also. Still hard for me to
believe a
| pilot could be that out of touch with their aircraft... I
know I'd
| surely have noticed if my Skylane suddenly lost 115 hp.
|
|
| Matt