Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

"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)