Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:

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.

Yes, sad but true.



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.

Yes, I understand that. I'm just still incredulous that you could lose
50% of your power and 50% of your performance and claim to not notice.



But during takeoff, while the wheels were still on the runway,
what loss of performance would there be other than slower
acceleration?

I'm not aware of any other loss of performance while on the runway. But
losing 50% of your acceleration is typically pretty noticeable. And
with the drag of the unfeathered prop on the dead engine, the loss would
be even more than 50%.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote

Are these mainly the bizjets?

And F-4s, F-14s, F-18s and the like.

Bob Moore

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:57:58 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote

Are these mainly the bizjets?

And F-4s, F-14s, F-18s and the like.

Yes, my brother in law has a multi rating with centerline
restriction... ex-USAF (F-15 etc.); he now instructs people with a lot
more money than I have in L-39's.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:52:09 -0600, Big John
wrote:

James

Never heard of leading with rear engine to make sure it was running.
That procedure was to get you moving so the front prop wouldn't pick
up rocks and throw into rear prop. We used to carry a little *******

Doesn't everybody?

file (6 inches) and on pre flight if found a nick in prop leading edge

Errrr...Ahhhh...wait... that was a pooly selected insertion spot and
could lead one to the wrong interpetation.

But only a 6" file? They must have been little nicks. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

we ran file along edge to take nick out.

Big John
````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:43:08 -0600, "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.


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

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:41:04 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

Sounds underpowered, cheap and make-shift. I wonder why
they sold/bought so many of them?

In "our world" where people don't shoot at you, at least not very
often, it was big, roomy, and you did have a second engine without the
problems of asymmetrical thrust on an engine failure.

OTOH As I recall it was not all that fast, used a lot of gas, and as
John said, noisy and not well ventilated

If you wanted to really use gas you could get the turbo charged
version. I don't know how many of those they sold.
We had one (turbo charged version) here on the field about 10 years
ago. The guy said he'd always wanted one, but only kept it about a
year. It was eating him out of house and home for gas and maintenance.
I don't know if it was due to that specific plane or it was a trait of
the breed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
| Jim
|
| Just a few of the things.
|
| Bought to use on trail. However if you lost an engine over
the trail
| the single engine altitude way they were loaded prevented
you from
| getting over the mountains and back to VN to land.
|
| At cruise power, when FACing, you could turn about 270
degree's and
| then got the stall warning and had to go to METO power to
stay
| airborne and FAC.
|
| In 0-1 you could drop a wing and kick rudder and be on
target to fire
| a Willie Pete marking rocket. In 0-2 you had to fly a
coordinated turn
| from a base leg to the launch heading and then coordinate
corrections
| to get pipper on target.
|
| In 0-1 you lost about 150 altitude and didn't pick up any
airspeed to
| speak of. In 0-2 you picked up a lot of airspeed and lost
a lot of
| altitude and had to pull a high 'G' recovery. Doing this
all day tired
| you out in heat and also put you closer to any ground fire
from target
| area.
|
| Bird had 'X' number of feet of ground roll on take off.
You couldn't
| pull off and stagger into the air in a short field.
|
| If you landed on Laderite (sp)you almost always got rear
prop damage
| from front prop picking up rock, gravel, Msc and it
hitting the rear
| prop and causing damage.
|
| Cockpit was pretty air tight and hot at low altitude (FAC
altitude) in
| heat and moisture. No way to keep cool like you could in
the 0-1 with
| the windows open. And more and more and
more...............
|
| Big John
|
````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````
|
| On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:57:17 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| I know they bought a lot of them, but it seems from your
| tone, that you know first-hand. Tell us all.
|
|
| "Big John" wrote in message
| .. .
| | Jim
| |
| | Not so. Be glad to tell you the limitations of 0-2 in
VN.
| |
| | Big John
| | ```````````````````````````````````
| |
| | On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:12 -0600, "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.
| |
| | It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
| |
| |
| |
| | "Dudley Henriques" wrote in
| | message
| |
|
link.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
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|
|

It is in the manual to use the rear engine first, to be sure
it is still running, I seem to remember it was a SB after
some accidents.

As to carrying a 6 inch file to dress prop nicks, that is
allowed ONLY for A&P [P actually] and requires a logbook
endorsement. There are strict allowances for the depth and
position of a nick that can be dressed and the nick must be
properly blended so there are no stress-risers.


--
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.


"Roger" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:52:09 -0600, Big John

| wrote:
|
| James
|
| Never heard of leading with rear engine to make sure it
was running.
| That procedure was to get you moving so the front prop
wouldn't pick
| up rocks and throw into rear prop. We used to carry a
little *******
|
| Doesn't everybody?
|
| file (6 inches) and on pre flight if found a nick in prop
leading edge
|
| Errrr...Ahhhh...wait... that was a pooly selected
insertion spot and
| could lead one to the wrong interpetation.
|
| But only a 6" file? They must have been little nicks.
:-))
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
|
| we ran file along edge to take nick out.
|
| Big John
| ````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````
|
| On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:43:08 -0600, "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.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P

Actually I [Jim Macklin] did not say it was cheap,
under-powered and make-shift.

Cessna even tried to put it on floats but it ate props with
water spray.



--
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.


"Roger" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:41:04 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| Sounds underpowered, cheap and make-shift. I wonder why
| they sold/bought so many of them?
|
| In "our world" where people don't shoot at you, at least
not very
| often, it was big, roomy, and you did have a second engine
without the
| problems of asymmetrical thrust on an engine failure.
|
| OTOH As I recall it was not all that fast, used a lot of
gas, and as
| John said, noisy and not well ventilated
|
| If you wanted to really use gas you could get the turbo
charged
| version. I don't know how many of those they sold.
| We had one (turbo charged version) here on the field about
10 years
| ago. The guy said he'd always wanted one, but only kept
it about a
| year. It was eating him out of house and home for gas and
maintenance.
| I don't know if it was due to that specific plane or it
was a trait of
| the breed.
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
|
|
|
| "Big John" wrote in message
| .. .
| | Jim
| |
| | Just a few of the things.
| |
| | Bought to use on trail. However if you lost an engine
over
| the trail
| | the single engine altitude way they were loaded
prevented
| you from
| | getting over the mountains and back to VN to land.
| |
| | At cruise power, when FACing, you could turn about 270
| degree's and
| | then got the stall warning and had to go to METO power
to
| stay
| | airborne and FAC.
| |
| | In 0-1 you could drop a wing and kick rudder and be on
| target to fire
| | a Willie Pete marking rocket. In 0-2 you had to fly a
| coordinated turn
| | from a base leg to the launch heading and then
coordinate
| corrections
| | to get pipper on target.
| |
| | In 0-1 you lost about 150 altitude and didn't pick up
any
| airspeed to
| | speak of. In 0-2 you picked up a lot of airspeed and
lost
| a lot of
| | altitude and had to pull a high 'G' recovery. Doing
this
| all day tired
| | you out in heat and also put you closer to any ground
fire
| from target
| | area.
| |
| | Bird had 'X' number of feet of ground roll on take off.
| You couldn't
| | pull off and stagger into the air in a short field.
| |
| | If you landed on Laderite (sp)you almost always got
rear
| prop damage
| | from front prop picking up rock, gravel, Msc and it
| hitting the rear
| | prop and causing damage.
| |
| | Cockpit was pretty air tight and hot at low altitude
(FAC
| altitude) in
| | heat and moisture. No way to keep cool like you could
in
| the 0-1 with
| | the windows open. And more and more and
| more...............
| |
| | Big John
| |
|
````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````
| |
| | On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:57:17 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| | wrote:
| |
| | I know they bought a lot of them, but it seems from
your
| | tone, that you know first-hand. Tell us all.
| |
| |
| | "Big John" wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | Jim
| | |
| | | Not so. Be glad to tell you the limitations of 0-2
in
| VN.
| | |
| | | Big John
| | | ```````````````````````````````````
| | |
| | | On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:12 -0600, "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.
| | |
| | | It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the
O-2
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | "Dudley Henriques" wrote
in
| | | message
| | |
| |
|
link.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
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|

If you wanted to really use gas you could get the turbo charged
version. I don't know how many of those they sold.
We had one (turbo charged version) here on the field about 10 years
ago. The guy said he'd always wanted one, but only kept it about a
year. It was eating him out of house and home for gas and maintenance.
I don't know if it was due to that specific plane or it was a trait of
the breed.

Not just turbocharged... pressurized AND turbocharged!

In article em2gg.25301$ZW3.22928@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Cessna even tried to put it on floats but it ate props with
water spray.

Wadn't that the 336?

Probably, basically the same airplane with fixed gear.

Cessna did their seaplane testing at Grand Lake, in north
east Oklahoma. A pilot named George "Mally" Malischii [sp]
who also was a seaplane instructor for Spartan and a DPE.


--
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.


"john smith" wrote in message
...
| In article em2gg.25301$ZW3.22928@dukeread04,
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
|
| Cessna even tried to put it on floats but it ate props
with
| water spray.
|
| Wadn't that the 336?