Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

On 2006-02-28, Roy Smith wrote:
I would think it would be easy (at least from the engineering perspective)
to display a big red warning light when the RPMs of the two engines differ
by more than a certain percent. Did the 337 have anything like that?

They might not differ, though. In a partial power loss or perhaps a loss
of an engine at a lower power setting (such as approach), the RPM on the
engine not making proper power might still be the RPM selected by the
prop lever. The only way you can tell for certain in all circumnstances
which engine has failed from instruments is from the EGT (and in a
partial power los on approach, even that might be hard).

The 337 would probably have been much better with a pair of Garrett
turboprops or PT6s with autofeathering props :-)

--
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

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:51:01 GMT, "Dallas"
wrote:

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

Most people purchase twins to go fast, carry a lot of people/cargo,
and have the redundancy of a twin.

The non-turbo'd C337 only meets 1 of those requirements.

Having said that, Riley takes P337s and swaps the turbo'd 210HP
engines for 310hp TSIO-520s. The plane is called a SuperSkyrocket,
and is appropriately named: 2500fpm climb, and 300mph top speed.
http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/super_skyrocket.htm

Jose wrote:
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

"Centerline thrust only" is a limitation, not a priveledge.

The 336, 337 and 0-2 did not require a type rating.

Dave

Not correct, at least in the USA. There are some jets that
don't have a Vmca as such because the engines are so close
to the centerline and although they have two engines, they
don't meet the FAA requirement for issuing an unrestricted
multiengine certificate. If you obtain your multiengine
certificate in such an airplane you are issued a multiengine
rating with the centerline thrust limitation. But as it is
a turbojet/12.5 gw, a type rating is required also.

The Cessna 337 is lighter than the weight floor for
requiring a type rating and it is not a turbojet.


--
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.


"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.

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

Correct, although some other nations rules might be
different. I understand that some countries require a type
rating for each multiengine model.


--
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.


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
message
news | Not true I think.
| If you had a multi-engine rating, a normal checkout was
FAA approved if I
| remember correctly. I don't believe the center line thrust
rating was
| mandatory above the regular multi if already held.
| Dudley Henriques
|
| "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.
|
|

In article ,
says...


On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:51:01 GMT, "Dallas"
wrote:

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

Most people purchase twins to go fast, carry a lot of people/cargo,
and have the redundancy of a twin.

The non-turbo'd C337 only meets 1 of those requirements.

Having said that, Riley takes P337s and swaps the turbo'd 210HP
engines for 310hp TSIO-520s. The plane is called a SuperSkyrocket,
and is appropriately named: 2500fpm climb, and 300mph top speed.
http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/super_skyrocket.htm



And they sit there for sale for years and years...

On the conventional multiengine airplane, I would teach as
many different possible ways as I could. I didn't want my
students flying me, I wanted them to fly the airplane. So I
might use a folded chart to block their view of the throttle
console and I would have my hands hidden from their view.
I would sometimes pull one hand away from the console
without moving any levers, some students would react to my
movement as though the engine had failed. What was even
more useful was to retard the mixture about half way [on one
engine] before the take-off began and with the control
covered. When the student began the take-off the engine
would fail as it approached full power. I would do this by
using my little finger on the lever so the student didn't
see any arm/hand movement. I might even move my hand away
all together so the student would relax. The loss of
directional control is more pronounced at 20 kts than it is
at 85, it is also safer if you abort.
But with a centerline thrust 337, this engine failure mode
would be harder top detect since there is no yaw and slow
acceleration is subjective.


--
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:
| 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.
|
| Matt

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:SOPMf.104272$QW2.24866@dukeread08...
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.


Imagine losing an engine in a twin pusher like the Piaggio or the Beech
Starship.

Of course, the PT-6 will go into Auto Feather...

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:51:01 GMT, "Dallas"
wrote:

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

Most people purchase twins to go fast, carry a lot of people/cargo,
and have the redundancy of a twin.

The non-turbo'd C337 only meets 1 of those requirements.

Having said that, Riley takes P337s and swaps the turbo'd 210HP
engines for 310hp TSIO-520s. The plane is called a SuperSkyrocket,
and is appropriately named: 2500fpm climb, and 300mph top speed.
http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/super_skyrocket.htm



And they sit there for sale for years and years...


Hell one of them is "only" $199,000, a lot of airplane for 200 grand.

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