Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

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.

The Skymaster does not have a blue line speed.

Gerd

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)

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:29:16 +0100, Greg Farris
wrote:

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...

Actually, I don't know if it is any worse than the conventional twin
market. The high fuel consumption and potential maintenance costs are
terrifying to most prospective buyers.

A friend of mine was thinking of doing a turbine conversion for the
337. Would make one helluva light twin! I've got a few hundred hours in
the 337 and even some time in a 336 back in the mid-late 60's. It kind
of reminded me of a C-182 with higher fuel consumption.
Back then, a multi engine rating was sufficient for centerline thrust
aircraft. It was some kind of marketing thrust to get more people to
fly twin engine aircraft without the necessary skills to operate an
airplane more complex than Dufus was used to flying.
The 337 was plagued with expensive hydraulic pac problems for the gear.
Now it seems to be an antique or oddity.

"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."

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
Actually, I don't know if it is any worse than the conventional twin
market. The high fuel consumption and potential maintenance costs are
terrifying to most prospective buyers.

Double the engine and fuel costs, but not double the speed... It boils down
to basically how much of a premium do you put on the supposed advantage of
having an extra engine... Of course, two engines just means that you are
twice as likely to experience an engine failure... It's up to you whether
that failure results in really bad day or not... Do everything right and
that 2nd engine will save your butt... Do it wrong and it will take you all
the way to your crash site... With a single engine aircraft, at least you
know what is going to happen when you lose an engine... Other than some of
the moto-gliders, it's not like you have the option of staying aloft for an
extended period of time... Gravity sucks...

Nathan
Isn't it interesting that the 336/337 was an aircraft of 40 years ago?!
It's hard for me to believe I am that old...... and just getting older!

The 337 is easy to fly (for a twin), has twin engine redundancy with
none of the VMC issues, displays good short field characteristics and
is available with turbo, pressurization and deice options. The main
problem is it is not a good trainer and instructors don't like them
(because they have no Vmc issues, they are considered "for lightweight
pilots"). The design is actually superior and the plane can take off on
one engine (although maybe not at gross and it's not in the POH and not
recommeded). True twin engine performance.

The fact that it was not successful says more about the anemic GA
market than the design of the plane.

"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)

("Doug" wrote)
The fact that it was not successful says more about the anemic GA market
than the design of the plane.


The GA market was hopping when the C-337 was new.


Montblack