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

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

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
|
|

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

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.

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
|
|

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.

If you had a multi-engine rating, a normal checkout was FAA approved if I
remember correctly.

You may be right, but I was told by my ground school instructor back in
bxxt xwff that you needed a "something else" to fly it.

I could be wrong. It would be a historic moment though.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.