Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

"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

It could happen and did. Engine loss on a rear engine twin can be very
deceiving, and it doesn't have to be a complete failure either. You get none
of the visuals and none of the physical feeling of loss you get in a normal
twin. The noise in the cockpit was quite loud, and if you didn't lead with
the rear engine and monitor the rear engine instruments through the TO run,
you could very easily get into trouble, especially going out of a short
field on a hot day :-)
Rear engine safety on the 336/337 wasn't quite as obvious as it might appear
on the surface. It's quite possible for a pilot to become passive in these
airplanes and in checking someone out in ours, I always stressed monitoring
those rear engine instruments on takeoff.
I know.......you wouldn't think a decent pilot could forget...but everyone
has the potential for a brain fart every once in a while, even the
Thunderbirds!!!
:-))
Dudley Henriques

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
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.

Well....if it helps any, go check my certificates on the data base. I might
very well be the only commercial instructor left alive with a centerline
thrust rating :-)))
Dudley Henriques

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
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.

Not true.

The non-success story is an intriguing question.
The type had some success in its military declinations (0-2A) during the
Vietnam era. It is recognized and often used today as an engineering testbed
for a variety of new designs and improvements, yet in its principal designated
market it quickly developed an "ugly duckling" reputation which even today
leads to depressed prices.

There is not doubt it was noisy, inside and out. The high prop RPM and the fact
that one of them was close to the rear seats contributed to this. Also, several
models were anything but speed demons, giving lower TAS than some competing
twins. I have heard (don't know the veracity of this) that cooling on the rear
engine was inadequate, leading to a whole host of significant maintenance and
reliability issues.

We'll see how well Adam does with their new, spruced-up 337 (I know, I know -
this airplane bears no similarity whatsoever to the ugly old mixmaster - yeah,
yeah). For now, I see the 337 as one of the rare "deals" available on the
market, the price/performance ration being favorable,in addition to the
"safety" factor of a twin. Saftey is in quote here because most light twins are
more dangerous than singles in the event of an engine failure, so the safety of
a second engine is only theoretical - whereas in the case of the 337 it is
real and useful.

G Faris

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
It could happen and did. Engine loss on a rear engine twin can be very
deceiving, and it doesn't have to be a complete failure either.

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?

On 2006-02-28, Matt Whiting wrote:
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.

I don't think that was necessarily the problem - imagine being just
airborne on an obstructed and reasonably short airfield, then one of the
engines quit. Although you feel the loss of thrust, it's not obvious
which engine has actually failed from the yaw because there isn't any.
Add to that the typical market segment for a 337 (people who percieve
they won't be safe enough in a normal twin) and you're asking for
trouble.

The only way of figuring out which engine has quit short of pulling a
throttle back and see if you lose even *more* power (which is
ineffective if one engine is only losing partial power) is to look at
the gauges. You might not even notice the loss of an engine if it
happens on approach until you throttle up for a go-around and find up to
50% of your power is missing (if an engine fails on approach, the only
indication may be a decreasing EGT - the windmilling prop may still
make the same RPM and the manifold pressure does not change if an
engine isn't actually combusting fuel). Even if one fails on takeoff,
where the failed engine will almost certainly lose RPM you still have to
look at and interpret the gauges which is a slower process (particularly
if it's a high workload instrument departure) than 'dead foot dead
engine'.

The people who are liable to VMC roll a conventional twin are probably
the same people who will stall a 337 while taking their time over trying
to figure out which engine has quit.

--
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

In article ,
says...

Add to that the typical market segment for a 337 (people who percieve
they won't be safe enough in a normal twin) and you're asking for
trouble.


The people who are liable to VMC roll a conventional twin are probably
the same people who will stall a 337 while taking their time over trying
to figure out which engine has quit.

--

Your point is well taken - the "Cirrus Syndrome" of creating a market
sector specifically for those who are doubtful of their own abilities...

However, in light twins this could be more a question of lucidity than
anything else. If the "conventional twin" you refer to is a KingAir, or
something with ample power and ample VYSE, then fine. But remember, in light
twins, which have "just enough" power to demonstrate SE climb, most pilots
faced with real-world situation do not succeed in performing the type of
recovery they demonstrated on their ME checkride.

It's not just a control issue - many of the small singles that "grew up"
into twins have so little excess horsepower available that the recovery must
be perfectly executed in order to be effective. Most of us would have to
admit that we can not always be counted on to do everything perfectly,
particularly under duress, and this is not to mention the fact that the
incident does not necessarily occur at sea level, at standard atmospheric
conditions. Many of the incidents are probably unrecoverable, or very close
to it from the get go.

Adding extra power to deal with this quickly moves one into the 421 or Duke
category, where the plane may not spiral out of control so much as the
operating costs - for a feature that is essentially there only for emergency
use. Suddenly, the ugly little 337 starts to look a whole lot prettier, and
that 'uncertainty' begins to look a lot like just plain good judgement.

All of the above does not really contradict your argument, as you were
talking about perception - and pilots as well as regulators tend to perceive
themselves as capable, and therefore safer in a standard twin than in a
single - even though the accident record has repeatedly disproven this.

GF

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
It could happen and did. Engine loss on a rear engine twin can be very
deceiving, and it doesn't have to be a complete failure either.

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?

Ours didn't. Steam gauges only. EGT was the primary monitor on takeoff.
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:37:39 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

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.

Agree, but I can imagine a scenario where it could happen...

Imagine a precision instrument approach with both the engines
throttled way back to stay on glideslope. If the weather is at
minimums, the pilot is going to be focused on flying the ILS and
making the land/missed decision at DH. I think it would be relatively
easy to overlook the failed rear engine. Of course, after going
missed, it would become obvious pretty quickly...