|
Thanks,
I'll let them know that it is a real possiblity. I'm sure that you will see lots more posts from me as time goes on if this is the way that they decide to go FYI SMEL = Single and Multi engine Land. Thanks again. |
Does anyone know if a 336 would be looked upon more favorably by insurance underwriters due to the fixed gear and lower cost, especially for a new twin driver? Is the 336 well thought of compared to the 337? Don't see many 336's available, though.
|
You would get better rates both due to fixed gear and lower hull value.
The 336 owners I have talked to a very happy with them. They knewt they were getting a slower airplane with fixed gear when they bought them. There is a rear engine cooling problem with 336s (but not 337s), but you can easily solve it by running with the rear engine cowl flap open all the time. Other than that, I have heard no gripes. There are a couple of 336 owners that frequent the site, perhaps they can comment. Kevin |
336 Insurance
Somewhere in this website or the old one, there is mention of a 337 that was STC'd to be a fixed gear plane. You'd think it would be easy to weld the gears down and remove all the junk and have a fixed gear plane. Apparently it is very involved but can be done!
|
a while back, I saw that plane. It was for sale. Don't remember much about it, except that the tires on the mains were big. nose gear was normal size.
|
The 337 everyone is thinking about is on Bill Crews Skymaster center website. A 75 with high time engines. Before I bought my bird I toyed with the idea of buying at a good price, if I could replace the engines with the Innodyne turbines..A twin turbine skymaster with fixed gear..
|
336 myth and fact
Having owned a couple of 337s and a couple of 336s in my life, I feel qualified to comment on some of the factoids that are being passed around. First and foremost, please don't call a skymaster an easy plane to fly. Yes, it flys as stable as a kitchen table but when transitioning from a 172, or some such forgiving plane, a 336 or 337 can be a handful when the going gets tough. I had an examiner pull the rear engine shortly after take off with the gear in the process of retraction and the result was amazing. We were heading for the trees and barely made it after the gear doors closed. Don't be too quick to retract the gear after take off. I will not pull the gear handle until at least 500 feet off the ground above flat terrain, and 1000 feet in the hills. It gives me the shivers when I see instant gear retraction after take off.
I now own a 336 (my second one) and love it. It is slower than a 337 but cannot be beat on take off and landings. There is no problem with rear engine over heating and I usually keep the rear cowl closed! The trick is to always run both engines when moving on the ground. That keeps the air moving over the fuselage and into the rear engine. Don't taxi on the rear engine alone! It really helps to keep the climb angle at a reasonable degree and maintain about 100 mph. Don't climb like a banshee at 70 mph with the engines screaming and zero visibility over the nose. The 336 will outclimb many 337s, however the visibility over the nose is not as good. If you really need two engines, or just want them for whatever reason, there is no finer airplane than a 336. |
Well sayd- physico- I love my 336 and see 150 miles at cruice, and climb about 110. Never had rear engine temp problems.
Lots of expences last 3 years $10,000 ++ but getting better and better. will be going to the paint shop next month. |
I got the "rear engine hot" information directly from two 336 owners, one of whom's aircraft I am running pictures on the home page of the site. The other I talked to at the Arlington Fly-in a couple of years ago. I am glad that neither of you are having hot rear engine issues, and the score for 336's in my mental tabulation is now two with rear engine cooling issues, and two without. My definition, by the way, of having rear engine cooling issues is having to run with the rear cowl flap open partially or fully during cruise.
I am very interested in this subject, because the 337 suffers from "rear engine hot" rumors that I have found to be nearly completely untrue, both from personal experience, and from talking to a lot of owners. So I have always wondered where the rumor came from, and from talking to 336 owners, it seems it must have come from the 336. Cessna dramatically changed the cooling system from the 336 to the 337, and that would seem to support that there must have beens some owners who have this issue. It is very good to hear that it is not something that happens for every 336 owner. And anyway, opening the cowl flap during cruise partially is no big deal. Just interesting to me. Kevin |
Insurance costs
I just received a quote for a '67 Skymaster with the usual coverages and it wasn't too bad. I currently pay a little over $1100. per year for a '55 Bonanza and to upgrade to the Skymaster the premium is a little over $1900. per year. I have about 350 hours in type but I don't have an IFR ticket. I priced out insurance on a P-model and the rate was over $4500. plus mandatory recurrent training annually. This mandatory training includes my son, a co-owner, who is a 737 driver for Southwest and a 9 year veteran Navy pilot. It seems to me the insurance companies just don't want to write a policy on the high flyers.
|
NIX the black skyscraper operators!
You guys ever seen them buildings that these insurance companies build/own/rent... and the lifestyle/cars/perks they operate with? That's YOUR money they're spending... for their own pleasure! Kinda like having an expensive date for a whole year!
Let's see... since the PIC is has final authority on airworthiness and continued operation of the airplane, why not take full responsibility for YOUR own actions... let the buck stop with you... NIXING the insurance man with his fine print and exclusionary clauses. Part 91 contains more than enough recurrency requirements and that combined with familiararity with one's own equipment and safety issues pertaining specially to the 337 is plenty proof of ability. Not for everyone, true, but learning to live without the insurance man can save you a bundle. Soooo, let's take that $1900, or $4500, and convert it to 337 noise, which is music to my ears: At conservative power settings, that $1900 will net you 20 gallons an hour and at the current petro rip-off rate of $3 a gallon that $1900 will get you 32 hours of flying time. But wait! $4500 will buy you 75-hours... what most people fly in a whole year! The point is, (1) responsibility for one's own actions; and, (2) And speaking of fuel costs, I used to have an FBO in the 1970's, selling 100LL for SIXTY-FIVE cents a gallon! Folks, the well-head price of that product has not changed, nor the refining process. The oil companies have become completely greedy and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the profits are going to prop-up some third-world debt relief program, i.e., we may be paying for someone else's pleasure... again. On that note, has it occurred to anyone that maybe there ought to be an investigation into the monopoly-controlled and price-fixing AvGas companies? I believe there is enough evidence floating around to make a class-action lawsuit stick for the recovery of overcharges... so keep your gas receipts boys and girls! Unbenownst to most, there is just ONE business operation... located in Salem, Oregon that took over and controls literall ALL of the former Texaco AvGas outlets... when they changed over to AirBP. Do some homework! SkyKing |
I just renewed mine for $3800.
Sky, Part of the problem is no new refineries in 30 years. They are old and ineffienct and one breaks down every week. At least that is the excuse they use. The insurance guys and oils guys all have nicer cars, bigger houses and we all pay for it. |
you bee's the man skyking. dont' forget me & hillaery in 08.
if they are willing to insure, why not yourself duh. ror=10-20% |
The Bad Oil and Insurance guys
Could someone please tell me why fuel prices are higher in Europe than here in the US?
As for self insuring your plane, if your have the means, it will save you dollars. Please remember, the large hit is not from the hull loss, but from the Liability suit that will come from the loss. Be prepared, if you survive, to be on the legal end of suit. This suit and the costs will make the insurance premiums look small. Since I am in the Insurance business, and have been for 34 years, I think I can say that the carriers do make a profit, but their buildings are much smaller than most that I see in Las Vegas. Skymasterick |
Gas in Europe is more expensive due to higher taxes. Remove all the tax from the equation, and we pay the same as them.
Kevin |
Rebuttable presumption!
SkymasterRick,
You're PRESUMING that someone's property is going to be damagedin some manner or other. And what I'm saying is that if everyone would become responsible for their own actions, these 'accidents' we keep reading about would not be occurring. Part of the problem is putting the onus on yourself instead of relying on someone else to be on the hook. And too, flight instruction these days is in a deplorable state of mental confusion... just look at the kind of so-called 'accidents' that are happening! When self-responsibility occurs, or call it self-policing oneself perhaps, it will end a lot of the BS in general aviation, improve the safety record, make better pilots of those currently flying, and 'IF' by the slim-margin chance there was an off-airport incident, that could be dealt with. Of course, I happen to also be in the legal arena and know a little bit about lawsuits, so that aspect doesn't bother me in the least... whereas someone who has to rely on an 'attorney' might be in a whole nother situation. Let's face it, insurance is not going to prevent an 'accident' nor is it going to save your bacon or your plane, no matter which way you slice it or cook it. SkyKing |
Insurance and Oil
We just got back yesterday from flying Coast to Coast-KGAI to KONT.
We paid from $2.89 in Dumas, Texas to $4.03 in Campaign, ILL and $2.73 at KBMG for 100LL If the base price is all the same, how do these FBO's charge such different prices. Who is making the profit here, the Oil company or the FBO? If the Base price is different, why such a difference. The Well Head price is the same, isn't it? As for Insurance, understand that you have the right to self insure and go on your way. If for some reason, you have an accident-an unplanned and unavoidable event- and happen to end up in my neighbors house, be prepared to have your heirs or yourself defending yourself in Court. If you are not concerned about defending yourself, there is a saying for those who choose that route, you have a fool for a client. Even the state requires that you maintain a certain level of Car Insurance, does it mean if we did not, that we would be better drivers? I sell health insurance to rather large companies, thru the years I have had employee's at Open enrollment come up and complain about the costs, I have always said that if I could pay the premiums and that would guarantee me that I would never have to use it, what a lucky man I would be. Rick Rick |
It's the law? The 'state' requires you...?
BTW Skymaster Rick,
You should peruse your 'state' copy of the statutes that impose 'car insurance'. Much to your chagrin will be the fact that there is NO such requirement to have 'car' insurance! Better look first at the definitions of what a 'Motor Vehicle' is and isn't, as well as the definitions of 'person', 'driver', 'passenger', and 'license'. I don't carry 'passengers', only guests. Of course, if you're operating a business on the public highway, as a 'driver', in a 'motor vehicle', by all means, better have that 'required' insurance. SkyKing PS... It's all in the law! And in the statutes you will not find the terms 'automobile' or 'car'. Neither will you find 'boat'... just 'vessels'. And there is also not to found the term 'airplane', only 'aircraft'. Gee, is someone trying to tell us something? ALWAYS, ALWAYS read the DEFINITIONS that define the terms being uses... because LAW is NOT ENGLISH! |
refering to hull, not liab. ins.i don't think others should pay for my dumb ass mistakes.
|
Hangar Lease Agreements
Read yours, most that I have read require certain types and limits of insurance.
FWIW Keven ________ WATCH XXX |
Shoe on the wrong foot...
Keven,
That TOO is a misnomer! It 'may' be required, but there is always a work around. Besides, who in their right mind would accept one of those 'standard' attorney written lease agreements with all of the cookies in THEIR basket? Ever hear of 'NEGOTIATING' a lease agreement? Lopsided, or one-sided agreements are for the misinformed, not someone who thinks on their own two feet. [Off topic content removed by webmaster.] SkyKing |
SkyKing:
Perhaps your local aviation community doesn't suffer from a shortage of hangars like mine does. There are hundreds of people on waiting lists to get a hangar. Those folks who want to "negotiate" the terms of the standard lease simply don't get hangars. Take it or leave it. It truly is that simple around here. If you were ever in a position of having too much demand for whatever you were supplying, you would probably deal the same way. Supply -- Demand, and Market Forces. They even out and find a balance of what people are willing to pay, and do, given certain economies, circumstances, etc. Concerning flouride, dementia, etc., those are just bizarre comments not well suited for this board. Keven ________ No2 vaporizer |
The same is true in this part of the country. In GRR, AZO, BTL, don't like the terms, don't want to comply, step aside, we got lots more people who are willing to comply with our terms. on the sunny west coast, it's probably not a big deal, but here, where snow, hail ( I say that because it was just hailing outside and thunder too!!) are regular features of our weather, it is a big deal
|
What do you do?
Removed. Let's talk about the airplanes folks.
Kevin |
Re: re low time pilot and skymaster
Quote:
good luck |
jfk jr was a bozo, a lot of people think they are the center of the universe, but they don't kill three others (what a jerk). i went from at pa28 to a "p" without a problem (also had a lot of help from a lot of great cfii's (50hrs or so). i knew my limitations but they shrank them. so it's really how you approach the next level; am i mr. big who can't pass the bar or a little morew humble and learn from the one who proceeded you.
|
Engines
There hasn't been any activity in this subject for a while so i'll relate a discussion I had with a local pilot last week.
My man had just been to look at an airplane that was really a terrible wess and he decided against it, He then mentioned that he was going to maybe look at an airplane with 2100 hours TT on airframe and both engines. As we talked it occurred to me that, since 2100 hour engines still running without problems could be considered in the realm of miracles, the seller would have to GIVE him the airplane in order to make the transaction reasonable. Bob |
engine time.
Not so! I own my second Skymaster. It is a P337G, 1975. I just got the front engine rebuilt at 2500 hours. The rear engine now has almost 2600 hours. I intend to get that engine rebuilt this summer. My engines on my first Skymaster which was a 1971 F model had 2200 hours on them before rebuild. I fly a lot and I think that is one of the reason why I get good times on the engines. Miracle..no! Others have experenced the same thing.
Point of fact. The TSIO-360 CB engines in my P337G plane is the same engine used in the Seneca V plane. In the Skymaster the TBO is 1400 hours. In the Seneca it is 2000 hours. Make any sense? Jerry N34EC:confused: |
Hi-Time Engine
I agree with Jerry, my airplane, 1967 337B, has 3200 airframe & 2200 on both engines, unlike Jerry I don't fly mine much, they are still good strong engines.
BTW docbob where is this "High Time" airplane located, I might be interested in it ! Thanks Fred N358 |
Docbob,
There is more than one school of thought on high time engines. Although it may make me unpopular with Jerry, Fred and others, I belong to the other school of thought. A 337 with two 1800+ hour engines is a dual runout, and is worth $50,000 less than one with two engines overhauled by the factory or a reputable shop. Therefore a normally aspirated early years 337 would have quite a low value to me as a purchaser. You would have to decide that it had good enough airframe/systems/radios/paint/interior to make it worth the investment. But there are certainly airplanes out there that would be well worth that investment. Just not a scratched up, antique radio, needs interior etc. uncared for older airplane. In my opinion anyway, there are lots of them. (One per pilot.) Kevin |
It depends
I ran both front and rear engines past 2100 hours. It was not a problem for me because I knew how the engines were running, the compressions, performance numbers, etc. So, it was never a big deal to me as an owner operator. In fact, I never had a serious problem with an engine until I changed my rear one out.
However, if I were going to purchase a different bird, I would stay away from high time engines unless steeply discounted because I would not have first hand knowledge of how they had been running and the performance numbers for the last 4-5 years. FWIW Keven ________ BODY SCIENCE |
Hight Time
Kevin & Keven are right about lowering the price of an aircraft with high time engines. The only thing I have going for me is the photo ports in the belly(if someone needs that). If I wanted to sell my plane I would have to set the price pretty low or replace the engines (new or used). I will just keep flying it !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fred N358 |
On the hunt...
Fred: I'm on the hunt for a P337 and found one that has very nice avionics but it looks like it hasn't been flown too much. I test-flew it last week. It flew fine but looked tired. The paint looked original and oxidated. The interior was original and not in bad shape except for a badly cracked right instrument panel and some loose overhead lights. The front prop took 3-4 tries to cycle properly during the run-up but finally did.
The avionics were outstanding but the database hadn't been updated since last year which again led me to believe it hadn't been flown much. The autopilot flew fine except it always seemed to overshoot (or under-bank) turns so we never rolled out on course (with GPSS). I'm tempted to write an offer for it but my spider-sense is tingling. I haven't looked at the logbooks yet. What should I be looking for? I don't want a project plane. This one looks like it HAD some TLC but recently it's been sidelined. Getting the logbooks will be my next step. Dale... |
I don't know if this was for Fred alone, or if you want other inputs, but here goes my views.
Much of what you describe does not, by itself, lead me to worry. An owner who has not spent a lot on cosmetics (paint, interior) may have spent it on taking real good care of the rest. And the modern avionics may attest to that. Also, a one-year-old database card is not, to me, much of a sign. My experience is that a lot of pilots who do limited IFR flying or who fly the same route on most trips, might update the database every 2 or 3 years. Also, if it's got the Cessna/ARC autopilots, anomalies like the ones you describe are common and often easy to remedy. I would read a lot of what's in this Message Board, using the "Search" feature to look for specific topics. I would get a 337-savvy A&P (Fred is a good one) to do a thorough pre-purchase inspection of both the aircraft and its records. I would then base my decision on the total package, with emphasis, of course, on such things as engines, propellers and landing gear. Ernie |
Sorry...all contributions welcome!
Didn't mean to exclude anyone. Please, any and all suggestions welcome!
|
337 Looker
Hi Dale
I think you have the right idea, if the log books were well kept they well answer 80 % of your questions, the next 10 % you can see for yourself & the last 10 % will come out in the Pre-Buy. The Skymaster is a complicated aircraft an needs someone who is familiar with it to do a adequate Pre-Buy. If I can be of any help let me know. Fred N358 |
I just purchased my first 337! It took about two years to find the right one, but during the process, Debbie Sullivan at AOPA insurance worked with me to find the best insurance rate. She was also great working with the underwriter to clear up all issues (e.g. allowing some 337 simulator time to count toward required flight time before solo). OK, now for my numbers: 420 TT, 10 Multi, 0 in type (she didn't have much to work with); Now the Insurance: 1973 Pressurized T337G, $75,000 insured value, 1k ded not in motion, 2.5k other, approved ground school, 25 hours dual before solo, first year insurance cost - $5085.
|
be careful, under insuring the hull will means you are co-insuring the hull.
so a hull valued at 150k and you insure it for 75k means you are eating the first 50% of the loss. |
What are your liability limits??
|
Liability Limits
$1,000,000
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.