If I have about $100k to replace my 337, which should I buy and why?
 

My current RSTOL 337 got hit by a tornado. It MIGHT get totalled. Don't know yet.

I operate from a 2,665ft runway surrounded by trees in a valley (www.Potomac-Airfield.com).

I take out the 3rd row for luggage

Two adults, two adult sized teenagers (Plus two cats, one dog, two violins, one cello, etc).

The turbo makes it fast at altitude, the RSTOL lots of margin for short field.

Most flying to date has been scenic shoreline trip to beach house in NC. ~250 km each way

Ive had the airplane 20+ years. Perfect condition (except for wind damage).

Basic avionics, stormscope and shadin. Moving maps etc is/was going to be next.

Realistically, I've rarely flown it much above 10k ft.

What are the pros and cons of going pressurized? Is maintenance much higher? Insurance?

Your thoughts appreciated.

Feel free to contact me here.

or bigcheese@potomac-airfield.com Or 301 248 5720

D

David

It's a buyers market out there right now, as you well know. I would have to say that you should be able to find a very nice replacement in your budget range. I have scene Riley converted P models (several) less than $100K. This is formally unheard of. I would venture to say that your dollar will go much further by buying a Skymaster with all the goods than to rebuild and upgrade your current aircraft.

I spent all the money on mine only because of the sentimental value. It was my dad's and it's been in the family for almost 36 years. I just couldn't see it go. I have no regrets in the work I put into it but I look at what I spent and what can be purchased in the market today and I could have had a nice P model.

What is maintenance like on a p model?
 

Is maintenance much more on a P model than a T model?

I have not owned a P model or a Turbo but I know from others that have the P models do require some additional TLC over the normals. I think you have to ask yourself, "What's the mission". If I look at the flying that I do, a P model would only be required a handful of times a year. I can live without the extra maintenance. My mission is served by a normal aspirated just fine. The only reason I would look at a Riley Rocket is because Jack did such a nice job everything and the price is right today. The Riley's have most everything one would want and it's done in good taste and engineered.

Yes the P model is going to cost more to operate. A late model Turbo, non-pressurized would be a nice option but you can't find them for sale.

It's a tough choice, I know how you feel about a totally different aircraft, it's just the unknown that scares a guy.

I believe that what you may save in purchase price on a pressurized aircraft, will soon be "eaten" by maintenance This for any aircraft, not just a 337.

Not only that , but one has to also consider that the more complex an aircraft, the more possibility for various failures during regular operation, thus the safety factor may well be decreased with complexity. After all, the many things that break don't wait to do so on the day of the annual (or 100 hour).

Your mission profile would seem to indicate no need for pressurization, or for that matter even a turbo.

Good luck with the search.

T337
 

You folks are overlooking the fact the David already operates a Turbo 337.
I would think that a P model will have very similar maintenance costs to your T337.
The P models have slightly higher gross weights, and a different door, as you know.

One example:

Problem engines

Some engines use turbocharging to gain additional sea-level horsepower, rather than simply to maintain sea-level performance at altitude. Highly ground-boosted engines like the 325 hp TSIO-520 found in late-model T210s and P210s and many RAM-converted twins have a dismal record of making published TBO, much less going beyond it. The same is true of the 225 hp TSIO-360 in the P337.

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182808-1.html

Problem-prone Continental IO-360-series engine?
 

The paper referenced above by Roger, written 15 years ago, calls the Continental IO-360-series engine "problem-prone". Is that still the case? Or did the VAR crank and other ADs resolve the weaknesses? I am under the impression that it is the latter, but I'm not certain.

Ernie

P versus non P TSIO 360
 

I have flown both the p and non-P TSIO 360's. To me the biggest difference is the P-model has a red line of 37", thus the extra 15 HP. You really must run the p-model 360's much harder. We all know what happens when you run a piston engine harder.