Quote:
Originally Posted by mshac
Some would say you stepped down from the 340 into the Skymaster. By three points at least.
How would you answer them?
|
I "split" the 340 into two planes for two different missions. I got a King Air and the 337. The King Air is more comparable to the 340 - it goes farther, faster, higher and carries more. That was really the 340's replacement.
The 337 is slower, harder to work on, not as harmonized on the controls...but it is FUN. Visibility is EXCELLENT. It takes off and lands in a parking lot. Like David, I have an early Turbo model with R/STOL.
I also spend a lot of time at low altitudes. The 337 beats the 340 for that mission. I just got back from a trip to Alaska in the 337 with 50 hours hand flying at 1000' or lower, much of it 500' or lower. I landed on gravel strips under 2000' without thinking twice. You just can't do that in a 340. My wife is a great photographer, and the 337 beats the 340 for the photo mission by a mile (my O-2 door is getting put on in October.) I've also flown a 206 in Alaska, and the turbo 337 let me fly routes I wouldn't touch in the NA single. It just may be the best "tourist" airplane for flightseeing I can imagine.