Looking for a 2nd 337

[Timcote1960]

Been turning this one over in my mind. Contacted your friend and yes, it's a pretty bird. I love the idea of 9 moving parts in my engine instead of 300+.
But that MU2 is flown by a professional pilot, not some 61yo physician with 800hrs that began 7yrs ago.

Think I'm stepping back to my original plan of owning two 337s as a means to have one flyable all the time. Pouring $s into #1 engines, a P337G with every electronic thing imaginable; and have several candidate #2s also P337Gs from Bill Crew's stable and elsewhere.

The pilot is the most fragile, failure-prone part of the whole air safety system. Might be best to spend my next 10yrs flying just to getting to know this one aircraft inside out.

NB: I was gonna get my CFI. Last February, two days before my checkride in a C150 contaminated with ice-then-water, I had an engine out at 300' with nothing but an oak forest in front of me. We stopped treetops at 70' for 0.5 sec, then descended to the forest floor. Yet I and my CFII (she 32 and 7.5mo pregnant) escaped without a scratch. But two of the three were deeply changed on the inside.

Tim

[JeffAxel]

FWIW, I am a 62yr old physician! The MU2 is my first turbine, and yes it was a big learning curve. I figured if I was going to get an MU2, better do it before my brain was too fossilized to learn anything new! I do have 4000 hours over almost 40 years, plus a lot of IFR time in the Pacific Northwest. You don't have to be a professional pilot to fly an MU2, but you do have to think like one and fly with the flows and checklists you will be taught. The MU2 is definitely a by the numbers airplane, but if operated using those numbers it is wonderful. As to getting older, the 5.0 pressure differential gives you a lower cabin altitude and I notice I arrive feeling better than in the P210 or P337 FWIW, plus I get where I am going a lot faster. Going from a 200mph plane to a 300mph plane makes a big difference, especially into the wind.

[rrolland]

Interesting thread. And going into a lot of different directions and possibilities.

I was surprised by Tim's descriptions of the issues on his P337. The aircraft clearly needs some work, A well maintained P 337 will be a reliable airplane.

Having two airplanes to look after will add to the expenses while not necessarily solving the reliability issue. What guarantee is there that the additional airplane will prove more reliable? At one point I owned three P337's at the same time (N39288, N78C and N289). Difficult to maintain. I sold 39288 and ended up with two P337's. In the end, I kept one and ensured that it would be a reliable aircraft. One is all I really need.

Considerable money was already spent on 639GC recently to include a new paint job.

My current P337 cost me a significant amount of money once I bought it to bring up to a good standard. My first annual was painful. I ended up overhauling the rear engine as well as fixing a number of issues on the electrical system, AC, fuel tanks etc.

I added an Aspen PFD (Max) and a GTN 750xi plus a second certified AI.

Now I have a well equipped reliable aircraft. Which is what I think Tin is looking for.

Richard

[Timcote1960]

Thanks Richard. Your empathy soothes the wounds.

The paint job was the easiest bill to swallow. $17.5K in Mena Arkansas, quite an adventure to get a plane there and back, yes. But nice wow factor, I'm sure she's worth that paint. The big bills are coming---new front engine, new rear cylinders, reworking all the gauges. Holes in the pressurization, turbo woes, snapped heating control cables. If I can escape with under another $70K for this year, it will feel good. But baby has got a pretty dress on....on boats they say a good coat of paint can hide a whole world of sin. Hope that works for planes too.

She does have two 650s, onboard radar, AC, STEC 65 AP, etc. But with three engine outs (admittedly, in the safest aircraft in which to have an engine out), 4 alternators, a couple vacuum pumps, an intercooler broken, two turbos and 70% on the ground time during the 3 years I've owned her, it's seems everything has broken except my will. I've handed her over to a very experienced 337 mechanic with a loose checkbook to make her reliable. But it will REALLY kill me if after all the above is done (October? November?) I still find myself driving 11hr days DC to New England (airlines won't take the dog). That's why the duplication...

I won't ever own three though!

Tim

[n86121]

As a fun-loving young man,
I scanned the various options, before buying my helicopter.

Back then you could find a small Cessna Paris Jet.
Remember those? Was it even four seats? Cool!
Most obvious problem was 1950's engines would use $200 of fuel before you took off.
That was when fuel was what, $1/gal ...or less?

Having decided AGAINST buying a 1969 Ferrari Dino targa,
because parts would be difficult...
Instead geting a Lotus Eclat, that required 4AM calls to Cheshire England.

I was being "practical"

The MU2's were intriguing also.
But the accident reports always seemed to read the same:
"The pilot had 5,000 hours in make and model"
"The wreckage was spread over a file mile radius"

Too unforgiving.

Having had my 337 for ages, I always offer the following challenge"

"You are IFR/NIGHT/OVER WATER/FOREST/CITY, and something goes "klunk'"

Complete the following sentence: "Damn, I wish I was in a ____________"

Same answer every time.

[JeffAxel]

"The MU2's were intriguing also.
But the accident reports always seemed to read the same:
"The pilot had 5,000 hours in make and model"
"The wreckage was spread over a file mile radius"

Too unforgiving."

David, this was true before 2009 when initial and yearly recurrent training became required. Since then the MU2 has had a better than average safety record. Fly it like you train and it does what it should, get too slow for your wing configuration and you will have issues. You can't make this plane do what its design does not allow. It is different and has to be flown differently than piston and turbine twins with ailerons and more like a jet. You have to fly it by the profiles in the POH, all the time. Different flap configurations require different airspeeds. The good news is the airspeeds are essentially the same, one engine inoperative or with both engines so it is easy to remember. Speeds depend on flaps, not number of engines running. All of this is true for any airplane though. The Skymaster has a pretty lousy accident record too. I have owned a P337 and own an MU2 now, the MU2 is a much more capable plane and much better supported as well. They haven't made one since 1986 but you can still get factory service and factory parts from the factory owned service center in Tulsa, OK. Don't get me wrong, I liked my P337 but it was a quirky plane to work on and finding parts was a challenge ten years ago when I owned it, this isn't better today. Everyone has to make their own choices, but to say an MU2 is dangerous and takes super pilot skills to fly just isn't born out by recent history. I am just a typical guy flying for fun, but I found the training I took for the MU2 to be very good and feel better taking the MU2 on long trips in weather than I did the P337. It is just a more capable plane with many more tools to help deal with situations typically seen on cross country IFR flights. Besides, spooling up those Garretts brings a smile to my face every time I do it too :-)

[n86121]

Jeff, don't get me wrong. The performance of the MU2 is hard to beat.

It's just as Tim Cote said, the pilot is the weakest link in the chain.

When heavily engaged up front gettig the ratings, and everything new and interesting, you are hyper focused. But hyper-focused people rarely stay hyper-focused on one thing.

So the question becomes the pilot staying qualified, at what level, over time.

Flying IFR is actually very easy, once you learn how to do it. But it is still a 'mind-shift' from everyday life when you need to do it.

Years ago I spoke w Jack Riley about his 337 conversions. He was amazed at how much interest there was, and the profile of owners.

The basics were, if what you are doing gives enough disposable income to own / justify a twin (over a single), you may not have the time to remain razor sharp proficient.

The higher the value of one's time and attention (to oneself OR others), theless spare time.
You are otherwise engaged distracted.

How many 310 / baron owners really practice engine outs regularly in their spare time?

So the inline Skymaster is the most forgiving design of pilots' inevitable "Whoops" and "duhs"

Which are the real hazard, statistically.

[JeffAxel]

David, the 337 should be one of the safest planes out there, but the experience with it has been different. Pilots don't take it seriously enough. One thing I have learned is the thing that is the biggest contributor to safety is regular recurrent training. The Cirrus had a really awful record, then they got serious about owner training and it improved. Same with the MU2, and not only required initial raining, but annual recurrent training as well. If twin Cessna owners, including 337 owners did serious annual recurrent training I am betting their accident rate would decline as well. Everyone should want to do so, in the MU2 it is a requirement. So if you want to be an MU2 pilot, it is part of the commitment. It should be part of the commitment for all planes in my opinion. Insurance companies are requiring it more and more as time goes on, and for good reason.

[mshac]

Originally Posted by JeffAxel

It should be part of the commitment for all planes in my opinion. Insurance companies are requiring it more and more as time goes on, and for good reason.

Not be negative, but I hold several type ratings, and have owned and flown MANY piston twins. I've never been asked by any insurance company to get annual "school" on any piston aircraft.

Did you know that when introduced, the Skymaster could be flown single pilot, no passengers allowed, on a SEL land rating? THEY DIDN'T EVEN REQUIRE A MULTI RATING (There was no centerline thrust limitation back then).

So to go from NO TRAINING REQUIRED to ANNUAL SCHOOL is quite the stretch IMHO.

I can't see any reason for annual school in a Skymaster. Just too simple of an airplane, with no complex systems, except arguably the pressurization system, and you can get a high-altitude endorsement for that if it pleases your underwriter.

I would reject any insurance offer that required annual school on a 337. Total waste of money IMHO. But I'm old school...and still alive after 1000's and 1000's of hours aloft.

This kind of "nanny" mentality is killing aviation, and many other industries as well. At this rate, underwriters will want annual school on your C150 - Pilots and Owners have to push back against this nonsense! Maybe rather than requiring annual school, the underwriters could offer a discount for it, sort of like Defensive Driving.

Sure, go to annual school all day for your King Air or MU2 or Citation, but as far as your piston poppers - just fly 'em baby!

Stay current, and if you aren't, then go flying with an instructor or another experienced pilot until you're solid with the airplane.

[JeffAxel]

I think your idea of offering a discount for annual training is a good one. When FlightSafety had a 210 simulator, I went there annually to take their training. Not required, but my plane was a family transportation device and I wanted to lessen the pilot induced risk . Training does that. You could argue about the 'nanny" state and requiring it, but there is plenty of evidence that annual recurrent training results in safer flying, for ANY airplane and ANY pilot. Staying current is important. How many pilots take regular training sessions with an instructor? Not enough in my opinion and the accidents I read about support this. I am going to San Diego this week. Just to brush up, took three flights with a local instructor who also flies an MU2 to get in some IFR practice in actual conditions in the past 3 weeks just to be sure I am where I need to be. It was fun, I learned a few things and feel better about my upcoming trip. No one likes to have areas they need to work on pointed out to them, but they are areas that need improvement! Pressurized piston twins including the P337 have lousy safety records and as I said earlier, pilots don't take them seriously enough. The worst thing you can have in a plane is a pilot who thinks everything is "safe". It isn't and we owe it to our passengers to prepare for things that might lead to "not safe". Any incentive that leads to keeping current and/or more training is a good thing in my opinion.