Should I get an old 337?

[Roger]

I am sorry, but because my wife also reads this site, I refuse to admit how much it costs to operate my aircraft

[WebMaster]

You don't need long range tanks to go to Europe. The longest distance, via the northern route, is a little over 600 miles. However, pay attention to the note that says insulate the breather tube. It would be easy to speculate that uninsulated breather tube brought down the plane that is sitting in the bottom of the ocean.

If you want to go the route of St.Johns to the Azores, you need a ferry tank, in the cabin. You also need an HF radio. Most ferry pilots will take the northern route.

You can probably buy an aircraft for 30K, and then spend 60K on engines, and 20K on props, pretty easily. Most of the lower priced airplanes have high time engines.
Avionics can easily run another 60K. If you want a new paint job and interior, check with Herb on that cost, but it isn't cheap.

I would suggest that you search for an airplane that has mid-time engines. Have a thorough pre-buy done on it. Look at your wallet, because you can plan on 7K for insurance the first year, provided they will write it. I think an IR would be required by most companies these days. Fuel burn, for normally aspirated, will run 22GPH. An inexpensive annual will be 3K. I had an annual that cost me 12K.

The costs add up, and in a hurry.

[edasmus]

Hahahaha....Roger, you are a funny, funny guy. I'm laughing so hard, my sides hurt. )

[WebMaster]

I remember reading that while most US insurance companies write polices for 1MM liability, in Europe, it is required that you have 2MM liability.

The SIDS, by and large, are just things that should be paid extra attention to during the annual. The wing pull shouldn't affect part 91 operators of US registered aircraft. There are some who think that insurance companies will require SID compliance. If the crash in New Jersey taught us anything, it is that the wing pull is not necessary. The wing to fuselage junction, as well as the strut, remained pretty much intact, even though the wing had failed.

[stratobee]

I still want one

I've had my eyes open for a 336 as I thought that would be a nice entry, but they're far and few between, unfortunately. Someone said they have this SID even worse somehow and need a more thorough examination. Is this true?

[skymstr02]

The entire production run of 336's was something like 192 units, so they will be rarer to find than a 1965-1967 vintage 337.
The handling characteristics are different on the 336 vs the 337. The angle of incidence is different and the front cowling shape is different, so your sight picture is going to be different.

[jchronic]

I'll second that. We fly a 336 on our marine survey, occasionally interspersed with a 337. The sight picture difference is striking, especially at the speeds we use on the survey tracks. 100 knots is the target ground (or over-the-water) speed; to maintain that going downwind, the nose is honked up to where you can barely see over it.

Back to the question at hand: the 336 is the perfect airplane for low, slow survey work or sightseeing, but if I wanted an airplane to actually go somewhere, I'd get a 337.

Ahab