Super Skyrocket Useful load?

[captbilly]

Originally Posted by N5ZX

Howdy, Spa.
When I was shopping for SkyMasters last year I ran accross a Super SkyRocket that advertised a useful load of 2000#. I cross verified independantly that with Owen Bell. I do not know if that was for that specific aircraft or the general mod package. However, Owen seemed to indicate that it was indicative of Super SkyRockets in general.

He also said that the 310hp engines in the Super SkyRocket conversion had inadequate ventillation and were prone to heat issues.

The only personal "negative" experience I have with the Super SkyRocket is that after having talked about it soooooooooo much....whenever I walk into my local FBO, a few of my CFI "buddies" like to break into a chorus of "SkyRockets in flight.....Afternoon Delight..."

They even managed to get ATC to say it once.

But I digress.... Back to your question :

A standard Turbo SkyMaster has a normal(ish) Useful load of around 1500# (I think).
My modified P-SkyMaster has a useful load of 1740#
The Super SkyRocket has an advertised useful load of 2000#....or so I have been told.
Owen Bell's (experimental) "Ultimate SkyMaster" mounts two IO-550 (350hp) driving 3-bladed scimetar Hartzels and supposedly has a Useful load of 2500#....for the price of a used lear jet or caravan. I took a demo flight in it and was very VERY impressed. Ya gotta hold back (a lot) on power at lower altitudes to avoid Vne.....but initial climb-out at 110kts gave us 3300fpm....no BS!!!! Its a beast. Last I heard, a variety of STC's were pending approval to get it out of "Experimental" classification.
Cole

I owned a 1973 P337 for years and I am now thinking about getting another one. Mine had a useful load of about 1500, but as I recall that was unusually high for a P model. Mine was pretty decked out, full deice, and a full panel, but no A/C (I will get A/C this time) but many have more stuff than mine did. The ones I am seeing seem to have useful loads of about 1300-1400 so I was wondering how you got 1700?

[JeffAxel]

My 1977 P337 had a full fuel (888lbs) payload of 400lbs. It had full deice, intercoolers and air conditioning. The plane simply couldn't carry enough on long trips, so that is why I sold it. My P210 has known icing, an intercooler, dual alternators, dual vacuum pumps, air conditioning and weather radar and its full fuel payload is 750lbs. It is only about 5 kts slower than my P337 (both at 65% power) and can climb faster due to better cooling. Don't get me wrong, I loved that P337, but a P210 will do more for less if you have a lot of stuff to haul a long way.

[captbilly]

Originally Posted by JeffAxel

My 1977 P337 had a full fuel (888lbs) payload of 400lbs. It had full deice, intercoolers and air conditioning. The plane simply couldn't carry enough on long trips, so that is why I sold it. My P210 has known icing, an intercooler, dual alternators, dual vacuum pumps, air conditioning and weather radar and its full fuel payload is 750lbs. It is only about 5 kts slower than my P337 (both at 65% power) and can climb faster due to better cooling. Don't get me wrong, I loved that P337, but a P210 will do more for less if you have a lot of stuff to haul a long way.

In my entire 40 years of flying I have only shut down one engine for cause, but every time I fly over the Sierras, Rockies, at night or in real IFR, I can't help but think about what would happen if I lost the only engine I have. I realize that the accident stats on twin piston aircraft, including the skymaster, are not better than singles but I want to believe that my piloting experience is not typical of the pilots killing themselves in complex twins. I have fown many thousands of hours in everything from cessna 150s to supersonic fighters and B-52s. I recently saw the stats on accidents in Aero Albatros jet trainers in civilian hands. The accident rate was very high for pilots with no military time but was actually zero for ex USAF, Navy, Marine fixed wing pilots. It would seem that the diciplined and constant training in the military was uniquely benificial, for low performance jets at least. Maybe I am deluding myself but I hope that my experience significantly decreases the likelyhood that the remaining engine will simply carry me to the crash site.

By the way that one engine that I ever needed to shut down was in my Slymaster. I had a broken steel fuel injection line on the rear engine. I actually didn't know what had happened, I just saw a massive increase in fuel flow to the rear engine. It was actually my wife who said "why don't you just shut it down", so I did. When I finally landed and checked the engine I could see that fuel had been spewing from a completely severed (as in snapped in two) stainly steel injector line. I may have been seconds away from a major fire on that engine and there was no way I would have seen it or known about it unless it was night time and there were clouds to reflect the light from the fire. I guess I'll get some sort of fire warning system on my next Skymaster (maybe a camera in the engine compartment?) By the way the single engine return to the airport and landing was a complet non-event, like flying a big Cessna single.

[Learjetter]

"2" on captbilly's reason for wanting two motors. Double the chance of engine failure, sure, but almost no chance of an unplanned landing in a field somewhere. That's exactly why I'm looking for my skymaster...she's out there somewhere...I'll find her soon, I hope...

[Gord Tessier]

Originally Posted by Learjetter

"2" on captbilly's reason for wanting two motors. Double the chance of engine failure, sure, but almost no chance of an unplanned landing in a field somewhere. That's exactly why I'm looking for my skymaster...she's out there somewhere...I'll find her soon, I hope...

What are you looking for exactly?

[Roger]

I suppose it goes without saying that if you have a 3 engine plane, you are 3 times more likely to have an engine failure ?

The point is: Keep your plane loaded correctly so if you lose an engine you maximize your chances of landing safely, stay current on single engine out procedures, and fly with much more confidence in a 337 than virtually any non-turbine produced.

Sure, it may not meet the mission profile for everyone, or circumstance. But there is really only one aircraft that I would trust my family in. Period !

p.s. No Mods except VG's !

[Todd Gessel]

My humble opinion is that the Skymaster useful load is one of its best features. My '77 337G is non-pressurized and normally aspirated and the useful load is just under 1700 lbs. Even full fuel, it hard to overload. I love this airplane!

[Learjetter]

Originally Posted by Gord Tessier

What are you looking for exactly?

Gord,
I want what many want: The ideally equipped low time airplane that somebody else spent big bucks maintaining and upgrading perfectly over the years. I want everything I have in the Lear: radar, TCAS, TACAN, radar altimeter, digital radios, ADS-B, 1090ES, EADI, EHSI, WAAS FMS, and the gear door mod. Oh, since we're dreaming, how about low time motors, air conditioning, full intercom, Bose headsets, and a baggage door. Full autopilot and spoilers. And all for under $125K.

I've not flown GA enough to know what on this list isn't necessary: does a Garmin xxx replace an FMS? What the heck is the use of a DG with no course indicator?

I need a GA refresher--and ten hours in type, I'm looking for someone to teach me the systems and such for a skymaster while getting the ten hours.

I'm a dreamer...such a plane does not exist...until I buy one and make it so. So I'm looking for one that I can do that with...

I shoulda come to Branson in 09...