73 337g

[ipasgas1]

I recently experienced an engine failure in my single engine aircraft. I was forced to make an emergency landing on a city street. My daughter and I came out great but my aircraft was totaled by a telephone pole. I have wanted to get my multi and have always wanted a 337. Now would seem to be my chance. It would seem the 337 would be safer, especially with an engine failure, but this isn't supported in the statistics... what gives? I am sure it is going to be hard to convince my wife and children (especially my daughter who got to experience silence at 2500ft with me) to get into another plane but I am trying to get them to believe the 337 would be much safer as it has two engines, no yaw spin, etc. Sooo... I have an opportunity to get into a partnership on a 1973 337G. ttaf is around 2500, 800 smoh f/r, getting new paint and new interior in the next month, getting new avionics to include a cnx80, sl30, sl70, stec 65, dual gs, and apollo audio panel. He is asking $45,000 for my interest. Does this seem like a reasonable amount? 337's don't seem to hold their value well but this seems like a good deal to me. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, Dan

[SkyKing]

Hey Dan (I-PasGas1)...

What chu mean the Skymaster doesn't hold its value!!??? That's complete nonesense. Presuming ALL will be completed on the airplane BEFORE you opt-in for $45K, that would seem very reasonable. BUT a word of caution. If you're going in "on-the-cum" that these improvements will be done conditioned on your opting in ahead of time, I think I'd step back ten-feet and reanalyze the situation. Looking around on Trade-A-Plane, ASO and the Controller, I see some interesting P-models in the $125 to $140K category with fairly low times.

As to the statistics... you must be reading different one's than the rest of us. Most of the statistics you cite as to engine problems have been situations in which someone forgot to ensure the rear engine was actually turning a prop. That's what those EGT's, Tachs, and MP gages are for! Actually the Skymaster has a pretty safe reputation in the engine department, other than stupid pilot mistakes. Do some browsing on this website and you'll discover much more on the positive side of the ledger, than on the negative.

I recall one P337 that I'd flown in and noticed an ungamely fluctuation in rear engine oil pressure that was really troubling. It was for sale and I was the prospector. I opted out of that one and bought another. In the meantime that airplane was flying into Vancouver, BC one late afternoon and the real mill seized up. I mean prop stopped! No way to feather! The pilot and his two guests made a single engine approach and landing into the airport without a hitch. Testimony to the positive aspects of centerline thrust. Gee, there really MUST be a reason Cessna puts those little jet engines side-by-side on the rear fuselage of its Citation Jets! I dare say, if they were wing-pod mounted, there'd be a few assymetrical incidents to read about.

And if you want further convincing evidence as to the resiliency of the 337 over others, just read the NTSB stats on recent 210 and P210 accidents. In many of those cited accidents you'll discover that had there been a second fan blowing, the accident might not have happened.

SkyKing

[Ernie Martin]

I agree with Skyking's principle that the Skymaster is a fundamentally far safer aircraft than a single or a conventional twin. Regretably, however, you're right: the statistics don't reflect it.

But a more careful analysis shows that in most instances it's not the aircraft.

One of the top threads in this message board is entitled "Skymaster Info" and one of the links there is http://www.skymaster.org.uk/purchase.asp

This is a compilation of info from Skymaster owners and experts over the years about things you should know before you buy a Skymaster. I suggest you read it carefully. The following is excerpted from there:

"If you look at the accident statistics of Skymasters, its record is comparable to other twins with retractable gear. You'd expect better, when you consider that the plane was designed to be very forgiving and easy to fly compared to a conventional twin (without the tendency to yaw over when you suffer a failed engine at takeoff). But it's precisely because of its apparent simplicity, some contend, that problems arise. Too many pilots think they can get in and fly, and you find, for example, an unusually large number of accidents due to simple fuel starvation because the pilot didn't check fuel or because he/she didn't know how the four tanks feed the engines. You see, because of its reputation as a bullet-proof aircraft, some pilots treat the 337 as if it was a simple single-engine aircraft. But it isn't. You don't just get in and fly. If you treat it for what it is - a complex, high-performance, retractable-gear, variable-speed-prop twin - and if you maintain it properly, and if you do thorough pre-flights, and if you stay proficient, then it is indeed a very safe aircraft."

I have now a 337G and used to own a 337D. To the above, I would add the following. Like most twins, the 337 has an anemic climb rate on one engine. So an engine failure on takeoff (no more likely than on any other twin) may be far easier than on a conventional twin and far safer than on a single-engine aircraft, but it's still an emergency. If you're overloaded, if your remaining engine is not performing up to par (perhaps because you've been delaying putting in a new set of plugs), or if you don't promptly implement the necessary recovery procedures (best single-engine speed, full throttle, full RPM, identify and feather bad engine, reduce drag, etc, etc.) you're in a heap of trouble.

So we're back to the last sentence of the earlier paragraph (in quotes): do it right and it's far safer.

Ernie

[SkyKing]

I'll add one more thing to Ernie's description of the 'anemic' climb rate, but on a more 'positive climb rate' note: the clam-bucket shaped rear gear doors are the BIG problem area and RT Aerospace has an excellent cure for this anemic problem. Remove those two doors, eliminate a couple of hydraulic actuators and hoses, and the 337 no longer has this problem, plus, the gear sucks up quicker and extends quicker. It's still an 'emergency' with one-engine out if you're beyond the accelerate-stop distance, but at least with the no-doors kit you won't get sucked down when cleaning up the gear before reaching best single-engine rate of climb speed, which is 89 KIAS.

Our P337 with R/STOL has the RTA kit installed and there is no longer any waiting until best climb speed is attained before bringing the gear up. Most of the time when we're off the ground at 44 Knots, up comes the gear, accelerating climb and airspeed. Of course, at full gross we're a little more conservative. We each have our own picadillos, and mine happens to be as much altitude and airspeed as possible when near the ground at takeoff...

SkyKing

[SkyKing]

Dan,

Just curious what make/model your SE plane was and the circumstances of the failed engine??? When and where???

SkyKing

[ipasgas1]

I had a AGA MCR-01 Lafayette sportster (Ban-bi) with the rotax 912ULS engine. The engine seized during cruise at 2500ft with no warning. Luckily, it was a small plane and it was Martin Luther King Day (no traffic). I was forced to land on Reading Road in Cincinnati, Ohio. I struck a power line which took off my Lt landing gear. Upon touchdown, I dropped to the left wing and slid left (I touched down in the left two lanes and was passing cars that were in the right lanes). During this slide, I impacted a telephone pole which removed my left wing and tail. The FAA and NTSB had cleared me of any wrong doing as the engine is still seized. They could not even get the prop to move. It is being crated and sent for tear down. The NTSB said they have had several engine failures with the rotax engines. It is a very surreal experience to had complete silence at altitude and to be able to see your prop because it isn't moving! They teach you to look for a nice field, there wasn't a field in site. That's an even worse feeling. I thank God that my daughter and I are still here to enjoy our time!! It would have been a great relief to have a second engine available! Thanks again for your input, Dan

[WebMaster]

Dan,
I came to 337's for similar reasons. I was looking at planes, always liked the idea of a 337. Went and flew one, that was for sale nearby, and we flew over an accident site where a single engine airplane had crashed, due to engine failure. Their outcome was not as good as yours. I called my wife when I got back on the ground and told her we were going to by a 337. We did not buy that one, however we did buy a nice one.

[Jerry De Santis]

Dan, two weeks ago with 4 big people and 120 gallon of fuel on board had a catastrophic oil seal failure in the front engine turbo dumping all engine oil out the exhaust. You know, white smoke like the Thunderbirds. Well, I was at 4,500 feet and 30 miles back to Battle Creek. It really is a non event with the Skymaster. Not first time I lost an engine and probably will not be the last. The stats that you have regarding the safety record of the Skymaster are somewhat skewed. If you do a complete investigation you will find two things that standout the most.

1, Lack of fuel...can't blane the plane for that and,
2, Events that happen as a result of training.

I believe in the Skymaster so much, the current 1975 P337G is my second Skymaster.

For $45,000 are there only two partners? If so, I think it is a deal for a 1973 P337G unit.

Jerry
N34EC

[KyleTownsend]

I have looked at the accident statistics and given this issue some serious thought.

Unfortunately, there really is no cut and dried answer in the single vs. twin debate. All we know for sure is that, overall, the accident rate for twins and for high performance singles is comparable. We lack the data to definitively answer which type is safer and why.

But, I know my pucker factor goes through the roof when I am flying a single at night and the engine coughs, and it's not nearly as scary when it happens in a twin. This is conducive to a calmer and more reasoned handling of the problem (if there really is a problem). This, in itself is worth something to me.

There are risks in aviation. We can't mitigate them all. But it is hard for me to "trust in fate" when I don't have to. Engine failures happen, and a twin is the only way (other than a parachute) to mitigate this risk. And flying a Skymaster or other CLT twin is the only way to mitigate the risk that your engine-out skills won't be over-taxed in the event of an engine failure at just the wrong time.

PS: For what it's worth and to the best of my knowledge, the P337 has the best published single-engine rate of climb in comparison to ALL pressurized piston twins (and the second highest single engine service ceiling).

[Kevin McDonnell]

I think the reason the stats don't show the Skymaster as being safer than other planes in because losing an engine, is not what kills most pilots. And in particular, most twins fly just fine when they lose an engine - assuming they don't lose that engine at the most critical time - taking off. Despite the impression our training gives us, the number of aircraft done in by VMC rolls is pretty small.

The top two accident causes are fuel exhaustion and continued VFR flight into IMC. If you're the type of pilot who isn't going to tempt fate in those areas, then you'll naturally move your focus down to the accident causes you fear the most.

For me, while statistically unlikely, mid-airs, engine loss over the mountains and VMC rolls scare the hell out of me. A Skymaster calms two of those fears, and I have a SkyWatch and TIS to address the third.

Since you've just experienced the "thrill" of losing an engine, clearly you are not going to feel safe until you have a pair of engines to count on. If you need a high single engine service ceiling (like over the mountains), nothing touches a turbocharged Skymaster (which includes the pressurized model as well).

If you don't want to have your engine-out VMC emergency skills tested when your life depends on it, a Skymaster is good solution.

[Dave Underwood]

I figured I would add my two cents worth as well. I started looking for a new plane about four or five years ago. I wanted twin engine safety, good range, performance and load capacity and the general systems redundancy that comes with a twin. Pressurised and de-iced were also high on the list.

I also had a long look at the NTSB files for a range of light twins and did a lot of reading on the subject of flying them.

I went out and did some multi training in a turbo Seneca II. The engine out training was very interesting and revealing. On a warm day with full fuel asymetric flight was not the easiest thing to do. Never tried it with a full load on, but it was interesting when the rate of climb is less than 200 fpm and there is a hill ahead. To do it successfully you have to be on top of your game all the time and practice it regularily.

Bought a FT337GP with de-ice. Engine outs are a non-event and I mean a non-event - you just slow down. The plane is well designed and well built. Easy to fly, and generally in my opinion, one of the safest twins around. I think as do many on this board that any reputations the 337's have are the result of, running out of fuel, pilot error, OWT's (old wives tales) and people who are commenting without actual experience with the type.

Everytime I take someone up in my 337, they come away impressed. Even experienced pilots who thought I was a bit crazy to buy it, leave a flight nodding their heads that it is a great plane with good performance in all modes of flight.

In summary, you have a lot of enthusiasts for the plane here and a lot of experience with the type. In making your decision, when you hear negative comments about the 337, ask where this experience came from and I think you will find it is not based on fact or real experience. OK, pilots do make mistakes, and a lot of 337 accidents appear to be people transitioning into a very complex plane without the necessary training. BTW, it is a complex airplane and you will need type specific training.

The way I look at it, as my wife does not like to fly at all, if the rear engine fails, she will never even know about it and if the front goes, I can just tell her I am giving it a rest. That is what I mean when I say a non-event.

My two cents worth. Ok, it was more like ten cents worth.

Regards - Dave

[Borden]

Another safety factor and reason my wife and I have stayed with Skymasters for so many years, is that she has about 9 hours of flight experience in a 172 and believes she could land our P model if the pilot became incapacitated. She does not have the same level of comfort with the Aerostar, 340, ect... Borden
________
digital vaporizer

[Ernie Martin]

I commented early on safety issues (summary: it's the safest twin around, but don't disrespect it). This message is about the offering price on your half-ownership. First, the response from others on the matter of price seems to be tilting to a pressurized or turbo model, and I see nothing in your messages to support this. It seems that you're buying into a normally aspirated 1973 337G. Which is exactly the model I have, bought two years ago to replace my first Skymaster. Based on the research I did at the time and your description of the aircraft and its equipment, it seems like a fair price. As Skyking has mentioned, I would arrange it so that "ALL will be completed on the airplane BEFORE you opt-in for $45K".

Ernie