What to look for in a 337

[cameronbm]

Well I'm starting to look for a plane to call my own and I find that a normally aspirated 337 fits my mission requirements (high wing twin capable of carrying an 800 lb payload and at least 4 hours fuel). I've read what FAQs I can find on the care,feeding and purchasing a 337 and have reached the point where I would like to delve into the collective net-wisdom for help with a few questions.

Is there a "good" entry model (for example, if I were to look at a C-210, most people recommend the 1972 L model as a good initial entry model as it was the point where the evolutionary changes had jelled into a cohesive whole, yet is old enough to be affordable)?

Any recommendations as to how to separate the wheat from the chaff (also know as how do I know that $xx,xxx 337 is a deal or a dog) prior to committing to a pre-purchase inspection? Am I better off working through a broker like Bill Crews or Tule River?

Many Thanks
Bruce

[kevin]

It's quite a broad set of questions you ask. I'll bite off one part, and that is the "entry level" model.

There are three inflection points in the normally aspirated part of the line, in my opinion. First, the 336/337 division. You get a lot more performance and an airframe that reflects improvements from early learning when you buy a '65 337 vs a '336. You also pay more, and have retractable gear expense/risk to deal with. Folks who read this board frequently know that I personally make this decision in favor of the 337, but there are many happy '336 owners that value things differently than I.

The second inflection point is 1968. There is a fairly rapid increase in gross weight from '65 to '68, from 4200 to 4400 lbs. The gross weight stays constant to '71, where it jumps again to 4630, but there are not very many '71 and '72 airplanes to choose from.

Up to and including 1972 you get a full six seat airplane, even if the fifth and six seats are really child seats.

From '73 on you get the fuselage that is shared with the P337, so you have the airstair door, which for a normally aspirated airplane might be a plus (ease of entry) or a minus (weight). If I recall correctly, you have only five seats in this airplane, but perhaps a '73+ normally aspirated owner can correct me on this. I know this is true of the P337. But '73 is the third inflection point in my opinion for normally aspirated because the interior changes, and you get electro-hydraulic gear rather than hydraulic, which I consider a plus because you don't have a "critical engine" (the one driving the gear pump). On the other hand (and there is always another hand in this discussion) a windmilling prop will retract the gear just fine, so all you really gain is a few seconds of delay before you can feather a prop. In 1973 you get a magneto access door on the rear firewall, which will make your mechanic very happy as well.

You might consider the larger gas tanks (148 gal) that started in 1975 and the sliding rear seat (1976) to be significant improvements worth noting as well.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Kevin

[WebMaster]

A subtle nuance is that on 69, there was the option of 2 hydraulic pumps, one on each engine, and in 69 the cowl flaps changed to toggle switches and limit switches.

Mine is a normally aspirated, pre 73, and I think these planes are wider inside. The door is also wider.

[Jose L. Ichaso]

Definetly a pre 73 has more inner space, (a real six seater with cargo pod), and you can opt for the second hyd. pump; I think this system is much more reliable than electro-hydraulic system. Think the best over all is a 1972 because of some aerodynamic refinements and more usefull load than a 1969`s 1700 lbs.

[Dale Campbell]

I purchased a 337 H normally asperated 4 years ago. Safety and ease of operation was my concern. I have a 1978 model with six seats, all on sliding rails, easy to take out. Most of the time only have 4 onboard, also has cargo door. The H model was the last built with the most features, such as air step door. With 4 fuel tanks in each wing all manifolded together to act as one tank in each wing, so no need to keep switching tanks, which is less confusing on fuel management. I also removed large rear gear doors for safety reason, should I lose a engine on take off while raising gear. When buying any aircraft you should always keep saftey first, because it is you and your family that is going to suffer if something goes wrong. Thats why I chose the latest inline thrust twin I could find. Only my opinion. Dale Campbell

[Ernie Martin]

I assume you read the earlier "Sticky" thread "What to look for when buying a Skymaster" and the link there to www.skymaster.org.uk/purchase.asp

This is a full page on the subject.

Ernie