Skymaster vs. Cirrus

[ipasgas1]

I feel bad asking this but... I am currently in a partnership on a 337. I love the plane! However, it has come to the point that I need my own aircraft for business and pleasure. I experienced an engine failure 4 years ago in a single, landed off field, totalled the plane but my daughter and I walked away. I swore to never be in that position again, got my ME rating and joined in on the skymaster. Now I am torn between a 337 or a Cirrus, probably SR20, with the chute. My main concern is being able to afford the expense on the 337 as far as increased fuel burn and increased maintenance costs. Though the chute is not a guarantee, it is better than nothing. If I could get a 337 with a chute, I would probably do that too. The acquisition costs of a Cirrus is between 145-190K, I am looking at the 145 end. There are quite a few skymasters for a lot less but alot of them do not have the avionics upgrades of a Cirrus or have higher times on one or both engines. I guess what I am trying to decide is if I should try to find a nice 337 with the panel done and low time engines for 100-120K and spend more on fuel and maintenance or buy the more expensive plane and hopefully pay less on fuel and maintenance? I assume most, if not everyone, here would rather have the second engine than the chute? I have also been told to buy a 73 or newer 337? Is this due to the door only? Also I have seen a nice T337 for sale but have not flown a Turbo. Are they more hassle than necessary and more expensive? I live in the Midwest so don't need it but if the plane is great, should I let the Turbo deter me?
Thanks for your input and I love the site. Hopefully, I will meet many of you in Branson.
Dan

[billsheila]

While no expert in Skymasters compared to the many long-timers on this site, I may be able to offer some perspective because I went through a similar thought process that you are struggling with now, about 2.5 years ago when I bought my Skymaster. I didn't have an engine out in a single like you thankfully got through OK, but once I got to flying IFR with my family, I never got comfortable in the soup on one engine. My wife was similar and the kids just had blind trust in dad given their ages, but overall the whole crew never got terribly comfortable. I was flying a DA-40 in a partnership and it was time to move on from that right about the same time I was reaching the conclusion I would not be comfortable IFR on one engine. I gave a lot of thought to the chute concept as an alternative but honestly I did not look that seriously at the CIRRUS as an option. I know there has been lots written about CIRRUS and all the accidents, lots of debate about bad pilots versus bad airplane and all that. Who knows the real answer but where I landed on this was to conclude that CIRRUS was just a little too new for my liking. Their craft have developed with wing changes over the model years, a very high number of SB's and the ongoing debates about the flying characteristics generally (including the spin testing, which some say was a primary reason for the chute and their ultimate certification with it). My own theory on the CIRRUS is that it is basically a crappy "seat of the pants" airplane. I could never get a good control feel from the side yoke and the lack of manual trim didn't help. It seems almost like the intent was to have the autopilot fly the plane while you play with all the fancy electronics. Of course the autopilot didn't need a trim wheel, but a real pilot might like one! So convinced I would never truly be comfortable in a CIRRUS (particularly perhaps an early cheaper used one), so I moved on to Cessna.

The 182 with a BRS chute added was in my view a viable alternative to the CIRRUS (and vs a Skymaster, perhaps). In fact I was intending to go the route of the 182 with a chute when I got intrigued by a Skymaster for sale that was very well equipped. I won't walk you through all the various thoughts on 182's but I looked at many before the Skymaster idea took hold. In the end the 182 is a great and very versatile airplane, but the BRS installation in it is an afterthought and it is a pretty clumsy install which eats up a considerable amount of the available baggage space.

So on to the Skymaster. I found an early example that basically had an incredible amount of money and effort put into it (thankfully by prior owners). I will leave it to those more informed to provide opinion on early versus late etc, but will say that from my perspective I don't quite understand why the early planes are considered less able. Mine doesn't have the high legal useful load because these increases came later, but it climbs like a banshee, can carry whatever I can reasonably stuff in it, and other than the door change is the same basic airplane, as far as I know? On the door, again no expert, but I understand while convenient they can leak and present other issues versus the simple side hinged unit.

In terms of cost, despite all the money having been spent on my plane prior to me (new interior, updated avionics, new paint, new engines and props), I haven't been that impressed with overall "reliability" and thus have been spending more money and down time than I like trying to de-bug small issues and get it stable. Part of it is that I am pretty picky and like things to be right but I have had my share of nuisance issues. In fairness many of the issues are systems related and not Skymaster related, per se, but as a package it has not been as reliable as I would like. Some examples:
- series of gear issues, anything from bad hoses, corroded hard lines, finicky rigging
- leak in vacuum line to MP gauge that took forever to sort out
- failure of switches (throttle position/gear warning/panel switches)
- problems with rear cowl flaps (switches and a bum cable)
- variety of avionics issues

Beyond that, I have replaced certain things that were not done prior and perhaps should have been given all the other upgrades done to the plane (eg all new gear hydraulic hoses, newly rebuilt powerpack).

Overall, I have spent about 2.5 times what I had previously been spending on the two prior singles that I have owned on (just) maintenance costs. Obviously fuel is about double and I am ignoring insurance in this discussion. My expectation and hope given the condition of the airplane I bought was that maintenance costs would be obviously more than a single, I had thought around 1.7 times the cost, not 2.5 times. I remain hopeful that once I get through the bugs it may stabilize to something like this level.

Overall, it will cost you more to maintain a Skymaster, but if you get a decent airplane I expect it won't put you in the poorhouse. Beyond that and back to your original question, IMHO, the Skymaster is significantly more airplane than a CIRRUS, particularly a $150K CIRRUS. There is no doubt that right now there are bargains out there for piston twins and the Skymaster is among them. You could get yourself a great airplane with great avionics, engines at both ends, and bank the difference in cost versus the CIRRUS as a maintenance and fuel reserve!

Good luck.

[Ernie Martin]

Bill is right, it's a good question. Here are some other points:

On the Skymaster being cheaper and using the savings to pay the higher operating costs, the math doesn't support the Skymaster. If you save $35K on it (the average of your numbers) and put that in the bank, it will yield about $1,000 per year (at 3%), which probably covers the maintenance differential but not the fuel differential.

I don't buy the suggestion that the Cirrus with parachute is roughly as safe as the Skymaster (you don't quite express it this way, but it's implied). In an engine failure right after take-off, I don't think the parachute is much help, and that's when engine failures are most prevalent (because the engine is stressed to its maximum, often when it's also going through the thermal transient from cold to hot).

I'm on my 2nd Skymaster (a 1973, after a 1969) and I don't agree that the later models are better, nor do I recall ever hearing that comment.

Finally, on the Turbo, my understanding is that, in addition to even higher fuel and maintenance costs, they are also significantly more expensive to buy. This, of course, under normal circumstances, which may differ if you find a cherry Turbo from a distressed seller. But if you have time to look carefully, you should be able to buy much more aircraft for the same price if it's a normally aspirated model.

Ernie

[aldoradave]

Dear Dan,

I am currently in escrow for a 73 P337. I have come to that decision after my last aircraft was a Cirrus SR22 (non Turbo) and before that a Seneca III (turbo'd).

First off, I am making the switch mainly because I need more room ( at least one more small seat) for my family, and otherwise might not change. But I am in a pretty good position to add my 2 cents.

First the Safety

The chute on a Cirrus is seldom used as it is generally safer to make an off field landing in case of engine outage. One of the reasons is that the chute has a checkered history of proper deployment and use of the chute totals the aircraft for good. BUt even then an off field landing is complicated by the fixed gear which can snag all sorts of things. I had gone to the Cirrus from the Seneca III because I don't fly a lot of hours and given the asymetrical thrust issue deemed it safer for my family than an engine out. I still believe that to be the truth.

In addition, I sometimes fly where the water table is above 8000 ft MSL. The P and T versions have a single engine service ceiling of over 18,000 feet, and while take offs are prohibited on a single engine, landings are a non event.

Therefore, I really feel that the Skymaster is, all in all a safer airplane for me...by far.

Then the cost aspect:

Yes, with twice the motors you are going to have double that kind of work, but I am pretty sure that it is no more than a Seneca III that has the same motors. I also believe that the turbos don't add up to a lot of cost unless you are a ham fisted flyer and take the proper precautions in operation. Its really not that big a deal, especially with the automatic waste gates in a 337, which the Seneca lacks).

The cost of fuel is going to be a factor but not very important to me since I don't fly a whole lot. You can count on about 22 gal/hr (it varies according to source) and my Cirrus did about 18 gal/hour with the Cirrus a little faster.
I don't know what the SR 20 gets but you can do the math.

Finally, I am buying a 73 P337 in very nice shape with mid time engines yet old avionics for $66,500. You'll find sellers asking for much more than that but there are deals out there. Indeed Skymaster.com has a nice 73 P 337 that can be negotiated for near the same price I am paying. So, the initial cost differential may be much more that you think. $80,000 will pay for a lot of gas.

Finally, Aviation Consumer Reports indicates that from 75 on the Cessna factory QC went way down.


Good Luck,

Dave Dillehay

[ipasgas1]

Thanks for all the replies. I had not given consideration to the fact that most engine failures occur on takeoff. The T337 I have looked at would probably be in the 120K range which would not give me much of a reserve for fuel and maint. I would like a P337, mainly for the added sound insulation but only have about 50 hrs in a 337 so do not know if I could even get insured plus even more added expense between annuals and proficiencies. I looked at Nick Nazari's T337 on line and it looks very nice. I see one on ebaymotors as well, same year and model, with low time engines and nice panel but needs paint and interior updating and not asking much less than Nick's. I have not come across any nice normally aspirated 337's with low time engines and updated avionics/paint/interior. I also looked at a Rutan Defiant but it hasn't flown for a few years and he wants as much or more than a 337. I will continue looking and keep any advice coming, I really appreciate it.
Dan

[hharney]

It's such a buyers market out there right now. I think this aircraft looks like a nice unit if a person needed the turbos. I wouldn't go for turbos unless I was out flying the mountains again and then maybe it would be justified. I have flown a normal through and over about any mountain out there. It a little underpowered at altitude (14,000) but it will take you safely. The turbos will cost you more in fuel and maintenance but if needed they are nice.


http://www.controller.com/listings/a...F712A725DBFEEB



This is a little high on engine time but if they have been taken care of there is a lot of life left on these engines. There are others out there but the most important part of looking at any of these aircraft is a thorough pre-buy inspection by a experienced Skymaster technician. It will be the best money you ever spend.

http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...xxxregionid=-1

I like this one too but it's a lot more money.

[ipasgas1]

I like both of these but know I would have to spend a bit on new panels. Any idea what it would cost to ferry a plane from England, aside from the fuel aspect? Are there a lot of people who do this? I found a nice p337 on tradeaplane for 125K with everything I am looking for except it is pressurized so the upkeep is going to cost more in every aspect.
What is the advantage of the P over the T other than not wearing oxygen and being quieter? Their fuel burn is higher as well, isn't it?

[aldoradave]

Go to Skymaster.com and look at a 73 P337 listed for $89,000. You should be able to get it for $75,000. Avionics are not great but you can buy a lot of that for the price differences.

Dave Dillehay

[aldoradave]

PS

The turbo vs non turbo fuel burn difference is not really very much if you, could or do, run the two engines at the same manifold pressure at altitude. BTW, the turbo gives you lots more knots if you can run at altitude, not to mention the ability to get up there.

As an example from my P337 Owner's Manual: at 6000 ft a 73 P337 at 25" and 2450 rpm is at 54% power and results in 181 mph. At 12,000 ft it is still 54% power 194 mph. IN both cases the fuel burn is slightly over 15 gal/hr. So you get 13 mph at the same fuel burn. Throw in that in my region it is usually smoother air up there, the T or P were my logical solution.

I just finished an exhaustive search of just about every T or P 337 out there and if you would like to converse with me directly about the market I can give you my impressions and some other leads. I am dave@aldora.com

Dave Dillehay

[JeffAxel]

Originally Posted by ipasgas1

I like both of these but know I would have to spend a bit on new panels. Any idea what it would cost to ferry a plane from England, aside from the fuel aspect? Are there a lot of people who do this? I found a nice p337 on tradeaplane for 125K with everything I am looking for except it is pressurized so the upkeep is going to cost more in every aspect.
What is the advantage of the P over the T other than not wearing oxygen and being quieter? Their fuel burn is higher as well, isn't it?

The biggest advantage of the P is comfort, pure and simple. Less noise, and no need for oxygen are huge advantages if you fly long legs, and most P Skymasters have 150 gallons of fuel so 5hr legs are possible. Your passengers as well as you will appreciate the difference. Any Skymaster is much more efficient at altitude, and you are more likely to take advantage of that if you just climb up there, no hassling with oxygen, etc. above 12.5K ft. You also don't have to pay to refill your oxygen tanks. I would never go back to a non pressurized plane after owning a pressurized one. My wife would shoot me!!

[gkey]

ipasgas1,

First off, as anesthetist I find your avtar name cool!

I have flown 172, 182, Arrow, Seneca II, and Skymaster. I still have my beloved 172N and 337G. My wife refuses to get into a plane with only one engine - I think it is irrational, but it's her choice. On the other hand, she greatly enjoys our trips in the 337. If I have to make a choice again, I would take the 337 again, hands down. I bought my 337 two years ago. I always wanted to upgrade the panel, but could not get enough reason to get past my chartered accountant for that one. Then, last year in August, I had an electrical fire and most of my centre stack, including my S-Tec55 burnt out. That proved to be a mixed blessing, because I got my wish to upgrade to the newest stuff I want to have in my panel, and GKEY is approaching her final stages of complete panel make-over, glass panel Aspen-and-Garmin style.

And you know what? They don't built 'em like they did with the 337's anymore. She is one sturdy beast, has enormous versatility and awesome flying characteristics only an in-line can offer, fly high or low, fast or slow (in fact, with the Robertson STOL during slow flight it feels like you can overtake her on a bicycle!), super-long distances, she loads like a truck and never moans, almost impossible to get out of C of G, she can handle G-forces like no other GA plane her size because of her O-2 heritage (this thing is built like a tank) and therefore make a canyon turn as tight as YOU are comfortable with.

And the aftermarket mods are vast. One of the best inital investments IMHO is the cargo pod, which can also double as a skid cusion in case of a gear-up landing, and thereby save your life, and keep the plane PERFECTLY intact with no engine tear-downs (if you do it right!).

Give me a 337 any day and I am as happy as a pig in mud.

[ipasgas1]

GKEY, I am a CRNA here in Ohio, I cover mainly OB. How does that work up there with your healthcare system? We may end up with a similar system down here, though I hope not. I have been following the threads on your and hharney's remodelings. It all sounds exciting. I think I have ruled out the Cirrus, I just have to convince my bank account that the 337 is the better, safer choice. Another option I have been investigating is a Rutan Defiant. I have no problem with experimental and they are a little better on fuel and maintenance costs. I would just have to find a nice one of those as they are few and far between. Aside from taking alot of runway, 3000ft, they sound like a good replacement?

[Roger]

I've owed a few different planes, from a 150 all the way up to a Navajo Panther, and now back to a 1980 H. They are all good, but when I got to a point where I didn't care (within reason how much it cost to buy, own or operate, I decided that the 337H (non pressurized, non-turbo (but booted) was the best plane on the planet.

I would not fly in a Cirrus, nor will my wife. I don't want to lible the aircraft in any way, but I believe a certain aviation writer who had something to do with radio navigation alluded to the fact that the Cirrus has the worst safety record of any aircraft ever produced. Of course there are all sorts of arguments as to why, like it is bought oftentimes by low hour pilots who get behind it's speed curve, etc..

But back to the skymaster, I will make one observation about the year because I have owned both a 1970, and now a 1980. The one significant difference (other than the door) is the fuel system. My 1980 has all fuel tanks (per wing) hooked together in a line with one large lower hose. This vs the 1970 which had seperate main and aux fuel tanks and associated mult-position selector, no pump on the aux, etc..

There is some evidence that if you took out 337 accidents that are fuel related accidents(ie.. planes that crashed with fuel in the tanks, but due to vapor lock and selector valve problems) as well as just plain old running out, that it is one of, if not the safest aricraft ever produced. In fact I often wondered why no one ever produced an STC to convert the tanks to a one fill/flow system on the old airplanes. I guess because if it doesn't happen to you, it isn't worth the expense.

As for turbo's, my Panther had them, and they were cool to get you high fast, but other than that (for east coast flying) they are a total waste of time, money, maintenance and heat.

If you want to talk about this in greated detail, just email me direct.

Good luck with whatever you get.

[ipasgas1]

I did find a nice P337, as well, for a decent price with low time engines, loaded with avionics and A/C for the same price as a T337 I liked. I just have not seen any NA 337's for sale with the same equipment. Is that because everyone is keeping theirs but T and P owners are trying to get out of them? How much more can I expect to pay for fuel and maintanence on a P model vs a normally aspirated (NA)? Also, how much more would I expect to pay for a P vs a T model? The owner of the P model said his insurance did not require yearly recurrent training, is this the norm? Also, would I be able to get insurance on a P model with only 30hrs in a 337 and 300hrs TT?
Thanks again,
Dan

[Roger]

I would think you would be best advised to talk directly to your insurance carrier about your insurance questions, as related to your hours. Otherwise you may make a decision based on bad information. Maybe you can apply for some Tarp money and get a deal on AIG insurance

As for P, T or NA. I think the real quesiton is, what do you want the plane to do. In other words if the T or P don't offer you anything you need (like high altitude cruising, for either long distance or mountain flying) then one would have to wonder what you would need the extra expense, maintenance and weight for.

My best freind has a new Mooney Ovation and he took off from Craig (jacksonville) 10 minutes after I took of from St. Augustine, and we both went direct to Key West. He cruises at 190Kts and I cruise at 155kts. He typically flys in the 10k area and I like 5k.

To make a long story short, they vectored him out wide for me to land ahead of him at KWY. So for a 325NM trip, we were within 10 minutes of each other, and he burned almost as much fuel.

So I believe that while it's cool to have the extra "stuff" I also believe that unless you need it, the extra stuff may cost you more in the end, than what it is worth. Again that's why I decided to sell my Turbo Navajo Panther and specifically looked for a non-pressurized, non-turbo 337. It seems to be the best plane for the money for the average east coast flyer (if you can find a good one at a good price).

And last but not least, becuase I don't get to fly a lot, I feel it is much easier to remain current in a non-complex twin like the NA 337.