NEW Member, soon to purchase 337/336

[turbonut51]

Hi Jeff here in Calgary canada. I did flight training as a young man, got married, 3 kids . Wife insisted i quit flying, but while not flying I was hit 3 times from the rear in the car and now i have permenant damage to spine. Did all physio, rehab, therapy including chronic pain management. The reccomendations for recovery was to fake it till i make it. 10 different Drs, and clinics - same brush off. I can only work a couple of hours a day. So I now will work on a project 337/336

I have watched the board for a couple of years, had to work out the cessna powerplay on inspections. Im ready to start training for the sophisticated twin, I will be fine with cl only. Also need IFR.

any members or instructors in Alberta?

Is there a compressive list of available stc modifications, a list of modifications, of 337s flying as experimental. stcs wanted etc.

I think like many of you, i belive, that this aircraft needed fresh eyes over it to see what these twins should have become. Perhaps a rereleased 336 and a higher evolved 337 . Those adversarial to it were probably very worried of its potential.

jeff

[Roger]

Welcome to the board.

Now if I understand the question correctly : You have no 336/337 experience, you are not yet a pilot, and you want to know how much you can alter a Skymaster, up to and including changing it to such a degree that it could only be flown as Experimental ?

Is that what you are asking ?

Perhaps the more important question (other than WTF might be: after you have determined your 80% mission profile, what safe mod may or may not be available that would allow a Skymaster to fit that profile?

So perhaps we should start there: What is your 80%+/- mission profile/demand ?

And again - Welcome and best of luck in your training.

[turbonut51]

Thank you Roger. I have 647.5 hours in certified aircraft. aprox 1400 in ul aircraft. Just as a happenstance of my service, I have 45hrs in McDonnell F101, 37hrs AV L-29 delfin (in 1979), and 24hrs in a Bell UH-1 Iroquois. I also have restored 7 aircraft from a Champ to a C-210. Unfortunately, I have 16hrs since 1989, that all being ul.

Being that I am so far out of date, in all respects, I will completely retrain. The experience with the 210 of course, is invaluable toward a Skymaster.


Part of my questions is, by reputation the 337 is "underpowered", and many modifications are made to address that, ie factory turbocharging and its effects on climb/ceiling etc. or stc - wing tip droops, clean up aerodynamics, less power for climb required, etc. This is a perceived negative to the aircraft, I understand that "fully trained and fully maintained" these aircraft will fly "FINE".

There are other issues which may effect future flyability, such as avgas availability, especially where I may relocate to. I think an autogas stc should be investigated. I have seen no reason for it not being completed/available except "they did not have time for the process". I may have to go into "owner maintenance catagory" because of location, which totally, permanently devalues the aircraft by default.

Yes, I am evaluating my mission for the aircraft, there is no doubt the Skymaster is the valid choice.

JEFF

[WebMaster]

Jeff,
Look at Delta Hawk engines.
The last I knew, they had one flying in a 337. It's the AVGAS solution, short term for Skymasters
Not certified yet, but an option.

[Ernie Martin]

I would dispute the reputation for underpowered. In the huge archive of this Message Board I don't ever remember anyone saying that (you can check using the "Search" feature).

Essentially all general aviation piston twins just meet the basic certification requirement for positive climb rate with one engine out at full load under standard conditions. Key word there is "just". The Skymaster is no better and no worse.

I think Roger may have been concerned (as I am) that you are starting to look at modifications prematurely, given your lack of up-to-date training and experience with this aircraft. And I will add that in my book the modifications you are considering may reduce the aircraft's reliability (Cessna designed it as a SYSTEM, where, for example, the structure is made to handle the engines, props and wings that came from the factory, and some mods may push the limits of other subsystems on the airplane). Maybe it's worth it for you, but only after you know for a fact that you need it and are willing to live with the decreased reliability.

Ernie

[Roger]

I was going to say the same thing about "underpowered" but the one and only time that ever came up in the past, wasn't very pretty