Want to buy: 336 AND Want Feedback on 336

Wanted: Dependable Cessna 336. Looks not important, but must be well maintained with complete logs and at a reasonable price for today's market. I am a serious buyer looking for an airplane for personal use.

Bob
Colorado
ae0b@qsl.net

I would love to hear comments from current and past 336 owners on what you like and dislike about the model. I do not want a retract and am transitioning from a '64 182. I do a lot of cross country flying out west. The terrain alternates between a lot of nothing and a lot of unbroken pine forests. I like the idea of the second engine a lot. Am I just fooling myself into believing that a 336 would be safer for my kind of flying, (especially at night)?

I don't want to open a can-o-worms, even though I realize this is a variation on the old twin vs. single question. I'm just interested in opinions about the 336 from those that have actual experience in one.

Thanks!
Bob

[Ernie Martin]

It might help some of us to know why a 336 rather than a 337. Often it's either cost or the lack of retractable gear. To me (aerospace engineer who's owned 2 337's) the first reason is a good one, the last one is not. The 337 is a far superios aircraft, substantially different from a 336. Properly maintained, the landing gear is reliable. But if I can't sway you, run it with the gear down -- it's still a far better plane than the 336.

Ernie

Insurance costs and systems complexity are the primary reasons I'm not looking for retractable gear. I like having the gear down and welded and I suppose the 336 just interests me. I sure can't justify that last point ;-)

[WebMaster]

I remember Brad asked Gmas about this, in the bahamas, and he suggested getting a 337, and having the gear down and locked, permanently. It takes quite a bit of weight off the aircraft, (you remove the hydraulics), and then would satisfy the insurance companies, I believe, that it is not a retractable aircraft. Insurance is an issue, just ask any retractable owner. Also, by not having to maintain the hydraulics, you will save money on annuals.
The bugaboo about the rear engine running hot, came as a result of people flying the 336's. The rear engine was cooled mostly by the rear fan. The rear fan causes some noise, and some vibration.
Unfortunately, because the LG is a little bit different, I don't think you can add the wheel pants from a 336, to a 337.
Either way, you will be happy having two engines spinning, in centerline thrust, instead of one. When I was looking at skymasters, I flew one up north from where we live. After take off, we went over a crash site. Some folks had landed at the airport I was visiting, then, 3 miles from the airport, had an engine failure. The plane was upside down, and they did not survive. It made me feel good to be in a twin, and I'll never fly in a single again.
I ESPECIALLY, I wouldn't want to be in a single, IFR, at night. It is comforting to my wife that we have, 2 vacuum pumps, 2 alternators, and they are on different engines. She explains to her family that the skymaster is built with redundancy and safety built in. Ours is a 69, with 2 engine driven hydraulic pumps. I have shut one of the engines completely down, and continued on, and landed. I have a friend who shut down an engine on his Seneca, and was not able to taxi with the engine shutdown.
The centerline thrust thing is real, and it works.
I am a low time pilot, who started flying only a couple of years ago, and the Skymaster is the first plane we have owned. We flew to the Bahamas last May, and it was a great comfort to us to have a second engine spinning away, on our trip.
Everytime I fly I am aware of the comfort factor that having a second engine provides, without the asymetrical thrust issues. I got my Multi in a BE-95 (180 hp / side), and losing an engine in that plane was a HUGE deal.

[Bob Cook]

Bob

There are people who like them and there are the others. If you get one that has been well maintained you are ahead of the game.

As for the 336 your speed is less. your operating cost (annuals etc) are less and the insurance is definately less.

It is still very ecenomical to operate but you will fighting to get "book" airspeed. They /cessna/ decided it didn't outperform any of the existing singles except for the spare engine <G>

There is some history on the web and also at the riley skymaster sight.

I am in Larry's camp. I fly a lot at night and a lot of over the water. You won't catch me in a single even if it is a tbm700 or a pc12 pilatus. One engine is one engine. lose an engine and the 336/7 will take you to the airport.

good luck finding a good ship.

bob

I agree with what everyone says, except . . . when I was pricing insurance before I bought a bird, there was only about $100 / yr difference between cost for insuring a 336 and 337. So insurance dropped out of the picture for me in consideration.

I was a VERY low time pilot, and thought that the retract would make a huge difference in insurance cost, but for some reason it did not.

I wouldn't avoid the 337 just for insurance until you check it out and compare. After I considered the additional safety features and benefits of having retract (sometimes, if you're going down in a forced landing, you WANT gear up, e.g., water), additional airspeed, etc., it became an easy decision. I consider the additional operational costs worth it. But again, it's all personal preference.

The old addage about 2 engines gets you to the accident scene faster just usually isn't true with the CLT of the skymasters, so any decision you make between the 336 and 337 is not a bad one.

I love the bird, and wish I had more money for toys, but CLT is still the mode of preference for me.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Keven
________
Chevrolet

I appreciate the feedback everyone left on this subject. I've been digging into the specs and reading the various guides, but none of that can compare to your experiences.

I've learned:
1) Most folks prefer the 337. Faster, sexier, newer, neater, line-boys don't snub you as often, etc. ;-)
2) The 336 will cruise at about 140 kts - about 15 kts slower than a 337.
3) Vibration may be more of an issue in the 336.
4) 337 has better cooling (scoop, no fan), but 336 owners don't think it's a problem if baffles are OK.
5) 336 owners seem very happy with their airplanes.

I put the insurance question out to the nice lady that takes my money and I'll let you know what I find out. I'm a relatively low-time pilot with most of my time in a 182.

Bob

[WebMaster]

Bob, here's my nickels worth. If you do not already have your ME rating, you'll have to get it of course. I did not have the ME rating when we bought ours, and Don Hickman, who's name you'll see, did not have his. I took the intensive course approach, and got a conventional ME rating. Don flew with an instructor and got his ME-CLT ONLY rating. Given some of the stories Don has related to us, I think mine was a better approach. I went to Clyde Fredrickson's course at Red Bird airport in Dallas. He does the ME for fixed price, in a Beech Travel-Air. Don spent a lot of money on plane maintenance getting his ratings. It's one thing to do an air start, failed engine on take-off, etc., in a training plane, where someone else pays the maintenance bill. It's quite another to do things in your plane. Also, by the end of a week, I was ME rated. I think it took Don quite a bit of time to get his. Lastly, finding a DPE that can give you a ME-CLT ONLY rating in a Skymaster can be difficult. Don lives in southern Indiana, and had to fly to Flint, MI, north of Detroit, to do his check ride.
IF you are already instrument rated, I was not, you can get a ME with Instrument added. If you are not already instrument rated, finding a DPE to do the Instrument thing will not be difficult. Incidentally, if you were conventioally ME rated, and got the check ride for Instruments in your Skymaster, you will end up with a conventional MEI rating, no CLT restriction.
I found insurance to be a challenge. I was a 130 hour private pilot, no instrument, no High Perf, when I went shopping. It was solved, and not as expensively as I was first led to believe.
Hope this helps.

[Bob Cook]

Larry

Don's problem was an instrument rating. Secondly, if you are not running turbos then single engine training is not all that bad.

Most insurance companies want at least 10hrs in type so you might as well fly it and get familiar with it. And .........traveller ?

That is a single engine twin if i ever flew one. It "bit" my instructor and he went inverted 40 ft off the runway.. No thanks.

Insurance ? things have changed a lot since 9/11. Avemco pulled out of canada completely.

Mackinac next week end? or go to Meigs and mortgage the AC for parking..........

Bob