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?

[John Hoffman]

ipasgas - note my post today re. landing the 337. That was at LUK with an instructor named Ralph who unfortunately passed away . We flew a complete pattern to touch down "hands off".