Looking for a 2nd 337
 

I've owned N639GC about 3yrs now and for one reason or another (4 alternators, rear turbo issues for 6mo, intercooler cracks, 3 engine-outs, wow), she's been stuck to the ground about 70% of the time. I love this P337G but yesterday my AP for the annual gave me bad new: the front (higher time) engine is pumping oil with compressions in the 50s and the rear ain't much better. I expect to write some checks again....

But the real problem is I NEED RELIABLE TRANSPORTATION!!! Ive just taken a work arrangement that requires I fly between DC and NH weekly. Flying the 337 is a joy when it works, and the safety comforts me greatly. The car ride is 8-12 hrs (one never knows) and I hate commercial. Am thinking that a second 337 could offer redundancy in the bird I like.

Next 337 wouldn't need to be be pressurized but I would prefer later model and an AP is a safety requirement. GPS naturally, turbo or natural is fine. Ice is nice but not required. Anybody want to make a deal?

Tim

I have a couple for sale. PICs and info on my website. https://www.wefly4u.com/forsale

Make me an offer.

Ed

Caution
 

Your description 'pumping oil and compression in the 50's" is highly suspect.

As 'pumping oil' makes no sense.

Nor do I believe all the compressions have all dropped so suddenly.

I think they see a doctor with a checkbook, frankly.

Ask the fellow for installed price of engines overhauled NOT by him, but by either a different well-known engine overhaul shop that just does engines, or TCM, limiting his margin on replacing two engines.

...Before taking you for a ride.

Again, highly suspicious.

Or get Mike Bush involved. You need someone riding shotgun.

I will be selling my 72/73 P337G this winter. AP, boots, dual WAAS, recently overhauled props, factory remans (will have about 900 hours on each by then). Please contact me by email for more info/details. Thanks. John

Tim, are you not responding to your PMs? :confused:

337 shopping
 

A few responses on this thread:

1. There's really no doubt that my front engine requires the big hit. Ive seen the borescope (oil pumped up past the ring) and poor compressions myself. My motors have been run hot and the front is high time. While the loving intent to protect a brother from nefarious mechanics (yes, there are some) is appreciated, that's not my read with this guy who comes well respected by the community in NH. Accusing a mechanic of selling an unnecessary engine is like accusing a man of rape---better have some solid evidence before making that call. Or to use the medical metaphor, mal occurrence is far more common than malpractice. I'm closest to the evidence and pretty confident replacement is the right call. Love you anyways Dave, and I know you're heart's on my side.

2. I have been looking at my PMs. It seems the sweet spot for acquiring a 337 that can reliably haul me back and forth DC to Boston is listed somewhere around $90K (there are 4 candidate machines in that ballpark). None of them is perfect; hopefully my own will be perfect by around October, November?. Meantime, the drive on 95 is brutal and commercial isn't an option with the dog. Redundancy offers transport reliability, with the trade-off of doubling the woes and complications of aircraft ownership. But we knew that already---we own twins.

3. Still a go for Fly-in Sept 17 weekend at KLCI in Laconia NH. Maybe I will have a flyable 337 myself even, maybe not. At 61 years old, I remain hopeful that before the clock runs out I will achieve this dream of one or two safe 337s I can depend on flying me around whenever I want if the weather and my own skills allow. Not there yet...

Respectfully submitted.

Tim Cote
N639GC
N?????

Tim,
polite suggestion, do what I did, sell the Skymaster and find an F model MU2. Way better plane, but more expensive to operate, not that much more, but more. You do get a lot for the money though, and it would be much more reliable than ANY pressurized piston twin, not to mention faster and more capable. The F model MU2 is the least expensive way to get into a turbine. If you are flying IFR year round in the northeastern US that says turbine equipment to me. I happen to know of one coming up for sale soon (not mine) that is a really nice plane (nicer than mine!). The ask will be $300K, but that is a good price for that plane. Just sayin....

You can buy an older Cessna Citation jet for about the same money as a high-end P337 or Riley. Some people just don't want the extra complexity, operating costs, and higher insurance. Plus MU-2s have a bad reputation of eating pilots for lunch. You need to be on the top of your game to fly one. The Skymaster is sort of a La-z-boy in the sky, easy to fly. To each, their own, based on their skills, budget, and mission...

MU2, cheap 0 jets, 337, my oh my
 

Thanks for your good thoughts.

I agree that the MU2 seems to make sense, I'm just not sure I'm enough pilot. Abe Lincoln once said "Think you can or think you can't, either way you're right". I don't think I can.

Reality may have nothing to do with reputation, but the MU2 has perhaps the absolute worst reputation for killing folk. From what I hear, new training programs have made the statistics more in line with what should be expected. But remember, I'm 61 and pushed my first throttle to firewall at 54, have about 800hrs. Still a baby, but too old to grow up and be a Top Gun.

Frankly, I'd feel better able to get a type rating in a Mustang than handle the shifty ways an MU2 is renowned for, but that's a pretty long process, starting with SIC before PIC. I agree that the MU2 sounds affordable, and I started this message thinking, yeah, 3 bills for that kind of performance would be great. But it does scare me indeed.

I'm still on the double-337 road. Listing my 206 amphib C206 this week---awesome dream plane and yes, I've landed her at my lakehouse a few times. She's worth 3 and a half. But Lake Winnipasaukee is crowded with boats in the summer and it's way to draggy for the drive from DC. Oh, an no AP; two hours in IMC with no AP and I'm a limp dishrag. So I will turn that sweet waterbird into a lazyboy loungeomatic 337 (which it isn't, btw, it's a complex multiengine which has my deepest respects.
It's also the safest aircraft I know.).

I think humility is my protecting friend here. I can fly in 80-90% of the weather DC to NH can hurl at me. While those numbers won't work for an airline pilot, they work for me. I NEVER *have to* fly at a given time. Never.

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

We have a winner for the new model name!!! :D

I understand the latest model has cupholders and massaging seats...

Seriously, the Skymaster is comfortable and confidence inspiring. May you find the perfect ship for your needs!

I agree with all that is said about the 337 and how easy it is, that why I bought one. Not sure I agree with the MU2 stuff. It is different and has to flown differently, but once you understand those differences and how to fly the plane the way it is supposed to be flown, you will be fine. What works in a 421 won't work in an MU2, but fly it the way you will be trained to fly it and it does exactly what the book says it will do. Training is mandatory and has to be done annually, but this requirement has taken the MU2 from a dangerous plane to a much safer one. The wing with no flaps is very different than with flaps 20 and the airspeeds change accordingly. This is a must learn lesson but when you fly the POH profiles, the plane does fine. You have to commit to learning something different but you don't have to be an extraordinary pilot to fly the MU2, but you do have to be a student of the type and appreciate its differences. You have to learn to use trim, but when in trim it isn't particularly hard to fly, once learned. Think jet like and you get the idea. It is head and shoulders more capable than any pressurized piston twin and much more reliable. It has much better engineered systems too. Downsides, insurance could be a challenge. Needs more runway than a P337 too. But at 260KTAS on 58gph in the 20s, the F model MU2 is the least expensive twin turboprop you can operate. I liked my P337, but the MU2 is in a whole different league capability wise. I am glad I went this route. It has been a challenge, but the rewards are well worth it to me.

My good friends flight in a MU2 He was copilot They had a double engine failure at night in icing over the mountains fully loaded with freight.. Everything was on their side that night Two part video - communication between ATC and them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbm8xzLVgQ4&t=2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lAu-HpzqM4&t=6s

Awful lot of information in the MU2 POH about flying in icing. Engine inlet heat on (bleed air source), ignitors on continuous, prop heat on, boots on. Pitot heat should be turned on when taking the runway. If you do all that correctly and when entering icing conditions the experience your friend had should be rare. That said, ice can get any airplane. I would rather avoid ice entirely of course, but I would rather be in an MU2 than a P337 if flying in icing conditions. The icing testing the MU2 has undergone is more extensive than most any other turboprop. Tom Batchelor wrote an extensive article on that subject. He was the test pilot for those icing tests. Something every aspiring MU2 pilot should read. I can't seem to attach it here, but I can send it via e mail if someone wants to read it.

Jeff, I admire the MU-2, and your devotion to training in order to fly one. I'd love to have the performance capabilities you have with your Marquis.

A couple of questions, if you would:

What does your required annual training look like?

What is your insurance cost, and at what hull value?

What do you budget for your annual or progressive mx program?

I don't have a Marquis, I have a 1972 F model, the "low performance" MU2, only 260KTAS vs 300KTS. Burns less fuel though. Training was $6K initial and will be $3K annually. Insurance was $9K for $250K hull value. They required 50 hours dual, and that was about right for me. The MU2 is my first turbine so there was a pretty big learning curve. I wanted twin safety, and a turbine actually gives you that. It will actually climb on one engine, properly flown. One thing to keep in mind, both the MU2 and P337 have lousy safety records, but the MU2's has improved due to the training requirement. Something to keep in mind no matter what you fly. My 100/200 hour inspection was $12K plus a $3K battery that was welded to the battery connector. That is in the range I spent on P337 annuals, and less than my first P337 annual FWIW.

MU2 v P337
 

Been turning this one over in my mind. Contacted your friend and yes, it's a pretty bird. I love the idea of 9 moving parts in my engine instead of 300+.
But that MU2 is flown by a professional pilot, not some 61yo physician with 800hrs that began 7yrs ago.

Think I'm stepping back to my original plan of owning two 337s as a means to have one flyable all the time. Pouring $s into #1 engines, a P337G with every electronic thing imaginable; and have several candidate #2s also P337Gs from Bill Crew's stable and elsewhere.

The pilot is the most fragile, failure-prone part of the whole air safety system. Might be best to spend my next 10yrs flying just to getting to know this one aircraft inside out.

NB: I was gonna get my CFI. Last February, two days before my checkride in a C150 contaminated with ice-then-water, I had an engine out at 300' with nothing but an oak forest in front of me. We stopped treetops at 70' for 0.5 sec, then descended to the forest floor. Yet I and my CFII (she 32 and 7.5mo pregnant) escaped without a scratch. But two of the three were deeply changed on the inside.

Tim

FWIW, I am a 62yr old physician! The MU2 is my first turbine, and yes it was a big learning curve. I figured if I was going to get an MU2, better do it before my brain was too fossilized to learn anything new! I do have 4000 hours over almost 40 years, plus a lot of IFR time in the Pacific Northwest. You don't have to be a professional pilot to fly an MU2, but you do have to think like one and fly with the flows and checklists you will be taught. The MU2 is definitely a by the numbers airplane, but if operated using those numbers it is wonderful. As to getting older, the 5.0 pressure differential gives you a lower cabin altitude and I notice I arrive feeling better than in the P210 or P337 FWIW, plus I get where I am going a lot faster. Going from a 200mph plane to a 300mph plane makes a big difference, especially into the wind.

Interesting thread. And going into a lot of different directions and possibilities.

I was surprised by Tim's descriptions of the issues on his P337. The aircraft clearly needs some work, A well maintained P 337 will be a reliable airplane.

Having two airplanes to look after will add to the expenses while not necessarily solving the reliability issue. What guarantee is there that the additional airplane will prove more reliable? At one point I owned three P337's at the same time (N39288, N78C and N289). Difficult to maintain. I sold 39288 and ended up with two P337's. In the end, I kept one and ensured that it would be a reliable aircraft. One is all I really need.

Considerable money was already spent on 639GC recently to include a new paint job.

My current P337 cost me a significant amount of money once I bought it to bring up to a good standard. My first annual was painful. I ended up overhauling the rear engine as well as fixing a number of issues on the electrical system, AC, fuel tanks etc.

I added an Aspen PFD (Max) and a GTN 750xi plus a second certified AI.

Now I have a well equipped reliable aircraft. Which is what I think Tin is looking for.

Richard

Money and 337s
 

Thanks Richard. Your empathy soothes the wounds.

The paint job was the easiest bill to swallow. $17.5K in Mena Arkansas, quite an adventure to get a plane there and back, yes. But nice wow factor, I'm sure she's worth that paint. The big bills are coming---new front engine, new rear cylinders, reworking all the gauges. Holes in the pressurization, turbo woes, snapped heating control cables. If I can escape with under another $70K for this year, it will feel good. But baby has got a pretty dress on....on boats they say a good coat of paint can hide a whole world of sin. Hope that works for planes too.

She does have two 650s, onboard radar, AC, STEC 65 AP, etc. But with three engine outs (admittedly, in the safest aircraft in which to have an engine out), 4 alternators, a couple vacuum pumps, an intercooler broken, two turbos and 70% on the ground time during the 3 years I've owned her, it's seems everything has broken except my will. I've handed her over to a very experienced 337 mechanic with a loose checkbook to make her reliable. But it will REALLY kill me if after all the above is done (October? November?) I still find myself driving 11hr days DC to New England (airlines won't take the dog). That's why the duplication...

I won't ever own three though!

Tim

My thoughts on MU2
 

As a fun-loving young man,
I scanned the various options, before buying my helicopter.

Back then you could find a small Cessna Paris Jet.
Remember those? Was it even four seats? Cool!
Most obvious problem was 1950's engines would use $200 of fuel before you took off.
That was when fuel was what, $1/gal ...or less?

Having decided AGAINST buying a 1969 Ferrari Dino targa,
because parts would be difficult...
Instead geting a Lotus Eclat, that required 4AM calls to Cheshire England.

I was being "practical"

The MU2's were intriguing also.
But the accident reports always seemed to read the same:
"The pilot had 5,000 hours in make and model"
"The wreckage was spread over a file mile radius"

Too unforgiving.

Having had my 337 for ages, I always offer the following challenge"

"You are IFR/NIGHT/OVER WATER/FOREST/CITY, and something goes "klunk'"

Complete the following sentence: "Damn, I wish I was in a ____________"

Same answer every time.

"The MU2's were intriguing also.
But the accident reports always seemed to read the same:
"The pilot had 5,000 hours in make and model"
"The wreckage was spread over a file mile radius"

Too unforgiving."

David, this was true before 2009 when initial and yearly recurrent training became required. Since then the MU2 has had a better than average safety record. Fly it like you train and it does what it should, get too slow for your wing configuration and you will have issues. You can't make this plane do what its design does not allow. It is different and has to be flown differently than piston and turbine twins with ailerons and more like a jet. You have to fly it by the profiles in the POH, all the time. Different flap configurations require different airspeeds. The good news is the airspeeds are essentially the same, one engine inoperative or with both engines so it is easy to remember. Speeds depend on flaps, not number of engines running. All of this is true for any airplane though. The Skymaster has a pretty lousy accident record too. I have owned a P337 and own an MU2 now, the MU2 is a much more capable plane and much better supported as well. They haven't made one since 1986 but you can still get factory service and factory parts from the factory owned service center in Tulsa, OK. Don't get me wrong, I liked my P337 but it was a quirky plane to work on and finding parts was a challenge ten years ago when I owned it, this isn't better today. Everyone has to make their own choices, but to say an MU2 is dangerous and takes super pilot skills to fly just isn't born out by recent history. I am just a typical guy flying for fun, but I found the training I took for the MU2 to be very good and feel better taking the MU2 on long trips in weather than I did the P337. It is just a more capable plane with many more tools to help deal with situations typically seen on cross country IFR flights. Besides, spooling up those Garretts brings a smile to my face every time I do it too :-)

Jeff, don't get me wrong. The performance of the MU2 is hard to beat.

It's just as Tim Cote said, the pilot is the weakest link in the chain.

When heavily engaged up front gettig the ratings, and everything new and interesting, you are hyper focused. But hyper-focused people rarely stay hyper-focused on one thing.

So the question becomes the pilot staying qualified, at what level, over time.

Flying IFR is actually very easy, once you learn how to do it. But it is still a 'mind-shift' from everyday life when you need to do it.

Years ago I spoke w Jack Riley about his 337 conversions. He was amazed at how much interest there was, and the profile of owners.

The basics were, if what you are doing gives enough disposable income to own / justify a twin (over a single), you may not have the time to remain razor sharp proficient.

The higher the value of one's time and attention (to oneself OR others), theless spare time.
You are otherwise engaged distracted.

How many 310 / baron owners really practice engine outs regularly in their spare time?

So the inline Skymaster is the most forgiving design of pilots' inevitable "Whoops" and "duhs"

Which are the real hazard, statistically.

David, the 337 should be one of the safest planes out there, but the experience with it has been different. Pilots don't take it seriously enough. One thing I have learned is the thing that is the biggest contributor to safety is regular recurrent training. The Cirrus had a really awful record, then they got serious about owner training and it improved. Same with the MU2, and not only required initial raining, but annual recurrent training as well. If twin Cessna owners, including 337 owners did serious annual recurrent training I am betting their accident rate would decline as well. Everyone should want to do so, in the MU2 it is a requirement. So if you want to be an MU2 pilot, it is part of the commitment. It should be part of the commitment for all planes in my opinion. Insurance companies are requiring it more and more as time goes on, and for good reason.

Not be negative, but I hold several type ratings, and have owned and flown MANY piston twins. I've never been asked by any insurance company to get annual "school" on any piston aircraft.

Did you know that when introduced, the Skymaster could be flown single pilot, no passengers allowed, on a SEL land rating? THEY DIDN'T EVEN REQUIRE A MULTI RATING (There was no centerline thrust limitation back then).

So to go from NO TRAINING REQUIRED to ANNUAL SCHOOL is quite the stretch IMHO.

I can't see any reason for annual school in a Skymaster. Just too simple of an airplane, with no complex systems, except arguably the pressurization system, and you can get a high-altitude endorsement for that if it pleases your underwriter.

I would reject any insurance offer that required annual school on a 337. Total waste of money IMHO. But I'm old school...and still alive after 1000's and 1000's of hours aloft.

This kind of "nanny" mentality is killing aviation, and many other industries as well. At this rate, underwriters will want annual school on your C150 - Pilots and Owners have to push back against this nonsense! Maybe rather than requiring annual school, the underwriters could offer a discount for it, sort of like Defensive Driving.

Sure, go to annual school all day for your King Air or MU2 or Citation, but as far as your piston poppers - just fly 'em baby!

Stay current, and if you aren't, then go flying with an instructor or another experienced pilot until you're solid with the airplane.

I think your idea of offering a discount for annual training is a good one. When FlightSafety had a 210 simulator, I went there annually to take their training. Not required, but my plane was a family transportation device and I wanted to lessen the pilot induced risk . Training does that. You could argue about the 'nanny" state and requiring it, but there is plenty of evidence that annual recurrent training results in safer flying, for ANY airplane and ANY pilot. Staying current is important. How many pilots take regular training sessions with an instructor? Not enough in my opinion and the accidents I read about support this. I am going to San Diego this week. Just to brush up, took three flights with a local instructor who also flies an MU2 to get in some IFR practice in actual conditions in the past 3 weeks just to be sure I am where I need to be. It was fun, I learned a few things and feel better about my upcoming trip. No one likes to have areas they need to work on pointed out to them, but they are areas that need improvement! Pressurized piston twins including the P337 have lousy safety records and as I said earlier, pilots don't take them seriously enough. The worst thing you can have in a plane is a pilot who thinks everything is "safe". It isn't and we owe it to our passengers to prepare for things that might lead to "not safe". Any incentive that leads to keeping current and/or more training is a good thing in my opinion.