Dear SkyKing:

At first I wasn't going to respond to your message, but I couldn't let some of your statements go by without commenting.

First of all. I don't think we have any disagreeement in that a pressurized fuselage is a more critical structure than a non-pressurized one. Granted, the air volumes and pressures are much less than what we see in airliners, but still it operates as a pressure vessel and failure of the skin could lead to decompression with possible subsequent damage. But what I tried to explain before is that this was taken into account in design of the baggage door. We didn't just "punch a hole in the pressure vessel" and put a door in its place. The hole as reinforced, and the door design was analyzed, tested and subsequently approved by the FAA. This is the same organization that approved the original Cessna design.

Your statement that I do take exception to is "If Cessna felt the
needs of its customers would have warranted adding this feature and they could have justified the additional costs, they would have included it in the original design" If I understand you right, your saying that if Cessna hasn't done it, it shouldn't be done. Well that pretty much does away with the entire after market mod business. Why did you put our gear door mod on your airplane? Cessna didn't do it. What about all the other after market mods such as Winglets, Tail fairings, Horton Stol, Robinson Stol, Intercoolers, air conditioning, IO 520's, higher gross weights, aux fuel tanks, oil filters, blown seals......etc. Since Cessna didn't do these mods, does that mean that they shouldn't be done? All of these mods, if improperly designed or installed could lead to catastrophic failures.

Again, what I'm trying to say here is that any mod can be done if properly engineered and installed. Cessna isn't the only one that can modify an aircraft.

With regards to my comments concerning the differences in structure between the P337 and non P337, I was referring the the post 1973 aircraft. There's no question that there are major structural differences in the aircraft before 1973 and after 1973. and it is obvious that these changes were made to accomodate the pressurized fuselage. But when comparing a post 1973 pressurized 337 and a post 1973 non pressurized 337, the only differences I've noted is the additional frame where the pilots emergency window use to be. Granted, I haven't gone and miked all the skins, but in the area where we installed the baggage door, the structure is identical and the skin thickness is identical.(except for alot of sealant).

My comments concerning the 337 meant no disrespect to the Cessna design engineers. theres no doubt that the 337 is a major engineering feat, just the mere fact that they put the engines on opposite ends of the fuselage is a major accomplishment, the importance of which is only now being appreciated. I've owned skymaster for the last twelve years and will promote the aircraft whenever possible, but as with any aircraft, its not perfect and there's always room for improvement, and what works for one pilot may not work for the next.

Anyway enough said on this subject.

By the way, I was pretty young at the time, but didn't SkyKing fly a Cessna 310?

Regards,

Ray Torres