Should I get an old 337?

[edasmus]

Hahahaha....Roger, you are a funny, funny guy. I'm laughing so hard, my sides hurt. )

[WebMaster]

I remember reading that while most US insurance companies write polices for 1MM liability, in Europe, it is required that you have 2MM liability.

The SIDS, by and large, are just things that should be paid extra attention to during the annual. The wing pull shouldn't affect part 91 operators of US registered aircraft. There are some who think that insurance companies will require SID compliance. If the crash in New Jersey taught us anything, it is that the wing pull is not necessary. The wing to fuselage junction, as well as the strut, remained pretty much intact, even though the wing had failed.

[stratobee]

I still want one

I've had my eyes open for a 336 as I thought that would be a nice entry, but they're far and few between, unfortunately. Someone said they have this SID even worse somehow and need a more thorough examination. Is this true?

[skymstr02]

The entire production run of 336's was something like 192 units, so they will be rarer to find than a 1965-1967 vintage 337.
The handling characteristics are different on the 336 vs the 337. The angle of incidence is different and the front cowling shape is different, so your sight picture is going to be different.

[jchronic]

I'll second that. We fly a 336 on our marine survey, occasionally interspersed with a 337. The sight picture difference is striking, especially at the speeds we use on the survey tracks. 100 knots is the target ground (or over-the-water) speed; to maintain that going downwind, the nose is honked up to where you can barely see over it.

Back to the question at hand: the 336 is the perfect airplane for low, slow survey work or sightseeing, but if I wanted an airplane to actually go somewhere, I'd get a 337.

Ahab

[hharney]

Something to keep in mind when searching for the right aircraft. The bargains out there are only going to help with the initial burden. There are Skymasters out there for lower prices and there is a reason for that. You have to be really careful with this category of aircraft. It's not like fixing up a 172 or Cherokee. This is a complex, twin engine aircraft. So that said beware of the fixer uppers. They will eat you alive in repairs and maintenance. Take your time in this kind of a decision and if you can't afford the one you want (or need) save your money over time to purchase the right aircraft. They will be out there when you are ready. With the economy, today is a buyers market. Someone that invested $50K in avionics 24 months ago is only going to make $20-30K back (if that) depending on the package that was installed. If you go out and have a shop install that package it will cost you at least $50K today. So in today's market you are better to buy an aircraft that has what you want (need) on it already than to upgrade it yourself.

The only difference in the scenario above would be if you had some source available to save a lot of money by buying a fixer upper. Like if you were an A&P you could save some serious money doing it yourself. Now you have to have the time (time is money) and the patience to perform all the work. Again, this is not a 172 project. The other issue I see to buying a fixer upper is the condition of the aircraft. There is a reason that the airplane is selling so low. The worst and hardest condition on a complex aircraft like a Skymaster is non-use, non-hangered, poor and neglected maintenance. Those are the conditions that will eat you alive.

Just my thoughts

[Skymaster337B]

Stop dreaming and start flying. So my answer is yes....get an older Skymaster and start flying now.