Skymaster vs. Cirrus

[ipasgas1]

GKEY, I am a CRNA here in Ohio, I cover mainly OB. How does that work up there with your healthcare system? We may end up with a similar system down here, though I hope not. I have been following the threads on your and hharney's remodelings. It all sounds exciting. I think I have ruled out the Cirrus, I just have to convince my bank account that the 337 is the better, safer choice. Another option I have been investigating is a Rutan Defiant. I have no problem with experimental and they are a little better on fuel and maintenance costs. I would just have to find a nice one of those as they are few and far between. Aside from taking alot of runway, 3000ft, they sound like a good replacement?

[Roger]

I've owed a few different planes, from a 150 all the way up to a Navajo Panther, and now back to a 1980 H. They are all good, but when I got to a point where I didn't care (within reason how much it cost to buy, own or operate, I decided that the 337H (non pressurized, non-turbo (but booted) was the best plane on the planet.

I would not fly in a Cirrus, nor will my wife. I don't want to lible the aircraft in any way, but I believe a certain aviation writer who had something to do with radio navigation alluded to the fact that the Cirrus has the worst safety record of any aircraft ever produced. Of course there are all sorts of arguments as to why, like it is bought oftentimes by low hour pilots who get behind it's speed curve, etc..

But back to the skymaster, I will make one observation about the year because I have owned both a 1970, and now a 1980. The one significant difference (other than the door) is the fuel system. My 1980 has all fuel tanks (per wing) hooked together in a line with one large lower hose. This vs the 1970 which had seperate main and aux fuel tanks and associated mult-position selector, no pump on the aux, etc..

There is some evidence that if you took out 337 accidents that are fuel related accidents(ie.. planes that crashed with fuel in the tanks, but due to vapor lock and selector valve problems) as well as just plain old running out, that it is one of, if not the safest aricraft ever produced. In fact I often wondered why no one ever produced an STC to convert the tanks to a one fill/flow system on the old airplanes. I guess because if it doesn't happen to you, it isn't worth the expense.

As for turbo's, my Panther had them, and they were cool to get you high fast, but other than that (for east coast flying) they are a total waste of time, money, maintenance and heat.

If you want to talk about this in greated detail, just email me direct.

Good luck with whatever you get.

[ipasgas1]

I did find a nice P337, as well, for a decent price with low time engines, loaded with avionics and A/C for the same price as a T337 I liked. I just have not seen any NA 337's for sale with the same equipment. Is that because everyone is keeping theirs but T and P owners are trying to get out of them? How much more can I expect to pay for fuel and maintanence on a P model vs a normally aspirated (NA)? Also, how much more would I expect to pay for a P vs a T model? The owner of the P model said his insurance did not require yearly recurrent training, is this the norm? Also, would I be able to get insurance on a P model with only 30hrs in a 337 and 300hrs TT?
Thanks again,
Dan

[Roger]

I would think you would be best advised to talk directly to your insurance carrier about your insurance questions, as related to your hours. Otherwise you may make a decision based on bad information. Maybe you can apply for some Tarp money and get a deal on AIG insurance

As for P, T or NA. I think the real quesiton is, what do you want the plane to do. In other words if the T or P don't offer you anything you need (like high altitude cruising, for either long distance or mountain flying) then one would have to wonder what you would need the extra expense, maintenance and weight for.

My best freind has a new Mooney Ovation and he took off from Craig (jacksonville) 10 minutes after I took of from St. Augustine, and we both went direct to Key West. He cruises at 190Kts and I cruise at 155kts. He typically flys in the 10k area and I like 5k.

To make a long story short, they vectored him out wide for me to land ahead of him at KWY. So for a 325NM trip, we were within 10 minutes of each other, and he burned almost as much fuel.

So I believe that while it's cool to have the extra "stuff" I also believe that unless you need it, the extra stuff may cost you more in the end, than what it is worth. Again that's why I decided to sell my Turbo Navajo Panther and specifically looked for a non-pressurized, non-turbo 337. It seems to be the best plane for the money for the average east coast flyer (if you can find a good one at a good price).

And last but not least, becuase I don't get to fly a lot, I feel it is much easier to remain current in a non-complex twin like the NA 337.

[gkey]

I agree with Roger. My trips are usually 300+ miles, and I generally fly them in the 9500 - 13000 ft range. My 337 is N/A. No T, no P, not even O2 built in. Instead, I have the "tank+snorkel" from PreciseFlight, with a conserver that makes it lasts over 600 miles for 2 people on board. I fly the Rockies as well, and the N/A has never had a problem.

Bottom line to me as well: Keep it simple.