Used Auto Pilot Questions

[cessnadriver]

Okay guys- I understand it trims "beautifully". I fly for the Civil Air Patrol were most of my flying is two plus hours shuttling aircraft to and from maintenance. It's nice to set the old auto (it only has heading axis) and enjoy the flight and eat my lunch, knowing my return trip will be without an auto and having to make many stop along the way. I just figured with having a powerful twin, it would be nice to have an auto to help the flight along.
Thanks for the replies.
BILLS
(NEWBY SKYMASTER OWNER)

[sns3guppy]

The skymaster is a powerful twin?

[cessnadriver]

TO: sns3guppy
Yes-for a single Cessna driver A Skymaster would be a powerful twin to me.
BILLS

[Red Air Rambo]

Originally Posted by cessnadriver

TO: sns3guppy
Yes-for a single Cessna driver A Skymaster would be a powerful twin to me.
BILLS

+1 coming from a 182, but I used to fly an F-16 and the power that the Skymaster has works great for me! I just don't see anything out there that can do what it does.

[sns3guppy]

I guess I'm not seeing it. Many light twins exceed the Skymaster in performance and power. The C337 is a great little airplane, but it's neither powerful nor a top performer.

[rick bell]

Originally Posted by Roger

I guess we must have different opinions of what the word "is" , "is".

For example my much more "powerful" Navajo Panther with it's Q-tipped 350 hp engines only carried 50 lbs more than my Skymaster. Did that make it more "powerful" or just more better ?

humm - are we trolling ? ah the age old comparison "mine bigger" some think size matters,
just be glad you have one and it's function-able without the meds

[rick bell]

Originally Posted by Roger

Trolling? On the contrary, I was making I believe a fair comparison on how "performance and power" are very subjective and as such are often times misunderstood when related to "work performed" by a particular aircraft.

It would be my contention that 337's are very powerful as per the common demands typically placed on aircraft, and as defined by Webster: powerful: producing great physical effects, having great effectiveness, etc..

Not to be confused with aircraft that for example may have more "horsepower", and are as such considered more "powerful" based entirely on that criteria, irrespective of what said "horespower actually provides in speed/load factor.

it was a joke

[Red Air Rambo]

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

I guess I'm not seeing it. Many light twins exceed the Skymaster in performance and power. The C337 is a great little airplane, but it's neither powerful nor a top performer.

Sorry, I was commenting about the P model (the Riley conversions). I have no knowledge about the regular 337 having never flown one.

[sns3guppy]

Sorry, I was commenting about the P model (the Riley conversions). I have no knowledge about the regular 337 having never flown one.

Okay. The Riley P model is a mighty, powerful airplane. You got me there.

Max twin engine climb at sea level, 1,200 fpm. Truly blistering performance. max single engine climb at sea level 350 fpm. Awe inspiring.

Same basic engine, add an intercooler, heavier airplane (pressurized), and while the Rocket folks like to advertise that you'll have the sky to yourself at 20,000', that's not very high,and it's also not very alone. It just means you're putting yourself in a slow airplane in a faster airplane environment where there's a greater chance of getting run over byother traffic. It does offer more options.

The skymaster is a light twin; it's not high performance and not really stellar compared to many other light twins. It handles nicely, it's simple, it's relatively efficient, and the view isn't bad. The Rocket is a very hard to deal to beat, given the advertised price, for all the modifications, upgrades, and aircraft, especially given that many singles that don't offer so much go for considerably more.

Just don't overestimate what you've got. In aviation, sometimes that hurts. An old friend and co-worker did that recently, and it hurt him and his loved ones a lot.