P337 or a P210 ?????

[SkylaneDriver]

Greetings all,

I am starting to look at moving up from a Skylane to a P210. I need 5 seats for a growing family....

I have noticed that for MUCH less money than a P210 ($50-$60K less) one can buy P337's fairly well equiped, not too much older, and low time.

Both have "about" the same load, range and speed.

It seems like it is a case of "pay me now" (P210) or "pay me later" (P337 higher operating costs).

My question is why are the 337's so much less expensive than any other Pressurized aircraft (P210's 340's etc.)?

Are there specific years one should avoid, specific equipment that is a must have, or specific items that should be inspected more than others?


Thanks for any advice,
Maybe a twin newbie....

[Ernie Martin]

It's exactly how you see it. Pay me now (the higher cost of the P210) or pay me later (the higher operating cost of a Skymaster, simply because it's a twin, not because it's greater than other twins).

The reasons why P337s cost less vary. There's greater demand for singles, in part because of their lower operating cost and in part because they are simpler to fly. The 337 is sometimes viewed as a "bastard" aircraft (without the allure of a "regular" twin), and on and on. My view is simple: don't worry about it and take advantage of it. You'll end up with a magnificent aircraft and the extra safety of 2 engines, without the disadvantage exhibited by regular twins if you ever lose an engine on take-off.

No specific years one should avoid, no specific equipment that is a must have, and the things that should be inspected (along with lots more info for prospective buyers) may be found at www.skymaster.org.uk/purchase.asp

Ernie

[Frank Benvin]

How much is your life/health worth?????? I had a engine failure on take off in a skymaster non event Did a curcuit and landed. My freind had an engine failure on take off in her Cardinal. She ended up in body cast with a broken back

My choice is easy. I walked away unhurt in the Skymaster

Frank

[Ernie Martin]

I may be beating a dead horse here, but let me add to Frank's response that this extra margin of safety comes basically for free -- since the savings derived from the lower initial cost of the Skymaster can pay for the greater operating costs of having a twin.

Ernie

[SkyKing]

The P210, even with the 310HP engine, is pretty gutless with a load of any kind. You'll be miles and money ahead with a P337. Personally, I recommend 1976 and later because of the refinements and enhancements, but on whole, ANY P337 would be a wiser choice that a P210.

SkyKing

[Kevin McDole]

You might want to get a hold of the Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide:

http://www.aeroprice.com/store/uag9th.htm

Come to the Nashville meeting and talk with some Skymaster owners in person:

http://www.337skymaster.com/nashville2003.htm

You might also consider attending one of CPA’s aircraft systems courses. There’s a 210 course coming up in May – no more 337 courses for this year. They can tell you a lot about the model history and quirks of the aircraft you are considering:

http://www.cessna.org/benefits/cours..._schedule.html

Some of my observations about these aircraft:

Pre '76 Skymasters have a "fixed" rear seat. It does not slide forward or backward. However, it does pivot up out of the way to allow much easier access to the 5th seat and/or baggage area.

And speaking of baggage, a 5 seat Skymaster has very little baggage space - a 210 has a separate baggage area.

Later Skymasters have 150 gallon tanks standard - this was an option on the earlier models.

Both have similar useful loads. The Skymaster burns more fuel. This means that for same length flight, the 210 will have a better payload (since less weight is used by the required fuel).

Fuel starvation accidents in 210 are a problem. They run out of fuel about 10 times more frequently than comparable aircraft. One theory is that since the wing has such a small dihedral, leaving the fuel level down even 1" is several gallons of fuel. Maybe people think they have 87 gallons when only 80 is on board. In a 210 you must personally check the fuel level if you're counting on full tanks (and this is a smart idea in all aircraft).

Later model 210s have a “Both” position for the fuel tanks. Earlier models had only left & right.

I’m not sure about the P210 models, but for non P models, dual alternators and vacuum pumps became standard in 1982.

P210s are optionally certified for known ice, Skymasters are not, although they are available with boots and all of the deice equipment. This shouldn’t be a big consideration, since no light aircraft (certified or not) should be poking around in known ice.

For me the deciding factor was that Skymasters have 2 engines with centerline thrust, which translates into very safe controllability with an engine out.

[Paul Sharp]

Here's info I posted on another site, which I'll re-post here:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The Skymaster comes in several versions: Normally Aspirated, Turbo, Pressurized, O2A (military version). If you live in the East and don't fly much beyond the flatlands, a turbo model may simply be extra cost (to find, pay for, and maintain). For those of us in the west like myself who regularly fly IFR over mountains and at night, too, well I didn't even consider a non-turboed version. The turbo versions generally came with factory O2 systems, so they're ready for the higher altitudes. Another choice that can affect turbo or pressurized v. normally aspirated is getting above the weather. In that respect you may want turbos or pressurization no matter where you live. There is a large difference in service ceiling between turbo and pressurized versions. To the best of my knowledge, the pressurized versions are restricted to a certififed service ceiling of 20,000 feet. The turbo models range from 33,000 feet in the earlier ones like my 1967 T337B down to (I believe) 25,000 for the later models. On the other hand, if you want to fly higher in a turbo you have to wear a mask and deal with keeping your O2 tank(s) filled. With the pressurized models you don't need to wear a mask and you can get over "most" of the weather at 20,000 feet under normal conditions.

Another consideration is de-icing. The turbo and pressurized models are often deiced. Note, however, that none of the Skymasters are certified for "known" icing. As with other kinds of airplanes, if the A/C has been plumbed for but does not actually have deice boots installed it isn't too outrageous to have them added. If it isn't even plumbed then you're probably better off just finding one that already has boots.

Engine TBO (time between overhauls) is about 1400 hours; engines often run longer. Lenders consider engine time strongly. That could be considered shorter than others, but since the Hobbs runs with a wind-activated switch, it actually comes out to about the same as meters that are electrically activated.

You can get a "centerline thrust" multi-engine pilot's license, but I got mine in "standard" twins so I'd have no restrictions.

Regarding operating costs, the main variable is maintenance, followed perhaps by insurance (mine is about half the plane payment each month and I have a 20 year, reasonable-interest loan). On maintenance, if you buy one that's been kept up, maintenance is comparable to other twins; if not, it's $$$ time. The thing to watch for in Skymasters is that since they can be purchased cheaply, a number of people who have bought them over the years were not financially able to afford to maintain them right so they got run down; if you get one of these, you have a major expense getting them up to snuff and recurring costs thereafter. That's one of the reasons Skymasters have developed a reputation for costly maintenance, but the reputation is unwarranted if you buy one that's been properly maintained. The retractable gear needs thorough inspection and maintenance at annuals (and a close look from time to time otherwise). It's a complex gear system but works fine if maintained regularly and properly.

If you buy one, be sure to get an experienced, non-biased mechanic to do a pre-purchase inspection for you - hard to over-emphasize that. There's nothing wrong with a plane maintained economically, including work by a qualified owner, if the work has been done reliably. As with any model, make sure the maintenance is proper and per the book, and not the hairpin, home remedy variety.

I have figured my operating costs roughly, and find that if I double the hourly fuel costs it comes out about right. That doesn't count annuals, which are separate and can run from $2000 to whatever, depending on what's due or found to be in need. I once had one that was 11,000 dollars. The usual annual for me tends to run between 3 and 5 thousand.

Learn the alternative sources from which you can obtain parts because anytime you have to go to Cessna you can figure paying from 2 to 5 times (or more) the cost, and that's no exaggeration. Most of us rely on alternatives for most parts and do fairly well in that respect. Cessna is a good company and has an excellent multi-engine tech support department, but for some reason they seem to believe in highway robbery when it comes to parts (you wonder if you really bought a Beechcraft when you get a quote from them).

If you live where you have choices, try to find a shop that is familiar with the aircraft, or at least the engines (they're the same as on the Seneca II, for example), and get a good mechanic who's likely to be around for a while, and be shamelessly kind to him/them. It'll pay off. I've found shops with good people who'll work with me and let me do some of the easier things when I have time - supervising as I go and inspecting/signing off when properly finished - and they also let me track down parts, which enables me to shop around and find the best sources. Some shops don't like that, so you have to work the best deal you can find.

I recommend getting service and parts manuals. I consider mine extremely helpful, not only to read up on things and learn about what the shop guys will allow me to help do, but to learn about the plane generally. It also allows me to not worry about dropping the aircraft off somewhere if I get stuck with a needed repair while on a trip. I know I can look things up, get part numbers, etc., and that I have a manual for the shop guys to look at.

Here are a couple of examples: Bungee in nosewheel steering broke. Cessna wanted $2300 for it. I got one (new surplus) for $350 from one of the other good supply sources. Big city (at KSLC in my case) mechanics didn't want to repair an area on my de-ice boots, said they were old enough I should think about replacing them. Well, they are old – in fact they’re the original boots which makes them around 35 years old! - but I wasn't sure they needed to be replaced yet. Found another mechanic at an airport 1/2 hour away who had experience with boots and did regular maintenance on them for other models. He inspected them, said he could repair a few small areas, possibly recoat, but in any event I should be able to get 5 - 10 more years from them. One shop away from home was checking the nosegear and thought they should dismantle and overhaul the whole thing to fix a small alignment problem. I read the service manual and noted the factory's recommendation (can't remember the details now) that you had to remove the nosegear system only from one point down in a fairly simple operation to fix almost all nosegear problems - including the alignment thing they were talking about; I saved a bundle the others would have charged to dismantle the whole complex nosegear system and overhaul it completely - which wasn't the proper answer to the needed repair as confirmed by my regular guys at home. Without the manuals I would have been dumb, fat, and poorer by probably somewhere around a $1000 or more.

For insurance, I suggest Skysmith International (800-743-1439) - best rates I've been able to find. On lenders, I found that they evaluate the plane's value - and especially engine time - in connection with your loan application. My plane had been well-maintained but had one engine over TBO. It was running fine, but the lender would only lend $22K on it with the run-out engine. If I agreed to get the engine overhauled as part of the purchase, they were willing to lend $55K. The O/H only cost $15K so you can see that there's a big consideration involved there. After you own it, if you are able to safely get more life beyond TBO, so much the better. But it's a big consideration when you buy. I got an AOPA loan from MBNA - best I could find.

I believe that all models are technically 6-seaters. In any event, as with most GA aircraft you can't load all 6 seats and luggage too, or you'll be over gross with any reasonable fuel load. In fact, you can't do that in a Skymaster at all since the "luggage" area is where the two back seats are! It's a small negative someone might bring up in reference to Skymasters, but since you can't have both it's moot to me. Also, bear in mind that the two rear seats are smaller or at least lower than the other four and are less comfortable for adults. I compromise by leaving the fifth seat in and the sixth one out, so that I can easily load baggage back there and/or a passenger if desired.

In practical terms, I don't consider the plane to be noisier than other twins. In my case I use an active noise-cancelling headset, so it doesn't matter; I also furnish headsets for all passengers. I guess if you got a DB meter there might be a slight difference between models, but average users of GA airplanes will find that they all tend to be noisy - twins in particular - and you're crazy to fly in any of them without some kind of hearing protection.

There are a lot of owners, mechanics, and others on this website who can give input, warning on certain things, and save you lots of time and money. It's a good, helpful group.

[Bob Cook]

I owned a P210 (85), a 310 and 1/2 a 402b and now a P337.

There are a lot of similarities.

1) 337 is a more stable IFR platform.
2) maintenance was not cheap on the P210
3) backup vacuum was always a concern
4) one engine was a concern
5) Although known ice..... wouldn't count on it.
6) Basically same with 337 having an extra "FAN".
7) noise levels same
8) performance about same as I can remember.
9) 210 did not give me full fuel / 4 pax with equiv range.
10) O&N 210 is another story........... but ........ still one engine!
11) P210s are overpriced.
12) be sure to get a 210 later than '80. The undercarriage is stonger if I remember correctly.
13) The 210 has had it's share of engine "outages".
14) You need de-ice with turbos if you want your monies worth regardless of type. If you run in mid to high teens you WILL need it.
16) Both are designed for missions above 500 miles and three hours of flying. Both A/C exercise your bladder control.

Any pressurized A/C requires air conditioning unless you live in Portland. You just need ice cubes in your drink and on your forehead after you read the local metars. EH Kevin?

You cannot beat a 337 for a smooth ride. I prefer to carry around a spare engine even though I cannot see it. <G>

Find me any other aircraft with 18k ft single engine ceiling that will take off in 1500 ft and land in <1500 ft after a 1000 miles and 4 pax.... in comfort..... on top of the WX. There is one.... called a "Riley".


Bob

[Jerry De Santis]

Bob, I agree! The only thing I can add to your description is: AMEN!


We will miss you at Nashville.

Cheers
Jerry