idaho back country flying

[B2C2]

Im considering getting a 337, and was wondering if anyone can comment on its abilities to get in and out of the idaho backcountry. I have read in this and other forums about use of the aircraft in central america and other places that suggest it is capable for short and rough field operations if configured properly. I would not attempt this without proper training, but would like any comments on feasibility and how an aircraft should be best configured for this. ie STOL configurations, VGs, Turbo vs non-turbo etc. Thanks for your help.

[ngb1066]

I have a similar question from across the pond. I have been thinking of buying a Skymaster for some time. I have a level 650 -700 yard grass strip, with good approaches, i.e. no obstacles at either end other than a low hedge. I could if necessary extend the strip by a few yards but would rather not if possible. The weather in southern UK is obviously not the same as Idaho and we do have regular rainfall. However the strip is well drained and the ground rarely gets very soft. I would be interested to hear opinions on the suitability of a Skymaster with either Robertson or Horton STOL kit fitted for use from my strip.

[Roger]

I would suggest a Husky

[ngb1066]

If I wanted a single engined aircraft a Cessna 182 would be fine to operate from my strip. However, I want a twin and I like the added safety of CLT which is why I am keen to have a 337. I am interested to hear opinions of those with experience of the 337 on whether my plan is sensible or not.

[WebMaster]

I live on 4N0, it is a 2500 ft long grass strip.
My airplane didn't have any stol characteristics. I was able to get down and stopped using less than 1/2 the runway. Same for take off. There are trees, and a hill, on the south end, and just trees on the north end. With 600 yards, and no trees, you will have no problems.

[Roger]

Sorry, I read that as 650-700 feet

[Amgdawg]

Hello All,

I live in Boise and fly a 182 and spend all my time in the back country on everything that can handle it. Yet my love for a skymaster has always been there since it was the first plane I ever flew in so I have wanted to get one as well and have spent the past 6 months researching the ability for it to take the back country. Spoke with some MAF piltos flying them in South America and FIRE guys as FAC here in Id and Ca. and some Vietnam FAC guys about 02's. Bottom line I never got a straight or consistent answer on the gear strength and reliability (so I want a 336) and the FOD attraction on rear prop (why it is a magnet when the ground distance seems high enough to avoid vortices), but to contribute ... the strip conditions as of today are- Upper Loon, Weatherby, Id Cty, Challis, Pine, Prairie and Magic Reservoir and the soils are very LOOSE right now - prop took it on the last flight. Will be in Sulpher Creek tomorrow to make an attempt and check snow levels...well see.So be careful and if you do not have mountain experience get some with an instructor as these hills can bite if your not careful.

I would love to find a 336 if anyon knows anyone with one they might consider...or if you can tell me how to get a field approval to inop retract and lock it in??

[hharney]

There should be no concern for the gear, it's a non-issue. The FOD in the rear prop is from the front prop and the tires picking up particles and allowing the rear to suck them in. One must exercise caution when departing and during ground taxi ops. There are some techniques that will minimize the risks for rear prop damage but there is no guarantee to eliminate it. You will have a difficult time finding a suitable 336 compared to the 337's that are out there today and basement bargain prices. Just remember, a Skymaster is a very complex machine and does require a good maintenance program. This has created an over abundance of RAMP QUEENS out there in the aircraft world. Pilots buy the Skymaster thinking they are such a good deal and safety aspect for a light twin. Then when it comes to keeping the bird in the sky it eats them alive and therefore the airplane is parked. It is not unlike any other light twin in most respects but my theory is that unprepared pilots buy the Skymaster when they should have bought a 182.

Turbo is nice but not necessary. It does make the machine even more complex and more maintenance. I would however insist on a STOL kit. The pressurized model is very nice if you have that type of mission. Going to the back country would not warrant a P model. It's a buyers market out there but make sure you have a good thorough pre-buy performed by a mechanic that knows Skymasters.

It is a great airplane for the back country. This is why the Air Force chose it. Visibility, strength, ability, power, stability, center line thrust and ruggedness all make the Skymaster a good utility aircraft. I have flown a number of the Idaho back country strips in mine. I have also used it with a stretcher for rescue and it works very well. It's a work horse twin that's safe and easy to fly.

[Ernie Martin]

From my perspective, I wanted to add one item and subtract one from Herb's comments.

ADDITION: This may be more an amplification than an addition: the gear is NOT a problem on 337s. As long as you perform routine maintenance (like a thorough inspection yearly, during the annual) it's not less reliable or more troublesome than any other retractable gear. I'm on my second 337 over a 12 year period and have never had a lick of trouble. In fact, I've never had any problems in flight or found any problems during inspections. Ever. It just keeps working flawlessly. The only maintenance I have ever performed is one time I changed the hydraulic hoses, even though there were no leaks or frayed exteriors. Wait, I HAVE had gear problems, but it was always the battery; on my current 337G with an electric power-pack (my prior '69D had an engine-driven hydraulic pump), when the battery is near the end of life, if the aircraft has sat for a while (so the battery has discharged some), you can start seeing problems with the gear, but they are easily resolved in flight. With a good battery, never a problem.

SUBTRACTION: Unless you're going into very short fields, I don't think a STOL kit is necessary. Neither of my two 337s had it and I've gone into pretty short fields from the islands of the Bahamas to the Idaho backcountry. Without it you can take-off and land pretty much per the manual. Of course, on fields that are close to the minimum, you have to be on your A game, but that's part of what makes flying great.

Again, all of this is my opinion.

Ernie

[n86121]

I recently spent a week on the middle for of the Salmon river, and have seen and walked th runways mentioned.

When I was looking for 337's I didn't think the turbo or RSTOL would be necessary, but I ran across one and bought it anyway.

I've had it for 20+ years now, and operate out of a 2665 ft runway at 115 MSL surrounded by trees in a narrow valley www.potomac-airfield.com KVKX.

Washington DC' summers routinely bring the density altitude up to 2,000 in the summer.

TURBOS

The turbo is nice in that you can maintain a high rate of climb ad infinitum. I learned in a non-turbo, and climbing from 9500-11500 was a slow process with four onboard.

Those that regularly fly ice also say turbos are the most valuable option, because ice is usually only a few thousand feet thick, and the turbo's allow you to continue to climb quickly.

The 337 turbos also have variable pressure controllers. That means if you want to loaf at low power the turbos are also loafing. Just power back a bit and you become a non-turbo aircraft.

Another reassuring thing to know is the single engine ceiling of my T337D is 16,800ft. A good friend with a non-turbo 310 just got posted to Colorado, wher eit suddenly hit him his single-engine service ceiling is 500 BELOW field elevation.

STOL

I've got the RSTOL, which is amazing.

As a former helicopter owner/pilot, the whole fixed wing concept of having less and less aerodynamic control just as you approach the ground was intuitively insane.

The RSTOL brings the envelope of control down to much lower speeds. In other words, a you still have a LOT of control at closer to normal speeds.

The RSTOL stall speed landing configuration is down around 50 knots (or less). I routinely touch down at 65-70. The primary benefit is not that you operate at the edge, but it goves LOTS of control at very slow speeds, instead of just 'enough.'

I also routinely go into Hatteras, noted for occasionally wild winds. My record so far was landing in a 28 knot gusting crosswind at IFR minimums. The STOL gave me lots of aileron control, and the two huge rudders cant be beat for any crosswind.

The RSTOL also has vortex generators behind the rear engine. Their benefit is single engine climb of 450 fpm with either engine at gross.

Just some things to consider.

D