Skymaster Forum  

Go Back   Skymaster Forum > Flight Instruction and Recurrent Training
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 7 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 06-16-08, 10:45 PM
JGug1 JGug1 is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Mission, Kansas
Posts: 22
Training In 337

I've never flown a C-337 but I am rated in twins and own a Twin Comanche. I'm wondering what flying a 337 is like. I ask because I am seriously thinking of transisitioning to a T-337.
I have quite a few hours in a C-205 and flew that airplane with some confidence. What are thoughts?
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-08, 03:37 AM
dwbomber dwbomber is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 18
Thumbs up Skymaster Training !!

Hello JGug..I think you should check out the "masters of the sky". I was hooked from the first flight!! I will never fly anything else. The reason they are so safe... is that right off the runway,(On a Turbo Model), you BLAST right through Single Engine Vx and Vy. The peace of mind is incredible,,at least to me. They are sometimes expensive to maintain, but I will never put any price on the safety of my family, or other passengers...JIM
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-08, 10:50 PM
JGug1 JGug1 is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Mission, Kansas
Posts: 22
Flying 337's

A couple of questions regarding maintenance of a P or T 337. Are you really finding that maintenance is more expensive than any other twin, especially a turbo charged twin?

Do you feel that intercoolers lead to much reduced engine maintenance?

At LWC (Lawrence, KS) Lloye Hetrick, the guy presently maintaining my Twinco, told me that the pressurization isn't an issue for him, except if there is a glitch and usually that is a door seal.
Are you finding that fuel burn is apout 14/engine?
Anyone on this list who lives around Kansas City who might like to take me for a ride? (I'll buy the fuel, of course)
It really is time for me to start workiing seriously on this.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-08, 09:13 AM
JeffAxel JeffAxel is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 121
my admittedly brief experience with a P337 has resulted in 25-26gph fuel burn, takeoff to touchdown. That is at 65% power and 75ROP. I am learning LOP ops now and expect to do a little better than that....time will tell. The P337 isn't any worse than other P twins from what I can tell, but they are poorly maintained as a group, lots of marginal planes out there. A pre-purchase should be no less than an annual type inspection. Some potentially expensive repairs include windshield replacement ( about 10K ), and exhaust reworking. Another problem I had was cracked leaking fuel tanks, which is a huge time sink because they are a real pain to get in and out of the wing. If you gotta have a twin, go for it. But a P210 will haul twice as much in the cabin with full fuel, and do the same trip on 2/3 the fuel a P337 uses. Good luck in your search, some nice looking planes out there right now.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-08, 09:59 PM
hharney's Avatar
hharney hharney is offline
Rough Surface
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Michigan (8D4)
Posts: 1,856
I have both a TwinCo and a 337. Neither is turbo'ed but here is my 2 cents. My favorite is the 337. But it is getting harder and harder to justify the extra fuel vs the TwinCo. If I need to go somewhere and just get there and back I opt for the TwinCo, if I want to have some weekend fun, enjoy the scenery and fly with the Michigan Flyers then it's not a choice, take the 337. My annual on the 337 this year was $1500. My insurance for the 337 is around $3500. I pay just about the same for the TwinCo. I enjoy the TwinCo for it's speed and economy. If I had to keep just one airplane it would be the 337. I am the second owner of this Skymaster and have owned it for 32 years. I know the plane so well that I just can't see trading for any other Skymaster. Yes, turbos would be nice at times, pressurization would be nice too but the systems on the normal aspirated Skymasters are just a lot simpler to maintain. So I choose to just keep it simple. I flew the plane in the mountains for most of it's life before I moved to Michigan 7 years ago. I had no problem without turbos. For the type of flying that I do, this aircraft is just perfect. It handles so much better than the TwinCo in weather and turbulence. I love the visibility, entering in and out under the wing instead of over the wing and it is very stable on one engine in flight, even at the higher altitudes. I don't have any solid experience with P models but I have been around them enough to know that they will cost substantially more to keep up than just a normal aspirated. I would suspect a straight turbo would be somewhere between the two somewhere. The TwinCo is a great aircraft, especially for those that have not flown the Skymaster. Just like Jim said above, Once you get in a Skymaster the disease is with you forever. I really think that the TwinCo makes a lot of sense today and that is why most of them sell for at least twice what the Skymaster is selling for today.

You should have come to Kalamazoo in June when we had our meeting. It was a great time to learn about the aircraft and talk with the owners and pilots. You can't begin to put a price on real experience like the SOAPA meeting would have given you. Let alone 14 aircraft that would have taken you up on a flight. See you at SOAPA next year.
Herb R Harney
1968 337C

Flying the same Skymaster for 41 years

Last edited by hharney : 08-03-08 at 10:03 PM.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.