Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it? [Archive]

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 02:18 AM

It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine was
not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just reduced
performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it was
noisy inside.

It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "john smith" > wrote in message
|
...
| >> > Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it
should have been
| >> > more
| >> > of a winner. Why did it flop?
| >
| >> My old CFI said guys would forget to start the back
engine or not notice
| >> that it would quit and end up crashing, true or not I
don't know but it
| >> was
| >> his story. I always thought it was an odd looking
piece.
| >
| > To that I would add that I personally think the 200 hp
O-360's are not
| > enough power for the size and weight of the aircraft.
|
| Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of the
engines that was a bit
| costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT
carefully on takeoff
| because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up an
engine problem during
| the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!
|
| Dudley Henriques
|
|

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 02:45 AM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:GpOMf.104262$QW2.383@dukeread08...
> It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine was
> not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just reduced
> performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it was
> noisy inside.
>
> It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2

I would tend to agree with this. Cessna marketed the plane to the
multi-engine fringe; supposedly directed to those who wanted the reliability
of a multi-engine airplane with none of the headaches associated with
conventional twin training and flying.
On the surface it appeared to be a good idea, but I think Cessna missed the
mark with their estimated market share. I don't remember any noticable
decrease in multi training due to the arrival of the early 336, or even
later when the 337 came on the scene. I do remember someone tacking on a
turbo on the 337 that attracted a few buyers, not nothing to write home
about.
All in all, I think the airplane was an Edsel for Cessna and a misadventure
to say the least :-)
Dudley

Matt Whiting

February 28th 06, 03:37 AM

Jim Macklin wrote:

> It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine was
> not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just reduced
> performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it was
> noisy inside.

Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she can't detect
the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of far more than
50% of most performance attributes. I'd really not want to fly with a
pilot who was that out of touch with their airplane.

Matt

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 03:40 AM

Cessna even tried to install floats for the Alaskan market,
I took my seaplane training from their test pilot at Grand
Lake of the Cherokees in NE Oklahoma. He told me that the
rear prop just could not handle the water spray and it never
was certified.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:GpOMf.104262$QW2.383@dukeread08...
| > It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine
was
| > not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just
reduced
| > performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it
was
| > noisy inside.
| >
| > It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
|
| I would tend to agree with this. Cessna marketed the plane
to the
| multi-engine fringe; supposedly directed to those who
wanted the reliability
| of a multi-engine airplane with none of the headaches
associated with
| conventional twin training and flying.
| On the surface it appeared to be a good idea, but I think
Cessna missed the
| mark with their estimated market share. I don't remember
any noticable
| decrease in multi training due to the arrival of the early
336, or even
| later when the 337 came on the scene. I do remember
someone tacking on a
| turbo on the 337 that attracted a few buyers, not nothing
to write home
| about.
| All in all, I think the airplane was an Edsel for Cessna
and a misadventure
| to say the least :-)
| Dudley
|
|

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 03:43 AM

But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a POH
change to require all take-offs lead with the rear throttle.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine
was
| > not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just
reduced
| > performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it
was
| > noisy inside.
|
| Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she
can't detect
| the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of
far more than
| 50% of most performance attributes. I'd really not want
to fly with a
| pilot who was that out of touch with their airplane.
|
|
| Matt

Matt Whiting

February 28th 06, 03:45 AM

Jim Macklin wrote:

> But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a POH
> change to require all take-offs lead with the rear throttle.

Yes, I've heard and read that also. Still hard for me to believe a
pilot could be that out of touch with their aircraft... I know I'd
surely have noticed if my Skylane suddenly lost 115 hp.

Matt

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 03:53 AM

There are pilots who fly once a day and some who fly once a
month. Some pilots are very good and others, sad to say,
are more concerned with the stock market crash, than their
up-coming airplane crash.

The Cessna company marketed the 337 to the non-professional
businessman pilot as an easy to fly safer twin. It wasn't
possible. Since Vmca is well below Vyse, any multiengine
pilot should consider Vyse as the speed of concern [blue
line] rather than the redline at Vmca. Yaw control is not a
problem if the pilot understands the performance goal.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a
POH
| > change to require all take-offs lead with the rear
throttle.
|
| Yes, I've heard and read that also. Still hard for me to
believe a
| pilot could be that out of touch with their aircraft... I
know I'd
| surely have noticed if my Skylane suddenly lost 115 hp.
|
|
| Matt

Jose

February 28th 06, 03:54 AM

>>Just what did the FAA issue then?
> A 'centerline only' thrust limitation to the ME rating.

Not only that, but if you have a regular multiengine rating, you still
can't fly the thing unless you get a type rating (or somesuch) for it.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 03:58 AM

That makes complete sense to me.
D

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:SFPMf.104270$QW2.67043@dukeread08...
> Cessna even tried to install floats for the Alaskan market,
> I took my seaplane training from their test pilot at Grand
> Lake of the Cherokees in NE Oklahoma. He told me that the
> rear prop just could not handle the water spray and it never
> was certified.
>
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> message
> ink.net...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:GpOMf.104262$QW2.383@dukeread08...
> | > It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine
> was
> | > not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just
> reduced
> | > performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it
> was
> | > noisy inside.
> | >
> | > It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
> |
> | I would tend to agree with this. Cessna marketed the plane
> to the
> | multi-engine fringe; supposedly directed to those who
> wanted the reliability
> | of a multi-engine airplane with none of the headaches
> associated with
> | conventional twin training and flying.
> | On the surface it appeared to be a good idea, but I think
> Cessna missed the
> | mark with their estimated market share. I don't remember
> any noticable
> | decrease in multi training due to the arrival of the early
> 336, or even
> | later when the 337 came on the scene. I do remember
> someone tacking on a
> | turbo on the 337 that attracted a few buyers, not nothing
> to write home
> | about.
> | All in all, I think the airplane was an Edsel for Cessna
> and a misadventure
> | to say the least :-)
> | Dudley
> |
> |
>
>

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 04:01 AM

Not true I think.
If you had a multi-engine rating, a normal checkout was FAA approved if I
remember correctly. I don't believe the center line thrust rating was
mandatory above the regular multi if already held.
Dudley Henriques

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>Just what did the FAA issue then?
>> A 'centerline only' thrust limitation to the ME rating.
>
> Not only that, but if you have a regular multiengine rating, you still
> can't fly the thing unless you get a type rating (or somesuch) for it.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

February 28th 06, 04:04 AM

> If you had a multi-engine rating, a normal checkout was FAA approved if I
> remember correctly.

You may be right, but I was told by my ground school instructor back in
<bxxt xwff> that you needed a "something else" to fly it.

I could be wrong. It would be a historic moment though. :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 04:09 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine was not as quickly
>> detected since there was no yaw, just reduced performance. It did not
>> have good baggage areas and it was noisy inside.
>
> Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she can't detect
> the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of far more than 50%
> of most performance attributes. I'd really not want to fly with a pilot
> who was that out of touch with their airplane.
>
>
> Matt

It could happen and did. Engine loss on a rear engine twin can be very
deceiving, and it doesn't have to be a complete failure either. You get none
of the visuals and none of the physical feeling of loss you get in a normal
twin. The noise in the cockpit was quite loud, and if you didn't lead with
the rear engine and monitor the rear engine instruments through the TO run,
you could very easily get into trouble, especially going out of a short
field on a hot day :-)
Rear engine safety on the 336/337 wasn't quite as obvious as it might appear
on the surface. It's quite possible for a pilot to become passive in these
airplanes and in checking someone out in ours, I always stressed monitoring
those rear engine instruments on takeoff.
I know.......you wouldn't think a decent pilot could forget...but everyone
has the potential for a brain fart every once in a while, even the
Thunderbirds!!!
:-))
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 04:11 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> If you had a multi-engine rating, a normal checkout was FAA approved if I
>> remember correctly.
>
> You may be right, but I was told by my ground school instructor back in
> <bxxt xwff> that you needed a "something else" to fly it.
>
> I could be wrong. It would be a historic moment though. :)

Well....if it helps any, go check my certificates on the data base. I might
very well be the only commercial instructor left alive with a centerline
thrust rating :-)))
Dudley Henriques

Peter Duniho

February 28th 06, 06:53 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> Not only that, but if you have a regular multiengine rating, you still
> can't fly the thing unless you get a type rating (or somesuch) for it.

Not true.

Greg Farris

February 28th 06, 08:01 AM

The non-success story is an intriguing question.
The type had some success in its military declinations (0-2A) during the
Vietnam era. It is recognized and often used today as an engineering testbed
for a variety of new designs and improvements, yet in its principal designated
market it quickly developed an "ugly duckling" reputation which even today
leads to depressed prices.

There is not doubt it was noisy, inside and out. The high prop RPM and the fact
that one of them was close to the rear seats contributed to this. Also, several
models were anything but speed demons, giving lower TAS than some competing
twins. I have heard (don't know the veracity of this) that cooling on the rear
engine was inadequate, leading to a whole host of significant maintenance and
reliability issues.

We'll see how well Adam does with their new, spruced-up 337 (I know, I know -
this airplane bears no similarity whatsoever to the ugly old mixmaster - yeah,
yeah). For now, I see the 337 as one of the rare "deals" available on the
market, the price/performance ration being favorable,in addition to the
"safety" factor of a twin. Saftey is in quote here because most light twins are
more dangerous than singles in the event of an engine failure, so the safety of
a second engine is only theoretical - whereas in the case of the 337 it is
real and useful.

G Faris

Matt Whiting

February 28th 06, 11:58 AM

Jim Macklin wrote:
> There are pilots who fly once a day and some who fly once a
> month. Some pilots are very good and others, sad to say,
> are more concerned with the stock market crash, than their
> up-coming airplane crash.

Yes, sad but true.

> The Cessna company marketed the 337 to the non-professional
> businessman pilot as an easy to fly safer twin. It wasn't
> possible. Since Vmca is well below Vyse, any multiengine
> pilot should consider Vyse as the speed of concern [blue
> line] rather than the redline at Vmca. Yaw control is not a
> problem if the pilot understands the performance goal.

Yes, I understand that. I'm just still incredulous that you could lose
50% of your power and >50% of your performance and claim to not notice.

Matt

Roy Smith

February 28th 06, 01:03 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> It could happen and did. Engine loss on a rear engine twin can be very
> deceiving, and it doesn't have to be a complete failure either.

I would think it would be easy (at least from the engineering perspective)
to display a big red warning light when the RPMs of the two engines differ
by more than a certain percent. Did the 337 have anything like that?

Dylan Smith

February 28th 06, 01:26 PM

On 2006-02-28, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she can't detect
> the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of far more than
> 50% of most performance attributes. I'd really not want to fly with a
> pilot who was that out of touch with their airplane.

I don't think that was necessarily the problem - imagine being just
airborne on an obstructed and reasonably short airfield, then one of the
engines quit. Although you feel the loss of thrust, it's not obvious
which engine has actually failed from the yaw because there isn't any.
Add to that the typical market segment for a 337 (people who percieve
they won't be safe enough in a normal twin) and you're asking for
trouble.

The only way of figuring out which engine has quit short of pulling a
throttle back and see if you lose even *more* power (which is
ineffective if one engine is only losing partial power) is to look at
the gauges. You might not even notice the loss of an engine if it
happens on approach until you throttle up for a go-around and find up to
50% of your power is missing (if an engine fails on approach, the only
indication may be a decreasing EGT - the windmilling prop may still
make the same RPM and the manifold pressure does not change if an
engine isn't actually combusting fuel). Even if one fails on takeoff,
where the failed engine will almost certainly lose RPM you still have to
look at and interpret the gauges which is a slower process (particularly
if it's a high workload instrument departure) than 'dead foot dead
engine'.

The people who are liable to VMC roll a conventional twin are probably
the same people who will stall a 337 while taking their time over trying
to figure out which engine has quit.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Greg Farris

February 28th 06, 01:58 PM

In article >,
says...

>Add to that the typical market segment for a 337 (people who percieve
>they won't be safe enough in a normal twin) and you're asking for
>trouble.
>
>
>The people who are liable to VMC roll a conventional twin are probably
>the same people who will stall a 337 while taking their time over trying
>to figure out which engine has quit.
>
>--

Your point is well taken - the "Cirrus Syndrome" of creating a market
sector specifically for those who are doubtful of their own abilities...

However, in light twins this could be more a question of lucidity than
anything else. If the "conventional twin" you refer to is a KingAir, or
something with ample power and ample VYSE, then fine. But remember, in light
twins, which have "just enough" power to demonstrate SE climb, most pilots
faced with real-world situation do not succeed in performing the type of
recovery they demonstrated on their ME checkride.

It's not just a control issue - many of the small singles that "grew up"
into twins have so little excess horsepower available that the recovery must
be perfectly executed in order to be effective. Most of us would have to
admit that we can not always be counted on to do everything perfectly,
particularly under duress, and this is not to mention the fact that the
incident does not necessarily occur at sea level, at standard atmospheric
conditions. Many of the incidents are probably unrecoverable, or very close
to it from the get go.

Adding extra power to deal with this quickly moves one into the 421 or Duke
category, where the plane may not spiral out of control so much as the
operating costs - for a feature that is essentially there only for emergency
use. Suddenly, the ugly little 337 starts to look a whole lot prettier, and
that 'uncertainty' begins to look a lot like just plain good judgement.

All of the above does not really contradict your argument, as you were
talking about perception - and pilots as well as regulators tend to perceive
themselves as capable, and therefore safer in a standard twin than in a
single - even though the accident record has repeatedly disproven this.

GF

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 02:04 PM

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> It could happen and did. Engine loss on a rear engine twin can be very
>> deceiving, and it doesn't have to be a complete failure either.
>
> I would think it would be easy (at least from the engineering perspective)
> to display a big red warning light when the RPMs of the two engines differ
> by more than a certain percent. Did the 337 have anything like that?

Ours didn't. Steam gauges only. EGT was the primary monitor on takeoff.
Dudley Henriques

Nathan Young

February 28th 06, 02:05 PM

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:37:39 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine was
>> not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just reduced
>> performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it was
>> noisy inside.
>
>Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she can't detect
>the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of far more than
>50% of most performance attributes. I'd really not want to fly with a
>pilot who was that out of touch with their airplane.

Agree, but I can imagine a scenario where it could happen...

Imagine a precision instrument approach with both the engines
throttled way back to stay on glideslope. If the weather is at
minimums, the pilot is going to be focused on flying the ILS and
making the land/missed decision at DH. I think it would be relatively
easy to overlook the failed rear engine. Of course, after going
missed, it would become obvious pretty quickly...

Dylan Smith

February 28th 06, 02:09 PM

On 2006-02-28, Roy Smith > wrote:
> I would think it would be easy (at least from the engineering perspective)
> to display a big red warning light when the RPMs of the two engines differ
> by more than a certain percent. Did the 337 have anything like that?

They might not differ, though. In a partial power loss or perhaps a loss
of an engine at a lower power setting (such as approach), the RPM on the
engine not making proper power might still be the RPM selected by the
prop lever. The only way you can tell for certain in all circumnstances
which engine has failed from instruments is from the EGT (and in a
partial power los on approach, even that might be hard).

The 337 would probably have been much better with a pair of Garrett
turboprops or PT6s with autofeathering props :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Nathan Young

February 28th 06, 02:21 PM

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:51:01 GMT, "Dallas"
> wrote:

>Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more of
>a winner. Why did it flop?

Most people purchase twins to go fast, carry a lot of people/cargo,
and have the redundancy of a twin.

The non-turbo'd C337 only meets 1 of those requirements.

Having said that, Riley takes P337s and swaps the turbo'd 210HP
engines for 310hp TSIO-520s. The plane is called a SuperSkyrocket,
and is appropriately named: 2500fpm climb, and 300mph top speed.
http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/super_skyrocket.htm

Dave S

February 28th 06, 02:22 PM

Jose wrote:
>>> Just what did the FAA issue then?
>>
>> A 'centerline only' thrust limitation to the ME rating.
>
>
> Not only that, but if you have a regular multiengine rating, you still
> can't fly the thing unless you get a type rating (or somesuch) for it.
>
> Jose

"Centerline thrust only" is a limitation, not a priveledge.

The 336, 337 and 0-2 did not require a type rating.

Dave

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 02:24 PM

Not correct, at least in the USA. There are some jets that
don't have a Vmca as such because the engines are so close
to the centerline and although they have two engines, they
don't meet the FAA requirement for issuing an unrestricted
multiengine certificate. If you obtain your multiengine
certificate in such an airplane you are issued a multiengine
rating with the centerline thrust limitation. But as it is
a turbojet/>12.5 gw, a type rating is required also.

The Cessna 337 is lighter than the weight floor for
requiring a type rating and it is not a turbojet.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
| >>Just what did the FAA issue then?
| > A 'centerline only' thrust limitation to the ME rating.
|
| Not only that, but if you have a regular multiengine
rating, you still
| can't fly the thing unless you get a type rating (or
somesuch) for it.
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dave S

February 28th 06, 02:24 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> We had a 337 and I flew it quite often on charter.
> I don't remember any FBO's in our area using a 336 or a 337 for multi-engine
> training. You could fly these airplanes with a checkout and your regular
> multi-engine rating or you could qualify simply in the airplane itself with
> a center-thrust rating that the FAA created just for the 336/337 series.
> It was extremely stable and easy to fly and had none of the critical engine
> aspects of a regular twin.
> Dudley Henriques
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>It made a poor multi trainer for FBOs because the FAA would not issue
>>"full" multiengine ratings to students who took their checkrides in it.
>>
>>-Robert
>>
>
>
>

I had a flight instructor who was ex german air force, who had tons of
German multi jet time, but the engines were not laterally far enough
apart and the FAA told him his hours and experience was considered
"centerline thrust only".

This is anecdotal, but refutes that the centerline thrust limitation was
specific to the Cessna 336/337/0-2 airframe.

Dave

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 02:26 PM

Correct, although some other nations rules might be
different. I understand that some countries require a type
rating for each multiengine model.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
| Not true I think.
| If you had a multi-engine rating, a normal checkout was
FAA approved if I
| remember correctly. I don't believe the center line thrust
rating was
| mandatory above the regular multi if already held.
| Dudley Henriques
|
| "Jose" > wrote in message
| . com...
| >>>Just what did the FAA issue then?
| >> A 'centerline only' thrust limitation to the ME rating.
| >
| > Not only that, but if you have a regular multiengine
rating, you still
| > can't fly the thing unless you get a type rating (or
somesuch) for it.
| >
| > Jose
| > --
| > Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
|
|

Greg Farris

February 28th 06, 02:29 PM

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:51:01 GMT, "Dallas"
> wrote:
>
>>Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more of
>>a winner. Why did it flop?
>
>Most people purchase twins to go fast, carry a lot of people/cargo,
>and have the redundancy of a twin.
>
>The non-turbo'd C337 only meets 1 of those requirements.
>
>Having said that, Riley takes P337s and swaps the turbo'd 210HP
>engines for 310hp TSIO-520s. The plane is called a SuperSkyrocket,
>and is appropriately named: 2500fpm climb, and 300mph top speed.
>http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/super_skyrocket.htm
>
>

And they sit there for sale for years and years...

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 02:39 PM

On the conventional multiengine airplane, I would teach as
many different possible ways as I could. I didn't want my
students flying me, I wanted them to fly the airplane. So I
might use a folded chart to block their view of the throttle
console and I would have my hands hidden from their view.
I would sometimes pull one hand away from the console
without moving any levers, some students would react to my
movement as though the engine had failed. What was even
more useful was to retard the mixture about half way [on one
engine] before the take-off began and with the control
covered. When the student began the take-off the engine
would fail as it approached full power. I would do this by
using my little finger on the lever so the student didn't
see any arm/hand movement. I might even move my hand away
all together so the student would relax. The loss of
directional control is more pronounced at 20 kts than it is
at 85, it is also safer if you abort.
But with a centerline thrust 337, this engine failure mode
would be harder top detect since there is no yaw and slow
acceleration is subjective.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > There are pilots who fly once a day and some who fly
once a
| > month. Some pilots are very good and others, sad to
say,
| > are more concerned with the stock market crash, than
their
| > up-coming airplane crash.
|
| Yes, sad but true.
|
|
| > The Cessna company marketed the 337 to the
non-professional
| > businessman pilot as an easy to fly safer twin. It
wasn't
| > possible. Since Vmca is well below Vyse, any
multiengine
| > pilot should consider Vyse as the speed of concern [blue
| > line] rather than the redline at Vmca. Yaw control is
not a
| > problem if the pilot understands the performance goal.
|
| Yes, I understand that. I'm just still incredulous that
you could lose
| 50% of your power and >50% of your performance and claim
to not notice.
|
| Matt

Matt Barrow

February 28th 06, 02:46 PM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:SOPMf.104272$QW2.24866@dukeread08...
> There are pilots who fly once a day and some who fly once a
> month. Some pilots are very good and others, sad to say,
> are more concerned with the stock market crash, than their
> up-coming airplane crash.
>

Imagine losing an engine in a twin pusher like the Piaggio or the Beech
Starship.

Of course, the PT-6 will go into Auto Feather...

Darkwing

February 28th 06, 02:54 PM

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:51:01 GMT, "Dallas"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more
>>>of
>>>a winner. Why did it flop?
>>
>>Most people purchase twins to go fast, carry a lot of people/cargo,
>>and have the redundancy of a twin.
>>
>>The non-turbo'd C337 only meets 1 of those requirements.
>>
>>Having said that, Riley takes P337s and swaps the turbo'd 210HP
>>engines for 310hp TSIO-520s. The plane is called a SuperSkyrocket,
>>and is appropriately named: 2500fpm climb, and 300mph top speed.
>>http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/super_skyrocket.htm
>>
>>
>
> And they sit there for sale for years and years...
>

Hell one of them is "only" $199,000, a lot of airplane for 200 grand.

-----------------------------------------------
DW

gwengler

February 28th 06, 04:11 PM

> Since Vmca is well below Vyse, any multiengine
> pilot should consider Vyse as the speed of concern [blue
> line] rather than the redline at Vmca.

The Skymaster does not have a blue line speed.

Gerd

gwengler

February 28th 06, 04:16 PM

> All in all, I think the airplane was an Edsel for Cessna and a misadventure
> to say the least

I don't know why you are saying this. How many Edsels were build and
sold by Ford? Compare that with the many hundreds of Skymasters that
were build and sold.

> I do remember someone tacking on a
> turbo on the 337 that attracted a few buyers, not nothing to write home
> about.

There are hundres of Skymasters with Turbos both pressurized and
non-pressurized (P337).

Gerd (ex Skymaster owner)

Nathan Young

February 28th 06, 04:42 PM

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:29:16 +0100, Greg Farris >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:51:01 GMT, "Dallas"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more of
>>>a winner. Why did it flop?
>>
>>Most people purchase twins to go fast, carry a lot of people/cargo,
>>and have the redundancy of a twin.
>>
>>The non-turbo'd C337 only meets 1 of those requirements.
>>
>>Having said that, Riley takes P337s and swaps the turbo'd 210HP
>>engines for 310hp TSIO-520s. The plane is called a SuperSkyrocket,
>>and is appropriately named: 2500fpm climb, and 300mph top speed.
>>http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/super_skyrocket.htm
>>
>>
>
>And they sit there for sale for years and years...

Actually, I don't know if it is any worse than the conventional twin
market. The high fuel consumption and potential maintenance costs are
terrifying to most prospective buyers.

[email protected]

February 28th 06, 04:48 PM

A friend of mine was thinking of doing a turbine conversion for the
337. Would make one helluva light twin! I've got a few hundred hours in
the 337 and even some time in a 336 back in the mid-late 60's. It kind
of reminded me of a C-182 with higher fuel consumption.
Back then, a multi engine rating was sufficient for centerline thrust
aircraft. It was some kind of marketing thrust to get more people to
fly twin engine aircraft without the necessary skills to operate an
airplane more complex than Dufus was used to flying.
The 337 was plagued with expensive hydraulic pac problems for the gear.
Now it seems to be an antique or oddity.

John Gaquin

February 28th 06, 04:55 PM

"Dave S" > wrote in message news:E2ZMf.635

>
> This is anecdotal, but refutes that the centerline thrust limitation was
> specific to the Cessna 336/337/0-2 airframe.
>
> Dave

Dudley didn't say the ME rating with centerline thrust limitation was
specific to the 336/337. He said "...you could qualify simply in the
airplane itself with a center-thrust rating that the FAA created just for
the 336/337 series..." There's a big difference.

Ref: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=150

"Cessna called the layout concept Centre Line Thrust, as the nose mounted
tractor and rear fuselage mounted pusher engine eliminated asymmetric
handling problems normally experienced when one of a twin's engines fails.
The concept was recognised by the US FAA which created a new centre thrust
rating for pilots to be rated on the type. "

"The Model 336 Skymaster first flew on February 18 1961, but significant
improvements to the design were made before production aircraft were
delivered."

Grumman-581

February 28th 06, 05:12 PM

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, I don't know if it is any worse than the conventional twin
> market. The high fuel consumption and potential maintenance costs are
> terrifying to most prospective buyers.

Double the engine and fuel costs, but not double the speed... It boils down
to basically how much of a premium do you put on the supposed advantage of
having an extra engine... Of course, two engines just means that you are
twice as likely to experience an engine failure... It's up to you whether
that failure results in really bad day or not... Do everything right and
that 2nd engine will save your butt... Do it wrong and it will take you all
the way to your crash site... With a single engine aircraft, at least you
know what is going to happen when you lose an engine... Other than some of
the moto-gliders, it's not like you have the option of staying aloft for an
extended period of time... Gravity sucks...

[email protected]

February 28th 06, 05:14 PM

Nathan
Isn't it interesting that the 336/337 was an aircraft of 40 years ago?!
It's hard for me to believe I am that old...... and just getting older!

Doug

February 28th 06, 05:17 PM

The 337 is easy to fly (for a twin), has twin engine redundancy with
none of the VMC issues, displays good short field characteristics and
is available with turbo, pressurization and deice options. The main
problem is it is not a good trainer and instructors don't like them
(because they have no Vmc issues, they are considered "for lightweight
pilots"). The design is actually superior and the plane can take off on
one engine (although maybe not at gross and it's not in the POH and not
recommeded). True twin engine performance.

The fact that it was not successful says more about the anemic GA
market than the design of the plane.

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 05:33 PM

"gwengler" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> All in all, I think the airplane was an Edsel for Cessna and a
>> misadventure
>> to say the least
>
> I don't know why you are saying this. How many Edsels were build and
> sold by Ford? Compare that with the many hundreds of Skymasters that
> were build and sold.
>
>> I do remember someone tacking on a
>> turbo on the 337 that attracted a few buyers, not nothing to write home
>> about.
>
> There are hundres of Skymasters with Turbos both pressurized and
> non-pressurized (P337).
>
> Gerd (ex Skymaster owner)

Although there are obviously some Skymasters out here, I believe this will
pass in context as a fairly good analogy.
The 336/337 program in no way whatsoever fulfulled the market share
envisioned by Cessna during the concept stage of the airplane's design and
marketing phase.
The analogy I believe is fairly close to being correct for the Edsel.
:-)
Dudley Henriques
(ex Skymaster Check Pilot)

Montblack

February 28th 06, 08:46 PM

("Doug" wrote)
> The fact that it was not successful says more about the anemic GA market
> than the design of the plane.

The GA market was hopping when the C-337 was new.

Montblack

Peter Duniho

February 28th 06, 08:56 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> The people who are liable to VMC roll a conventional twin are probably
> the same people who will stall a 337 while taking their time over trying
> to figure out which engine has quit.

I don't see how this is an issue. With centerline thrust, the pilot
shouldn't NEED to know which engine has quit. The primary reason for
knowing which engine has quit in a convential twin is so you can use the
correct control inputs. With centerline thrust, you just keep flying the
airplane. Why would any pilot spend any time trying to figure out which
engine has quit on a 337? What are they going to do with that information,
at least in the immediate sense?

Pete

[email protected]

February 28th 06, 09:00 PM

I have been thinking that it would be cool to refit an old 337 with
twin jet engines mounted in place of the rear engine with snorkles for
the intakes and a nose extension fairing in place of the front engine
for drag reduction and CG adjustment. Given the advances in small jet
engines in recent years, this might be feasible. Imagine the rate of
climb you would get. You could run the throttles at a modest setting
for cruise.

There is an experimental aircraft for you!

Dean

Dallas wrote:
> Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more of
> a winner. Why did it flop?
>
>
> Dallas

Montblack

February 28th 06, 09:09 PM

wrote)
>I have been thinking that it would be cool to refit an old 337 with twin
>jet engines mounted in place of the rear engine with snorkles for the
>intakes and a nose extension fairing in place of the front engine for drag
>reduction and CG adjustment. Given the advances in small jet engines in
>recent years, this might be feasible. Imagine the rate of climb you would
>get. You could run the throttles at a modest setting for cruise.

I'm waiting to see the real world numbers for the HondaJet - Plane and/or
engine.

Engine guys at Oshkosh said Honda was considering selling just the power
plant to others.

Montblack

Grumman-581

February 28th 06, 09:10 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> I don't see how this is an issue. With centerline thrust, the pilot
> shouldn't NEED to know which engine has quit.

Perhaps there is a need to feather the prop on the dead engine to cut drag?

Grumman-581

February 28th 06, 09:12 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I have been thinking that it would be cool to refit an old 337 with
> twin jet engines mounted in place of the rear engine with snorkles for
> the intakes and a nose extension fairing in place of the front engine
> for drag reduction and CG adjustment.
<snip>
> There is an experimental aircraft for you!

Actually, you would be implementing / developing an STC, not building a new
experimental aircraft... The rules are a bit stricter for that...

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 09:22 PM

You need to know hoe to identify the dead engine and feather
the correct prop, otherwise you're going down. In a
conventional twin identification is holding heading with
rudder, "dead foot dead engine" and the litany is

CONTROL
POWER (up)
DRAG (gear and flaps)
IDENTIFY
VERIFY
FEATHER
FLY

secure it

In the 336/337 it isn't as easy or obvious which engine is
sick or dead.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
| ...
| > [...]
| > The people who are liable to VMC roll a conventional
twin are probably
| > the same people who will stall a 337 while taking their
time over trying
| > to figure out which engine has quit.
|
| I don't see how this is an issue. With centerline thrust,
the pilot
| shouldn't NEED to know which engine has quit. The primary
reason for
| knowing which engine has quit in a convential twin is so
you can use the
| correct control inputs. With centerline thrust, you just
keep flying the
| airplane. Why would any pilot spend any time trying to
figure out which
| engine has quit on a 337? What are they going to do with
that information,
| at least in the immediate sense?
|
| Pete
|
|

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 09:25 PM

Knowing how flimsily Cessna tends to make their designs,
using the thinnest possible metals, etc, a re-engine job is
critical. Airplanes have speed and power limits, both for
structural strength and aerodynamics...the 337 is pretty
well at that point as sold by Cessna.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
|I have been thinking that it would be cool to refit an old
337 with
| twin jet engines mounted in place of the rear engine with
snorkles for
| the intakes and a nose extension fairing in place of the
front engine
| for drag reduction and CG adjustment. Given the advances
in small jet
| engines in recent years, this might be feasible. Imagine
the rate of
| climb you would get. You could run the throttles at a
modest setting
| for cruise.
|
| There is an experimental aircraft for you!
|
| Dean
|
| Dallas wrote:
| > Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it
should have been more of
| > a winner. Why did it flop?
| >
| >
| > Dallas
|

Peter Duniho

February 28th 06, 09:30 PM

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps there is a need to feather the prop on the dead engine to cut
> drag?

Ahh...good point, thanks.

Jim Macklin

February 28th 06, 09:31 PM

The Eclipse 500 will sell for about what a new Beech 58G
Baron will sell for, as soon as I win the lottery, I'll make
my deposit.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Montblack" > wrote in
message ...
| wrote)
| >I have been thinking that it would be cool to refit an
old 337 with twin
| >jet engines mounted in place of the rear engine with
snorkles for the
| >intakes and a nose extension fairing in place of the
front engine for drag
| >reduction and CG adjustment. Given the advances in small
jet engines in
| >recent years, this might be feasible. Imagine the rate
of climb you would
| >get. You could run the throttles at a modest setting for
cruise.
|
|
| I'm waiting to see the real world numbers for the
HondaJet - Plane and/or
| engine.
|
| Engine guys at Oshkosh said Honda was considering selling
just the power
| plant to others.
|
|
| Montblack
|

[email protected]

February 28th 06, 09:37 PM

Hi Jim,

That is true, but if the jet engines were small enough they wouldn't
necessarily overpower the airframe. There are some really small
turbines out these days...

Dean

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 09:48 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> The people who are liable to VMC roll a conventional twin are probably
>> the same people who will stall a 337 while taking their time over trying
>> to figure out which engine has quit.
>
> I don't see how this is an issue. With centerline thrust, the pilot
> shouldn't NEED to know which engine has quit. The primary reason for
> knowing which engine has quit in a convential twin is so you can use the
> correct control inputs. With centerline thrust, you just keep flying the
> airplane. Why would any pilot spend any time trying to figure out which
> engine has quit on a 337? What are they going to do with that
> information, at least in the immediate sense?
>
> Pete

With a conventional twin you "just keep flying the airplane" as well. It's
HOW you keep flying the airplane that matters.
Any "dufus" as you have said, who thinks that just because those engines are
in line on the 337 means you don't have a prop drag issue with engine
failure needs to go out on a hot Sunday afternoon on a short runway with
trees at the end and lose one at rotation!
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

February 28th 06, 09:51 PM

Sorry Duniho, the "dufus" guy was somebody else. My mistake.
Dudley Henriques

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Perhaps there is a need to feather the prop on the dead engine to cut
>> drag?
>
> Ahh...good point, thanks.
>

February 28th 06, 11:08 PM

Naw, if you're a regular multi, a centerline thrust is no big deal. It
requires
no additional ratings. I teach in both. It flies like a heavy 210.

I think the reason it didn't make it, was performance and room. It was
not
a spectacular performer on both. On one it needed to be flown correctly. It
also
doesn't have any baggage room. I always felt alot of vibration, and used the
"sychrophaser" to move the center of the vibration as far as possible from
the
left front seat

Al

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>Just what did the FAA issue then?
>> A 'centerline only' thrust limitation to the ME rating.
>
> Not only that, but if you have a regular multiengine rating, you still
> can't fly the thing unless you get a type rating (or somesuch) for it.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

.Blueskies.

March 1st 06, 12:33 AM

"Dallas" > wrote in message k.net...
> Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it should have been more of
> a winner. Why did it flop?
>
>
> Dallas
>

Dunno, but here is a short video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5663049676668412789&q=cessna+skymaster

Jim Macklin

March 1st 06, 02:06 AM

A jet needs to be faster to be efficient, the airframe is
not designed for Mach 0.60, let alone real jet speeds.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
| Hi Jim,
|
| That is true, but if the jet engines were small enough
they wouldn't
| necessarily overpower the airframe. There are some really
small
| turbines out these days...
|
| Dean
|

Ron Natalie

March 2nd 06, 11:21 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> It made a poor multi trainer for FBOs because the FAA would not issue
> "full" multiengine ratings to students who took their checkrides in it.
>
> -Robert
>
That and despite the advantages of not having any asymmetric thrust
issues, it doesn't fly any better single engine than most twins.
The rear engine is prone to overheating as well.

All Cessna's ending in 7 are odd birds.

Ron Natalie

March 2nd 06, 11:23 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Not correct, at least in the USA. There are some jets that
> don't have a Vmca as such because the engines are so close
> to the centerline and although they have two engines, they
> don't meet the FAA requirement for issuing an unrestricted
> multiengine certificate.

I don't think Vmc is the issue, just the failure to be able
to demonstrate handling asymetric thrust. There are some
regular twins where the Vmc is pretty much aligned with the
stall speed.

Doug

March 3rd 06, 12:00 AM

Good point. Probably the CFI community that killed it more than
anything. NOT a trainer. In fact laughed at.

Dylan Smith

March 3rd 06, 10:13 AM

On 2006-03-02, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> All Cessna's ending in 7 are odd birds.

I wouldn't say the Cardinal is odd.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Michael Ware

March 3rd 06, 11:55 AM

Well, 140 is definitely even.

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-02, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> > All Cessna's ending in 7 are odd birds.
>
> I wouldn't say the Cardinal is odd.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[email protected]

March 3rd 06, 02:54 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> > There are pilots who fly once a day and some who fly once a
> > month. Some pilots are very good and others, sad to say,
> > are more concerned with the stock market crash, than their
> > up-coming airplane crash.
>
> Yes, sad but true.
>
>
> > The Cessna company marketed the 337 to the non-professional
> > businessman pilot as an easy to fly safer twin. It wasn't
> > possible. Since Vmca is well below Vyse, any multiengine
> > pilot should consider Vyse as the speed of concern [blue
> > line] rather than the redline at Vmca. Yaw control is not a
> > problem if the pilot understands the performance goal.
>
> Yes, I understand that. I'm just still incredulous that you could lose
> 50% of your power and >50% of your performance and claim to not notice.
>

But during takeoff, while the wheels were still on the runway,
what loss of performance would there be other than slower
acceleration?

I've read pilots have made similar mistakes with Rhutan's inline
twin, and the same solution implimented.

--

FF

Big John

March 4th 06, 03:40 AM

Jim

Not so. Be glad to tell you the limitations of 0-2 in VN.

Big John
```````````````````````````````````

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:12 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine was
>not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just reduced
>performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it was
>noisy inside.
>
>It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
>
>
>
>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>message
ink.net...
>|
>| "john smith" > wrote in message
>|
...
>| >> > Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like it
>should have been
>| >> > more
>| >> > of a winner. Why did it flop?
>| >
>| >> My old CFI said guys would forget to start the back
>engine or not notice
>| >> that it would quit and end up crashing, true or not I
>don't know but it
>| >> was
>| >> his story. I always thought it was an odd looking
>piece.
>| >
>| > To that I would add that I personally think the 200 hp
>O-360's are not
>| > enough power for the size and weight of the aircraft.
>|
>| Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of the
>engines that was a bit
>| costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT
>carefully on takeoff
>| because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up an
>engine problem during
>| the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!
>|
>| Dudley Henriques
>|
>|
>

Big John

March 4th 06, 03:52 AM

James

Never heard of leading with rear engine to make sure it was running.
That procedure was to get you moving so the front prop wouldn't pick
up rocks and throw into rear prop. We used to carry a little *******
file (6 inches) and on pre flight if found a nick in prop leading edge
we ran file along edge to take nick out.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:43:08 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a POH
>change to require all take-offs lead with the rear throttle.
>
>
>--
>James H. Macklin
>ATP,CFI,A&P

Jim Macklin

March 4th 06, 03:57 AM

I know they bought a lot of them, but it seems from your
tone, that you know first-hand. Tell us all.

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
| Jim
|
| Not so. Be glad to tell you the limitations of 0-2 in VN.
|
| Big John
| ```````````````````````````````````
|
| On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:12 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine
was
| >not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just
reduced
| >performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it
was
| >noisy inside.
| >
| >It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
| >
| >
| >
| >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
| >message
|
ink.net...
| >|
| >| "john smith" > wrote in message
| >|
|
...
| >| >> > Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like
it
| >should have been
| >| >> > more
| >| >> > of a winner. Why did it flop?
| >| >
| >| >> My old CFI said guys would forget to start the back
| >engine or not notice
| >| >> that it would quit and end up crashing, true or not
I
| >don't know but it
| >| >> was
| >| >> his story. I always thought it was an odd looking
| >piece.
| >| >
| >| > To that I would add that I personally think the 200
hp
| >O-360's are not
| >| > enough power for the size and weight of the aircraft.
| >|
| >| Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of the
| >engines that was a bit
| >| costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT
| >carefully on takeoff
| >| because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up an
| >engine problem during
| >| the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!
| >|
| >| Dudley Henriques
| >|
| >|
| >
|

Big John

March 4th 06, 04:06 AM

Dudley

Go over the proedure for the troops about losing the wrong engine on
Take Off and having to leave the engine wind milling to have enough
hydraulic pressure to slowly retract the gear before you can feather
the prop and the donut rings you cut doing this.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:51:35 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>Sorry Duniho, the "dufus" guy was somebody else. My mistake.
>Dudley Henriques
>
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Perhaps there is a need to feather the prop on the dead engine to cut
>>> drag?
>>
>> Ahh...good point, thanks.
>>
>

Big John

March 4th 06, 06:40 PM

Ron

The Cardnel had a elevator stall problem until they put slots on it.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:21:40 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> It made a poor multi trainer for FBOs because the FAA would not issue
>> "full" multiengine ratings to students who took their checkrides in it.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>That and despite the advantages of not having any asymmetric thrust
>issues, it doesn't fly any better single engine than most twins.
>The rear engine is prone to overheating as well.
>
>All Cessna's ending in 7 are odd birds.

Big John

March 5th 06, 03:46 AM

Jim

Just a few of the things.

Bought to use on trail. However if you lost an engine over the trail
the single engine altitude way they were loaded prevented you from
getting over the mountains and back to VN to land.

At cruise power, when FACing, you could turn about 270 degree's and
then got the stall warning and had to go to METO power to stay
airborne and FAC.

In 0-1 you could drop a wing and kick rudder and be on target to fire
a Willie Pete marking rocket. In 0-2 you had to fly a coordinated turn
from a base leg to the launch heading and then coordinate corrections
to get pipper on target.

In 0-1 you lost about 150 altitude and didn't pick up any airspeed to
speak of. In 0-2 you picked up a lot of airspeed and lost a lot of
altitude and had to pull a high 'G' recovery. Doing this all day tired
you out in heat and also put you closer to any ground fire from target
area.

Bird had 'X' number of feet of ground roll on take off. You couldn't
pull off and stagger into the air in a short field.

If you landed on Laderite (sp)you almost always got rear prop damage
from front prop picking up rock, gravel, Msc and it hitting the rear
prop and causing damage.

Cockpit was pretty air tight and hot at low altitude (FAC altitude) in
heat and moisture. No way to keep cool like you could in the 0-1 with
the windows open. And more and more and more...............

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:57:17 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>I know they bought a lot of them, but it seems from your
>tone, that you know first-hand. Tell us all.
>
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>| Jim
>|
>| Not so. Be glad to tell you the limitations of 0-2 in VN.
>|
>| Big John
>| ```````````````````````````````````
>|
>| On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:12 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
>| > wrote:
>|
>| >It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine
>was
>| >not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just
>reduced
>| >performance. It did not have good baggage areas and it
>was
>| >noisy inside.
>| >
>| >It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
>| >
>| >
>| >
>| >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>| >message
>|
> ink.net...
>| >|
>| >| "john smith" > wrote in message
>| >|
>|
> ...
>| >| >> > Looking at the design of the C377, it seems like
>it
>| >should have been
>| >| >> > more
>| >| >> > of a winner. Why did it flop?
>| >| >
>| >| >> My old CFI said guys would forget to start the back
>| >engine or not notice
>| >| >> that it would quit and end up crashing, true or not
>I
>| >don't know but it
>| >| >> was
>| >| >> his story. I always thought it was an odd looking
>| >piece.
>| >| >
>| >| > To that I would add that I personally think the 200
>hp
>| >O-360's are not
>| >| > enough power for the size and weight of the aircraft.
>| >|
>| >| Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of the
>| >engines that was a bit
>| >| costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT
>| >carefully on takeoff
>| >| because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up an
>| >engine problem during
>| >| the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!
>| >|
>| >| Dudley Henriques
>| >|
>| >|
>| >
>|
>

Jim Macklin

March 5th 06, 04:41 AM

Sounds underpowered, cheap and make-shift. I wonder why
they sold/bought so many of them?

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
| Jim
|
| Just a few of the things.
|
| Bought to use on trail. However if you lost an engine over
the trail
| the single engine altitude way they were loaded prevented
you from
| getting over the mountains and back to VN to land.
|
| At cruise power, when FACing, you could turn about 270
degree's and
| then got the stall warning and had to go to METO power to
stay
| airborne and FAC.
|
| In 0-1 you could drop a wing and kick rudder and be on
target to fire
| a Willie Pete marking rocket. In 0-2 you had to fly a
coordinated turn
| from a base leg to the launch heading and then coordinate
corrections
| to get pipper on target.
|
| In 0-1 you lost about 150 altitude and didn't pick up any
airspeed to
| speak of. In 0-2 you picked up a lot of airspeed and lost
a lot of
| altitude and had to pull a high 'G' recovery. Doing this
all day tired
| you out in heat and also put you closer to any ground fire
from target
| area.
|
| Bird had 'X' number of feet of ground roll on take off.
You couldn't
| pull off and stagger into the air in a short field.
|
| If you landed on Laderite (sp)you almost always got rear
prop damage
| from front prop picking up rock, gravel, Msc and it
hitting the rear
| prop and causing damage.
|
| Cockpit was pretty air tight and hot at low altitude (FAC
altitude) in
| heat and moisture. No way to keep cool like you could in
the 0-1 with
| the windows open. And more and more and
more...............
|
| Big John
|
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````
|
| On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:57:17 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >I know they bought a lot of them, but it seems from your
| >tone, that you know first-hand. Tell us all.
| >
| >
| >"Big John" > wrote in message
| ...
| >| Jim
| >|
| >| Not so. Be glad to tell you the limitations of 0-2 in
VN.
| >|
| >| Big John
| >| ```````````````````````````````````
| >|
| >| On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:12 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| >| > wrote:
| >|
| >| >It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine
| >was
| >| >not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just
| >reduced
| >| >performance. It did not have good baggage areas and
it
| >was
| >| >noisy inside.
| >| >
| >| >It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
| >| >message
| >|
| >
ink.net...
| >| >|
| >| >| "john smith" > wrote in message
| >| >|
| >|
| >
...
| >| >| >> > Looking at the design of the C377, it seems
like
| >it
| >| >should have been
| >| >| >> > more
| >| >| >> > of a winner. Why did it flop?
| >| >| >
| >| >| >> My old CFI said guys would forget to start the
back
| >| >engine or not notice
| >| >| >> that it would quit and end up crashing, true or
not
| >I
| >| >don't know but it
| >| >| >> was
| >| >| >> his story. I always thought it was an odd looking
| >| >piece.
| >| >| >
| >| >| > To that I would add that I personally think the
200
| >hp
| >| >O-360's are not
| >| >| > enough power for the size and weight of the
aircraft.
| >| >|
| >| >| Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of
the
| >| >engines that was a bit
| >| >| costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT
| >| >carefully on takeoff
| >| >| because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up an
| >| >engine problem during
| >| >| the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!
| >| >|
| >| >| Dudley Henriques
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >
| >|
| >
|

Matt Whiting

March 5th 06, 07:48 PM

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-02-28, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Hard to imagine a pilot so sensory impaired that he or she can't detect
>>the loss of 50% of their power, which results in lost of far more than
>>50% of most performance attributes. I'd really not want to fly with a
>>pilot who was that out of touch with their airplane.
>
>
> I don't think that was necessarily the problem - imagine being just
> airborne on an obstructed and reasonably short airfield, then one of the
> engines quit. Although you feel the loss of thrust, it's not obvious
> which engine has actually failed from the yaw because there isn't any.
> Add to that the typical market segment for a 337 (people who percieve
> they won't be safe enough in a normal twin) and you're asking for
> trouble.

In a center-line twin, why does it matter which engine failed? You have
to adjust to the reduced thrust no matter which engine gave up, right?
Sure, you need to feather the correct prop and secure the dead engine,
but that doesn't have to be done in the first millisecond after failure.
And it isn't that hard to look at the gauges and decide which one quit.

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 5th 06, 07:50 PM

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Not correct, at least in the USA. There are some jets that
> don't have a Vmca as such because the engines are so close
> to the centerline and although they have two engines, they
> don't meet the FAA requirement for issuing an unrestricted
> multiengine certificate. If you obtain your multiengine
> certificate in such an airplane you are issued a multiengine
> rating with the centerline thrust limitation. But as it is
> a turbojet/>12.5 gw, a type rating is required also.

Are these mainly the bizjets?

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 5th 06, 07:55 PM

wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Jim Macklin wrote:
>>
>>>There are pilots who fly once a day and some who fly once a
>>>month. Some pilots are very good and others, sad to say,
>>>are more concerned with the stock market crash, than their
>>>up-coming airplane crash.
>>
>>Yes, sad but true.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Cessna company marketed the 337 to the non-professional
>>>businessman pilot as an easy to fly safer twin. It wasn't
>>>possible. Since Vmca is well below Vyse, any multiengine
>>>pilot should consider Vyse as the speed of concern [blue
>>>line] rather than the redline at Vmca. Yaw control is not a
>>>problem if the pilot understands the performance goal.
>>
>>Yes, I understand that. I'm just still incredulous that you could lose
>>50% of your power and >50% of your performance and claim to not notice.
>>
>
>
> But during takeoff, while the wheels were still on the runway,
> what loss of performance would there be other than slower
> acceleration?

I'm not aware of any other loss of performance while on the runway. But
losing 50% of your acceleration is typically pretty noticeable. And
with the drag of the unfeathered prop on the dead engine, the loss would
be even more than 50%.

Matt

Bob Moore

March 5th 06, 07:57 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote

> Are these mainly the bizjets?

And F-4s, F-14s, F-18s and the like.

Bob Moore

Dana M. Hague

March 12th 06, 10:41 PM

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:57:58 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>Matt Whiting > wrote
>
>> Are these mainly the bizjets?
>
>And F-4s, F-14s, F-18s and the like.

Yes, my brother in law has a multi rating with centerline
restriction... ex-USAF (F-15 etc.); he now instructs people with a lot
more money than I have in L-39's.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson

Roger

June 2nd 06, 06:29 PM

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:52:09 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>James
>
>Never heard of leading with rear engine to make sure it was running.
>That procedure was to get you moving so the front prop wouldn't pick
>up rocks and throw into rear prop. We used to carry a little *******

Doesn't everybody?

>file (6 inches) and on pre flight if found a nick in prop leading edge

Errrr...Ahhhh...wait... that was a pooly selected insertion spot and
could lead one to the wrong interpetation.

But only a 6" file? They must have been little nicks. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>we ran file along edge to take nick out.
>
>Big John
>`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```
>
>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:43:08 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
>
>>But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a POH
>>change to require all take-offs lead with the rear throttle.
>>
>>
>>--
>>James H. Macklin
>>ATP,CFI,A&P

Roger

June 2nd 06, 06:37 PM

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:41:04 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Sounds underpowered, cheap and make-shift. I wonder why
>they sold/bought so many of them?

In "our world" where people don't shoot at you, at least not very
often, it was big, roomy, and you did have a second engine without the
problems of asymmetrical thrust on an engine failure.

OTOH As I recall it was not all that fast, used a lot of gas, and as
John said, noisy and not well ventilated

If you wanted to really use gas you could get the turbo charged
version. I don't know how many of those they sold.
We had one (turbo charged version) here on the field about 10 years
ago. The guy said he'd always wanted one, but only kept it about a
year. It was eating him out of house and home for gas and maintenance.
I don't know if it was due to that specific plane or it was a trait of
the breed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>| Jim
>|
>| Just a few of the things.
>|
>| Bought to use on trail. However if you lost an engine over
>the trail
>| the single engine altitude way they were loaded prevented
>you from
>| getting over the mountains and back to VN to land.
>|
>| At cruise power, when FACing, you could turn about 270
>degree's and
>| then got the stall warning and had to go to METO power to
>stay
>| airborne and FAC.
>|
>| In 0-1 you could drop a wing and kick rudder and be on
>target to fire
>| a Willie Pete marking rocket. In 0-2 you had to fly a
>coordinated turn
>| from a base leg to the launch heading and then coordinate
>corrections
>| to get pipper on target.
>|
>| In 0-1 you lost about 150 altitude and didn't pick up any
>airspeed to
>| speak of. In 0-2 you picked up a lot of airspeed and lost
>a lot of
>| altitude and had to pull a high 'G' recovery. Doing this
>all day tired
>| you out in heat and also put you closer to any ground fire
>from target
>| area.
>|
>| Bird had 'X' number of feet of ground roll on take off.
>You couldn't
>| pull off and stagger into the air in a short field.
>|
>| If you landed on Laderite (sp)you almost always got rear
>prop damage
>| from front prop picking up rock, gravel, Msc and it
>hitting the rear
>| prop and causing damage.
>|
>| Cockpit was pretty air tight and hot at low altitude (FAC
>altitude) in
>| heat and moisture. No way to keep cool like you could in
>the 0-1 with
>| the windows open. And more and more and
>more...............
>|
>| Big John
>|
>`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````
>|
>| On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:57:17 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
>| > wrote:
>|
>| >I know they bought a lot of them, but it seems from your
>| >tone, that you know first-hand. Tell us all.
>| >
>| >
>| >"Big John" > wrote in message
>| ...
>| >| Jim
>| >|
>| >| Not so. Be glad to tell you the limitations of 0-2 in
>VN.
>| >|
>| >| Big John
>| >| ```````````````````````````````````
>| >|
>| >| On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:12 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
>| >| > wrote:
>| >|
>| >| >It was not a safer twin since the failure of an engine
>| >was
>| >| >not as quickly detected since there was no yaw, just
>| >reduced
>| >| >performance. It did not have good baggage areas and
>it
>| >was
>| >| >noisy inside.
>| >| >
>| >| >It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the O-2
>| >| >
>| >| >
>| >| >
>| >| >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>| >| >message
>| >|
>| >
> ink.net...
>| >| >|
>| >| >| "john smith" > wrote in message
>| >| >|
>| >|
>| >
> ...
>| >| >| >> > Looking at the design of the C377, it seems
>like
>| >it
>| >| >should have been
>| >| >| >> > more
>| >| >| >> > of a winner. Why did it flop?
>| >| >| >
>| >| >| >> My old CFI said guys would forget to start the
>back
>| >| >engine or not notice
>| >| >| >> that it would quit and end up crashing, true or
>not
>| >I
>| >| >don't know but it
>| >| >| >> was
>| >| >| >> his story. I always thought it was an odd looking
>| >| >piece.
>| >| >| >
>| >| >| > To that I would add that I personally think the
>200
>| >hp
>| >| >O-360's are not
>| >| >| > enough power for the size and weight of the
>aircraft.
>| >| >|
>| >| >| Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of
>the
>| >| >engines that was a bit
>| >| >| costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT
>| >| >carefully on takeoff
>| >| >| because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up an
>| >| >engine problem during
>| >| >| the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!
>| >| >|
>| >| >| Dudley Henriques
>| >| >|
>| >| >|
>| >| >
>| >|
>| >
>|
>

Jim Macklin

June 2nd 06, 10:44 PM

It is in the manual to use the rear engine first, to be sure
it is still running, I seem to remember it was a SB after
some accidents.

As to carrying a 6 inch file to dress prop nicks, that is
allowed ONLY for A&P [P actually] and requires a logbook
endorsement. There are strict allowances for the depth and
position of a nick that can be dressed and the nick must be
properly blended so there are no stress-risers.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:52:09 -0600, Big John
>
| wrote:
|
| >James
| >
| >Never heard of leading with rear engine to make sure it
was running.
| >That procedure was to get you moving so the front prop
wouldn't pick
| >up rocks and throw into rear prop. We used to carry a
little *******
|
| Doesn't everybody?
|
| >file (6 inches) and on pre flight if found a nick in prop
leading edge
|
| Errrr...Ahhhh...wait... that was a pooly selected
insertion spot and
| could lead one to the wrong interpetation.
|
| But only a 6" file? They must have been little nicks.
<:-))
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
|
| >we ran file along edge to take nick out.
| >
| >Big John
| >`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```
| >
| >On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:43:08 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
| >
| >>But it happened several times. The fix was to issue a
POH
| >>change to require all take-offs lead with the rear
throttle.
| >>
| >>
| >>--
| >>James H. Macklin
| >>ATP,CFI,A&P

Jim Macklin

June 2nd 06, 10:47 PM

Actually I [Jim Macklin] did not say it was cheap,
under-powered and make-shift.

Cessna even tried to put it on floats but it ate props with
water spray.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:41:04 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >Sounds underpowered, cheap and make-shift. I wonder why
| >they sold/bought so many of them?
|
| In "our world" where people don't shoot at you, at least
not very
| often, it was big, roomy, and you did have a second engine
without the
| problems of asymmetrical thrust on an engine failure.
|
| OTOH As I recall it was not all that fast, used a lot of
gas, and as
| John said, noisy and not well ventilated
|
| If you wanted to really use gas you could get the turbo
charged
| version. I don't know how many of those they sold.
| We had one (turbo charged version) here on the field about
10 years
| ago. The guy said he'd always wanted one, but only kept
it about a
| year. It was eating him out of house and home for gas and
maintenance.
| I don't know if it was due to that specific plane or it
was a trait of
| the breed.
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
|
| >
| >
| >"Big John" > wrote in message
| ...
| >| Jim
| >|
| >| Just a few of the things.
| >|
| >| Bought to use on trail. However if you lost an engine
over
| >the trail
| >| the single engine altitude way they were loaded
prevented
| >you from
| >| getting over the mountains and back to VN to land.
| >|
| >| At cruise power, when FACing, you could turn about 270
| >degree's and
| >| then got the stall warning and had to go to METO power
to
| >stay
| >| airborne and FAC.
| >|
| >| In 0-1 you could drop a wing and kick rudder and be on
| >target to fire
| >| a Willie Pete marking rocket. In 0-2 you had to fly a
| >coordinated turn
| >| from a base leg to the launch heading and then
coordinate
| >corrections
| >| to get pipper on target.
| >|
| >| In 0-1 you lost about 150 altitude and didn't pick up
any
| >airspeed to
| >| speak of. In 0-2 you picked up a lot of airspeed and
lost
| >a lot of
| >| altitude and had to pull a high 'G' recovery. Doing
this
| >all day tired
| >| you out in heat and also put you closer to any ground
fire
| >from target
| >| area.
| >|
| >| Bird had 'X' number of feet of ground roll on take off.
| >You couldn't
| >| pull off and stagger into the air in a short field.
| >|
| >| If you landed on Laderite (sp)you almost always got
rear
| >prop damage
| >| from front prop picking up rock, gravel, Msc and it
| >hitting the rear
| >| prop and causing damage.
| >|
| >| Cockpit was pretty air tight and hot at low altitude
(FAC
| >altitude) in
| >| heat and moisture. No way to keep cool like you could
in
| >the 0-1 with
| >| the windows open. And more and more and
| >more...............
| >|
| >| Big John
| >|
|
>`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````
| >|
| >| On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:57:17 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| >| > wrote:
| >|
| >| >I know they bought a lot of them, but it seems from
your
| >| >tone, that you know first-hand. Tell us all.
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >"Big John" > wrote in message
| >| ...
| >| >| Jim
| >| >|
| >| >| Not so. Be glad to tell you the limitations of 0-2
in
| >VN.
| >| >|
| >| >| Big John
| >| >| ```````````````````````````````````
| >| >|
| >| >| On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:12 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| >| >| > wrote:
| >| >|
| >| >| >It was not a safer twin since the failure of an
engine
| >| >was
| >| >| >not as quickly detected since there was no yaw,
just
| >| >reduced
| >| >| >performance. It did not have good baggage areas
and
| >it
| >| >was
| >| >| >noisy inside.
| >| >| >
| >| >| >It was successful as a FAC aircraft in VN as the
O-2
| >| >| >
| >| >| >
| >| >| >
| >| >| >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote
in
| >| >| >message
| >| >|
| >| >
| >
ink.net...
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| "john smith" > wrote in message
| >| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >
| >
...
| >| >| >| >> > Looking at the design of the C377, it seems
| >like
| >| >it
| >| >| >should have been
| >| >| >| >> > more
| >| >| >| >> > of a winner. Why did it flop?
| >| >| >| >
| >| >| >| >> My old CFI said guys would forget to start the
| >back
| >| >| >engine or not notice
| >| >| >| >> that it would quit and end up crashing, true
or
| >not
| >| >I
| >| >| >don't know but it
| >| >| >| >> was
| >| >| >| >> his story. I always thought it was an odd
looking
| >| >| >piece.
| >| >| >| >
| >| >| >| > To that I would add that I personally think the
| >200
| >| >hp
| >| >| >O-360's are not
| >| >| >| > enough power for the size and weight of the
| >aircraft.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| Maintenance wise, we had a cracked case on one of
| >the
| >| >| >engines that was a bit
| >| >| >| costly to fix :-) and you had to monitor the EGT
| >| >| >carefully on takeoff
| >| >| >| because the noise was so bad you couldn't pick up
an
| >| >| >engine problem during
| >| >| >| the run, but aside from that, fun to fly!
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| Dudley Henriques
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >
| >| >|
| >| >
| >|
| >