Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

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

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
link.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
|
|

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

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
|
link.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

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.

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.

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
|
link.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
| |
| |
|
|

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
| |
|
link.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
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|
|

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

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