If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
"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? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?
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... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Owning | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |