Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned the
Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was doing the
work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it, you'd know
which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to keep the aft
engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
properly trained Skymaster pilot...

Seems like a couple people took off and forgot to start the rear motor.

-Robert


PP-DQA wrote:
My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned the
Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was doing the
work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it, you'd know
which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to keep the aft
engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
properly trained Skymaster pilot...

That's why when flying a Skymaster you should always advance the rear
engine throttle first during the takeoff roll. Then add the front
engines power...

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com


Robert M. Gary wrote:
Seems like a couple people took off and forgot to start the rear motor.

-Robert


PP-DQA wrote:
My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned the
Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was doing the
work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it, you'd know
which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to keep the aft
engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
properly trained Skymaster pilot...

"PP-DQA" wrote

He also mentioned that to keep the aft
engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
properly trained Skymaster pilot...

Airliners shut off an engine when taxiing, then start it only when ready for
takeoff? Really?? That would shorten the life of the engine, wouldn't it,
with start cycles being part of overhaul criteria? Do they only do that for
long holds?

This one is new to me. I've never been on an airliner that did that, I
don't believe. If they did, I didn't notice it.

Any other airline pilots verify this?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
shut off an engine when taxiing, then start it only when ready for
takeoff? Really?? That would shorten the life of the engine, wouldn't it,
with start cycles being part of overhaul criteria? Do they only do that for
long holds?

This one is new to me. I've never been on an airliner that did that, I
don't believe. If they did, I didn't notice it.

Any other airline pilots verify this?
--
Jim in NC

I believe that, rather than "shut off an engine for taxiing" they
simply delay starting one
(or more, as appropriate) until takeoff is iminent. That way there is
less time in service
and no more start cycles than would otherwise occur.

David Johnson

Speculation: The training market is the 800lb gorilla in GA. Almost
every certified design is going to get a lot of business from schools
and whatnot. This includes twins too, where people are always trying
to get the coveted multi-engine ratings.

Enter the Skymaster: It's a twin, which means it has the cost of a
twin (in fuel and overhaul costs and insurance, etc). Unlike most
other twins, though, when you do your multi training and checkride in
it, you have a limitation in your logbook to inline multis, right? Eg,
you can't go and fly a 310 without another checkride.

With this in mind, I would guess that most schools, upon learning about
the restrictions, passed on them because all those aspiring airline
pilots wouldn't be interested in wasting time with inline multis.

Basically, I'm guessing that safety benefits of an inline are
overshadowed by the practical usefulness of the logged time towards an
ATP (in the eyes of the schools and students, a significant market).

/conjecture

Thoughts?

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Ben Hallert wrote

With this in mind, I would guess that most schools, upon learning about
the restrictions, passed on them because all those aspiring airline
pilots wouldn't be interested in wasting time with inline multis.

Basically, I'm guessing that safety benefits of an inline are
overshadowed by the practical usefulness of the logged time towards an
ATP (in the eyes of the schools and students, a significant market).

The F-4 Phantom II pilots returning from Vietnam with a centerline thrust
rating didn't seem to have a problem finding airline jobs. :-)

Bob Moore

Get a better and more qualified instructor. 100 hours is
very little time in a particular model, but this guy is
either ignorant or you didn't understand him.

The syncrophaser is used to get both props turning at the
same speed and with the blades in phase to reduce noise. In
any multiengine aircraft, you identify a failed engine in
positive steps. The problem with the in-line airplanes is
that only reduced take-off performance (reduced climb)
alerts the pilot to an engine failure.

The Skymaster failed because is was a poor passenger
airplane that lacked creature comport, baggage areas and it
was noisy.

Starting and stopping an engine will cause more wear and
tear that just operating normally. The best practice on the
Skymaster would be to run the engines at whatever rpm was
needed to taxi and when parked, run the idle at 1000-1200
rpm so that the front prop would blow air back and the rear
engine would cool and have a steady temperature.


--
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.


"PP-DQA" wrote in
message ...
| My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he
always said
| that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained
piltos who
| didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned
the
| Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was
doing the
| work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it,
you'd know
| which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to
keep the aft
| engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running
the front,
| then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the
aft when
| he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's
common
| practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem
for a
| properly trained Skymaster pilot...
|

PP-DQA wrote:
My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
didn't take imemdiate actions when needed.

And he is absolutely right. But that's the problem with ALL light
twins. There is nothing inherently wrong with the airplane - except
that it doesn't meet the mission profile.

Many people will tell you that the only use of the second engine in a
light twin, should one fail, is to take you to the scene of the
accident. For those who will not invest in proper initial and
recurrent training, they are absolutely right, as the accident
statistics indicate. For those of us who take our flying seriously,
it's not that way. I once had an engine failure while IFR over the
mountains of Arkansas. I was VMC 500 ft above the tops. The bases
were low - the mountains were obscured. There was an Airmet Sierra for
the area where I was - and it covered a fairly large area. The terrain
was mostly mountains and trees. In a reasonably fast and hevay single
engine airplane (Centurion, Bonanza, Lance, etc.) it would have been
ugly. We might have lived - or not. The plane would have been a
writeoff for sure. But in my Twin Comanche, I flew out of the area and
made a normal landing at an airport, where I flushed the crud out of
the fuel system, cleaned the fuel injectors, cleaned up the corroded
plug that caused the problem, and was good as new. No fuss, no muss,
no drama. This is the benefit of the second engine, and to my way of
thinking it is no small benefit to the pilot who routinely goes places
over water or rough terrain, at night, and in IMC. However, the pilot
must invest significant time and effort into training in order to
realize this benefit. The average private twin owner will not make the
investment, and thus will not realize the benefit.

The purpose of the Skymaster was to provide this same benefit to pilots
not willing to invest the time and effort into training. It was meant
to be easier than a conventional twin, and thus safer for the average
private twin pilot. It failed at the task completely - it is
statistically no safer than the conventional light twins. This is
because it requires no less training.

The important training for flying a light twin is not the fairly
trivial process of pressing hard on a rudder and keeping airspeed above
Vmc to keep it from rolling over. That may be what the FAA primarily
tests, but that's the easy part. The more important and demanding part
is systems management, energy management, and generally keeping your
options open and taking care of the equipment so it takes care of you.
Those things are no easier in a Skymaster than in a C-310.

Michael

Michael wrote:
The important training for flying a light twin is not the fairly
trivial process of pressing hard on a rudder and keeping airspeed above
Vmc to keep it from rolling over. That may be what the FAA primarily
tests, but that's the easy part. The more important and demanding part
is systems management, energy management, and generally keeping your
options open and taking care of the equipment so it takes care of you.
Those things are no easier in a Skymaster than in a C-310.

Wouldn't that be the case in any complex single as well? I have much
more energy management to do in the Mooney than in the 310.

-Robert