I keep seeing them at bottom prices for low time airframes. Any inputs about their utility capability and efficiency. I heard over the years that they are about as easy as a c-172 and no vices.
I would like a twin even if its inline thrust really makes no difference to me.

Any terrible AD's on them, or any other peculiarities?

Had a buddy with one in VA. He loved it. Loose an engine on takeoff and you'll be happy they are inline.

====

Thanks for the links, just in time.

I had a 75 non-turbo for 3 years.
I bought it from a friend who flew it for 10 years.
I knew the mechanic who maintained it.
It is a great plane, great useful load and 7 1/2 hours range.
A potential issue is that you can cube them out, not enough baggage room.
Go to www.337skymaster.com the BT for everything Skymasters.
They are a little ugly on the ground but do the job in the air, if you like flying a tank!

Rick

Thanks!

Great link

Great airplanes if they meet your mission. I would highly recommend the pressurized version as it carries little premium over the normally aspirated or turbocharged ones and offers tremendous value for the dollar.

You aren't going to get 200 KTAS (unless you want to run 75+% power which I do not recommend), you aren't going to get known ice, you aren't going to get six seats (in the P version, T and N/A have 6 seats), you aren't going to get 2,000 lb useful load and you aren't going to get a 25,000 ft service ceiling.

What you will get is mid 180 KTAS at 17,500 ft on 23 GPH (total), in pressurized air conditioned comfort, a 18,700 ft single engine service ceiling and an airplane that flies like a Cessna 182.

Oh, and by the way, the pressurized versions are very quiet in the cabin too.

My mission is generally low flying, maybe on occasion climb up to 12500 mostly to feel cold and dry myself out, can't see a need for higher out here in Florida and Islands. 160Kt on average is just fine by me, and to be able to carry 800 pounds + me would be just fine.

Would a 337 do this?


I really don't want pressurization or anything fancy, an auto pilot and air conditioning would be about the most I would ever want to be happy. :-)

some other questions would be:
How easy is it to get to stuff during maintenance?
Or ease of access to the innards of the frame.
The rear motor seems to be high off the ground so I already know I'll need a ladder for that.
But the AD's are the ones that can smoke the desirability, and here is where I need more insight.

No particular ADs that are worrisome on a 337.

If I were looking for a twin that does 160 kts, able to carry 800 lb plus me and didn't need to go over 12,500 ft I would seriously look to a Twin Comanche. I've owned both, as well as a couple other types of twins in my flying career and it seems to me you describe needing a Twin Comanche. They can be found for roughly the same purchase price and with less maintenance and less operating expense than a 337.

Nothing against the 337's but there are bargains on LOTS of twins today. If you prefer a Travel Air or something, that will be a bargain too. (And cheap to operate!)

To me the most interesting 337 is the pressurized one. IIRC it's the only pressurized twin with 4-cylinder motors instead of 6's. So that makes it by far the lowest cost to own/operate pressurized twin airplane.

If I were looking for a twin that does 160 kts, able to carry 800 lb plus me and didn't need to go over 12,500 ft I would seriously look to a Twin Comanche. I've owned both, as well as a couple other types of twins in my flying career and it seems to me you describe needing a Twin Comanche. They can be found for roughly the same purchase price and with less maintenance and less operating expense than a 337.[/quote]


I am familiar with the Twin comanche and as nice as it looks it ain't the airplane for me. Lack of pilot door is a problem, the entry and exit is cramped, and cabin is too small, baggage door is too small. Nice airplane that was definitely designed under its potential.

It just occurred to me,,, can the cabin door be opened all the way out without it hitting the engine nacelle?
Thats what pretty much torpedoed my interest in an Aztec. In an Aztec the hinges on the door were designed so they are "aerodynamic" so the door opens about 16 inches and then hits the nacelle. Can't load big boxes, and the hinges cannot be disjoined because the idiots made them "streamlined" on an airplane that is not very fast.

While I agree that the pressurized version is the only 337 I believe I would want, all 337s have versions of the Continental IO-360, a six cylinder engine. The normally aspirated ones are IO-360s at 210 HP. The turbos and pressurized versions are TSIO-360s, the straight turbo still making 210 HP but the pressurized version making 225 HP.

The Twin Comanche and Travel Airs are the only common, inexpensive twins with four cylinder engines and they're Lycomings. The Travel Airs having versions of the 360 and Twin Comanches having 320 versions.

A four cylinder Lycoming will be cheaper to own and operate than any version of a six cylinder Continental.

If you don't want a TC, fair enough. But the 337 doesn't have a pilot door either and having owned both a TC and P337 I can tell you there isn't much difference in cabin size between the two.

Good luck with your search.

A four cylinder Lycoming will be cheaper to own and operate than any version of a six cylinder Continental.[/quote]


I don't know about that????
Have you priced an angle valve IO-360 cylinder,, its about 2K, the conti is about 1K. All in all my SWAG would say its a wash or maybe advantage Continental.

Fuel flow on Lyco maybe lower on account its missing 2 cylinders, but law of physics say to get the same HP you need to burn the same BTU with friction an all slight advantage to Lyco but not much. Reliability prolly Lyco but I can tell you that if you lose a cylinder on a Lyco you lost 25% of HP lose Cylinder on a Conti you lose 17% all else =. So its a debate with too many variables and too many outcome$.

None of the airplanes under discussion have those cylinders so it is kinda a moot point.

Having owned one twin with four cylinder Lycomings and three twins with six cylinder Continentals, I'll take the Lycoming from an operating and maintenance standpoint any day.