Our service life is 2600 hours

I have a few hours in a P337. No need for speed brakes, just start the gear in or out - the rear gear doors are very effective at slowing the plane down. Flies a lot like a 182 except more power and weight. Single engine was just fine, flew like a slow, heavy 182!

I liked the plane but oddly enough my wife loved it - only plane (including Boeing et al) that she has ever been able to sleep in - I figure the noise just wore her out...

RAS

Had a NA 337 for my first twin and then a Turbo 337. I remember I flight planned for 145 knots in the NA version and something like 160 knots at 12,000 for the turbo. It's definitely a 4 place airplane if you want to carry bags. Noisy, slow and handles like a dump truck but easy to fly and a real load hauler. Took all the seats but pilot and copilot out and hauled an entire encampment to OSH one year. I loved it when I had it, but wouldn't do it again. Was a real eye opener when I went from flying with a fist on the yoke of the 337 to 2 fingers in the Baron. The old Cessna Navomatic autopilot is functional but not elegant. The rear engine is the "critical" engine as it produces more thrust and usually has the only hydraulic pump. If you lose the rear engine with the gear in transit and the doors hanging out, it will not climb. Normal procedure is to advance the rear engine first to ensure its making power since you can't see it and then bring up the front engine on takeoff. There are stories of people running off the end of the runway not realizing the rear engine had quit. Maintenance items to watch are getting the gear rigged right, the electric cowl flaps and the general nuisance of removing access panels on the rear firewall to get to some parts of the rear engine.

While I haven't flown one in many years, I would agree with all of your comments.
I do recall when I was flying the C-337 series in the early 1970's, that the Bendix tach's were notoriously undependable. There was one particular accident that ended with two fatalities around that time and I believe resulted in Cessna adding the "lead with the rear engine" power application. The Turbo 337 was a better performer than the NA C-337 and obviously tremendously better than the fixed gear C-336. Never flew the pressurized model. All of the ones that I knew of seemed to have an inordinate amount of maintenance issues. The titles of "Suck & Blow," "Huff & Puff," ect., were well deserved. Control harmony not outstanding at all. Personally, I would perfer a 310, Baron, or Aztec over the Skymaster from nearly any perspective.
MM

The thing is, a 337 without a belly pod doesn't compete with a baron, 310, or aztec, simply because it just doesn't have enough room in it. The 337, based on cabin volume and no nose baggage, competes with a twin comanche. The twinky is a pleasure to fly and sips fuel with a pair of lyc 320 4-bangers.

But very few like AMC Gremlins, which is basically what we're talking about here

Micheal,

The only real benefit of the belly pod is to save the props when the gear craps out and won't extend by any method. . I know of 2 Skymasters that this happen to the first owner the sold and bought an Islander; that he still has 18 years later. The other jacked plane up. Fixed leaking hydraulic pack and kept flying it for about 10 years .

Not my favorite airplane flies like mixing wet cement and the noise in the cabin.

Nigel

As John said, I bought a P337 a few months ago. It is a great airplane and since it is "different" there will always be haters. That's OK, the airplane I own only has to make sense for my needs, not someone else's. This is my 4th twin (13th airplane) but first pressurized airplane. I did have a Colemill B55 Baron in the past and I did consider a P-Baron this time (in addition to a C340, C414 and Aerostar 601P).

If you're looking at a 337, take a good look at the pressurized ones. They aren't that much more money and are much more comfortable.

According to RisingUP (optimistic in general but probably equally optimistic for all types), the P337 cruises at 204 kts where the P-Baron does 232 kts. The P337 makes 450 HP and the P-Baron makes 650 HP. The P-Baron therefore will burn 44% more fuel for a 14% increase in speed. If these numbers aren't exact, they're close enough for discussion.

The single engine rate of climb for the P-Baron is 223 FPM. For the P337 it is 375 FPM. The single engine service ceiling on the P-Baron is 12,220 ft; for the P337 it is 18,700 ft.

The takeoff ground roll of the P-Baron is 1555 ft, for the P337 it is 945 ft. The landing roll for the P-Baron is 1378 ft but the P337 only needs 795 ft (and I have a STOL kit on mine that makes it significantly less).

The stall speed on the P-Baron is 78 kts, on the P337 it is 62 kts. There's no pesky red radial on the airspeed indicator in a P337 either

I think those are amazing statistics favoring the P337. To be fair, the P-Baron does some things that the P337 can't. The P-Baron can go faster, has a greater useful load, has more seats and is available in known icing (337s can only be "full de-ice"). I didn't need any of the advantages the P-Baron offers, obviously many do. Purchase price will be at least twice as much on the P-Baron and insurance will also be higher on the P-Baron.

My P337 runs LOP quite well. For these engines, 65% power, LOP is 10.6 GPH per engine. 65% power in the mid to high teens will get me 180 KTAS and I'm perfectly happy with that (especially on 21.2 GPH combined)

As I said I have owned a Colemill B55 previously. On that airplane I routinely saw 182 KTAS on 25 GPH for 7.28 NM/gal. In my current P337 I routinely see 180 KTAS on 21.2 GPH for 8.49 NM/gal.

Add in visibility from the P337 unmatched by almost any other twin and the air stair door (which is AWESOME) and this is a very comfortable airplane for both pilot and passengers. As long as you understand the TSIO-360 engines and run them appropriately, the P337 is very economical too. Insurance on my P337 (with zero hours in make and model) is virtually identical to what my previous Baron was when corrected for hull value and my insurance mandated transition was simply five hours of dual.

If I had gone to a P-Baron insurance had me in a five day school which tremendously increases insurance cost, especially when considering that's also five days of no work which equals no pay.

I didn't consider a non-pressurized 337 so I don't have any direct knowledge of them.

Oh, and the P337 is amazingly quiet inside the cabin. I start the rear engine first and can't tell it is running without looking at the tach and fuel flow. Non-pressurized versions are certainly louder.

Aren't all the earlier Turbo 337s pressurized also? I wonder if the noise is as well dampened on them as the P versions. I thought I read somewhere that they didn't have the P designation until toward the end of the production run when they did make a few non-pressurized T337s.

No.



I don't know for a fact but I seriously doubt it as the T210 isn't nearly as quiet inside the cabin as the P210.



The T337 first was introduced in 1967 and ran until 1971. The P was available from 1973 - 1980. The T was again available from 1978 - 1980 but the T of these years kept the small windows of the P so from the outside, the later Ts looked just like the Ps.

OK, thanks.

Pure truth here. Never understood why anyone would buy an underpowered, overly loud, fuel sucking, twin with no baggage room. The plane makes no sense to me.

Your Colemill Baron was slow. 25 GPH should easily get you 190 knots. 22 GPH will yield 180 knots all day. And, yes, the pressurized 337 is the only way to go in a 337. You need to get up high to get any efficiency. The problem is that you are not going non-stop more than about 600 miles or so with 4 adults and bags which takes away from some of the advantage of high flight.

Let's look objectively at those statements:

Underpowered:
My P337 is 225 HP per engine and turbocharged.

Compare that with my previous twin, a Twin Comanche at 160 HP per engine and normally aspirated. Which one is more underpowered ?

Compare also to my twin before that, a Colemill Baron. The engines could make 300 HP per side for five minutes, 285 HP continuously but they were also legally limited to 260 HP based on the airframe. No one would consider that underpowered, right ? Yet above 8,000 ft, the P337 makes more power than the Colemill Baron, and I rarely fly below 8,000 ft.

Compare that to my twin before that, a Seneca III. That airplane had essentially the same engines as my P337 except the Seneca made 220 HP where the P337 makes 225 HP per engine. I don't hear many people calling the Seneca underpowered.

Overly loud:
I start the rear engine on my P337 first and the only way I know it is running is to check the fuel flow and RPM. I literally cannot hear it from inside the cockpit and without a headset on. I can't say that about any other airplane I've ever owned, single or multi-engine.

Fuel sucking:
LOP at 65% power, the way I fly any airplane, the P337 burns 10.6 GPH per engine. Not many people would call that fuel sucking.

No baggage room:
There is baggage room. It is in the area of the 5th and 6th seats - exactly the same as the Twin Comanche. Not everyone that flies twins needs to put butts in all the seats. I'm one of them. I fly solo over 90% of the time. I never have more than four people total in an airplane so I have plenty of room for baggage at all times.

The plane makes sense to me. It doesn't have to make sense to you, or anyone else