Paul McCracken said it was fast

I just report my actual numbers. I rarely fly below 10,000 ft. The MEA from Tucson to LA is 10,000 ft and coming back it is 11,000 ft. I never go non-stop more than 400 NM or so anyway so your 600 NM limitation is moot.

Again, this airplane may not make sense for everyone but it does make sense for my needs and that is truly all that matters

I agree Ken. If it works for you it makes sense. I really liked my old P210 other than it sucked in ice and climbed slow. I looked at the P337 and the P210 at the same time. With 4 people and bags the P337 would not do what I needed. For 2-3 people it would make a good twin.

I have no educated/informed opinion on the 337, but this statement makes me LOL!

give it up ken. When someone asks about a B55 we don't start extolling the benefits of a pressurized 58, we discuss the 55 that they asked about. You didn't buy the 337 that most people are considering so stop trying to put lipstick on that pig.

If you could buy a 58P for $10,000 - $15,000 more than a B55, I'll bet you would start extolling the benefits of the 58P. You can buy a P337 for $10,000 - $15,000 more than a 337.

Ken is correct about that. You might even be able to buy a P337 for the same money. Same goes for the P210 - no more money than a good T210. My feelings about both is that they have too much airframe and not enough engine. A P210 with a twin turbo IO-550 would have been much better.

why stop there? This ancient king air we're flying could be bought for the same as any decent p-baron. Its not the purchase that gets you. Pressurized, deiced airframes are a lot of money to maintain and a huge hassle at times. If someone wants a 55 i would definitely NOT push them toward a 58p, its not the same class of plane and purchasing one is just the cover charge, you haven't even got the bartender's attention yet.

I have no educated/informed opinion on the 337, but this statement makes me LOL!

Jeff doesn't like 337s. We get it. He doesn't need to make up crap and say a bunch of untrue things about the airplanes, though

Making things up? The last time I was in one was 1991 and my ears are still ringing.

What's really dishonest is pushing a plane like his to the initiated as a "value". It's not a value, you get what you pay for. Just present it as what it is, an odd all plane that can be bought cheap because of its inefficient operation.

John,

Do you have data to back that up? The 337 I was in was so loud that it was almost unbearable. Can props really reduce the noise to a lesser amount than an A36? That would be incredible.

faster than the speed of smell.

I you want to burn lots of gas while going slow, the 337 can't be beat.

Todd - reminds me of the old car biz expression, "there's an ass for every seat". I've never flown any model 337 so I am the least qualified person to comment. The only thing I know is that there is a lot of stuff crammed into a small area in a P337 but the same is true of other complex small aircraft as well. If the plane meets someone's mission and psychic needs then who's to criticize? Personally, I think it is an interesting machine and would like to fly one some time to form my own opinion. I do find it intriguing that the P337 is so much quieter than its non-pressurized brethren. I would never have thought that nor have I ever heard that claimed before. Love to find out for myself but I don't have any connections to get to the left seat!

180 KTAS on 10.6 GPH per engine is burning a lot of gas to go slow. But since this is a Beech crowd, 182 KTAS on 12.5 GPH per engine (some can get that down to 11 GPH per engine) in my previous Baron was hauling ass. Interesting perspective.

Just empirical Todd, my ears comparing the old 2-bladed props with the new 3-bladed MT composite props. Day and night difference, inside and outside. I have to believe it's prop tip speed.

As for "data", I can't attest to it's accuracy, but at least one source (Aviation Enterprises, LLC) claims a 4-5 decibel reduction in cruise:

http://www.cessnaskymaster.com/propellers.html