Cessna 337

BravoHotel

BravoHotel

Well-Known Member
Did the Cessna 337 have that big of an impact on aviation? Was there a big conflict somewhere with a lot of high time 337 or 0-2 pilots in the workforce?

I was reading job descriptions, ....1,000 hours multi-engine airplane other than centerline thrust and 1,500 hours total fixed wing pilot time...I don't see that too often but, was just curious if that was the case.
 
Hawks said:
Did the Cessna 337 have that big of an impact on aviation? Was there a big conflict somewhere with a lot of high time 337 or 0-2 pilots in the workforce?

I was reading job descriptions, ....1,000 hours multi-engine airplane other than centerline thrust and 1,500 hours total fixed wing pilot time...I don't see that too often but, was just curious if that was the case.
Click to expand...

Not a big conflict, it's just time that does not transfer well to normal ME airplanes. The center line thrust can also apply to many military aircraft.
 
Not much contribution to the thread, but I have .6 in the 337. It was actually a fairly fun airplane to fly!
 
The -337 was an attempt to create a safe multi-engine airplane. That goal was partially accomplished in that with an engine failure the normally associated yaw and handling problems were removed. However (hard to believe) some people started the front engine and forgot to start the rear engine resulting in incidents and accidents.
The O-2 came in two models, the A (the FAC bird with 4 hard points, prop spinner removed, some windows added and various nav/comm equipment) and the B which was essentially just a -337 with the baggage door replaced with a large speaker. The A was flown considerably heavier than the standard civilian -337, around 4400lbs as I remember.
FWIW, the -337 is still being used in some theatres including Iraq not as a FAC bird but doing ISR.
 
I have about 10 hours in them...fun to fly but the "single engine" takeoffs did happen...Actually the only time I lost an engine was in a 337 - I showed up late and the owner did the preflight.
 
I have 40 some odd airs in the 337. At the time it was what the majority of my multi time was in to land me where I'm at now. I really liked flying that airplane. It has character. I love flying airplanes with character. Many pilots made the mistake of attempting the take off without the rear engine started. It's an easy mistake to make, but it is also an easy mistake to prevent. All you really had to do was look down at the engine gauges as you begin to add power to look for a rise in RPM and manifold. It was a good practice to add power on the rear engine first. The reason there were making the mistake is because they liked to taxi with one engine to save fuel and forgot to start the rear engine.

The 337 was the only airplane I've ever exerienced an engine failure in. It was the front engine in cruise. It was really a non event because the plane flies fine with just the rear engine. I eventually got the engine restarted and continued the flight. The rear engine seemed to run hot quite often also. I recall it not having very good stall charecteristics.
 
I don't remember the stalls as anything other than being a typical Cessna stall. The problem with the engine failure was with the rear engine you did NOT want to retract the gear (IIRC) because the hyd pack to retract the gear was on the rear engine. With an engine failure there was enough pressure to open the gear doors but not to close them in effect creating a speed brake. Some owners removed the gear doors and accepted the modicum of additional drag.
AOPA looked at the -337 and found it had a comparable accident record to other twins but most accidents were due to other factors besides engine failures (fuel exhaustion, etc)

I have about 700+ in the O2 and only one or two engine failures. I did, however, switch to the aux tanks at the same time once. In the most odd of circumstances, I was able to run both tanks dry at EXACTLY the same moment as I pulled of marking a target. Odd how quiet it can be when both quit.
 
Hawks said:
It sounds like fun, I have a CMEL, where can I go to fly one?
Click to expand...

I lucked out. The owner of the aircraft had bought it and didn't have a multi-engine rating. He walked into the flight school needing an instructor and I was the only one sitting around at the moment who was a MEI.


Orange Anchor said:
I don't remember the stalls as anything other than being a typical Cessna stall. The problem with the engine failure was with the rear engine you did NOT want to retract the gear (IIRC) because the hyd pack to retract the gear was on the rear engine. With an engine failure there was enough pressure to open the gear doors but not to close them in effect creating a speed brake. Some owners removed the gear doors and accepted the modicum of additional drag.
AOPA looked at the -337 and found it had a comparable accident record to other twins but most accidents were due to other factors besides engine failures (fuel exhaustion, etc)

I have about 700+ in the O2 and only one or two engine failures. I did, however, switch to the aux tanks at the same time once. In the most odd of circumstances, I was able to run both tanks dry at EXACTLY the same moment as I pulled of marking a target. Odd how quiet it can be when both quit.
Click to expand...

The 337 seemed to break more violently than all the other cessnas I'd flown for some reason.

I taught the student to not raise the gear until 500ft agl just in case that rear engine failed during takeoff. It performed very poorly only on the front engine.
 
I never flew the 337. We had one based where I learned to fly though, and unforutnaly it was destroyed down in Atlanta when a line guy put the wrong fuel in it causing engine failure on takeoff that lead to total destruction of the aircraft. The two people on board where burned badly but lived.
 
Inverted25 said:
I never flew the 337. We had one based where I learned to fly though, and unforutnaly it was destroyed down in Atlanta when a line guy put the wrong fuel in it causing engine failure on takeoff that lead to total destruction of the aircraft. The two people on board where burned badly but lived.
Click to expand...

ARRRGGHHHH! I hope those pilots, crew and or pax lived to make a full recovery. That is why there is the flared nozzle on the JET-A / JP5/JP8 trucks!!!! So it doesn't fit into the fuel ports that require 100LL. But there is exceptions to every rule. You would think that any FBO would put their line service people through training to prevent this sort of accident. I was a line service attendant for three years, if you can't see the difference between a turbine and a piston, you have no business fueling aircraft!!!!
 
I think it's kind of funny/ironic that the 337 has the same numeric designation as the FAA form for major alteration and repair. I've heard that they are maintenance hogs so perhaps that's fitting.
 
Hawks said:
ARRRGGHHHH! I hope those pilots, crew and or pax lived to make a full recovery. That is why there is the flared nozzle on the JET-A / JP5/JP8 trucks!!!! So it doesn't fit into the fuel ports that require 100LL. But there is exceptions to every rule. You would think that any FBO would put their line service people through training to prevent this sort of accident. I was a line service attendant for three years, if you can't see the difference between a turbine and a piston, you have no business fueling aircraft!!!!
Click to expand...

That's true to a point, but with the diesel engines becoming more popular, and a number of twins that have variants that are piston or turbine, I can see how mistakes happen. Which is why the different nozzles were introduced.
 
Not all nozzles are modified either. When I worked the line we had one that was round still because a lot of the jet-A powered helos had fuel ports that were too small for the duck bill
 
msmspilot said:
That's true to a point, but with the diesel engines becoming more popular, and a number of twins that have variants that are piston or turbine, I can see how mistakes happen. Which is why the different nozzles were introduced.
Click to expand...

This is why they put this stickers:
6172_1145824858404_1611014336_378233_5871023_n.jpg
 
msmspilot said:
That's true to a point, but with the diesel engines becoming more popular, and a number of twins that have variants that are piston or turbine, I can see how mistakes happen. Which is why the different nozzles were introduced.
Click to expand...

Not only the nozzles, but the 'ring' portion of the filler neck on the airplane as well.
 
I can count how many diesel airplanes I have fueled in the past four years.

0.

I know they're out there, but they aren't as plentiful as one may think.

if you can't see the difference between a turbine and a piston, you have no business fueling aircraft!!!!
Click to expand...

x2
People most of the time just don't pay attention. I've stopped plenty of line guys from taking the 100LL truck to a Cessna turboprop or vice versa.

--

The 337 has always interested me. It is one bird I wouldn't mind flying just to say I did it.
 
I had the displeasure of working on a 337 Riley Super Skyrocket. Horrendous beast with TSIO-520's crammed in the cowls with shoe horns. Talk about the rear engine over heating....I hope never to touch a 337 again. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top