Cessna Skymasters

Timbuff10

Timbuff10

Well-Known Member
I have always thought of these as a neat little plane and now that I have a fair understanding of airplanes I got to wondering why their design isn't that popular today with all we know about asymmetrical thrust and so on. From what I can tell, Cessna gave up on the Skymaster line in 1980. They have about a 1500 lb useful load which seems good and the Air Force seemed to like them back in the day. Were they gas chuggers or hangar queens or something?

I am wondering if anyone knows if Cessna plans on starting this line up again like they did with the new 172s?

Good luck finding a meaner looking Cessna than this thing!
Skymaster photo

It has rockets and missiles on it!
 
on the early ones the rear engine didnt cool very well while on the ground so that may contribute to its reputation as a hangar queen
 
Working on the rear engine is the biggest pain in the a$$.
banghead.gif


From a pilots perspective they are pretty good planes. If I found one in good condition, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it. They are pretty fast and really easy to fly with one engine out. If you loose one engine, you still loose all the climb performance just like a conventional twin, but your feet are flat on the floor.

The down side is they are very noisy. Also the rear engine is hard to keep cool. Mechanics hate working on the rear engine because it is hard to access. Almost every maintence task on that rear engine takes an extra 20% longer. Definately don't buy a "fixer upper", also don't waste your money on the fixed gear 336.
 
Easy airplane to fly, especially to land. The only engine out hazard was that sometimes pilots didn't recognize loss of power in the rear engine. Which is bad on takeoff or other critical times. But definitely a safe twin.

The main reason Cessna stopped making them is they didn't sell. I'm guessing that mechanics bad-mouthed them big time, as you see on this thread. Also they were noisy and the cabin was not comfortable, especially for rear seat passengers who were up against the back firewall.

It was a good effort at making a safe twin. But new designs are always a gamble.
 
With today's less noisy engines, all they have to do is find a way to make them easier to work on and it sounds as though we have a winning design?

I read somewhere that they designed an intake for airflow to the aft engine. I am guessing that is what that scoop is on top of the cabin on the newer versions?

I wonder how much thought, if any, Cessna has given to bringing this line back. Would be cool to see them again if they can get around those issues.

On a side note, I just remembered this design that is built and designed in my back yard.
http://www.adamaircraft.com/

I guess Adam took the skymaster idea and built on it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
With today's less noisy engines

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I doubt an IO-540 (or whatever a 337 has, I have no clue) today is any quieter than the IO-540 from 30 years ago. Piston aircraft engines are basically 1950's technology. They really haven't changed much, and where they have doesn't have much to do with noise.
 
Well I guess it has more to do with insulation and materials the aircraft is made out of but if you fly an old 172 and then hop into a new one you will notice the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top