I have a turbo 337b. Never had trouble with the rear engine getting hot unless you are taxing with only the rear engine for more than 5 minutes. And you almost never do that. Maintenance is a little harder but not too bad. It's just tight like a new car. Fun to fly, feels like a single, but much more going on. After owning I flew my friends 210 and it was a let down. Also, I went from a Taylorcraft to this... big jump, lots of training was needed. Lol
You never mentioned the military O2 version!😱 I have always liked the Skymaster, so as an A&P mechanic I never minded working on them. Other mechanics I knew wanted nothing to do with them, as the rear engine was especially tight and the magnetos were hard to get to. Surf guitar player Dick Dale was a friend for many years and owned a 337. It was his pride and joy.
New Mexico State Police flew two push/ pulls as recon and travel duty for us officers on traffic enforcement, drug eradication recon missions and travel duty on on going criminal investigations. I loved these birds, they were friendly,stable and offered great visibility. Oh, these were flown through the eighties and into the early 1990s by uniformed fully commissioned police pilots, along side our helicopter.
The Skymaster (unpressurized version) is one of the greatest low-level oblique aerial photography platforms ever. With completely unobstructed visibility, strut well behind and gear retracted, plus the safety of a controllable two engines down low it is unbeatable. Sadly, the operating and maintenance costs place it completely out of range today for any airwork operation. To make the bite even meaner, great as it is for oblique photography, it cannot be used for survey and precise vertical operation, because the way it is rigged precludes the installation of a standard camera hole, other than in a position that requires removing the copilot position. So the ONE aerial operation that could possibly be lucrative enough to pay the operating costs is also out for design reasons. That's why you never see any being used for air work.
At least 2 of them had "wheel pants" on, a yellow one at 2:57 and a red one. All the rest had "Gooney Bird" retract gear. That gear, and the same thing on Centurions, wins the prize for "most failures" in any design, ever. LOL I think there were more ways to get better aerodynamic cooling, and reduce the noise in that rear engine. I with they would have tried more, that looks like a good idea. JMHO --gary
This is a very informative video, but I think you forgot to mention that during takeoffs it is very difficult to determine if the rear engine has failed, except for the realization that the takeoff run is taking longer than usual. I was always taught when starting the takeoff roll to advance the power on the rear engine first, never to advance both throttles at the same time. This procedure allows the pilot to positively determine that the rear engine is operating properly and the takeoff can be safely completed.
I had a P337 some years ago and I have to say that one would have to be asleep to not notice that one engine wasn't operating. Besides the huge loss of power, it also had engine gauges, RPM, fuel flow, manifold pressure, so I don't see how you wouldn't notice an engine failure. I would always advance the throttles together, takeoff or any other time and, as in any other plane, I would include engine gauges in my instrument scan. At the time I got my Skymaster, I was flying B-52s as my job, so perhaps I was a bit more focused on engine and systems monitoring than a typical light plane pilot but I still don't see how someone could not notice a failed engine when you only have two of them?
@@phugwad the advancing the throttle on the rear engine first wasn't so much of a means of determining an engine failure as it was to be able to confirm that the rear engine was actually developing power - then confirming the power on both engines with the engine instruments as you mentioned. It was just an extra precaution that could be taken when first starting the takeoff roll.
That was absolutely the procedure, as taught to me by Emery Rakes. He had previously been a Cessna development/test pilot involved with the Skymaster and the 310 developments in Wichita.
7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Where did you get the information that Skymaster only produces 360 hp because of the rear engine being in disturbed air? I have never seen anything even remotely close to that.
I have no idea where this idea, that a skymaster only had a combined total of 360 hp, came from. I had one for several years and it's performance was slightly better than the Piper Seneca, with the same engines and and same max takeoff weight. It is true that a rear mounted propellor operates in disturbed air but the Skymaster actually had slightly better single engine engine performance on the rear engine than the front, in spite of the front running in undisturbed air.
@@phugwad My guess on the "360 HP" is probably an old wive's tale said off the cuff, "heard from a friend, who had a friend..." In fact the rear prop IS more effective than the front, as evidenced by better climb from rear vs front. Maybe pusher props are more efficient? Another indicator this person doesn't really know is stating "the EGT was to tell if engine quit." No, just another thing made up by someone. It is listed as an 'economizer,' an option to lean the engines, No more, no less. I did have a rear engine fuel flow issue. It was very strange. I was in military airspace and asked Andrews ATC if maybe Id flown through some distrubance. The airplane just slowed a bit. Other than slowing a bit, MP and RPM were fine, but EGT and CHT were the first clue where something was wrong.
i have a 1973 p just had the engine upgrades a while back 300 hp now cruise at 250mph. this is the 4th one ihave owned 1st one was a 336 with wheel pants. got passed by 140 cessnas, next was the non pressuised one thes elast 2 are presurised andi wouldnt have it anyother way safe over mtns and water but the new one i have had over 2 years. lots of mods and mean lots of mods glass panel radar. tonmorrow i am buying a kitchen sink so i can say it has it all including the kitchen sink
The 337 is one safe Multi engine aircraft that I’ve flown in and they are still available and the most expensive ones were the Riley Rockets
I have a turbo 337b. Never had trouble with the rear engine getting hot unless you are taxing with only the rear engine for more than 5 minutes. And you almost never do that. Maintenance is a little harder but not too bad. It's just tight like a new car. Fun to fly, feels like a single, but much more going on. After owning I flew my friends 210 and it was a let down. Also, I went from a Taylorcraft to this... big jump, lots of training was needed. Lol
I have a 1967 O-2A Skymaster.
You never mentioned the military O2 version!😱
I have always liked the Skymaster, so as an A&P mechanic I never minded working on them. Other mechanics I knew wanted nothing to do with them, as the rear engine was especially tight and the magnetos were hard to get to.
Surf guitar player Dick Dale was a friend for many years and owned a 337. It was his pride and joy.
Check out the movie BAT21......Great use of this plane...!!
@@ClearedAsFiled
Yes!
Excellent movie!
Jerry Reed at his best as well.👌
It’s crazy watching this video and seeing my bird (N84E) being featured.
New Mexico State Police flew two push/ pulls as recon and travel duty for us officers on traffic enforcement, drug eradication recon missions and travel duty on on going criminal investigations. I loved these birds, they were friendly,stable and offered great visibility. Oh, these were flown through the eighties and into the early 1990s by uniformed fully commissioned police pilots, along side our helicopter.
I love the Do335 fighter. It was faster than anything else in the European Theater during WWII. the Cessna is my second favorite.
We flew in a sky master in the mid 80s from Tico airport in Florida to Port prince and back. It was a good flight cramped but never the first problem.
The Skymaster (unpressurized version) is one of the greatest low-level oblique aerial photography platforms ever.
With completely unobstructed visibility, strut well behind and gear retracted, plus the safety of a controllable two engines down low it is unbeatable.
Sadly, the operating and maintenance costs place it completely out of range today for any airwork operation.
To make the bite even meaner, great as it is for oblique photography, it cannot be used for survey and precise vertical operation, because the way it is rigged precludes the installation of a standard camera hole, other than in a position that requires removing the copilot position. So the ONE aerial operation that could possibly be lucrative enough to pay the operating costs is also out for design reasons. That's why you never see any being used for air work.
Weren't Skywagons used as spotter aircraft in Vietnam...?
Loved it man.❤
At least 2 of them had "wheel pants" on, a yellow one at 2:57 and a red one. All the rest had "Gooney Bird" retract gear. That gear, and the same thing on Centurions, wins the prize for "most failures" in any design, ever. LOL I think there were more ways to get better aerodynamic cooling, and reduce the noise in that rear engine. I with they would have tried more, that looks like a good idea. JMHO --gary
That landing gear design was one of the most successful features ever developed.
It is the main reason why your A&P's house is bigger than yours!!
This is a very informative video, but I think you forgot to mention that during takeoffs it is very difficult to determine if the rear engine has failed, except for the realization that the takeoff run is taking longer than usual. I was always taught when starting the takeoff roll to advance the power on the rear engine first, never to advance both throttles at the same time. This procedure allows the pilot to positively determine that the rear engine is operating properly and the takeoff can be safely completed.
I had a P337 some years ago and I have to say that one would have to be asleep to not notice that one engine wasn't operating. Besides the huge loss of power, it also had engine gauges, RPM, fuel flow, manifold pressure, so I don't see how you wouldn't notice an engine failure. I would always advance the throttles together, takeoff or any other time and, as in any other plane, I would include engine gauges in my instrument scan. At the time I got my Skymaster, I was flying B-52s as my job, so perhaps I was a bit more focused on engine and systems monitoring than a typical light plane pilot but I still don't see how someone could not notice a failed engine when you only have two of them?
@@phugwad the advancing the throttle on the rear engine first wasn't so much of a means of determining an engine failure as it was to be able to confirm that the rear engine was actually developing power - then confirming the power on both engines with the engine instruments as you mentioned. It was just an extra precaution that could be taken when first starting the takeoff roll.
That was absolutely the procedure, as taught to me by Emery Rakes. He had previously been a Cessna development/test pilot involved with the Skymaster and the 310 developments in Wichita.
Where did you get the information that Skymaster only produces 360 hp because of the rear engine being in disturbed air? I have never seen anything even remotely close to that.
I have no idea where this idea, that a skymaster only had a combined total of 360 hp, came from. I had one for several years and it's performance was slightly better than the Piper Seneca, with the same engines and and same max takeoff weight. It is true that a rear mounted propellor operates in disturbed air but the Skymaster actually had slightly better single engine engine performance on the rear engine than the front, in spite of the front running in undisturbed air.
@@phugwad My guess on the "360 HP" is probably an old wive's tale said off the cuff, "heard from a friend, who had a friend..." In fact the rear prop IS more effective than the front, as evidenced by better climb from rear vs front.
Maybe pusher props are more efficient?
Another indicator this person doesn't really know is stating "the EGT was to tell if engine quit." No, just another thing made up by someone. It is listed as an 'economizer,' an option to lean the engines, No more, no less.
I did have a rear engine fuel flow issue. It was very strange. I was in military airspace and asked Andrews ATC if maybe Id flown through some distrubance. The airplane just slowed a bit. Other than slowing a bit, MP and RPM were fine, but EGT and CHT were the first clue where something was wrong.
As an aircraft mechanic since 2000, this AC was known as the Sky Disaster, as there are not many left.
i have a 1973 p just had the engine upgrades a while back 300 hp now cruise at 250mph. this is the 4th one ihave owned 1st one was a 336 with wheel pants. got passed by 140 cessnas, next was the non pressuised one thes elast 2 are presurised andi wouldnt have it anyother way safe over mtns and water but the new one i have had over 2 years. lots of mods and mean lots of mods glass panel radar. tonmorrow i am buying a kitchen sink so i can say it has it all including the kitchen sink
btw i wouldnt take 400 grand for mine i have more than that in it over the last 4 years