As a Skymaster owner I wanted to clear up a few points that were mentioned in this comments section. 1) Interior noise--Yes, it is slightly noisier than a conventional twin because of both engines attached to the fuselage, however, ANR headsets completely eliminate this concern. 2) Rear engine cooling--paying attention to rear engine baffling easily solves this problem. 3) Rear engine maintenance--Sometime in the mid 70's Cessna installed a service door to the rear engine that is accessed from the baggage compartment. There is an STC to install this in the earlier models. This substantially improves access to items such as the rear alternator. 4) No light twin flies well on one engine, especially during takeoff. In a conventional twin, unless the engine seizes, just looking at the propeller will not tell you which engine is failing. 5) The 336 model, produced for only about 12 months, lacks many of the improvements of the 337. 6) It’s easier on the battery to start the front engine first because of the long battery cable run to the rear engine. You can easily tell when the rear engine starts. One should always lead the takeoff run with the rear engine, as Kevin did in this video. 7) Wingspan is 38.5 feet, so it can fit in a 40 foot t-hanger (barely). 8) The single engine service ceiling on the normally aspirated model is about 6,500 feet, and it is 18,000 ft for the turbocharged version. That is hardly “limping a few extra miles” to the scene of an accident. 8) I have heard wives tales of people caging one of the engines in cruise flight to save money, but I don’t know a single 337 owner that would do that. 9) With long range fuel tanks at 148 gal usable, at 20 gal/hr and 150 kts, the range is over 1000 miles. There are lots of great airplanes available-Bonanzas, Mooneys, Cirrus, Pipers, Barons to name a few. Each has its pluses and minuses. Thank you Josh (and Kevin) for sharing this video on TH-cam.
Josh like you, I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for the 337. It is the coolest looking plane and coolest sounding one as well. Good luck on finding the right twin.
The rear cargo area is rated for 235 lbs of cargo. This is in the area where seats 5 and 6 are (were). Every 337 I have ever seen has these seats removed as they were essentially useless. Given that the fuselage doesn’t taper to the rear like other aircraft, there is considerable room behind the second row of seats for luggage. Additionally, there is a belly cargo pod available which adds even more cargo space at the cost of a few knots of airspeed.
In the '90s, as a single rated pilot, I had the opportunity to fly several times from the right seat of a nice 1973 C337(G or H?) with the Robinson STOL conversion and 150 gallon tanks. The STOL mod is great, enabling slow flight speeds quite below that of unmodified Skymasters. We flew it into Sun & Fun, easily flying in the slower single engine stream of inbounds with no problems. The ailerons also act in concert with the flaps, enabling significantly better short-field performance. While a bit heavy in the pitch axis, the roll response was light. The clam-shell entry door was very nice. With its gear extended, it can cruise with only a 15 knot penalty. The fuel burn was less than 20 gph. This was my favorite aircraft to fly.
Josh, I am a retired A&P and was a USAF Crew Chief. I also have some 172 time. I put a lot of hours in working on the O-2A during my time in during Vietnam Era. It's a really tough little bird considering it started life as a civilian aircraft. We really pushed them to the limit during the rocket runs and they held up really well. The IO-360 really held up well also. Having flown the 172, the transition time is almost nothing. I got to fly it when I was riding along as Crew Chief (had some really cool pilots in my squadron). It would be a super stable platform for your photography. I don't see how you can get more bang for the buck than the Skymaster. Great aircraft and as you know, really roomy. Easy for Chelsey to work on also.😊
@@markhull5776 I believe they were there till 78 or 79 ,not there when I arrived in 1980 . I was in one of the last of two CAMS (Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadrons) left in the USAF. 4507th CAMS .The flying Buffalo was our squadron patch.
Excuse my doubts, but that POS killed at least 14 pilots that I know of, and my best friend, from rear engine hub disintegration leading to boom separation. The USAF did nothing to remedy the problem with that aircraft, but they did replace it with the purpose-built OV-10. Bottom line: update the hubs and limit the power.
I worked for four years doing 200 and 400 hrs phased inspections ,never saw that particular problem . Other problems related to landing gear. sorry about your friend.@@toomanyhobbies2011
The thing about twins is: twice as many engines, three times the maintenance cost. For your mission profile, that may be a worthwhile price to pay. Assuming your next plane will be used for videography, a high wing makes a lot of sense. Perhaps see if you can mooch a ride in a 210 to compare it to the 337. A 210 gives you single engine maintenance costs, albeit without the redundancy of the second fan. Having a third Cessna in the family keeps you with one manufacturer. The controls, the feel, the quirks are all very similar. It’s less cognitive load than jumping between manufacturers. Good luck with your decision. I can tell you this: many of us here would love to have this problem. 😊
Josh and Chels don't hesitate, what a fantastic underrated airplane and what value for money. A great friend had one, we all thought he was crazy and used to mock him until we all realized what he had, he loved it and flew it for almost 20 years before he passed away recently.
My 100% agree about the checklist usage. I'm a retired airline pilot with a little over 22,000 flight hours. I was used to doing Flows In Jets and then going through the checklist to confirm everything. That's how I do it now in GA airplanes since that's what I'm comfortable with. I checked everything I did in my flow
The Cessna Skymaster is a fabulous plane to have. Spent 4 years helping maintain one that flew daily, being used for traffic reports over the city. Very reliable, and very safe with the centerline thrust. It’s one bird I wish could come back into production (modernized) because of all its amazing attributes.
I’ve always admired the C337 too. I suspect that many of the oft-repeated stories of their relatively high Mx costs relate more to a reference point than to the actual reliability of the plane. Many 172/182 pilots have upgraded directly to the 337 and were introduced to the double-whammy of maintenance costs for two engines and retractable gear in one big bite. Mort Brown, Cessna’s Chief Production Test Pilot from the 1930s - 1970s told me that his favorite Cessna was the 195 (my type, by the way). I asked him what was in 2nd place - he quickly replied “the 337”. Roomy cabin, solid, safe handling and system redundancy were the factors he mentioned.
YES! BUY THE SKYMASTER!!! I love them! So versatile, unique, and just all around amazing! Not mention it fits you and Chels mission perfectly!Thank you Kevin, a fantastic job! Great, safe flying! Thanks, Chels, for the great takeoff/ landing shots! So cool!
I have a 1978 P337H and love it. It's very stable for IFR, has good range, and is very nice over the mountains with the extra engine. Just give it the respect you would give any other twin around engine failures. Speaking of that, I cringe when I see pilots retracting the gear right after takeoff. The gear doors produce a lot of drag when they're open, and you might not be able to maintain altitude, much less climb, if an engine fails. I was taught to wait until I'm clear of obstacles and have enough altitude before I retract the gear. Never close to the ground.
Agree 100%. I own a 1967 M337B. Should an engine fail shortly after takeoff, the airplane cannot maintain a positive rate of climb during gear retraction. I don't touch anything until 500' AGL. Then, Flaps up; Gear up; Climb power; Climb checklist.
I was going to say the same thing about the early gear retraction, but you covered it perfectly. The added drag of the gear retraction sequence affecting climb performance is the main issue here, but it's not the only consideration. When I did my commercial certificate it was still required to use a complex airplane - My instructor always said if you have an 8000' runway, and you're in the air after 2500', it's silly to retract the gear when you still have 5500' to settle back down on if you need to. I am told the 337 POH actually recommends 1000ft AGL for gear retraction - but as an owner maybe you can correct me on that.
I absolutely love the Skymaster! It was one of Cessna’s best designs imo, and it checks an awful lot of the boxes in my book too! Twin engines, no adverse yaw, retractable gear, easy ingress/egress, roomy, high useful load, good range, excellent visibility. I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s and the local Air National Guard operated a fleet of Cessna O2’s out of the local airport. They have a very distinct recognizable sound when they fly by overhead. The visibility for aerial photography is excellent. The only negative is that they are a bit noisy, since they have 2 engines droning at both ends of the fuselage. For your mission, I don’t think that you could find a more suitable airframe. Also, it’s certainly a much more cost effective solution compared to other more modern options.
That's a great note about alarms and annunciators. Its very important to do what you said: acknowledge it, address it, and dismiss it. We fly how we train, so let's train how we want to fly. If you train to dismiss alarms without addressing them, or ignore them completely, you'll do that when you fly, when its an actual problem.
As a 71 year old A&P and pilot with a bunch of ratings, the 337 is in my top 10 list to own. Keep in mind, engines will need a lot more attention than what you are used to. If you can afford the cost of a twin, you have my blessing for getting a Skymaster. Spend the money to get the very best prebuy insp possible. Cessna Skymaster club is good source for info. But then, you know that.
We have a saying in the motorcycle community: Ride what makes you giggle. You've got reasonable short-field/soft-field performance, the big barn-door flaps, and the IO-360 is basically bulletproof. You *can* get a turbo if you intend to do much time in the Rockies, and radar if summertime IFR is a thing... The gear is fussy from a maintenance standpoint but will take you anywhere 991 will once down and locked... And it'll definitely look unique on the ramp. :) One thing I would look into is how to mount cameras on it, because you're of course going to want those. I don't remember if the Skymaster has the fixed tie-down rings like a Skyhawk does, or whether they retract... if they're fixed you're in like Flynn. I know there's a guy who has a couple of cameras mounted on his Bonanza; I'd be interested to know how he mounts to the top of the wing... that may be an adaptable solution if you don't have fixed rings. But if it makes you giggle and there are places to put cameras on that suit you? Go for it. "San Marcos Ground, Skymaster one-zero-one alfa, instruments to Oshkosh..." (not that you'd do that *for the show*, but for a pre-show scouting mission on a clear day? 954nm is just doable... :)
I've always loved the 337. You should seriously consider it. Anyone that flies them always seems to be in love with theirs. I think it fits your mission great.
C177 RG was the perfect plane for me! It has a stabilator so you have TONS of vertical authority similar to a Cherokee. The wing is set back - so you can actually see into your turns. 4ft wide doors No Struts blocking a view Look into a later model C210 if this is your cup of tea - they are definitely cult planes!
Good call on the Cardinal 177RG…I love mine! It is the perfect plane for photography and Big enough to carry 4 people in comfort or two people and a lot of stuff. You can expect around 145 kts at 10 gph.
I've owned TWO of the 177 series, both 1976 models, fixed gear and the RG. If I didn't own a P337, the best single engine bird would be the 1976-77 model year 177RG series. A FANTASTIC airplane with great speed and fuel economy.
I flew a long cross country this past summer with 12 other planes and two of them were Skymasters. Once they were airborn they left me (172B) in the dust, but the takeoff roll seemed to go on forever. Capable and safe - you'll notice a bit of a higher fuel burn than 991, but you'll get there faster so it's a wash? They also have a wing spar AD, no clue what the failure rate on that is.
I myself have also looked at the Cessna 337 and thought it was one of the coolest airplanes I've ever seen. Many people I've spoken to say they're not very good airplanes, mainly on the maintenance side. But I don't really care. I love the way they're shaped. I love their configuration for the airframe. And as a major plus, the 337 is a plane that my dad and I wanted to get. Unfortunately my father passed last February, but that's not going to stop me from going after the airplane that we wanted as a father son airplane. And with my checkride scheduled for January 9th, after I pass, which I'm super confident I will, I'm gonna start saving for many things, and one of those items is the amazing Cessna 337.
My father flew the Air Force version of the Skymaster, the O-2, in Vietnam as a Forward Air Controller. Got shot a bit but the Skymaster always brought him back to the base safely. He’s 85 now and still talks fondly of the O-2. It’s a great plane and on my bucket list to own one.
I loved my time flying a 337 on fire patrol around Revelstoke BC. Solid airplane, a little fussy on the rear engine operation but not a deal breaker. Can’t mistake the growl of a huffnpuff overhead
The Cessna Skymaster 337 is the most slept on aircraft of general aviation. I had a lot of seat time in one from 14-17 years old and it was a big part of my life. My father used to do Angel flights with the ower of the Skymaster as well. I will watch every episode you make with it so please add it to your fleet!!!
I cut my teeth directly on the Skymaster, a friends father had one and was a CFI. he trained me well on this platform as well as for instrument flight. Logged a bit over 500 hours in this type aircraft. Loved every minute of it. Fast forward to 2024, haven’t flown since 1995 but the last flight on the 337 platform was in 80-81. Too bad I never continued on with flying in GA but the costs were getting out of hand. Should have gone to A & P school so I could do my own repairs as some other individuals have done but hindsight is 20-20.
Aero Commander! Although, I do personally love a 337, and I appreciate this video on it with your experience. It's uniquely cool. And a Velocity V-Twin would be awesome too, but I don't feel the visibility would be as great (and likely cost prohibitive to get into one).
Good look at a nice old Skymater. My father was a Cessna dealer in the 60's and 70's. And I'm an independent aircraft dealer who's owned 16 337s and all variants and if you are considering a 337 I'd be delighted to share my experience and love for them and possibly some ownership and buying tips/pitfalls. Quite frankly, the normally asipriated G models while a bit more refined from older A models, lost a bit of performance over the early lighter models. I much prefered the turbo G and P models with the P337 being my favorite. With the upgraded 225hp engines, the P offers much improved single and twin-engine performance over even a T-337, is quieter and more comfy at higher altitudes with typically only modest increased to operational cost. When it comes to a normally aspirated 337 G model, I'd be more inclined towards a B, D or E55 Baron unless the superior visibility, range and center-line thrust is something you must have, as operational costs are about the same, but the Baron offers more speed and baggage room. 310s are fun but seem to be more challenging when it comes to maintenance and the later normally aspirated 310's like the Q models don't compare to the B55 when it comes to performance.
The Skymaster looks like a good buy. Certainly a fascinating airplane! Kevin is an example of a good pilot! I really enjoyed watching this content! Many thanks Josh!
I loved my Piper PA-28-235 with full IFR King Avionics is my favorite of all time. Had extended tanks on wings giving me Seven full hours of fuel and boots on the feet and a speed kit which gave me an additional 10 knots cruise. Lycoming engine with dual oil filters and oil changes and filter every 25 hours and always hangared. Mine was a 1973 and a fantastic aircraft in and out of Albuerque or anyplace. Short fields or those 10,000 foot runways. I also loved this Cessna SkyMaster that you are presenting. Flew it for Uncle Sam and was extremely impressed with its abilities. I always run the checklist and pre flights ! Old pilots and bold pilots and no old bold pilots. Always.
When Kevin started with a checklist I said this is a GUMPS man... and sure enough @15:42 right on cue. Love to see a safe pilot enjoying such a nice aircraft.
Twins are neat, but first look at your mission profile vs costs. Example: a C310 or Baron will cost you between $300-$400 per flight hour including reserves, insurance and hangar plus debt service with almost half of that in gas. A Seneca would be less. Mechanical issues on the engines is X2. I’d look at a C210 or Piper Saratoga. If your priority is air-ground photos then get the 210. If ease of loading and unloading equipment plus wide cabin comfort is important then get the Saratoga. Both will carry a heavy load with reasonable speed. Both are very good IFR platforms. For me - a turbonormalized Saratoga would be my preferred long XC single. Most of my long XC time is in Comanches, Saratogas, and Arrows. Only a couple hundred hours in Cessnas but I never liked dipping my head or raising a wing to look for traffic. Unless you plan on spending a lot of time over mountains, open water, or night IFR. I think twins are a waste of money even if they’re neat to fly.
I owned a 336 Skymaster and flew a 337 for work. Love the simplicity of the 336 and performance was awesome since it weighs less plus no gear doors in the breeze during takeoff. If I were to pick a twin it would be the Aztec. Shares a lot of systems with the Navajo. You can actually find full deiced normally aspirated Aztecs. I’m not fond of turbo chargers. The Aztec 540’s are a great engine. There is lot of support for them. Not much support for the Skymaster as fewer were made.
My grandpa and dad both had Navion’s but grandpa’s specialty had a RangeMaster. With tip tanks they hold about 110 gallons and about 1100NM range and cruise about 160 or so. Very smooth and comfortable flying planes
I humbly recommend a turbo Arrow III. I stepped up to it after being a prisoner of density altitude with my Warrior II while traversing southern Wyoming on a cross country trek. The turbo maintains much of your performance at various DAs. It provides flight capability above the weather or turbulence at 145-155 knots TAS whilst burning 9-11 GPH depending on LOP settings. Yet, at low altitudes and slow speeds it’s as stable and docile as any Cherokee.
I do not know. With 72 gallons usable at a safety margin fuel burn calculation increased to 12gph and averaging 145 kts - you should get around 870 NM range.
Be hard to pick a better twin for your missions. Roomy. Great visibility. Easy to fly (no VMC rollovers to worry about). Good payloads. Very adequate speed. Fuel burn not to bad. Proven design. Wish it was me having to make that choice.
Josh- I like the 337. Never owned one, but curious how you felt the noise levels were? One plane you might want to add to your list is the Socata Trinidad (TB20). Having owned many planes and flown much of the aircraft on your list, the Trinidad is my choice. I prefer full certified airframes…the TB20 cruises around 160kts on 12g/hr and has the most comfortable seats I’ve found in any GA airplane…the TB is very well built, dual gulwing doors, lots of useful load, and trailing link landing gear. The rumors about parts/support are largely unfounded…have not had any parts issues in the last 5 years. 1000nm range or more. You can find nice examples for around $200k. Not many better planes out there for a true cross country hauler. Just wanted to put this one on your radar…and if you find yourself in NorCal I’d be more than happy to take you for a flight! Keep up the great work!
A great plane, back in the mid 1960's while training for my PPL, I had a chance to log time with my Ground School Instructor in his 337. What an airplane! Never had the chance to get one, but it was always on top of my bucket list. The fact that struck me was the (if you will) was the built in safety with the inline engines. Lose one and it will still fly in a straight line, although slower, thus allowing one to get to the nearest airport. One fantastic design, and great to fly. Good luck with your choice.
Very nice video, and Kevin has a peach of an airplane! The Skymaster is a wonderful aircraft. I looked at it as a serious option when I “graduated” from my 172, but in the end decided the increased maintenance costs of a twin were too high for my budget. I transitioned to a Mooney M20K (turbo IO360) and 800+ hours later I still think it was and is the perfect aircraft for my mission. You can’t beat the speed, range, and economy of the 231. Whether it will fit your mission is another thing altogether, but it’s worth serious consideration.
I agree the Sky master would make a great addition to the channel. Would be cool to see some collaboration videos with Mike Patey to modify and get some extra performance out of it too!
Planning to become a student pilot soon and it's so useful to see/hear all of the safety precautions Josh and Kevin put into use on every single flight. I also see this a ton on aviation101 videos in general. Thanks for being such a good role model and I'll be referencing your videos a lot during my aviation journey. Also, I'm definitely in support of the Skymaster being added to the aviation101 fleet!
Yes on the 337! I logged just over 150 hours in a friends 337. We pretty much covered North America on vacations and hunting and fishing trips. My intro to the 337 was the O-2A's flown by the AF in VN They accompanied us on many ground support missions for the Marines and Army . We flew out of Chu Lai.( MAG 12, VMA 311) I owned a 185 for many years and when I got my multi rating (in a Piper Apache) about the same time my friend had bought the 337. I found the 337 was a much more pilot friendly aircraft . It certainly would be my first choice for the purpose's you have in mind. Don't fly any more but still love it. Rear engine overheating on hot days was a concern if too much time was spent idling waiting for take off.
Cessna 210R. 170kts+ cruise, +1500lbs useful. Good CG. High wing no strut good for photos, great for ditching. 1/2 the price to maintain than a twin. Full fuel, 3-250lb guys and 3-120lb girls.... 700 miles. No other single piston and few twins can do that.
Several years ago we flew a 337 half way down Baja from Victorville Ca to fish for a week. We landed off airport for a week and I loved it. November1 Tango Uniform remains a favorite.
Ive always loved the Cessna 337, since i was young 13 yrs old. One of my first flights was in my mom’s boss’s 337 and it was probably partially responsible for my love of aviation. Now I’m recently retired from AA with a career as an aircraft mechanic with them. I have used my private pilot on and off through the years and had lots of fun in single engine land and gliders! It’s been a bit too expensive to keep it up these days but as long as we are dreaming, I’ve always dreamed of a turbo Skymaster as my choice ride!
As a 337G owner, I enjoyed your report! Having flown them since 1975, they are an amazing light twin. As your report might start some looking at, remember these run between 44 years old and 59 years old! If they have had great maintenance, they are as good as new. If not, they are costly to bring up to an acceptable standard. They face tougher issues with parts given the numbers built and the end of production being 1980.
Josh, the mixmaster is an excellent aircraft, very underrated. Built like a brick outhouse they are solid and as the military used them as the O-2 bird dog proved they are reliable with good maintenance. They have spectacular range, very good takeoff and landing performance and not bad load capability especially if you are just using it two up or with smaller pax in the back. It fits in well at the big airports but can do backcountry grass airports as well. A friend had one and he used it most places you could take a C206 too. Excellent for the North Atlantic crossing or South America or even the Pacific. However they are just a little maintenance intensive so if you can find a good A & P in the family then it would be an awesome machine.
Do it! This was my dream twin for a long time. Ended up flying the 402, but never got to fly this. I've never heard anything bad about it except problems due to pilot error. Right now my dream twin is the Piper Aerostar, but it's not a high wing, so the Skymaster would be perfect for your photography adventures and it's a good 30 knots faster than the 172.
The cockpit is that of a twin but the external view is that of a single engine. It really does look quite nice, and it's pretty unique. I don't think I've ever seen one in person, yet
My brother had a P337 that i logged quite a few hours in.. i loved every bit of the time i had in it.. like you mentioned.. visibility.. range.. safety.. it has it all.. when my brother said he was selling it, i wanted to buy it, but i had just traded into a really nice Duke.. he replaced her with a Turbo Commander 1000.. quickly becoming my new favorite.. which led to my replacing the Duke with a c90.. i have been in several 337's over the years.. the P337 being my fave.. fly high, fast, and efficient..
A new friend of mine that I met through a control line model airplane club has a 337A that I saw for the first time last Friday. Helped him with a quick repair! 😁I guess he got bored with his 182 and traded for it. Then another new friend in the same club that served as a chief mechanic in Vietnam told me how hated 337s because they were maintenance hogs and the #3 cylinder in the rear engine always seemed to have issues along with overheating. The "Chief", in the end, said they fly great but you have to tinker with them a lot which my other friend likes to do. I love Skymasters. I'm looking forward to going up in the 337a in the near future. I say go for it! I know I would love to own one.
What fun! Thanks for your rant on "ignoring the stall horn". I think that was a change from PTS/ACS about not doing slow flight with the horn blaring for the same reason.
Josh, as always the content is great! I'm currently transitioning into a Bonanza from a Cherokee PA28. My vote is the Bonanza, not because it is what I am doing, but all the advantages this airframe gives it's owner. The quality of the build is superior, the cruse speed is excellent, and the availability of parts to keep them going is really good. Because this is a large investment for most of us, the parts support, and the technical knowledge that is out there on this airframe is far superior to most planes in the fleet today (OK to be fair, the 172, 182, and the PA28 support is excellent...). If you are wanting a true cross country platform you can't go wrong with the Bonanza.
Josh, I faced a similar decision a few years ago. I travel from the Sugar Land area to Payson Arizona and back every month. That’s right at 980nm. Five years ago I settled on a Bonanza A36. I make the trip in about 6:30 with a restroom / fuel stop in Pecos. I leave the two most rear seats out and with the double rear doors, can carry a lot of stuff easily. TAS is 167 knots so it makes a good XC traveler. I’ve taken all over the US, except the east coast, and almost all of those trips were single day trips and rarely needed more than a single fuel stop. Good Luck! Mike N228DM
The 337 has always been one of my favorite GA airplanes. Having said that, I've heard they are very high maintenance. I also loved since I was a kid, and I assume it began when I was the movie "Bat 21" featuring the Cessna O-2.
Had to be one of the nicest 337's I've seen in awhile. Cudo's to the owner for taking such good care of it. Baron would be my choice for two engines but they are why out of my price range not to mention I really don't have the mission for a twin requirement. So will keep enjoying our Comanche 260B. Great video.
Hey Josh! Fellow Texan here. I've always loved the Skymaster....Most of my GA flight sim time is spent in a 337 G Skymaster. Love this airframe. If you can find one scoop it up. I think you'd really enjoy it.
My carpet is a '65C182H; a great cross country flyer. Still, a Skymaster would definitely be dream provided your budget can support two engines; retractable gear plus from what I understand are Skymaster unique maintenance issues. Happy you have the options to expand your fleet.
Great airplane. The only knocks I've heard are somewhat higher maintenance costs and cabin noise, plus if you fill the seats there is limited baggage space left due to that pesky ear engine. But if you treat it like a 3-4 seat airplane - no worries! Check the Riley Rockets, too!!
Back in 1974 I was at KBMG getting my check ride for my commercial and they had a brand new pressurized Skymaster. I have loved the looks of it ever since. I have never been in one but love seeing videos of them. There is a guy in Canada "TomAir" that has one and he loves it. You didn't mention the noise level. Noise is one of the complants I have heard. The rear engine is a little of a problem servicing. I hope you get one. Love your videos.
I flew a Cessna 150 once, but most of my training was in the 152. I flew *IN* an _O-2,_ the military variant of the C-337 (as a _passenger)_ *ONCE.* It was also one of the rare times I was in an aircraft *BELOW* sea level - at the Thermal Airport in the California desert. It was back when I was in the _Civil Air Patrol (USAF Auxillary)._
Something to consider also is the Cessna TR182. Turbo, retract, speed machine. I owned one from 2012 to 2019 and it is a great XC machine. Carries a family with bags and full fuel. I got 162 knots true airspeed at 10-11k feet like clockwork and more if I went higher. Denver to Dallas or Denver to Houston were my main missions. Ability to hit the lower flight levels to get above turbulence and/or light weather. Stable and easy instrument platform.
Thanks for the deadhead. Great vid and I really liked the PIC using checklists. Just don't see that on TH-cam GA vids (however, they may but off camera). The Army would on larger operations supply O-2As (their version of the Skymaster) as spotter planes. As the Gunner's Mate I operated the twin 50 Cal. BMG -M2 of the Swift and being the highest point of the lead boat I'd act as the forward air controller relaying info about the troops we had in the field position as the O-2As made their way on station. (Actually directed air strikes from fast movers, F4 Phantoms -- once Danger Close.) The fuselage configuration, save the inline power plants, also reminds me of the Army OV-10 Black Ponies that infrequently flew cover for our Swift Boat patrols on the rivers and canals of the southern tip of South Vietnam in '69. (yep, I'm older than dirt).
As a GA pilot with 11,800+ hours of flying, I have five favorite fun to fly airplanes (in alphabetical order). They are Aeronca Champ, BE-1900 (5K hours), CE-150 (2K hours), CE-337 and the Lake Amphibian. The 1900 was fast and easy to fly and a great all weather machine including ice but not budget friendly. I'm now a very senior citizen whose reactions are slower. The only twin that I would consider flying now would be the Skymaster. I hated flying the SF-340 (1K hours).The best thing about it was refreshments and cold drinks were available.
The Cessna Skymaster has been a favorite of mine since I was a kid back in 60s and 70s. We used to see one at least once a month as a local company used one to inspect high-voltage powerlines. I thought the plane was awesome then and I still do. Thanks for sharing your experience, Josh!
Unless you need serious load capability and require twin redundancy, a P 210, Saratoga, or a Bonanza or even a 182 R would meet mission requirements but at a much lower fuel burn & maintenance costs
BUT NOT THE SAFETY OF A CENTER-LINE THRUST TWIN-ENGINE AIRPLANE! A Bonanza will NEVER fit the mission of a Cessna, BAR NONE, no matter what model - unless it's a B200 King air or above!
In my 60 years of flying, I have owned a Debonaire, a Bonanza, a P-Baron, 2 C310's, a C172, a C414, a Soko Galeb G2A (single engine jet ground attack/trainer), a C337, and a Piper Comanche 250 (my current ride). Everything said here about the 337 is correct, but (as you obviously know) one has to consider what missions you wish to fly and how much money you'll be willing to spend each year to operate and maintain your bird before deciding. If you need a twin, be prepared for more than twice the maintenance costs of a single. If you need range, there are a number of single and twin options available, with some sacrifice in payload. The Skymaster is a neat airplane, not very fast for a twin and with a complicated landing gear system that requires meticulous maintenance, but fun to fly with good visibility. I do think the centerline thrust is a safety factor, although statistics don't necessarily confirm that. The P-337 can be a maintenance nightmare, but is fairly fast for a 337. I would encourage you to add the Piper Comanche 250-260 to your list of airplanes to consider. My Comanche 250 has proven to be an excellent compromise for me and my wife. It is roomier than the Bonanza with better payload and CG options, is faster at 160 kts TAS than the Debonaire and the 337, and mine has 120 gal (116 usable) of fuel and very long legs. We flew it to San Diego from Springfield MO with only one fuel stop in Santa Fe, and flew it back non-stop with an average 5 kt tailwind and 1 hour fuel reserve. The Lycoming O-540 is as bulletproof an engine as ever made with a 2000 hr recommended TBO, parts are not a problem, the systems are fairly simple and easily maintained, and there's strong online support. I've owned it for 16 years with no major maintenance problems. My favorite twin for transportation was the Cessna 310Q with Colemill conversion, and my favorite airplane of all time was the Soko Galeb, which I owned for 15 years.
You know from what I see of your videos I think the mixmaster would be a fantastic plane to add to your stable. You seem like a cessna guy, the high wing is great for video, it's a quirky airframe that would really benefit from someone in the aviation TH-cam community shining a light on it, and your girl Chelsea is an IA which certainly would help with the maintenance. All around it seems like such a cool platform for you. Hope you find one and hope you get one as I'd love to see one in a more visible role. Cheers.
Always loved the sky master, I can imagine they have a little more engine noise/vibration due to two engines being attached to the passenger space but I can see a lot more pros than cons. I find it interesting that there isn’t a modern equivalent being produced (or have I just not seen it?)
Maybe just a thought a good choice is a 1977 T210 Centurion for sale on Top pic. My friend has 1964 C210 Centurion, they are fast have retracts, it has a heavy payload here is specs. This 1977 Centurion has 3,983 hours on the airframe, 983 hours since the RAM overhaul on its 310 hp Continental TSIO-520R engine and 983 on the McCauley 3-blade propeller. The engine is equipped with GAMI fuel injectors, Knisley exhaust, and a Tanis preheater. The panel includes dual Aspen Avionics EV1000 Pro Max flight displays, dual Garmin GNS 430W GPS/coms, L3 Lynx NGT-9000 transponder, Century III autopilot, and ADS-B with WAAS, active traffic, terrain warning system, and an engine monitor. Pilots who need to carry more than four passengers and bigger loads than the typical four-seat single should take a look at this 1977 Cessna T210 Centurion, which is available for $239,500 on AircraftForSale.
NOT 12GPH. That fuel flow gauge made me do a double-take, too! Watch the video again. The fuel flow gauges were labeled in 'Pounds x10' so that '6' you were seeing on the gauge was 60 pounds per hour, or around 10 GPH for each engine.
That Skymaster is very well-kept. It's obvious that Kevin takes good care of it. I always thought it was a cool design. I got to fly in one once, many years ago. As for your desire for a cross-country plane, the Skymaster certainly seems like a viable candidate. I'd go that route before I'd go for an older conventional light twin. I fly a normally aspirated Cirrus, and it definitely ticks your boxes on speed and range. As you noted, though, it is probably going to exceed the budget.
Man! I miss flying and I'm so pleased to see this bird get the attention it deserves! Don't think about it - buy it! I'm in SoCal all the time and would love to see this awesome craft in person. If I had the means, THIS would be the aircraft I would ever own. Good luck with your purchase.
Hey josh You may consider a 177rg. I bought one in april of this year and have put around 120 hours on it since then. It meets your mission parameters with the exception of speed. I pretty routinely true out around 140kts. The book says we can get up to 146. At 140kts the plane has a no reserve range of 1040 miles. 60 gallons of fuel and a 1000lb useful load... along with a massive cabin for the size of airplane, has made it a real winner for me I wasnt a believer until I bought it. If you're ever up in the twin cities area, let me know and I'll show you around in good ole cardi
They wouldn't meet your cross-country criteria, but if you ever get a chance to fly a Cardinal, or a Bonanza V-Tail, I'd love to see that Also glad to see Garmin Pilot represented here. I'm not a pilot yet, and I don't have any kind of affiliation with them. But I've made a point to learn both the ubiquitous ForeFlight and garmin. I bought an iPad for my aviation journey, but I've used Android phones for ages. Since FF isn't on Android, Garmin is my only option as a backup on my phone. Also... I can't wait to see that 150 after it's done!
A glance at Wikipedia shows the Skymaster's spec'd numbers don't match what you mentioned at the beginning of your video. On the other hand, it's relatively good on fuel compared to my favourite twin, the 310. I'd have suggested it but I'm sure there are others out there less expensive. You listed off a few singles and for sure there are plenty that match or come close to your goals for speed, maybe not for range, though. Tradeoffs: that's the fun part of your search and I know you're going to enjoy it. Thanks for including us in your hunt - it's as much the hunt as the end result that's the enjoyable part!
What is the fuel capacity and typical range for the Skymaster? Were extended-range tanks ever available for them? I saw the average fuel rate was about 6-1/2 gph for each engine. That's pretty reasonable for a four place GA twin! More data would help to substantiate your choice (not that I question it, I *love* the 337s). Range? Ceiling? Cost of acquisition? Average cost for annual? Insurance? And the biggest and hardest item - can you get a hangar for it?
Big fan of your aviation videos, Mr. Aviation 101! Been following since day one, and your content is always a great decision-making guide. I apply your approach to my flying decisions, checking personal minimums, aircraft conditions, and company SOP. If risk factors are high, I wait for a better day in general aviation. Your quote, "You can always get there another day," rings true. Keep up the excellent work! Love your videos, eagerly awaiting the next one. Thanks for the flight lesson notepads-especially helpful for IFR flights, making clearances smoother.
Hey kudos to Kevin on his solid flying skills. I too really appreciate an experienced pilot who pulls out the checklist and flies by the numbers. The 337 is a proven workhorse and if that is what you need it might be the bird for you. Reasonably good climb rate, cruise speed, and capacity for people and stuff. The downside is that you have roughly 2x the fuel and engine maintenance expense for not much more performance. I generally favor the T210 Centurion for these reasons but as you know, every airplane is a tradeoff so choose the one that best meets your needs. If cruise speed and cross country economy are more important than load capacity, the RV9A is certainly worth a look. They fly beautifully and just sip avgas at altitude with a long range, 190mph cruise, and 45 mph stall speed. They are light weight so you need to travel accordingly. A lot to like.
As a Skymaster owner I wanted to clear up a few points that were mentioned in this comments section. 1) Interior noise--Yes, it is slightly noisier than a conventional twin because of both engines attached to the fuselage, however, ANR headsets completely eliminate this concern. 2) Rear engine cooling--paying attention to rear engine baffling easily solves this problem. 3) Rear engine maintenance--Sometime in the mid 70's Cessna installed a service door to the rear engine that is accessed from the baggage compartment. There is an STC to install this in the earlier models. This substantially improves access to items such as the rear alternator. 4) No light twin flies well on one engine, especially during takeoff. In a conventional twin, unless the engine seizes, just looking at the propeller will not tell you which engine is failing. 5) The 336 model, produced for only about 12 months, lacks many of the improvements of the 337. 6) It’s easier on the battery to start the front engine first because of the long battery cable run to the rear engine. You can easily tell when the rear engine starts. One should always lead the takeoff run with the rear engine, as Kevin did in this video. 7) Wingspan is 38.5 feet, so it can fit in a 40 foot t-hanger (barely). 8) The single engine service ceiling on the normally aspirated model is about 6,500 feet, and it is 18,000 ft for the turbocharged version. That is hardly “limping a few extra miles” to the scene of an accident. 8) I have heard wives tales of people caging one of the engines in cruise flight to save money, but I don’t know a single 337 owner that would do that. 9) With long range fuel tanks at 148 gal usable, at 20 gal/hr and 150 kts, the range is over 1000 miles.
There are lots of great airplanes available-Bonanzas, Mooneys, Cirrus, Pipers, Barons to name a few. Each has its pluses and minuses. Thank you Josh (and Kevin) for sharing this video on TH-cam.
Josh like you, I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for the 337. It is the coolest looking plane and coolest sounding one as well. Good luck on finding the right twin.
Cool. Thanks for sharing this info.
What about baggage space? I heard there's not a whole lot of space, especially when compared to other twins with storage in the nacelles and nose.
The rear cargo area is rated for 235 lbs of cargo. This is in the area where seats 5 and 6 are (were). Every 337 I have ever seen has these seats removed as they were essentially useless. Given that the fuselage doesn’t taper to the rear like other aircraft, there is considerable room behind the second row of seats for luggage. Additionally, there is a belly cargo pod available which adds even more cargo space at the cost of a few knots of airspeed.
In the '90s, as a single rated pilot, I had the opportunity to fly several times from the right seat of a nice 1973 C337(G or H?) with the Robinson STOL conversion and 150 gallon tanks. The STOL mod is great, enabling slow flight speeds quite below that of unmodified Skymasters. We flew it into Sun & Fun, easily flying in the slower single engine stream of inbounds with no problems. The ailerons also act in concert with the flaps, enabling significantly better short-field performance. While a bit heavy in the pitch axis, the roll response was light. The clam-shell entry door was very nice. With its gear extended, it can cruise with only a 15 knot penalty. The fuel burn was less than 20 gph. This was my favorite aircraft to fly.
" I baby these engines, because I paid for them"! I loved that. Very true for many of us.
I just came down here to make this comment. So true!!
Josh, I am a retired A&P and was a USAF Crew Chief. I also have some 172 time. I put a lot of hours in working on the O-2A during my time in during Vietnam Era. It's a really tough little bird considering it started life as a civilian aircraft. We really pushed them to the limit during the rocket runs and they held up really well. The IO-360 really held up well also. Having flown the 172, the transition time is almost nothing. I got to fly it when I was riding along as Crew Chief (had some really cool pilots in my squadron). It would be a super stable platform for your photography. I don't see how you can get more bang for the buck than the Skymaster. Great aircraft and as you know, really roomy. Easy for Chelsey to work on also.😊
I was a crew chief at shaw AFB ,and thats the plane that I worked on.Early 80's good safe aircraft.
@@richards1960
I was at Shaw! 704 TASSq in 1973. Took Palace Chase and went to the Guard in '74. I thought they went to OV-10's soon after I left?
@@markhull5776 I believe they were there till 78 or 79 ,not there when I arrived in 1980 . I was in one of the last of two CAMS (Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadrons) left in the USAF. 4507th CAMS .The flying Buffalo was our squadron patch.
Excuse my doubts, but that POS killed at least 14 pilots that I know of, and my best friend, from rear engine hub disintegration leading to boom separation. The USAF did nothing to remedy the problem with that aircraft, but they did replace it with the purpose-built OV-10.
Bottom line: update the hubs and limit the power.
I worked for four years doing 200 and 400 hrs phased inspections ,never saw that particular problem . Other problems related to landing gear. sorry about your friend.@@toomanyhobbies2011
The thing about twins is: twice as many engines, three times the maintenance cost. For your mission profile, that may be a worthwhile price to pay. Assuming your next plane will be used for videography, a high wing makes a lot of sense. Perhaps see if you can mooch a ride in a 210 to compare it to the 337. A 210 gives you single engine maintenance costs, albeit without the redundancy of the second fan.
Having a third Cessna in the family keeps you with one manufacturer. The controls, the feel, the quirks are all very similar. It’s less cognitive load than jumping between manufacturers.
Good luck with your decision. I can tell you this: many of us here would love to have this problem. 😊
Agreed. Hundreds of hours in a 210 and loved it. Turbo, non pressurized and lower maintenance than a twin
Josh and Chels don't hesitate, what a fantastic underrated airplane and what value for money. A great friend had one, we all thought he was crazy and used to mock him until we all realized what he had, he loved it and flew it for almost 20 years before he passed away recently.
The sky master has been a favorite of mine since I was a little kid. I am 50 now and it’s still a favorite.
Was it 'Bat 21' that did it? I saw that movie as a kid and loved Skymasters ever since!
My 100% agree about the checklist usage. I'm a retired airline pilot with a little over 22,000 flight hours. I was used to doing Flows In Jets and then going through the checklist to confirm everything. That's how I do it now in GA airplanes since that's what I'm comfortable with. I checked everything I did in my flow
The Cessna Skymaster is a fabulous plane to have. Spent 4 years helping maintain one that flew daily, being used for traffic reports over the city. Very reliable, and very safe with the centerline thrust. It’s one bird I wish could come back into production (modernized) because of all its amazing attributes.
I’ve always admired the C337 too. I suspect that many of the oft-repeated stories of their relatively high Mx costs relate more to a reference point than to the actual reliability of the plane. Many 172/182 pilots have upgraded directly to the 337 and were introduced to the double-whammy of maintenance costs for two engines and retractable gear in one big bite. Mort Brown, Cessna’s Chief Production Test Pilot from the 1930s - 1970s told me that his favorite Cessna was the 195 (my type, by the way). I asked him what was in 2nd place - he quickly replied “the 337”. Roomy cabin, solid, safe handling and system redundancy were the factors he mentioned.
YES! BUY THE SKYMASTER!!! I love them! So versatile, unique, and just all around amazing! Not mention it fits you and Chels mission perfectly!Thank you Kevin, a fantastic job! Great, safe flying!
Thanks, Chels, for the great takeoff/ landing shots! So cool!
The 337 is my favorite GA airframe. It's kind of like an undercover twin. The sound of those engines is unmistakable.
I have a 1978 P337H and love it. It's very stable for IFR, has good range, and is very nice over the mountains with the extra engine. Just give it the respect you would give any other twin around engine failures. Speaking of that, I cringe when I see pilots retracting the gear right after takeoff. The gear doors produce a lot of drag when they're open, and you might not be able to maintain altitude, much less climb, if an engine fails. I was taught to wait until I'm clear of obstacles and have enough altitude before I retract the gear. Never close to the ground.
Agree 100%. I own a 1967 M337B. Should an engine fail shortly after takeoff, the airplane cannot maintain a positive rate of climb during gear retraction. I don't touch anything until 500' AGL. Then, Flaps up; Gear up; Climb power; Climb checklist.
I was going to say the same thing about the early gear retraction, but you covered it perfectly.
The added drag of the gear retraction sequence affecting climb performance is the main issue here, but it's not the only consideration. When I did my commercial certificate it was still required to use a complex airplane - My instructor always said if you have an 8000' runway, and you're in the air after 2500', it's silly to retract the gear when you still have 5500' to settle back down on if you need to.
I am told the 337 POH actually recommends 1000ft AGL for gear retraction - but as an owner maybe you can correct me on that.
I absolutely love the Skymaster! It was one of Cessna’s best designs imo, and it checks an awful lot of the boxes in my book too! Twin engines, no adverse yaw, retractable gear, easy ingress/egress, roomy, high useful load, good range, excellent visibility. I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s and the local Air National Guard operated a fleet of Cessna O2’s out of the local airport. They have a very distinct recognizable sound when they fly by overhead. The visibility for aerial photography is excellent. The only negative is that they are a bit noisy, since they have 2 engines droning at both ends of the fuselage. For your mission, I don’t think that you could find a more suitable airframe. Also, it’s certainly a much more cost effective solution compared to other more modern options.
That's a great note about alarms and annunciators. Its very important to do what you said: acknowledge it, address it, and dismiss it. We fly how we train, so let's train how we want to fly. If you train to dismiss alarms without addressing them, or ignore them completely, you'll do that when you fly, when its an actual problem.
Yes! Buy one! It's probably the best twin for your mission, and a more interesting TH-cam subject than normal twins.
As a 71 year old A&P and pilot with a bunch of ratings, the 337 is in my top 10 list to own. Keep in mind, engines will need a lot more attention than what you are used to.
If you can afford the cost of a twin, you have my blessing for getting a Skymaster.
Spend the money to get the very best prebuy insp possible. Cessna Skymaster club is good source for info. But then, you know that.
The Pressurized Skymaster is at the top of my list for next airplane. Love them and their history.
We have a saying in the motorcycle community: Ride what makes you giggle. You've got reasonable short-field/soft-field performance, the big barn-door flaps, and the IO-360 is basically bulletproof. You *can* get a turbo if you intend to do much time in the Rockies, and radar if summertime IFR is a thing... The gear is fussy from a maintenance standpoint but will take you anywhere 991 will once down and locked... And it'll definitely look unique on the ramp. :)
One thing I would look into is how to mount cameras on it, because you're of course going to want those. I don't remember if the Skymaster has the fixed tie-down rings like a Skyhawk does, or whether they retract... if they're fixed you're in like Flynn. I know there's a guy who has a couple of cameras mounted on his Bonanza; I'd be interested to know how he mounts to the top of the wing... that may be an adaptable solution if you don't have fixed rings.
But if it makes you giggle and there are places to put cameras on that suit you? Go for it. "San Marcos Ground, Skymaster one-zero-one alfa, instruments to Oshkosh..." (not that you'd do that *for the show*, but for a pre-show scouting mission on a clear day? 954nm is just doable... :)
You met an aviation ambassador, thanks for bringing us along.
I've always loved the 337. You should seriously consider it. Anyone that flies them always seems to be in love with theirs. I think it fits your mission great.
C177 RG was the perfect plane for me!
It has a stabilator so you have TONS of vertical authority similar to a Cherokee.
The wing is set back - so you can actually see into your turns.
4ft wide doors
No Struts blocking a view
Look into a later model C210 if this is your cup of tea - they are definitely cult planes!
Good call on the Cardinal 177RG…I love mine! It is the perfect plane for photography and Big enough to carry 4 people in comfort or two people and a lot of stuff. You can expect around 145 kts at 10 gph.
I love my 177A FG/FP as well. Doesn't have the range that Josh is looking for, though, nor the speed.
I've owned TWO of the 177 series, both 1976 models, fixed gear and the RG. If I didn't own a P337, the best single engine bird would be the 1976-77 model year 177RG series. A FANTASTIC airplane with great speed and fuel economy.
I flew a long cross country this past summer with 12 other planes and two of them were Skymasters. Once they were airborn they left me (172B) in the dust, but the takeoff roll seemed to go on forever. Capable and safe - you'll notice a bit of a higher fuel burn than 991, but you'll get there faster so it's a wash?
They also have a wing spar AD, no clue what the failure rate on that is.
I myself have also looked at the Cessna 337 and thought it was one of the coolest airplanes I've ever seen. Many people I've spoken to say they're not very good airplanes, mainly on the maintenance side. But I don't really care. I love the way they're shaped. I love their configuration for the airframe. And as a major plus, the 337 is a plane that my dad and I wanted to get. Unfortunately my father passed last February, but that's not going to stop me from going after the airplane that we wanted as a father son airplane. And with my checkride scheduled for January 9th, after I pass, which I'm super confident I will, I'm gonna start saving for many things, and one of those items is the amazing Cessna 337.
Exciting to see the Sling on the list of potential aircraft! If you’re ever in the Denver area, I’d be happy to take you up in my Sling TSi.
My father flew the Air Force version of the Skymaster, the O-2, in Vietnam as a Forward Air Controller. Got shot a bit but the Skymaster always brought him back to the base safely. He’s 85 now and still talks fondly of the O-2. It’s a great plane and on my bucket list to own one.
I loved my time flying a 337 on fire patrol around Revelstoke BC. Solid airplane, a little fussy on the rear engine operation but not a deal breaker. Can’t mistake the growl of a huffnpuff overhead
The Cessna Skymaster 337 is the most slept on aircraft of general aviation. I had a lot of seat time in one from 14-17 years old and it was a big part of my life. My father used to do Angel flights with the ower of the Skymaster as well. I will watch every episode you make with it so please add it to your fleet!!!
I cut my teeth directly on the Skymaster, a friends father had one and was a CFI. he trained me well on this platform as well as for instrument flight. Logged a bit over 500 hours in this type aircraft. Loved every minute of it. Fast forward to 2024, haven’t flown since 1995 but the last flight on the 337 platform was in 80-81. Too bad I never continued on with flying in GA but the costs were getting out of hand. Should have gone to A & P school so I could do my own repairs as some other individuals have done but hindsight is 20-20.
IF I could afford one I would be in a Skymaster right now.
Such an underrated aircraft!
Aero Commander! Although, I do personally love a 337, and I appreciate this video on it with your experience. It's uniquely cool. And a Velocity V-Twin would be awesome too, but I don't feel the visibility would be as great (and likely cost prohibitive to get into one).
Good look at a nice old Skymater. My father was a Cessna dealer in the 60's and 70's. And I'm an independent aircraft dealer who's owned 16 337s and all variants and if you are considering a 337 I'd be delighted to share my experience and love for them and possibly some ownership and buying tips/pitfalls. Quite frankly, the normally asipriated G models while a bit more refined from older A models, lost a bit of performance over the early lighter models. I much prefered the turbo G and P models with the P337 being my favorite. With the upgraded 225hp engines, the P offers much improved single and twin-engine performance over even a T-337, is quieter and more comfy at higher altitudes with typically only modest increased to operational cost.
When it comes to a normally aspirated 337 G model, I'd be more inclined towards a B, D or E55 Baron unless the superior visibility, range and center-line thrust is something you must have, as operational costs are about the same, but the Baron offers more speed and baggage room. 310s are fun but seem to be more challenging when it comes to maintenance and the later normally aspirated 310's like the Q models don't compare to the B55 when it comes to performance.
The Skymaster looks like a good buy. Certainly a fascinating airplane! Kevin is an example of a good pilot! I really enjoyed watching this content! Many thanks Josh!
I loved my Piper PA-28-235 with full IFR King Avionics is my favorite of all time. Had extended tanks on wings giving me Seven full hours of fuel and boots on the feet and a speed kit which gave me an additional 10 knots cruise. Lycoming engine with dual oil filters and oil changes and filter every 25 hours and always hangared. Mine was a 1973 and a fantastic aircraft in and out of Albuerque or anyplace. Short fields or those 10,000 foot runways. I also loved this Cessna SkyMaster that you are presenting. Flew it for Uncle Sam and was extremely impressed with its abilities. I always run the checklist and pre flights ! Old pilots and bold pilots and no old bold pilots. Always.
The Dakota is indeed a stealthy wolf in sheeps clothing.
Nice 337 Kevin...well cared for...Josh you will know when you find that wish plane.
Great flight.
Unless you can score a Defiant, From experience, I'd prefer a Mooney over the 337 because of overall costs and performance advantage.
When Kevin started with a checklist I said this is a GUMPS man... and sure enough @15:42 right on cue. Love to see a safe pilot enjoying such a nice aircraft.
Always loved the mixmaster when I was a younger pilot. They are a unique and fun aircraft
Twins are neat, but first look at your mission profile vs costs. Example: a C310 or Baron will cost you between $300-$400 per flight hour including reserves, insurance and hangar plus debt service with almost half of that in gas. A Seneca would be less. Mechanical issues on the engines is X2.
I’d look at a C210 or Piper Saratoga. If your priority is air-ground photos then get the 210. If ease of loading and unloading equipment plus wide cabin comfort is important then get the Saratoga. Both will carry a heavy load with reasonable speed. Both are very good IFR platforms. For me - a turbonormalized Saratoga would be my preferred long XC single.
Most of my long XC time is in Comanches, Saratogas, and Arrows. Only a couple hundred hours in Cessnas but I never liked dipping my head or raising a wing to look for traffic.
Unless you plan on spending a lot of time over mountains, open water, or night IFR. I think twins are a waste of money even if they’re neat to fly.
I like the Skymaster! Go for it! I am partial to the Mooney, though, as an M20C owner😁
I owned a 336 Skymaster and flew a 337 for work. Love the simplicity of the 336 and performance was awesome since it weighs less plus no gear doors in the breeze during takeoff. If I were to pick a twin it would be the Aztec. Shares a lot of systems with the Navajo. You can actually find full deiced normally aspirated Aztecs. I’m not fond of turbo chargers. The Aztec 540’s are a great engine. There is lot of support for them. Not much support for the Skymaster as fewer were made.
My grandpa and dad both had Navion’s but grandpa’s specialty had a RangeMaster. With tip tanks they hold about 110 gallons and about 1100NM range and cruise about 160 or so. Very smooth and comfortable flying planes
I humbly recommend a turbo Arrow III. I stepped up to it after being a prisoner of density altitude with my Warrior II while traversing southern Wyoming on a cross country trek. The turbo maintains much of your performance at various DAs. It provides flight capability above the weather or turbulence at 145-155 knots TAS whilst burning 9-11 GPH depending on LOP settings. Yet, at low altitudes and slow speeds it’s as stable and docile as any Cherokee.
So close....but no.....go with the 2000 hour tbo t tail piper arrow IV....lycoming baby,
Why does trade a plane show the 200 hp lycomg at 863 a range and the contiental turbo is only 560?
I do not know. With 72 gallons usable at a safety margin fuel burn calculation increased to 12gph and averaging 145 kts - you should get around 870 NM range.
Be hard to pick a better twin for your missions. Roomy. Great visibility. Easy to fly (no VMC rollovers to worry about). Good payloads. Very adequate speed. Fuel burn not to bad. Proven design. Wish it was me having to make that choice.
Josh- I like the 337. Never owned one, but curious how you felt the noise levels were?
One plane you might want to add to your list is the Socata Trinidad (TB20). Having owned many planes and flown much of the aircraft on your list, the Trinidad is my choice. I prefer full certified airframes…the TB20 cruises around 160kts on 12g/hr and has the most comfortable seats I’ve found in any GA airplane…the TB is very well built, dual gulwing doors, lots of useful load, and trailing link landing gear. The rumors about parts/support are largely unfounded…have not had any parts issues in the last 5 years. 1000nm range or more. You can find nice examples for around $200k. Not many better planes out there for a true cross country hauler. Just wanted to put this one on your radar…and if you find yourself in NorCal I’d be more than happy to take you for a flight!
Keep up the great work!
A great plane, back in the mid 1960's while training for my PPL, I had a chance to log time with my Ground School Instructor in his 337. What an airplane! Never had the chance to get one, but it was always on top of my bucket list. The fact that struck me was the (if you will) was the built in safety with the inline engines. Lose one and it will still fly in a straight line, although slower, thus allowing one to get to the nearest airport. One fantastic design, and great to fly. Good luck with your choice.
Very nice video, and Kevin has a peach of an airplane! The Skymaster is a wonderful aircraft. I looked at it as a serious option when I “graduated” from my 172, but in the end decided the increased maintenance costs of a twin were too high for my budget. I transitioned to a Mooney M20K (turbo IO360) and 800+ hours later I still think it was and is the perfect aircraft for my mission. You can’t beat the speed, range, and economy of the 231. Whether it will fit your mission is another thing altogether, but it’s worth serious consideration.
I agree the Sky master would make a great addition to the channel. Would be cool to see some collaboration videos with Mike Patey to modify and get some extra performance out of it too!
Patey would have a couple PT6's in there in no time...
@@mattgreven7615 I think someone was working on a single PT6 conversion in the '80s.
Please consider a twin Velocity XL. I would love to see you do a video flying the twin XL.
Planning to become a student pilot soon and it's so useful to see/hear all of the safety precautions Josh and Kevin put into use on every single flight. I also see this a ton on aviation101 videos in general. Thanks for being such a good role model and I'll be referencing your videos a lot during my aviation journey. Also, I'm definitely in support of the Skymaster being added to the aviation101 fleet!
Yes on the 337! I logged just over 150 hours in a friends 337. We pretty much covered North America on vacations and hunting and fishing trips. My intro to the 337 was the O-2A's flown by the AF in VN They accompanied us on many ground support missions for the Marines and Army . We flew out of Chu Lai.( MAG 12, VMA 311) I owned a 185 for many years and when I got my multi rating (in a Piper Apache) about the same time my friend had bought the 337. I found the 337 was a much more pilot friendly aircraft . It certainly would be my first choice for the purpose's you have in mind. Don't fly any more but still love it. Rear engine overheating on hot days was a concern if too much time was spent idling waiting for take off.
Cessna 210R. 170kts+ cruise, +1500lbs useful. Good CG. High wing no strut good for photos, great for ditching. 1/2 the price to maintain than a twin.
Full fuel, 3-250lb guys and 3-120lb girls.... 700 miles. No other single piston and few twins can do that.
Agreed
I've got a ton of FAR 135 time in all the piston twins up to Beech 18. For my money it's the AC-500/Shrike Commander. 8^)
Several years ago we flew a 337 half way down Baja from Victorville Ca to fish for a week. We landed off airport for a week and I loved it. November1 Tango Uniform remains a favorite.
Ive always loved the Cessna 337, since i was young 13 yrs old. One of my first flights was in my mom’s boss’s 337 and it was probably partially responsible for my love of aviation. Now I’m recently retired from AA with a career as an aircraft mechanic with them. I have used my private pilot on and off through the years and had lots of fun in single engine land and gliders! It’s been a bit too expensive to keep it up these days but as long as we are dreaming, I’ve always dreamed of a turbo Skymaster as my choice ride!
@Aviation101 Josh,Commodore Aerospace out Bethany,Oklahoma sell 0-2 and Skymasters,parts sells,paint and annual inspections.
The fixed gear model is great because you can put 29" bush wheels on it and get great backcountry performance.
As a 337G owner, I enjoyed your report! Having flown them since 1975, they are an amazing light twin. As your report might start some looking at, remember these run between 44 years old and 59 years old! If they have had great maintenance, they are as good as new. If not, they are costly to bring up to an acceptable standard. They face tougher issues with parts given the numbers built and the end of production being 1980.
Josh, the mixmaster is an excellent aircraft, very underrated. Built like a brick outhouse they are solid and as the military used them as the O-2 bird dog proved they are reliable with good maintenance. They have spectacular range, very good takeoff and landing performance and not bad load capability especially if you are just using it two up or with smaller pax in the back. It fits in well at the big airports but can do backcountry grass airports as well. A friend had one and he used it most places you could take a C206 too. Excellent for the North Atlantic crossing or South America or even the Pacific. However they are just a little maintenance intensive so if you can find a good A & P in the family then it would be an awesome machine.
Do it! This was my dream twin for a long time. Ended up flying the 402, but never got to fly this. I've never heard anything bad about it except problems due to pilot error. Right now my dream twin is the Piper Aerostar, but it's not a high wing, so the Skymaster would be perfect for your photography adventures and it's a good 30 knots faster than the 172.
The Robinson STOL mod really helps the C337. The gear door mod is another must have.
My dream twin is the Piaggio P.180 Avanti Evo. Dream big!
Josh, I can see you as an ambassador for Diamond Aircraft flying one of their twins, and their safety records speak volumes. Another great episode!
I agree 100% on this one…
The thing I dislike about DAs is their pain in the A refueling. "Spills are things, all over their wings..."
Unfortunately instead of a parachute DA decided to gimp their fuel capacity for some reason
The cockpit is that of a twin but the external view is that of a single engine. It really does look quite nice, and it's pretty unique. I don't think I've ever seen one in person, yet
My brother had a P337 that i logged quite a few hours in.. i loved every bit of the time i had in it.. like you mentioned.. visibility.. range.. safety.. it has it all.. when my brother said he was selling it, i wanted to buy it, but i had just traded into a really nice Duke.. he replaced her with a Turbo Commander 1000.. quickly becoming my new favorite.. which led to my replacing the Duke with a c90.. i have been in several 337's over the years.. the P337 being my fave.. fly high, fast, and efficient..
Josh since you like Cessna you should try a Jabiru.
A new friend of mine that I met through a control line model airplane club has a 337A that I saw for the first time last Friday. Helped him with a quick repair! 😁I guess he got bored with his 182 and traded for it. Then another new friend in the same club that served as a chief mechanic in Vietnam told me how hated 337s because they were maintenance hogs and the #3 cylinder in the rear engine always seemed to have issues along with overheating. The "Chief", in the end, said they fly great but you have to tinker with them a lot which my other friend likes to do. I love Skymasters. I'm looking forward to going up in the 337a in the near future. I say go for it! I know I would love to own one.
What fun! Thanks for your rant on "ignoring the stall horn". I think that was a change from PTS/ACS about not doing slow flight with the horn blaring for the same reason.
Josh, as always the content is great! I'm currently transitioning into a Bonanza from a Cherokee PA28. My vote is the Bonanza, not because it is what I am doing, but all the advantages this airframe gives it's owner. The quality of the build is superior, the cruse speed is excellent, and the availability of parts to keep them going is really good. Because this is a large investment for most of us, the parts support, and the technical knowledge that is out there on this airframe is far superior to most planes in the fleet today (OK to be fair, the 172, 182, and the PA28 support is excellent...). If you are wanting a true cross country platform you can't go wrong with the Bonanza.
Josh, I faced a similar decision a few years ago. I travel from the Sugar Land area to Payson Arizona and back every month. That’s right at 980nm. Five years ago I settled on a Bonanza A36. I make the trip in about 6:30 with a restroom / fuel stop in Pecos. I leave the two most rear seats out and with the double rear doors, can carry a lot of stuff easily. TAS is 167 knots so it makes a good XC traveler. I’ve taken all over the US, except the east coast, and almost all of those trips were single day trips and rarely needed more than a single fuel stop. Good Luck! Mike N228DM
The 337 has always been one of my favorite GA airplanes. Having said that, I've heard they are very high maintenance. I also loved since I was a kid, and I assume it began when I was the movie "Bat 21" featuring the Cessna O-2.
I flew in one of those with the Civil Air Patrol. It was LOUD compared to our 172’s but it was prettiest plane on the ramp.
Had to be one of the nicest 337's I've seen in awhile. Cudo's to the owner for taking such good care of it. Baron would be my choice for two engines but they are why out of my price range not to mention I really don't have the mission for a twin requirement. So will keep enjoying our Comanche 260B. Great video.
Hey Josh! Fellow Texan here. I've always loved the Skymaster....Most of my GA flight sim time is spent in a 337 G Skymaster. Love this airframe. If you can find one scoop it up. I think you'd really enjoy it.
Love this aircraft! I was fascinated by them as a kid and never even realized the role they played in Vietnam as a FAC. Remarkable and Awesome
My carpet is a '65C182H; a great cross country flyer. Still, a Skymaster would definitely be dream provided your budget can support two engines; retractable gear plus from what I understand are Skymaster unique maintenance issues. Happy you have the options to expand your fleet.
Great airplane. The only knocks I've heard are somewhat higher maintenance costs and cabin noise, plus if you fill the seats there is limited baggage space left due to that pesky ear engine. But if you treat it like a 3-4 seat airplane - no worries! Check the Riley Rockets, too!!
Back in 1974 I was at KBMG getting my check ride for my commercial and they had a brand new pressurized Skymaster. I have loved the looks of it ever since. I have never been in one but love seeing videos of them. There is a guy in Canada "TomAir" that has one and he loves it. You didn't mention the noise level. Noise is one of the complants I have heard. The rear engine is a little of a problem servicing. I hope you get one. Love your videos.
I flew a Cessna 150 once, but most of my training was in the 152. I flew *IN* an _O-2,_ the military variant of the C-337 (as a _passenger)_ *ONCE.* It was also one of the rare times I was in an aircraft *BELOW* sea level - at the Thermal Airport in the California desert. It was back when I was in the _Civil Air Patrol (USAF Auxillary)._
12:55 KNS80!!! One of the most underrated pieces of outdated equipment out there!
agreed. If the satellites go out these will be gold
This is my dream aircraft. I'm curious to get your thoughts on inflight interior noise. Was is noticeably louder? Love your channel!
Something to consider also is the Cessna TR182. Turbo, retract, speed machine. I owned one from 2012 to 2019 and it is a great XC machine. Carries a family with bags and full fuel. I got 162 knots true airspeed at 10-11k feet like clockwork and more if I went higher. Denver to Dallas or Denver to Houston were my main missions. Ability to hit the lower flight levels to get above turbulence and/or light weather. Stable and easy instrument platform.
Thanks for the deadhead. Great vid and I really liked the PIC using checklists. Just don't see that on TH-cam GA vids (however, they may but off camera).
The Army would on larger operations supply O-2As (their version of the Skymaster) as spotter planes. As the Gunner's Mate I operated the twin 50 Cal. BMG -M2 of the Swift and being the highest point of the lead boat I'd act as the forward air controller relaying info about the troops we had in the field position as the O-2As made their way on station. (Actually directed air strikes from fast movers, F4 Phantoms -- once Danger Close.)
The fuselage configuration, save the inline power plants, also reminds me of the Army OV-10 Black Ponies that infrequently flew cover for our Swift Boat patrols on the rivers and canals of the southern tip of South Vietnam in '69. (yep, I'm older than dirt).
As a GA pilot with 11,800+ hours of flying, I have five favorite fun to fly airplanes (in alphabetical order). They are Aeronca Champ, BE-1900 (5K hours), CE-150 (2K hours), CE-337 and the Lake Amphibian. The 1900 was fast and easy to fly and a great all weather machine including ice but not budget friendly. I'm now a very senior citizen whose reactions are slower. The only twin that I would consider flying now would be the Skymaster. I hated flying the SF-340 (1K hours).The best thing about it was refreshments and cold drinks were available.
The Cessna Skymaster has been a favorite of mine since I was a kid back in 60s and 70s. We used to see one at least once a month as a local company used one to inspect high-voltage powerlines. I thought the plane was awesome then and I still do. Thanks for sharing your experience, Josh!
Have always had a crush on the Skymaster. Great perspective and video. Well done!
The Skymaster is my absolute favorite plane ever! If I was a pilot, and could have any plane, this would be it....All glass, but a Skymaster.
Unless you need serious load capability and require twin redundancy, a P 210, Saratoga, or a Bonanza or even a 182 R would meet mission requirements but at a much lower fuel burn & maintenance costs
BUT NOT THE SAFETY OF A CENTER-LINE THRUST TWIN-ENGINE AIRPLANE! A Bonanza will NEVER fit the mission of a Cessna, BAR NONE, no matter what model - unless it's a B200 King air or above!
In my 60 years of flying, I have owned a Debonaire, a Bonanza, a P-Baron, 2 C310's, a C172, a C414, a Soko Galeb G2A (single engine jet ground attack/trainer), a C337, and a Piper Comanche 250 (my current ride). Everything said here about the 337 is correct, but (as you obviously know) one has to consider what missions you wish to fly and how much money you'll be willing to spend each year to operate and maintain your bird before deciding. If you need a twin, be prepared for more than twice the maintenance costs of a single. If you need range, there are a number of single and twin options available, with some sacrifice in payload. The Skymaster is a neat airplane, not very fast for a twin and with a complicated landing gear system that requires meticulous maintenance, but fun to fly with good visibility. I do think the centerline thrust is a safety factor, although statistics don't necessarily confirm that. The P-337 can be a maintenance nightmare, but is fairly fast for a 337.
I would encourage you to add the Piper Comanche 250-260 to your list of airplanes to consider. My Comanche 250 has proven to be an excellent compromise for me and my wife. It is roomier than the Bonanza with better payload and CG options, is faster at 160 kts TAS than the Debonaire and the 337, and mine has 120 gal (116 usable) of fuel and very long legs. We flew it to San Diego from Springfield MO with only one fuel stop in Santa Fe, and flew it back non-stop with an average 5 kt tailwind and 1 hour fuel reserve. The Lycoming O-540 is as bulletproof an engine as ever made with a 2000 hr recommended TBO, parts are not a problem, the systems are fairly simple and easily maintained, and there's strong online support. I've owned it for 16 years with no major maintenance problems. My favorite twin for transportation was the Cessna 310Q with Colemill conversion, and my favorite airplane of all time was the Soko Galeb, which I owned for 15 years.
You know from what I see of your videos I think the mixmaster would be a fantastic plane to add to your stable. You seem like a cessna guy, the high wing is great for video, it's a quirky airframe that would really benefit from someone in the aviation TH-cam community shining a light on it, and your girl Chelsea is an IA which certainly would help with the maintenance. All around it seems like such a cool platform for you. Hope you find one and hope you get one as I'd love to see one in a more visible role. Cheers.
Always loved the sky master, I can imagine they have a little more engine noise/vibration due to two engines being attached to the passenger space but I can see a lot more pros than cons. I find it interesting that there isn’t a modern equivalent being produced (or have I just not seen it?)
Maybe just a thought a good choice is a 1977 T210 Centurion for sale on Top pic. My friend has 1964 C210 Centurion, they are fast have retracts, it has a heavy payload here is specs.
This 1977 Centurion has 3,983 hours on the airframe, 983 hours since the RAM overhaul on its 310 hp Continental TSIO-520R engine and 983 on the McCauley 3-blade propeller. The engine is equipped with GAMI fuel injectors, Knisley exhaust, and a Tanis preheater.
The panel includes dual Aspen Avionics EV1000 Pro Max flight displays, dual Garmin GNS 430W GPS/coms, L3 Lynx NGT-9000 transponder, Century III autopilot, and ADS-B with WAAS, active traffic, terrain warning system, and an engine monitor.
Pilots who need to carry more than four passengers and bigger loads than the typical four-seat single should take a look at this 1977 Cessna T210 Centurion, which is available for $239,500 on AircraftForSale.
Skymasters are so cool. I'm actually impressed by its abiltiy to move along at 12 gph combined. What was the airspeed during that phase of flight?
NOT 12GPH. That fuel flow gauge made me do a double-take, too! Watch the video again. The fuel flow gauges were labeled in 'Pounds x10' so that '6' you were seeing on the gauge was 60 pounds per hour, or around 10 GPH for each engine.
20gph makes more sense.
That Skymaster is very well-kept. It's obvious that Kevin takes good care of it. I always thought it was a cool design. I got to fly in one once, many years ago.
As for your desire for a cross-country plane, the Skymaster certainly seems like a viable candidate. I'd go that route before I'd go for an older conventional light twin.
I fly a normally aspirated Cirrus, and it definitely ticks your boxes on speed and range. As you noted, though, it is probably going to exceed the budget.
Man! I miss flying and I'm so pleased to see this bird get the attention it deserves! Don't think about it - buy it! I'm in SoCal all the time and would love to see this awesome craft in person. If I had the means, THIS would be the aircraft I would ever own. Good luck with your purchase.
Hey josh
You may consider a 177rg. I bought one in april of this year and have put around 120 hours on it since then.
It meets your mission parameters with the exception of speed. I pretty routinely true out around 140kts. The book says we can get up to 146. At 140kts the plane has a no reserve range of 1040 miles.
60 gallons of fuel and a 1000lb useful load... along with a massive cabin for the size of airplane, has made it a real winner for me
I wasnt a believer until I bought it. If you're ever up in the twin cities area, let me know and I'll show you around in good ole cardi
They wouldn't meet your cross-country criteria, but if you ever get a chance to fly a Cardinal, or a Bonanza V-Tail, I'd love to see that
Also glad to see Garmin Pilot represented here. I'm not a pilot yet, and I don't have any kind of affiliation with them. But I've made a point to learn both the ubiquitous ForeFlight and garmin. I bought an iPad for my aviation journey, but I've used Android phones for ages. Since FF isn't on Android, Garmin is my only option as a backup on my phone.
Also... I can't wait to see that 150 after it's done!
Josh, I have a lead to a guy that has the military variant O2 Skymaster in Mississippi. Let me know if you’re interested. - Brandon
A glance at Wikipedia shows the Skymaster's spec'd numbers don't match what you mentioned at the beginning of your video. On the other hand, it's relatively good on fuel compared to my favourite twin, the 310. I'd have suggested it but I'm sure there are others out there less expensive. You listed off a few singles and for sure there are plenty that match or come close to your goals for speed, maybe not for range, though. Tradeoffs: that's the fun part of your search and I know you're going to enjoy it. Thanks for including us in your hunt - it's as much the hunt as the end result that's the enjoyable part!
What is the fuel capacity and typical range for the Skymaster? Were extended-range tanks ever available for them? I saw the average fuel rate was about 6-1/2 gph for each engine. That's pretty reasonable for a four place GA twin!
More data would help to substantiate your choice (not that I question it, I *love* the 337s).
Range? Ceiling? Cost of acquisition? Average cost for annual? Insurance? And the biggest and hardest item - can you get a hangar for it?
Big fan of your aviation videos, Mr. Aviation 101! Been following since day one, and your content is always a great decision-making guide. I apply your approach to my flying decisions, checking personal minimums, aircraft conditions, and company SOP. If risk factors are high, I wait for a better day in general aviation. Your quote, "You can always get there another day," rings true. Keep up the excellent work! Love your videos, eagerly awaiting the next one. Thanks for the flight lesson notepads-especially helpful for IFR flights, making clearances smoother.
Get a Riley Rocket conversion 337! They rock!
Hey kudos to Kevin on his solid flying skills. I too really appreciate an experienced pilot who pulls out the checklist and flies by the numbers.
The 337 is a proven workhorse and if that is what you need it might be the bird for you. Reasonably good climb rate, cruise speed, and capacity for people and stuff. The downside is that you have roughly 2x the fuel and engine maintenance expense for not much more performance. I generally favor the T210 Centurion for these reasons but as you know, every airplane is a tradeoff so choose the one that best meets your needs.
If cruise speed and cross country economy are more important than load capacity, the RV9A is certainly worth a look. They fly beautifully and just sip avgas at altitude with a long range, 190mph cruise, and 45 mph stall speed. They are light weight so you need to travel accordingly. A lot to like.