He was discussing an NA, non-pressurized version. The conversation had moved on. Writing in the same size font.

have you considered that, perhaps, some of the people bashing a particular plane are doing so based on far more real-world experience with it than anyone should be subjected to ?

have you considered that, perhaps, some of the people bashing a particular plane are doing so based on far more real-world experience with it than anyone should be subjected to ?

I owned a 1977 P337 for 3 years and 300 hours. Not a bad plane, miss it in some ways. Comfort and visibility are its strong suits. 180-185KTAS in the high teens on 23-25gph total. 4:45 with an hour's reserve on 148 gallons useable. Best short field pressurized piston twin out there and single engine stuff is a non-issue. Rate of climb is not so good if you want to keep engine temps reasonable. Roomy for 4. All the bags have to go behind the seats, kind of a pain. No engine issues during my ownership, but did have to replace a mag and an alternator. This is easier to do on the rear engine than the front because there is an access panel on the rear wall of the pressure vessel. It is a little harder to work on since they crammed a lot of stuff on that airframe, but not unreasonable. Full fuel cabin load was only 400 pounds in mine, but we had air conditioning (worked fine and very appreciated on trips to the south in the summer), intercoolers and full deice. My wife liked it, but a P210 will carry more on less fuel almost as fast and can be FIKI which no 337 can be, so we went back to a P210. My take is that the P337 is likely the least expensive pressurized piston twin you can own if it meets your mission needs.

Jeff Axel
N228WP

I have no dog in this fight and have never even sat in a 337. I just think they're neat.

Here's a 2019 article Aviation Consumer. At the bottom is a long email from an owner/mechanic who says:

"As for maintenance, as an owner/mechanic I can say plan on a lot. As a rule of thumb, budget as much as you would for a last-minute first-class airline ticket for everywhere you go in a 337. I hate to say what’s been said plenty of times: There are more buyers who can afford the 337’s purchase price that can actually afford to properly maintain it. If a purchaser is financially well-off enough to simply toss the keys to one of the several well-known and well-respected 337 specialty shops to manage and perform routine maintenance, so much the better. Costs would not be a seen as show-stopper to keep such a unique and nice flying airplane in service.

Never forget that you are flying a 45-year-old legacy aircraft, which is the most complicated one ever built at Cessna’s Pawnee factory, and that includes the landing gear system. If you are not already a Cessna-knowledgeable A&P yourself, as I am, I would strongly suggest becoming one. Cessna factory technical and parts support is in general really excellent. Certain parts of course are no longer produced, but they’re available from vendors on the secondary and salvage markets."

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/used-a ... skymaster/

NIL: I'm an A&P/IA , have lot's of experience maintaining twin Cessnas, including 337s ...

I like to rate airplanes on a FLIGHT HOURs / Mx HOURs bassis.

In this respect, I rate the P337 @ 10 to 1 .

That's 10 hours of shop time for every hour flown.

Nufff said.

I love the 337's but have thus far only managed to sit in a few while making airplane noises and pretending to fly...

It always struck me that a big issue with the Conti IO-360 is that you have a 6 cylinder engine with the same number of OH parts as a 520 or 540 (and thus similar OH costs) but only producing 4 cylinder power (plus a little more, I realize).

I was looking at a T337 and went so far as to remove the cowls and poke around in there contemplating working on it. I chickened out and bought a T206 instead. But hey, that was 3 airplanes ago. Now you have me thinking about a 337 again.

I didn't realize the Conti IO-360 was a 6 cylinder. That seems like an underwhelming amount of horsepower for a 6.

Seems like the 337 fits a niche that nothing else really fits. It can use a runway that's considerably shorter than most light twins and it has better comfort and visibility than most. The trade-off for that is mediocre performance on 420HP and more maintenance.

A 210 has similar performance and load capability on less horsepower (and lower maintenance requirements), but I'm not flying a piston single over the Great Lakes to get to OSH.

T & P337s were pretty popular in the Rockies long time ago, high SE service ceiling and better SE manners than many twins. But I can see how maintaining one today could be a nightmare outside of a shop that specializes. NM Game and Fish flew them too, they flew at night looking for spotlights.

I think the parts count is actually significantly higher on the IO360.

What would you say the average is for pressurized piston twins?

I think there are many step up buyers from simple singles and piston twins with inappropriate expectations.

About the same, especially for those 40+ years old now.

Riley put TSIO-520's on the P337 and called it the Super Skymaster. He claimed phenomenal performance-if I remember correctly, almost 250 kts at altitude. Has anyone actually flown one of those? The normal complaint on 337 engine bays is 10 lbs of $%# in a 5 lb bag-the 520 must have been 15 lbs of $#%#.

How would a T337 perform with two na IO-550's? The weight is probably not far off of the Turbo 360........

Finally, I am too lazy to search, but I remember one Beechtalk member describe flying a 337 to putting a metal bucket on your head and having two kids pummel it with broom sticks.

Airscan out of Titusville Fl also had an IO-550 STC for the 337, I don't think it covered the P model. The pilots I know that flew them loved the performance, the mechanics I know that worked on them had 0 kind words.

I would agree completely on the nonpressurized 337’s!