More praise for the 337
( There is a tab for English at the top)
https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diari ... -skymaster

I just read a "Multi-Engine Service Letter" from Cessna dated Decewmber 12, 1972 (ME72-26) speaking of potential fatigue cracks in the lower cap of the front wing spar at the strut attach point (both sides).

3000 hours and 5000 hours inspection intervals depending on predominate flight altitudes (see attached PDF).

Interestingly, the P337 does not have to be inspected until 10,000 hours time in-service.

I wonder why the difference?

Dan

(Edit: for some reason I can't seem to attach the PDF file, not sure why).

I went a different route and copied the first page or so here:

I suspect it was an ultra conservative bulletin based on O2 experience, external loads were carried and lots of low level time. I know a 337 fleet operator where the aircraft are fairly high time and most use is low level, they have found no issues in the area the bulletin covers.

With the nightmare in rigging the twin Cessna gear, there are few gear systems would estimate as higher-dollar to maintain than the tip tank twin-Cessna gear.

It seems you may have seen an anomaly with the P337 gear. That gear system is very close to the 210 gear system, which is a pretty good system on the 1972 and later versions.

We did have some issues with getting doors to seal up with the lack of an inflatable seal.

With my experience with the P337's , the gear has not been hard to straighten out or keep running well.

There certainly are a fair share of maintenance intensive items to keep on top of on these planes.

After all these years, the P337 may be getting harder to maintain - lots of these planes getting maintained by people that shouldn't be working on airplanes doesn't make the job any easier. The higher end of the tip tank Twin-Cessna probably gets a lot better maintenance on the average. The 310 fleet is certainly getting way harder to maintain at this point with many many planes in arrears with regard to getting any TLC.

Does anybody have any firsthand experience with the early none pressurized turbo variety: T337B-F?

Thanks,
Wendel

Same basic engine was used in Senecas, some turbo Mooneys, Hawk XP, Cirrus SR20, Turbo Arrows, a couple of Maules.

First, let's only discuss P337s as that was the question from the OP. See the thread title? People are commenting that have no experience with P337s. Don't listen to them. Normally aspirated and turbo without pressurization are completely different animals. We are not discussing them. I have no experience with them and I will not comment on them. Too bad others don't feel the same when they have no experience with the airplane being discussed.

I've had two P337s. I've owned 20 airplanes over about 25 years. I've sold a number of them to people on BT who can speak to the maintenance my airplanes receive. As has been mentioned by people with actual experience in P337s, they are quiet, safe, comfortable, and reasonably efficient airplanes. They are a pressurized twin so they take pressurized twin maintenance and insurance costs. That just makes sense. The air conditioning worked fine in both of mine. I flew them generally in the high teens. At 16,500-17,500 ft, I would typically see 183 KTAS on 23 GPH combined. That's roughly 65% power LOP. Visibility is phenomenal. The air stair door is so very nice, especially for non-pilot passengers.

They aren't a P-Baron. They aren't a 340. They can have five seats but take out that last seat and call it a four-seat airplane. The service ceiling is 20k feet, not the 25k of most other pressurized twins. None are FIKI, although some are booted with a hot windshield.

I have managed many TSIO-360 series engines whether they were in my P337s, my Mooney 231, my Seneca III, or the many other Senecas and Mooneys I have taught in. Treat them right and they are fine engines. Abuse them and pay a bunch of money for top overhauls. I have never replaced so much as a single cylinder in all of the TSIO-360s I have owned. Combined that is many years.

Prices have increased pretty dramatically, it seems higher than the average price increases we've seen in the last couple of years. If I had a need for one today I would have no issues at all buying another one.

Personally, I don't like the way they feel : Something about having to big "gyros", in-line, one in front of you and the other in back, makes it heavy and ponderous, particularly in pitch.

It is certainly no Aerostar!

In 27 years at Cessna, I nver flew or flew in any kind of 337.

Although I have never flown a P337 I flew an O-2A in the military for a short time, I don't recall pitch issues. We horsed them around pretty well including pitching to as high as 20- 30 degrees to loft WP rockets and other times rolling over to a 20-30 degree dive angle also to shoot rockets with a "high" G recovery.

If you have some late Cessna 210 time, the Skymaster feels like part of the family. Feels heavy compared to the Bonanza certainly, but that is the trade-off for a plane that really hauls a load.

Do the two engines turn opposite directions on a 337?

with respect to the engine crankcase, no
with respect to the airframe, yes