My father was a Cessna dealer in the 60's and 70's, and the 337 was a difficult aircraft to sell back then and very cheap on the used market. When I was 17 years I finished up my Private pilot training and check ride in a 337. A few years later I bought a 66' 337 with only 800 hours for $10,000 and flew it to college. Over the years I've owned, bought and sold 16 337's and had every 337 model, and also 310s 320's, a 340, two 421s, Barons, a Duke, Senecas, and a 700 Aerostar, and while the 337 is not best light twin in terms of performance, payload and room, it remains my favorite light twin to fly and an aircraft I love! I think it's the most inspired airplane design Cessna came up with, and one of the most under-rated and under appreciated aircraft ever. What sets the 337 apart from many other light aircraft in my opinion, is comfort and visibility. Setting ahead of the wing you have better visibility then any other single or twin, especially in the pattern which is a good safety factor. Passengers seem to love it as it has a warm, solid fuzzy feeling and sound with good visibility and rides nice in turbulence. Also with the high wing, placed in the center of the fuselage, the center of roll, pitch and yaw is centered on the passengers head so less spacial disorientation and air sickness. With 120 and 140gal of fuel you have a lot of range and IFR reserves and it has the best single engine performance of any twin in it's class. The Pressurized models with 225hp and larger props are even better on single engine. When selling P337s I used to demonstrate a simulated single-engine go around with gear and flaps extended to prospective owners. Something I don't any other piston twin can do. I could go on for pages about the 337 but but I have keep it reasonable I guess.
Very nice story! you are very fortunate to have owned and flown so many different Cessna and other airplane models. I do agree with you that the 337 is one of the nicest light twins. fell in love when i saw it in a vietnam movie when i was a child.
@@bramesque Thank you. It seems many share an intuitive love the 337. Many of my fondest flying memories involve 337s, like flying my father (a WWII Navy pilot) on his last trip to his favorite fishing lodge in Canada, or the day a veteran Vietnam O-2 combat pilot approached me on the ramp and wanted to look at my 337 and he said how much he would love to fly one again, I suggested he show me how he flew them. I put him in the left seat and after a couple of perfect approaches landings at a friend's private grass strip on a hil top, he said "you want me to show you how we used to attack a ground target?" I sad "Sure!", he circled close around the hilltop at wide open throttle speeding up to about 200mph, and as we passed a line of tall fir trees he pulled-up, climbed about 500ft, did a half roll and made a bee-line for the picture windows in my friend's living room perched on the bluff of the hilltop and while still at full-power, and with airspeed building and a big grin, said "BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!" Pulled-up just before passing over the house did another half-roll and a ducked behind the hill. He said, "Here you try it!" We did a couple more variations of Vietnam attack runs and returned home with the artificial horizon tumbled and whining. Being built as a warbird, the engines balanced on both ends, a long wing, oversized ailerons and elevator, over-built and a bit overweight, the 337 actually has a military feel on the controls and is capable of some light aerobatics, the Vietnam O-2 pilot showed me how even in a near vertical dive with power off the 337 builds drag quickly and he said pretty much stops accelerating about 20kts beyond red-line, a feature he claimed saved a few young combat pilots. The 337 has a few unconventional things that can bite an unaware pilot, like no flap takeoffs where it's possible to over-rotate and bang the tail, or fully retracting flaps on a go around, and as power is added can result in a pitch up. The inter-connected nose trim that rolls in nose-up trim as flaps retract, and that can be a help or a surprising pitch change for those not familiar with it, but most of all is the need to pay attention to the rear engine at all times as a power loss or failure is not as apparent as in a conventional twin. I had one Pressurized (Turbocharged) 337 and a non-turbo 337G that both had a tendency to vapor lock on hot taxis, takeoffs and even approaches on both the front and rear engines. And especially on the Turbo-charged P337 if you added power to quickly during a vapor-lock the engine could flood. I had this happen a couple of times on approach, and rather then fiddle with the funky engine I continued the approach on the good engine. If you experience this check and clean all fuel injectors and screens as a partially blocked screen or dirty injectors seem to contribute to vapor locking. After replacing old worn fuel pumps on the P337, the vapor locking seemed to finally go away. Keeping up with Exhaust leaks on the turbo and pressurized 337s will likely be an issue for any owner. I can relate a few more issues and suggested practices unique to the 337 if anyone is interested.
Sorry, but claiming it had the best single engine performance of any twin in it's class is absolute rubbish and kind of makes me doubt if any of the rest of your story is true. The one big downfall of this aircraft was it's single engine performance. It was absolutely woeful - particularly so if you lost the critical engine. Whenever the 337 was anywhere near maximum gross weight, if you lost an engine after take off, the only place you were going was down. So much so that the accepted joke was for a multi engine aircraft, the remaining engine was just taking you to the scene of the accident. When I did my type conversion on it the instructor had me conduct simulated rear engine failures to demonstrate how bad it's single engine performance was - and that was when the aircraft was virtually empty with just me and an instructor on board. Completely clean the aircraft would barely climb, even when you were close to ISA conditions. Start increasing density altitude - forget it. You can add in how marginal it's performance was by the fact you needed to delay retracting the gear after take off purely because of the amount of drag the rear doors gave in transition. It was a low drag gear, so in an potential low level engine failure scenario you are better off leaving it extended than risking the performance hit trying to retract it. Doing a dirty go around single engine in a Skymaster would hardly have been safe or demonstrating anything other than how much performance it lacked.
I worked as an A1 Skyraider crew chief with the 6th SOS at Pleiku, Vietnam in 1969. We had several 02-B and 02- A FACS at the base. The main problem with the 02 s was the gear up lock that sometimes did not engage the landing gear when in the retracted position. This was caused by an engineering flaw of the flimsy aluminum panel where the lock was attached to the airframe. One time we had an 02-A that landed on another airfield with a gear malfunction. Since the mechanics lacked the know how to fix it, they used s cargo strap to tie the gear on the ground so it would not retract; the pilot holding with one hand the strap, and in mid flight the pilot lost grip of the strap that wrapped around the rear prop with the result of the lost of the rear engine and making an emergency landing with the front engine and nose gear down, but with the main gear dangling. The pilot managed a perfect landing on the nose gear and the rear gear doors, with no other damage .
Cessna landing gears were/are a problem. My dad was a passenger in a 182 RG (or maybe it was a 177 RG) when a part in the landing gear broke. The main gear came out but just dangled uselessly like a dead duck. He could see the gear and then got a bright idea. He grabbed the tow bar, pushed the door open and pulled the gear on his side into position. The pilots side gear was tied in so this pulled them both in position. However the gear would not lock into place so he had to hold it in place until touchdown. Then they just taxied as normal as the weight of the plane held the gear down.
I owned and piloted a C337F. [ ZS-FLC] I regard it as the BEST TWIN ever built. It took me 19 hours to go solo in C172 but only 1h 30min on my 337. It's the best twin idea Cessna's ever had! I had a harrowing incident with my instructor practicing stalls at 9500ft....she flipped on her back and sent us spiraling down. I learned later on that I did not throttle the rear engine back completely which caused the spin. Thanks to my instructor I am here to write this and the aircraft's robust design.
Thank you for sharing! I had an identical experience in a 337 people thought I was making up. My father was a Cessna dealer and over several decades we owned over a dozen 337's and it's the aircraft I have the most time in, and my near death experience in an inverted spin, in Cessna's 3rd production ser# 337 that was in their sales brochure in 1965-66'. I had two airline pilots interested in it, one was Southwest 737 FO and the other a CRJ driver and CFI whom I let fly from the left seat, who wanted to try to clean stall stall and at about 4000ft AGL over the Oregon coastline, he obliviously left about 20" of power on the rear engine (common in 337's due to friction in the long throttle cable going to the rear engine), and started hauling back fast on the yoke. The 337 with gear and flaps retracted and a bit of power on takes a pretty high angle of attack to stall, and as we slowed I noticed the the T&B was nearly a ball out to the left, and I said: "You better step on that ball", at which point he added more back pressure and a good foot full of right-rudder sending the ball nearly full left as the right wing stalled and he added full left aileron, which abruptly sent us into a nose-down inverted spin as his buddy, the 300lb 737 driver who unbuckled his belt after takeoff screaming on the cabin roof and kicking me in the in the back of the head. At this point the CFI froze with full left aileron and right rudder as a the coastline filled the windscreens. I grabbed the yoke and had to yell "I GOT IT! LET GO LET GO!" cut power on the rear engine and recovered into vertical dive with the old 337 over red-line and did a high-G pull-out about 1000ft above the trees, but after catching a couple of accelerated stalls just managed to pull out less than 500ft above the treeline. After that both wanna be Skymaster owners said that was the most dangerous airplane ever made and to get back on the ground ASAP. I took them back up to about 4,000ft and demonstrated clean, power-on stalls with front and rear engine and how being a pusher with the rear engine only required left rudder, and even with no rudder correction, as long as no adverse aileron was added, clean, power-on stalls were aggressive but manageable to anyone who did not inappropriately apply the flight controls, and suggested for the safety of the flying public he go get some real stall-spin / aerobatic recovery training, but to no avail, he insisted he did nothing wrong saying "you have to keep wings level in a stall" I said "yea, but with the rudder not with the ailerons, and especially not after you induce a stall!" Alas they left and no doubt went on to tell people the 337 was the most dangerous, spin-prone airplane ever produced. Something 337 pilots should consider and understand about stalls and low speed operations with flaps up are: #1, the that the early model 337's might require left rudder in a climb in with rear engine power only, however this seemed not apparent in later models I owned so some rigging or engine mount angle might have addressed this. #2, the horizontal Stabilizer and elevator on the 337 is huge and have a lot of authority so you can more easly induce a deep or accelerated stall. Adding power to the rear engine and with flaps-up can induce an unexpected pitch-up. 3, The Skymaster has a very even weight balance or at times aft weight balance, and the added weight of the rear engine can, and with flaps-up as slow speed is very pitch-neutral, and exceptionally light on the elevator, and like a fighter plane, and can over-pitch easily causing a deeper than expected stall, something to be aware of to avoid departure stalls or on go-arounds. Cessna implemented an automatic flap-trim system on the 337 that rolls nose-down when flaps are retracted, due to light and powerful elevator forces to compensate for the light pitch forces during take-off and go-arounds. First-time 337 pilots might be surprised the first time they retract the flaps after landing and see the trim wheel rapidly rolling forward. 4, Is NO-Flap Takeoffs If you read the manual it says No-flap take-offs are NOT recommended. My first high-crosswind takeoff in a 337 I decided to use no flaps and with two people and bags in the rear was surprised that at bout 90mph with normal rotation back pressure, and I was still stuck to the runway. My flight instructor in the right seat said "You going to take-off?" At which point I added some back pressure only to have the nose-pop up and lightly scrape one tail boom and we leap into the air at about a 30 degree nose-up attitude. My CFI and passengers were not impressed and and said I needed to get my head out of ass, but mentioned that might have been the reason for the restriction on 'No Flap' takeoffs. later we tried a few no-flap take-offs and found you had to be a bit more attentive to pitch control with flaps up and low speed as you lose the nose-down moment with flaps-up and the added weight can cause an over-rotation and tail damage commonly seen on 337's. I'd suggest 337 pilots become antiquated with flaps-up characteristics, and avoid flaps-up takeoffs and not be too quick to retract the last notch of flaps until above 90mph and well established in a climb. One interesting and unique ground handling 337 trick is that with no-one in the cabin, and with one arm firmly wrapped under one tail-boom to prevent a tail strike, you can yank the nose off the ground and swing and push it around from the tail like an ultralight.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 Yea that as a cool airplane, that's all but forgotten. The 337 will land pretty short and you can get into a lot of places you can't get out of. The 337 doesn't generate the engine-born lift like conventional twins, and being a bit over-built and overweight and with a semi-laminar wing, it doesn't jump into the air like a 310, Baron or Seneca, and in density altitude situations it rolls a bit. I worked with Burt about 25 years on a up-scaled Boomerang design for Sky-Taxi start-up Ray Morrow started after he sold his II Morrow Avionics company to UPS/Garmin. I got a demo flight in the Boomerang Prototype and liked it and the design a lot. The Sky-taxi version was similar in size to a Cessna 414. After Ray shut the program I ended up with the fuselage mock-up in my hanger for a while and fished the seats, interior parts out of the dumpster, and briefly tried to find an investor, but after 911 and the 06' financial crash, air-taxi investors were few if any. A friend who loved Skymasters and was involved in the Prescott Pusher project, secured an option on the old Mitsubishi MU-2/Diamond Jet facilities and we floated the idea of producing a larger 337 style aircraft and had some investor interest, but when we contacted Cessna about doing a joint venture, they were not interested and went as far as hostility pointing out: "If you produce anything that even remotely looks like a Skymaster we will sue your arse off" literally...
I am retired now but in the first 10 years of my 45+ years of professional flying, I got to fly the Cessna 337 for a couple of years. The company I worked for had 2 , along with Cessna 310's they had 8 of those. I was put in the 337 it was only suppose to be for 3 months it ended up 3 years. I liked the airplane. Back then the rules was different than now, you can do a lot more commercial flying in single engines now. The light position twin market is a shadow of what it was when I started. It would not be my first choice for a personal flying machine, due to well the costs of operation of two engines. But if I could afford it I think I would just because well, its different and its just was so much fun to fly!
Exactly... I've bought and sold 16 337s and the airplane I mostly soloed and learned to fly in. There's other cheap twins I would rather fly like a Seneca II because it's basically a Turbo-charged Cherokee 6 with two engines, and does better getting out of high, hot and short strips, and you often get boots so it's a better rocky-mountain airplane, but the 337 is more fun and comfy.
I lived above the hangars on my University's airport. There was a private Skymaster there owned by a married pair of engineers. They were pretty eclectic anyway, but the topper was when the Mrs. showed up to fly the Skymaster to another airport to have the front engine serviced. As in, the front engine did not run. On a hot summer day. I knew them pretty well, well enough to say to her this seemed like a bad idea and pointed out the density altitude. She waved me off and said she had run the numbers and it would be fine. So.... she barely got off, and I watched in prolonged horror as she made the most gradual turn in history, engine screaming, just above the treetops, trying to get it back down. She made it, I pushed it back into her hangar while she, white as a ghost, tried very hard not to acknowledge me or talk about it.
We deployed 337s to effective use in Rhodesia. Very good, reliable and highly adaptable platform. In low level ground attack anti personnel role, they were unmatched. Think of the combined capabilities of a modern Apache and an A10 - at a fraction of the cost, and you’ve got it. In a bush terrain insurgency scenario, there’s still nothing better.
Actually, that would be the Cessna O-2 Skymaster (nicknamed "Oscar Deuce"), a military version of the Cessna 337 Super Skymaster, used for forward air control (FAC) and psychological operations (PSYOPS) by the US military between 1967 and 2010. Ask me how I know. Hint: I knew Gene for more than a decade before he passed away in 2004.
Some 0-1 birddogs and then O-2 Skymasters flew out of Udon , Thailand. Spooks were trying to put the Ho Chi min Trail outta business. I was one of the Army guys that spent whole tour in NE Thailand. They called the war in Cambodia and Laos the second front of the Vietnam war. The Thais and Hmong people loved us because we kept the communists out of Thailand.
I currently own one of the rare P337G models. I bought it for the safety of having a twin and not have Vmc of a conventional twin. Serenity is a joy to fly.
@@Neeko-fz1uk I had a bunch of Skymasters, and the early models with the big windows and light sound proofing are are comparable to a Beech Baron, a 182 or 206. The P337s are pretty civilized and I would say quieter than a Cessna 340 or P-Baron when pressurized. I had a old French Reims version that was pretty much a military version with a civilian interior and little or no Soundproofing and single pane windows and it was LOUD. That was the only 337 didn't like
I had three P337s and thought they were the best of the 337's. I liked the P-Baron and Aerostar and 421 for serious going places better, but the 337 was much less hassle and cost and so much more forgiving.
Old CFI here, with not a lot of hours in "Sky Smashers" ... But a few observations: 1: mostly a good airplane as long as you knew a few quirks -- from a CFI POV the one really big blunder that was easy to make was to mis-diagnose which engine is out or worse yet on fire, and shut down/extinguish the working engine. This had to be a key point of training. 2: The 337 was really high maintenance for what it offered. The "monkey motion" landing gear was a maintenance pig, also really upped insurance costs because gear failures were common. Two engines of course means high maintenance. It is slow for its power and fuel burn. iMHO the plane that killed the 337 was the 210. Give up the second engine. ... Get a better and much more economical airplane.
In 1968 my father presented me with two plastic models. The first I had ever seen. One of the models was a Cessna Skymaster with maybe 50? parts. The first was a jet airliner with maybe twelve parts, and a red tube of Testor's airplane cement. Of course I left cement fingerprints all over the Skymaster! I had used so much of the tube of cement that before the cement had dried, it looked droopy and kind of sad. But my dad acted proud and smiled at my first efforts.
When I was at Bergstrom AFB, we had a Squadron of O-2s on a taxi way near my unit. In talking to the ground crews, they really loved how easy they were to work on. To change the nose tire, two guys would pull the tail down while one guy would change the tire. It took less than ten minutes.
Exactly! the only twin you don't need a tow bar for, as you can grab it by the tail and and move it around easier than a Cessna 150. But you can also over-rotate and bang the tail on takeoff if you do a no-flap takeoff and get heavy handed on the stick.
@deanmccormick8070 I was at Bergstrom from November 68 to November of 72. I was in the 45th recon Squadron and then the 67th Field Maintenance Squadron.
Changing the flex cable used for the tack generator was a bitzh. They built the engine around where the cable mounted into the engine. No way to get a pair of pliers to it. If the tip broke off in the engine and a magnet couldn't pull it out the engine had to be removed.
@@mikecain3134 On the Front Engine or both were difficult. I vaguely remember replacing a tach Generator on an early turbo and, don't recall much trouble, but that was a civilian model. Did you ever replace the rear engine prop control cables? That's a joy. And the electric (Astrotech?) Cowl Flap motors didn't last long either, and I remember when the replacement planetary gear set went to $800 and the brushes were like $500. I think they were $2500 each to overhaul. I eventually replaced the front motor on my daily driver G-model with an industrial control motor that worked great but it had so much torque I was concerned it might bend the flaps or firewall bracket. I put the overhauled Astrotech back in when I sold it, but for a while I considered trying to STC the retrofit and sell them. Rear Prop blades were getting pretty scarce and expensive (Like $4,000 each) 20 years ago, and a good reason to do rolling takeoffs with low power on the front engine. I wonder Blades and hubs cost now?
I remember going on a few Air Force TDY's from Myrtle Beach to Fort Stewart Wright Army Airfield with our A-10's in the early 80's. On one of the TDY's....I got a couple rides in our Air Force 0-2's. Within a year...I bought my own Skymaster. I actually loved the aircraft.
In 1965 my dad bought a 337A Super Skymaster. He also owned a couple of 310's. When I was old enough I got my multi eng. rating in a 310 but then was assigned most of the 337 flying. I loved the airplane. It launched my flying career and I retired as a 747 Capt. in 2019. When you hear people making negative comments on the 337 its always from someone who never flew one. Maintenance was involved but our mechanics were good with the 337. We operated our 337 for 23 years and its still on the registry.
It was _okay_ from a maintenance and flying perspective. IMHO it was no safer than any other aircraft due to its anemic single engine performance, being twice as likely to have an engine failure as a single, and _double_ engine failures not being uncommon due to its highly convoluted fuel system. For maintenance I actually hated the front engine more than the rear one since there was no room with the nose gear well, the landing gear system was insanely complex (far more complex than a King Air) with tons of actuators, sequencing valves, priority valves, and solenoids. Even the cowl flaps were an absolute nightmare to rig. It flew okay. The weirdest thing after working your way up the Cessna singles is how light it is in pitch. The one I flew had the Robertson STOL so it floated onto the runway as one of the nicest landing planes I’ve ever flown.
There is an interesting modification to a 336, in Australia. VH-CMY had hinged rear engine firewall, allowing the rear engine, mount and firewall to be swung open to the left and allowing large cargo loading into the cabin from the rear, the only 336 known to have this modification. The plane was operated by Ansett in New Guinea. The l/h i/b flap segment needed to be unlatched and swung down to provide clearance for the engine to swing open. VH-CMY is currently at the Queensland Air Museum.
Took a ride in one in Vietnam, flown by the brigade's USAF FAC/liaison, and we hooked up with a Navy OV-10 for some recreational dogfighting. Amazing flying by those guys (don't remember details- it was 54 years ago).
I flew both C336 G-ATAH; C337's G-AVJG & G-BBBL and C337 Robertson STOL G-BCBZ in 1975/76. It was my first commercial pilot flying job. I ended up as a Captain on B737 and A320/1. I was based in Alderney in the Channel Islands and most of our work was flying lorry drivers travelling on Truckline Ferries between Cherbourg, France and Hurn Airport Bournemouth, UK. The ferry was only licenced for 12 passengers so we transported any excess by air. The Robertson STOL was in my view a bit of a dog's breakfast. It's stall speed was around 38 knots. I never did dare try it out ! The C336 was significantly slower and flew slightly 'nose up'. They all handled beautifully, particularly the C336. Really sharp and precise. Fond memories.
It was a very good airplane that was quite safe. I’ve flown it about 500-hours in all sorts of weather and onto and off of many kinds of terrain. Saved my butt a few times too! Great bird
@@Tom-zs6bbhow many are flying today? $$$$ I haven't annualed one since 2008. In fact I've only seen once since. I got to annual it because nobody else wanted to, and I really liked them.👍👍😎
@@hotrodray6802 "how many are flying today?" If that's the metric then an awful lot of older airplanes need to be scrapped. What's the magic number that saves an airframe from that fate? "In fact I've only seen once since." You're kidding, right?
My father-in-law owned one of the aircraft in this video, and he spent a good chunk of time flying us all over creation in it. N37E. Pressurized and turbocharged. It was a good airplane, and I even got a little bit of unlogged control time in it. The video is accurate, it had all of the virtues (and vices) listed. Unfortunately, he was killed (and the aircraft destroyed) in a controlled-flight-into-terrain incident in September 2014. Miss them both.
Indeed, I bought and sold a bunch of 337's and had an old Reims 337 that had been imported to the U.S. and it was different then the Wichita Skymasters. The rear seat was like a Military O2 and it had the holes and spar mounts for hard points on the wings. It was also slower and felt different on the controls, and the panel was a bit different but I bought it for about 1/2 the cost of a Kansas 337, a great value
One of my favourite memories is watching a Lynx perform a very fast treetops height run-in on a target that my unit had tracked and located making camp in dense bush. Because we’d relayed an accurate description of the topography, details of the tree types, and geographical features, we were able to pinpoint the precise location. At the last moment the pilot gained a few feet of altitude, doped a golf bomb right on top of them, then peeled off towards us, losing altitude as he did so to avoid any ground fire! But he was perfectly safe. Mopping up was easy for the ground sweep and stop group. War is hell, but if you target civilians, a quick end is far better than you deserve. And there are a lot more modern platforms and systems available today, but in an asymmetric COIN situation, it’s hard to beat a 337 Lynx. Peace
I got a ride on one of these things from TSN in Saigon to Bien Hoa in 1971 and the pilot showed me how to release the door and said to me just before the take-off that if we got shot down to release the door and "roll out" of the plane. It was a short ride and it was loud and the instrument panel vibrated a lot. That's all I remember. It was at least 40 years ago.
When the 336 arrived in Australia it was hoped the aircraft might prove perfect for Papua New Guinea, then under Australian administration. The territory was notable for its many short bush airstrips served by single engine aircraft and the 336 could use those strips with twin engine safety over what is hostile terrain. The Piper Aztec had good field performance but was a step up in size, complexity and price over the 336. Other twins were designed for speed and not rugged bush runways. The 336 was not as hoped with cooling of the rear engine in the hot and high conditions a major issue. What 336s that didn't crash made their way back to Australia as a bit of a novelty. The BN-2 Islander eventually gave PNG the twin-engine bush plane it needed. The 337 sold in Australia in modest numbers, about 40 across all models. The market preferred conventional twins. Some 337s were used for tuna spotting where the high wing was an advantage but the Aero Commander 500 was better with faster transit times and more comfort. And no struts.
The problem was there was almost no room for luggage as the tail section contained fuel and the rear engine. The Swedish Coast Guard used them for a few years, till most of them lost their wings in flights, replaced by CASA 212s which eventually were retired in the late '90s after one of them lost its wings! Flying in bad weather at low altitude during SAR missions took its claim again!
I have about 80 hours in a 337 and absolutely love that that plane! It was a loud plane and got popped flying out of KSMF (Santa Monica) because I didn't pull the power back enough in the noise abatement takeoff.
we owned 2 336. We used them to haul small packages and some lumber between FL and Family Islands in the Bahamas. Combined we put well over 1100 hours in 6 years. Great platform for utility and sometimes with people.
I find it interesting that no one ever discusses or mention how Cessna came up with the 336 / 337 designation. Their inspiration had to have been the DO-335 (quite possbly the most bad ass aircraft of WW2).
Correct. Dornier still held the patent on inline twin engine arrangement and Cessna paid Dornier royalties to use the design, hence the 336/337 designation
There is a reason I generally do not post. Do you happen to know what Coprolallia is ? It is not opinion it is fact that the 336/337 was inspired by the DO-335
Having read all the replies, I am surprised that I may be the first FAC to post. I flew 300 combat missions in the O-2A. Our normal everyday takeoff weight was reputed to be 500 pounds over civilian max gross, due to all the radios and rockets. Flew it once at an estimated 1,000 pounds over gross. The plane would not hold level flight on the front engine alone, and could barely do it with just the rear unless you jettisoned the rockets and/or flare racks. But it always got me home. It could fly with a lot of bullet holes. The only critical parts were the engines - and me. There were about 2,200 FAC pilots over the course of the war, about half of whom flew the O-2. (The quoted figure of how many O-2s were made is way off, btw) One amazing tidbit is that a few O-2s were ferried across the Pacific Ocean using in-cabin fuel bladders and many refueling stops. Incredible.
When I was living and working in Bogota, Colombia back in the seventies, my business partner, Gabriel (we made television commercials) used a supercub we owned to fly to various clients in the Magdalena valley, such as Cali and Medellin, but we wanted something more survivable at the altitudes and remote rainforests encountered in the Colombian Andes. So we decided we wanted the Super Skymaster with larger engines, pressurized cabin, high single engine altitude and retractable landing gear. Sadly, we couldn't afford one. We did see some of Somosa's U.S. Army Skymasters with HE rockets instead of smoke markers destroy a Red Cross refugee station on the Northern border of Costa Rica with Nicaragua. I still LOVE that airplane!
'67, when 16, me & Dentist near kilt by FAA. He had old Aeronca we had flown all over, but havin' Sunday Dinners at DTE Pilot's Lounge near fatal. FAA Exec pulled Ole Doc over in Restaurant, giggin' him for years of stops w/only 1 radio, & Doc using static for "squawk" of second. FAA not amused, so Doc & "Co-Pilot" had to attend FAA Refresher Course, 1 day a week for 6 Saturdays, beginning next wk. There went our fishin', but Doc agreed to it versus years of fines regarding DTE. Three days later, I biked to Airport, there was Doc gloating over his brand new Skymaster. He had been givin' bunch of our Buds, 1st Day Rides, & noticed Doc bit tired, but he had to show me his Plane! Good Lord it was a beauty, so Doc began his takeoff roll, but remarked not as powerful as this morning, maybe it's the heat of the day? I asked, "Why does your 2nd tach read ZERO? He said expletives gassin' it, I gave 'em little rich, picked gear up instant of lift-off, said veer left, & we just cleared treeline, then Doc shouted, "Gear Up", & couldn't finger out why I didn't answer, so I said, "If I'd have waited for that command, we'd be in that flaming wreck back in the treeline...OF COURSE THE GEAR IS UP!! Doc muttered bunch of, "Oh my's, then requested I fly to Metro, while he napped. Uneventful, woke Doc in time, he readied his landing, just kissing it in, but at Gate, there stood the FAA guy that didn't like us, just a smilin' & a grinnin'. Doc got his 1st lesson of, "Ya can't outrun a Police Radio", as our Buds at Livingston Co. Airport had tattled on us, and by dessert, FAA guy would have, "Clearing a treeline by ZERO inches", as video was on the way, arriving just before dessert. FAA guy just had to spoil our Dinner, so the three of us had to watch it together. DOC sobbin', had so sign rFAA release so could be shown in their training sessions. Doc didn't want nothin' to do with his dessert, so me & FAA guy split Doc's nice big piece of Cherry Pie! FAA guy asked Doc if going to have "Junior" fly us home, to which Doc said, he's not a Licensed Pilot, Sir!" FAA guy finished it with, "are you going to have Junior fly you guys home, Yes or No? Doc said, "Well...ah, I guess so, Sir". FAA guy knowing he had Doc's attention, said "Have nice flights Boys, & see ya on Saturday!!
I started flying with my father when I was about 12. He had an old 1955 canvas Wing Piper tri-pacer. A 4-seat model of the Piper Cub. I just love this Cessna when I saw it, there was one flying out of the airport we were at! It always seems so Advanced to me would love to have had one!
MY brother was a flight instructor / commercial air taxi and LOVED THE SKY MASTER . Anytime there was one to go pick up he WANTED THE JOB . He said it was as easy to fly as a 172 and the rear engine was the best of the twins in ease to fly. He used to really drive people nuts by chopping off power to the front engine and landing with the rear one. He said the skymaster was one of the nicest, most dependable planes he,d evet had the pleasure to fly.
I learned to fly in 1965, but I did not accumulate many hours. However, I managed to log some dual time in a 336. I was enormously impressed with the airplane. It handled not so differently from the lighter, single engine Pipers and Cessnas I was used to. One brilliant thing about this machine was that a Canadian pilot holding a license restricted to single engine aircraft could fly this aircraft in compliance.
I took out the rear seats, leaving 4. With full fuel and 940 pounds in the cabin, it goes 1000 miles at 18gpm and 150 knots. No real blue line speed. Very docile and stable. I love mine.
A good friend of the family who was an accomplished airplane mechanic and pilot was flying a Skymaster when the rear engine failed violently There was short term massive vibration but this stopped almost at once. He shut off the fuel to the engine and called a mayday, then performed an emergency landing at a near by airport. As he taxied to a parking spot he noticed everyone staring at him with their moths open. He understood why once he parked the plane and shut down. A propeller had departed the engine and the imbalances caused the massive vibration until the engine tore itself clean off the mounts. The engine sat inside the compartment with nothing else holding the engine to the plane. The panels should not have been strong enough to support the engine, meaning this was the first thing that should have killed him. If the engine had fallen if the airframe the plane would have been left out of balance and he could have done nothing but crash into the ground. This was not the most astonishing thing though. The reason everyone was staring at him was as the engine was tearing itself off the mounts the one still attached propeller blade had cut clean through one if the tail booms and partly through the other. This should have resulted in the tail coming off the airplane and there could have been nothing he could do about that other than crash into the ground and die. But the tail stayed on. He said he didn't care what the critics said, the Skymaster was a damn good airplane. That particular airplane however, was a write off. You remember the end of the Last Starfighter? The bad guys ship is all shot up, out of control and headed into a crash into a moon? The bad guy first officer says, "What do we do?" The bad guy captain looks up and says, "We die." Most bad ass movie line ever. Bill Decker was that sort of guy. I asked him once about that close brush with death. He said, "Yea, I could have died, but I didn't. By the time I realized how close it was I was on the ground safe and sound. Why be bothered by not dying?
The Cessna Skymaster was 1 of the best single-engine aircraft ever built.... Because most pilots flew it with the rear engine shut down from overheating. Still it did a bang-up job in Viet Nam as a scout and observation plane.
I remember seeing Danny Glover fly a military Skymaster in the great film 'Bat 21' where Glover was obsessed with rescuing Lt. Col. Iceal "Ham" Hambleton played by Gene Hackman.....Incredible true story....Highly recommended....
Had they added two Garrett TPE 331 Turbo prop engines the thing would have been lighter, faster and obviously more expensive but just imagine? Id like to see one modified with a small turbofan in the rear only configuration.
My dad was a Piper dealer back in the 60's and 70's. He used to laugh at the SkyMaster and called it the "Huff and Puff". When the local Cessna dealer went broke we became a Cessna dealer too. Our shop worked on a SkyMaster for a local guy who became a good friend of my dad. My dad could fly anything and of course he wanted to give the "Huff and Puff" a go...so he got checked out in it and actually said he really liked it except for the noise. We had a very busy flight school back then and we hired a new instructor that flew a SkyMaster in Vietnam and loved it and said it could take alot of hits and always brought him back....as a young guy back then I thought the SkyMaster was the Coolest thing at the airport.
I worked for a Cessna Dealer in Illinois. We were never able to sell a single new Cessna 337, but we did service 4 or 5 of them per year. My boss called them "Suck and Blow" Cessnas. 🤠
The Cardinal RG was the most elegant, and the Skymaster looked like it meant business. Probably the 2 most advanced Cessna high-wings, and both retired too soon, in my opinion.
Agreed. My first 400 hours flying, after my private pilot license, was in an RG. 10 gallons an hour at 170 mph wasn’t bad. Fun to fly too. I only got one hour in the Skymaster. Excellent aircraft very similar to the 210.
Someone rebuilt Cessna 337s with a single turbine rear engine and no forward engine. The rearward change in balance was offset by a fuselage 'plug' that extended the cabin forward. I'm not sure but think the new nose section was from a Cessna 310. I saw one on the ground at Watsonville during a stop there. It was a very good-looking aircraft. I have no idea how many were built, but it deserved some success in my book.
I worked for almost 5 years on construction of McKenzie and Dempster highways in northern Canada, north of 60, in the early 1970s. Included in my duties was meeting aircraft when they arrived at our "airport", a wide place on the highway. There were at least 4 Skymasters from 3 different companies providing services to our DPW/ Keen Engineering construction camps. I don't know what models they were but they had a distinct sound. I flew in a lot of small planes and helicopters in those days but I never flew in a Skymaster. I haven't seeen one for a while.
WhenI was a kid, the Cessna Skymaster was my first attempt a building a model. It cost 25 cents…I then turned my attention to a buttload of WWII fighters and light bombers. By the age of 12, I was an accomplished model builder and an avid reader of the air war. Thanks to the Skymaster…she was a gorgeous lady to me…my muse. I was living within a mile of a large Air Force base with the awesome sounds of 4 engine huge bomber powered be the Wright R-3350 18 cylinder Turbo-compound air-cooled radial engines. I can still hear them roar. It was amazing when a series of aircraft took off. And after missions, my old man would show up after the debrief at home, totally exhausted in his flight suit and carrying his helmut. The ambiance was very inspirational for my hobby…
I nearly bought a pressurised version but the cost of maintenance, the very loud noise and the dimensions negative stories I heard about the reliability of the pressurisation system put me off. I settled on a Piper Arrow and although it was much slower, I think I made the right choice. (Another thing was I preferred Lycoming to Continental engines).
My Dad was the VP of a Cessna dealership. When I was about 12 the first one showed up and we went for a ride. Three men and me. What I remember is climbing at a rather steep rate, when the pilot turned off the front engine and we just kept climbing. It was a bit frightening to see the front prop come to a stop. Well, these were veteran pilots. Earlier in life, my Dad was seriously injured in a Cessna 310, again one of the first ones delivered, when a piston rod blew and disrupted the engine cowling with 4 people and a full load of fuel. I was just short of 3 years old at the time. So, was the push-pull design safer... oh ya!
Yup, my brother-in-law and I had a piston seize on the left engine of a 310D and the prop and crankshaft depart and land in the Colombia river after take-off out of Hood River Oregon. as a result of someone putting the wrong pistons in.
Always liked the concept, despite a friend of mine dying with his family when his 336 went down in water just short of the runway - but I think this was likely a heart attack, not an aircraft issue. A nice presentation, but (to be picky) a little proofreading is in order - it is not a "Rare View" of the plane, "Varients" is "Variants", it's not a "Spuper Skymaster" and the average equipped cost did not "almost double" from $98,000 to $100,000. I think it was nicknamed a "Push-Me-Pull-You" (thanks to Doctor Dolittle) not a "Push-Me-Pull-Me". And inNOV-ative made me do a double take!
I interpreted the "almost doubled" comment to probably indicate the increase since its introduction. I don't think the narration indicated the original sticker price, but based on the 310 being seen as "too pricey" at $60k it sort of makes sense that the initial 336 would be somewhere in the 50's - though I admit this is something of a charitable guess, as he really did say it "almost doubled" from $98K to $100K.
We had 32 Reims built 337G on Portuguese AF for long years of good service. Once we had a MG failure and the plane landed on nose wheel and over the sturdy MG doors. Only needed new doors. Only one crash due to airbatics.
I remember the first time I saw a Skymaster. My dad was a pilot for TACA Airlines in Louisiana, Central and South America, in the mid 1960's. We landed somewhere in Central America and I was sitting in the jumpseat behind my dad in the cockpit when I saw this strange looking airplane on the ramp. I asked my dad, "What kind of plane is that?" He answered, "That's a push me pull you."
The cost of certification is hampering the industry... Imagine if the auto industry was still producing VW Beetles, Dodge Darts and Ford Falcons. These were all great designs for their time, but auto efficiency has greatly improved since the 1930's, 1950's & 1960's...
Many thanks! A sad story about the Cessna Skymaster: In St-Barth (FWI) we used to have the Skymaster landing from time to time 'till one day, as the pilot was boarding his plane, his bag was sucked by the rear propeller that was still turning while the front had been stopped. Hélas, the pilot tried to hold unto his bag & was pulled & killed by the turning rear blades... Amen
If it was good enough for the USAF, it's good enough for me! Besides, it looks really cool and futuristic! Some design engineers at Cessna were thinking out of the box!
One reason it was superseded is lack of ejection seats. The USAF was desperate when it was procured. They were reliable and cheap to maintain but best for civilian use.
My grandfather flew many missions over Vietnam in this plane as a FAC and never has said a bad word about this plane. I could sit for hours listening to him tell stories about directing the Jerseys guns or marking targets for a bombing runs or providing as much support as he possibly could for LRRP’s or MacV soldiers under fire. He said it was much better and more reliable than the single engine O-1 Bird Dog.
Interestingly, (to me at least ), the arguably next most famous push-pull configuration plane was the Dornier DO 335, which preceded the 336 and 337 models from Cessna. Dornier had a long history of push-pull seaplanes starting probably with the Do X.
I lived in Youngstown, Ohio in the 60s and an owner had one based at Lansdowne Airport. You knew every time he took it up, it had such a distinctive sound. Loved that airplane mainly because it reminded me of the P-38.
I got to fly one from takeoff to landing, so I have a "twin" in my logbook. I enjoyed the plane and loved it's looks, but found that it handled like a big old Buick in the air; stable, not especially nimble. Which as a student pilot I was grateful for.
This well produced video hits all the marks in my opinion. The narration and graphics combined with tight editing deliver a fascinting, information dense 14 minutes. With great flight videos come great comments and so it here. I was impressed by the segment on the engineering geneology and all the variants.
Place. Hensel Field, Camp Enari, S. Viet Nam. 1968/69'. I was a company mailman waiting at Hensel for a courier plane from Nha Trang. One of these Air Forse Skymasters landed and halted about 40 yards from me. An AF officer got out on the right side and shut the door. He then proceeded to walk straight ahead. I found myself sucking in a big gulp of air in order to scream at him. In that instant he realized that he had forgotten the "pull" aspect of the plane and literally, literally, I say did a pirouette around the propeller. I can imagine how the officer and pilot felt, because I remember quite well how I felt. I am eternally thankful that my memory of that day was seeing that pirouette.
So back in the mid 70's I was CP for a large well-known company and one of the aircraft we had several jets and one 690B Turbo Commander, and I happened to be flying it one day to stay current in the commander and my final pickup that day was at Charlie West and took off with a full load and was climbing out and got a fire light in the Left engine so caged it and called back to the tower and told them I had a problem...they told me I would then be number two for the finale as there was a 337 down in the trees struggling to get back to the airport has he had last his front engine and could not maintain altitude with just the back one...so the 690 could stay up all day on one engine and it was not a problem and waited for the 337 to struggle back to the airport...always remember that about the 337, you do not want to lose that front engine as apparently, it cannot really fly without the front one...interesting for what is sold as a twin engine...not so much.
Never rode in one but I would love to. I know alot of people disagree with me but I just think it has the looks. As the militarized from with few changes the O-2 saved thousands of lives directing close air support and marking targets. From all the aviation history I have studied if you are on the flight line and see a pusher aircraft make a dead stick landing it tends to be the engine overheating or on out right fire.
The huge advantage was, pilots who switched to twins did NOT get all the problems of the usual twins. Think about the horror when one engine says bye bye. Full rudder means you can hardly turn anymore, yes, to the other side, that's not great. The Skymaster however does fly very much like a 172. If necessary on one engine, you simply fly home and land it. Great design. The military version somehow was better? Why?!
I maintained a Riley Super Skyrocket, a pressured 337 with air conditioning and 2 TSIO520 engines from the Cessna 402C shoehorned into the original cowlings. It was a company aircraft and flew at maximum speed all the time.
I learned to fly at KFUL many years ago. We called the Skymaster the 'Crashmaster' as there were a few Skymaster accidents in SoCal at the time. Primary due to overheating and other problems with the rear engine.
I learned to fly on Cessna aircraft in the early 1970's and thought this plane a great! Too pricey for a personal plane for me though. The turbo models were great! Kind of very utility looking, a classy aircraft in its' own right! Sadly never got to fly one.
Yes, I've always wondered why this thing was made. I know personally, being a USAF vet, the 336 or whatever it was called, was used widely as a FAC bird in Vietnam.
There is a gorgeous Skymaster 337 about a half a kilometer from my home. I live next to a very rural airport. She sits there when the farmer is not using it. She wants to come home with me. She told me that. I wish I could help her.
My old boss had a "Mixmaster" as we called it. Or "push me pull you" and other names. Hated working on the rear engine, but it was a cool airplane for the most part. Easy to get in and out of. Don't take your MEL check ride in it though, as you'll be limited to in-line twins. Of where there is basically just the Mixmaster.
It was the noisiest of 160 different types I flew over 30 years as a used aircraft salesperson. It was very mushy on the controls as well. But then, I was contrasting it to the Aerostar, in which I had flown around 4000 hours. One hour is the suck and blow was more than an adequate taste.
I always wanted one of these, and around 1998 you could still pick one up for a reasonable price. I liked the safety factor of two engines and thought the design was gorgeous. Regarding conventional light twins, my old instructor Ray used to describe them as 'two little boys trying to do a man's job'.
12:28 -- close, but no kewpie. It was "Pushmi-pullyu," after the two-headed animal in "Doctor Doolittle." Another name was "Duck" (due to the way the main gear retracted).
The O-2A was out of balance due to the radio rack in the back of the cabin. The attitude indicator and the 289/1E gyro compass were notorious for tumbling due to generator voltage spikes. The tach generator indicator had a sync indicator that didn't work. The O-2B had vacuum driven gyros and didn't have the gyro tumbling problem. It also had civilian style engine instruments which looked like they should have been in a car.
Have time in one for work and the O2 as well. I have seen people do some cool stuff in them. I personally could never get over the sight of the booms doing their dance while in flight.
I have a lot of time in a 337, firstly a nice aircraft to fly. I did water bombing/bird dogging several years. My only complaint is the installed the wrong engines. It was underpowered and the engines never performed well. It was a good instrument platform and with boots quite good in icing. The gear could be finicky at times. With more power it would have been a good bush plane.
I am 81 and have long ago hung up my spurs. I flew over 50 types mostly commercially. My favorite Jet was the Falcon On the light side the Skymaster was one of my favorites along with the older Cessna 150 and the J3. I also loved the Cessna 185 on EDO amphibs@@Neeko-fz1uk
I flew in one several times while conducting wildlife (elk) surveys using infrared cameras at night. I will have to admit that night flying made me nervous but the pilots were both ex-Air Force experienced with flying C-130 gunships.
These were used during the Rhodesian Bush War. They were called Lynx and, fully armed, they were deadly. Underwing rockets and machine guns. Dependable and again....deadly....
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
ATC: Are you a Skymaster?
PILOT: Negative, just a private pilot.
I am Zoltar The Gatekeeper 🐲
@@carlsaganlives6086 I think Zuul is the gatekeeper. Just FYI.
@@barrygoldwater2441 Haha, I knew it was something like that - Zoltar is the magician in the arcade machine that granted the wish in "Big" I think
@@carlsaganlives6086 LOL, right, Zoltar Machine from "Big". Forgot that.
😁
My father was a Cessna dealer in the 60's and 70's, and the 337 was a difficult aircraft to sell back then and very cheap on the used market. When I was 17 years I finished up my Private pilot training and check ride in a 337. A few years later I bought a 66' 337 with only 800 hours for $10,000 and flew it to college. Over the years I've owned, bought and sold 16 337's and had every 337 model, and also 310s 320's, a 340, two 421s, Barons, a Duke, Senecas, and a 700 Aerostar, and while the 337 is not best light twin in terms of performance, payload and room, it remains my favorite light twin to fly and an aircraft I love! I think it's the most inspired airplane design Cessna came up with, and one of the most under-rated and under appreciated aircraft ever.
What sets the 337 apart from many other light aircraft in my opinion, is comfort and visibility. Setting ahead of the wing you have better visibility then any other single or twin, especially in the pattern which is a good safety factor. Passengers seem to love it as it has a warm, solid fuzzy feeling and sound with good visibility and rides nice in turbulence. Also with the high wing, placed in the center of the fuselage, the center of roll, pitch and yaw is centered on the passengers head so less spacial disorientation and air sickness. With 120 and 140gal of fuel you have a lot of range and IFR reserves and it has the best single engine performance of any twin in it's class. The Pressurized models with 225hp and larger props are even better on single engine. When selling P337s I used to demonstrate a simulated single-engine go around with gear and flaps extended to prospective owners. Something I don't any other piston twin can do.
I could go on for pages about the 337 but but I have keep it reasonable I guess.
Very nice story! you are very fortunate to have owned and flown so many different Cessna and other airplane models.
I do agree with you that the 337 is one of the nicest light twins. fell in love when i saw it in a vietnam movie when i was a child.
@@bramesque Thank you. It seems many share an intuitive love the 337.
Many of my fondest flying memories involve 337s, like flying my father (a WWII Navy pilot) on his last trip to his favorite fishing lodge in Canada, or the day a veteran Vietnam O-2 combat pilot approached me on the ramp and wanted to look at my 337 and he said how much he would love to fly one again, I suggested he show me how he flew them. I put him in the left seat and after a couple of perfect approaches landings at a friend's private grass strip on a hil top, he said "you want me to show you how we used to attack a ground target?" I sad "Sure!", he circled close around the hilltop at wide open throttle speeding up to about 200mph, and as we passed a line of tall fir trees he pulled-up, climbed about 500ft, did a half roll and made a bee-line for the picture windows in my friend's living room perched on the bluff of the hilltop and while still at full-power, and with airspeed building and a big grin, said "BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!" Pulled-up just before passing over the house did another half-roll and a ducked behind the hill. He said, "Here you try it!" We did a couple more variations of Vietnam attack runs and returned home with the artificial horizon tumbled and whining.
Being built as a warbird, the engines balanced on both ends, a long wing, oversized ailerons and elevator, over-built and a bit overweight, the 337 actually has a military feel on the controls and is capable of some light aerobatics, the Vietnam O-2 pilot showed me how even in a near vertical dive with power off the 337 builds drag quickly and he said pretty much stops accelerating about 20kts beyond red-line, a feature he claimed saved a few young combat pilots.
The 337 has a few unconventional things that can bite an unaware pilot, like no flap takeoffs where it's possible to over-rotate and bang the tail, or fully retracting flaps on a go around, and as power is added can result in a pitch up. The inter-connected nose trim that rolls in nose-up trim as flaps retract, and that can be a help or a surprising pitch change for those not familiar with it, but most of all is the need to pay attention to the rear engine at all times as a power loss or failure is not as apparent as in a conventional twin. I had one Pressurized (Turbocharged) 337 and a non-turbo 337G that both had a tendency to vapor lock on hot taxis, takeoffs and even approaches on both the front and rear engines. And especially on the Turbo-charged P337 if you added power to quickly during a vapor-lock the engine could flood. I had this happen a couple of times on approach, and rather then fiddle with the funky engine I continued the approach on the good engine. If you experience this check and clean all fuel injectors and screens as a partially blocked screen or dirty injectors seem to contribute to vapor locking. After replacing old worn fuel pumps on the P337, the vapor locking seemed to finally go away.
Keeping up with Exhaust leaks on the turbo and pressurized 337s will likely be an issue for any owner. I can relate a few more issues and suggested practices unique to the 337 if anyone is interested.
Wouldn't it be much better to own and fly the Airbus 220?
@@Kevin-bl6lg Yes, if you are sharing operational costs with 200 friends and family.
Sorry, but claiming it had the best single engine performance of any twin in it's class is absolute rubbish and kind of makes me doubt if any of the rest of your story is true. The one big downfall of this aircraft was it's single engine performance. It was absolutely woeful - particularly so if you lost the critical engine. Whenever the 337 was anywhere near maximum gross weight, if you lost an engine after take off, the only place you were going was down. So much so that the accepted joke was for a multi engine aircraft, the remaining engine was just taking you to the scene of the accident. When I did my type conversion on it the instructor had me conduct simulated rear engine failures to demonstrate how bad it's single engine performance was - and that was when the aircraft was virtually empty with just me and an instructor on board. Completely clean the aircraft would barely climb, even when you were close to ISA conditions. Start increasing density altitude - forget it. You can add in how marginal it's performance was by the fact you needed to delay retracting the gear after take off purely because of the amount of drag the rear doors gave in transition. It was a low drag gear, so in an potential low level engine failure scenario you are better off leaving it extended than risking the performance hit trying to retract it. Doing a dirty go around single engine in a Skymaster would hardly have been safe or demonstrating anything other than how much performance it lacked.
I worked as an A1 Skyraider crew chief with the 6th SOS at Pleiku, Vietnam in 1969. We had several 02-B and 02- A FACS at the base. The main problem with the 02 s was the gear up lock that sometimes did not engage the landing gear when in the retracted position. This was caused by an engineering flaw of the flimsy aluminum panel where the lock was attached to the airframe. One time we had an 02-A that landed on another airfield with a gear malfunction. Since the mechanics lacked the know how to fix it, they used s cargo strap to tie the gear on the ground so it would not retract; the pilot holding with one hand the strap, and in mid flight the pilot lost grip of the strap that wrapped around the rear prop with the result of the lost of the rear engine and making an emergency landing with the front engine and nose gear down, but with the main gear dangling. The pilot managed a perfect landing on the nose gear and the rear gear doors, with no other damage .
Cessna landing gears were/are a problem.
My dad was a passenger in a 182 RG (or maybe it was a 177 RG) when a part in the landing gear broke.
The main gear came out but just dangled uselessly like a dead duck.
He could see the gear and then got a bright idea. He grabbed the tow bar, pushed the door open and pulled the gear on his side into position. The pilots side gear was tied in so this pulled them both in position.
However the gear would not lock into place so he had to hold it in place until touchdown.
Then they just taxied as normal as the weight of the plane held the gear down.
Nice story!
And another nice story about the weak gear.
@@erictaylor5462Your dad was quick thinker and also cool under pressure. That’s what makes for a good pilot.
Thank you for your service, and holy shoot-what a story!
I owned and piloted a C337F. [ ZS-FLC] I regard it as the BEST TWIN ever built. It took me 19 hours to go solo in C172 but only 1h 30min on my 337. It's the best twin idea Cessna's ever had! I had a harrowing incident with my instructor practicing stalls at 9500ft....she flipped on her back and sent us spiraling down. I learned later on that I did not throttle the rear engine back completely which caused the spin. Thanks to my instructor I am here to write this and the aircraft's robust design.
Thank you for sharing! I had an identical experience in a 337 people thought I was making up.
My father was a Cessna dealer and over several decades we owned over a dozen 337's and it's the aircraft I have the most time in, and my near death experience in an inverted spin, in Cessna's 3rd production ser# 337 that was in their sales brochure in 1965-66'. I had two airline pilots interested in it, one was Southwest 737 FO and the other a CRJ driver and CFI whom I let fly from the left seat, who wanted to try to clean stall stall and at about 4000ft AGL over the Oregon coastline, he obliviously left about 20" of power on the rear engine (common in 337's due to friction in the long throttle cable going to the rear engine), and started hauling back fast on the yoke.
The 337 with gear and flaps retracted and a bit of power on takes a pretty high angle of attack to stall, and as we slowed I noticed the the T&B was nearly a ball out to the left, and I said: "You better step on that ball", at which point he added more back pressure and a good foot full of right-rudder sending the ball nearly full left as the right wing stalled and he added full left aileron, which abruptly sent us into a nose-down inverted spin as his buddy, the 300lb 737 driver who unbuckled his belt after takeoff screaming on the cabin roof and kicking me in the in the back of the head. At this point the CFI froze with full left aileron and right rudder as a the coastline filled the windscreens. I grabbed the yoke and had to yell "I GOT IT! LET GO LET GO!" cut power on the rear engine and recovered into vertical dive with the old 337 over red-line and did a high-G pull-out about 1000ft above the trees, but after catching a couple of accelerated stalls just managed to pull out less than 500ft above the treeline.
After that both wanna be Skymaster owners said that was the most dangerous airplane ever made and to get back on the ground ASAP. I took them back up to about 4,000ft and demonstrated clean, power-on stalls with front and rear engine and how being a pusher with the rear engine only required left rudder, and even with no rudder correction, as long as no adverse aileron was added, clean, power-on stalls were aggressive but manageable to anyone who did not inappropriately apply the flight controls, and suggested for the safety of the flying public he go get some real stall-spin / aerobatic recovery training, but to no avail, he insisted he did nothing wrong saying "you have to keep wings level in a stall" I said "yea, but with the rudder not with the ailerons, and especially not after you induce a stall!" Alas they left and no doubt went on to tell people the 337 was the most dangerous, spin-prone airplane ever produced.
Something 337 pilots should consider and understand about stalls and low speed operations with flaps up are:
#1, the that the early model 337's might require left rudder in a climb in with rear engine power only, however this seemed not apparent in later models I owned so some rigging or engine mount angle might have addressed this.
#2, the horizontal Stabilizer and elevator on the 337 is huge and have a lot of authority so you can more easly induce a deep or accelerated stall. Adding power to the rear engine and with flaps-up can induce an unexpected pitch-up.
3, The Skymaster has a very even weight balance or at times aft weight balance, and the added weight of the rear engine can, and with flaps-up as slow speed is very pitch-neutral, and exceptionally light on the elevator, and like a fighter plane, and can over-pitch easily causing a deeper than expected stall, something to be aware of to avoid departure stalls or on go-arounds. Cessna implemented an automatic flap-trim system on the 337 that rolls nose-down when flaps are retracted, due to light and powerful elevator forces to compensate for the light pitch forces during take-off and go-arounds. First-time 337 pilots might be surprised the first time they retract the flaps after landing and see the trim wheel rapidly rolling forward.
4, Is NO-Flap Takeoffs If you read the manual it says No-flap take-offs are NOT recommended. My first high-crosswind takeoff in a 337 I decided to use no flaps and with two people and bags in the rear was surprised that at bout 90mph with normal rotation back pressure, and I was still stuck to the runway. My flight instructor in the right seat said "You going to take-off?" At which point I added some back pressure only to have the nose-pop up and lightly scrape one tail boom and we leap into the air at about a 30 degree nose-up attitude.
My CFI and passengers were not impressed and and said I needed to get my head out of ass, but mentioned that might have been the reason for the restriction on 'No Flap' takeoffs. later we tried a few no-flap take-offs and found you had to be a bit more attentive to pitch control with flaps up and low speed as you lose the nose-down moment with flaps-up and the added weight can cause an over-rotation and tail damage commonly seen on 337's. I'd suggest 337 pilots become antiquated with flaps-up characteristics, and avoid flaps-up takeoffs and not be too quick to retract the last notch of flaps until above 90mph and well established in a climb.
One interesting and unique ground handling 337 trick is that with no-one in the cabin, and with one arm firmly wrapped under one tail-boom to prevent a tail strike, you can yank the nose off the ground and swing and push it around from the tail like an ultralight.
You sound like you would also like the Rutan Grizzly design, for similar reasons.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 Yea that as a cool airplane, that's all but forgotten. The 337 will land pretty short and you can get into a lot of places you can't get out of. The 337 doesn't generate the engine-born lift like conventional twins, and being a bit over-built and overweight and with a semi-laminar wing, it doesn't jump into the air like a 310, Baron or Seneca, and in density altitude situations it rolls a bit.
I worked with Burt about 25 years on a up-scaled Boomerang design for Sky-Taxi start-up Ray Morrow started after he sold his II Morrow Avionics company to UPS/Garmin. I got a demo flight in the Boomerang Prototype and liked it and the design a lot. The Sky-taxi version was similar in size to a Cessna 414. After Ray shut the program I ended up with the fuselage mock-up in my hanger for a while and fished the seats, interior parts out of the dumpster, and briefly tried to find an investor, but after 911 and the 06' financial crash, air-taxi investors were few if any.
A friend who loved Skymasters and was involved in the Prescott Pusher project, secured an option on the old Mitsubishi MU-2/Diamond Jet facilities and we floated the idea of producing a larger 337 style aircraft and had some investor interest, but when we contacted Cessna about doing a joint venture, they were not interested and went as far as hostility pointing out: "If you produce anything that even remotely looks like a Skymaster we will sue your arse off" literally...
I am retired now but in the first 10 years of my 45+ years of professional flying, I got to fly the Cessna 337 for a couple of years. The company I worked for had 2 , along with Cessna 310's they had 8 of those. I was put in the 337 it was only suppose to be for 3 months it ended up 3 years. I liked the airplane. Back then the rules was different than now, you can do a lot more commercial flying in single engines now. The light position twin market is a shadow of what it was when I started. It would not be my first choice for a personal flying machine, due to well the costs of operation of two engines. But if I could afford it I think I would just because well, its different and its just was so much fun to fly!
Exactly... I've bought and sold 16 337s and the airplane I mostly soloed and learned to fly in. There's other cheap twins I would rather fly like a Seneca II because it's basically a Turbo-charged Cherokee 6 with two engines, and does better getting out of high, hot and short strips, and you often get boots so it's a better rocky-mountain airplane, but the 337 is more fun and comfy.
Seu E mail de qusl cidade vc é?
Very much my sentiments as well.
I lived above the hangars on my University's airport. There was a private Skymaster there owned by a married pair of engineers. They were pretty eclectic anyway, but the topper was when the Mrs. showed up to fly the Skymaster to another airport to have the front engine serviced. As in, the front engine did not run. On a hot summer day. I knew them pretty well, well enough to say to her this seemed like a bad idea and pointed out the density altitude. She waved me off and said she had run the numbers and it would be fine. So.... she barely got off, and I watched in prolonged horror as she made the most gradual turn in history, engine screaming, just above the treetops, trying to get it back down. She made it, I pushed it back into her hangar while she, white as a ghost, tried very hard not to acknowledge me or talk about it.
We deployed 337s to effective use in Rhodesia. Very good, reliable and highly adaptable platform. In low level ground attack anti personnel role, they were unmatched. Think of the combined capabilities of a modern Apache and an A10 - at a fraction of the cost, and you’ve got it. In a bush terrain insurgency scenario, there’s still nothing better.
There is a movie which stars the 337 - BAT 21
I remember seeing pics of the Rhodesian aircraft with .303 machine guns mounted over the wings.
Featured heavily in the Gene Hackman/Danny Glover movie 'Bat 21'. A story of real events in the Vietnam war. Excellent movie.
Also in apocalypse now in the siege of the VC river entrance as a spotter .
Actually, that would be the Cessna O-2 Skymaster (nicknamed "Oscar Deuce"), a military version of the Cessna 337 Super Skymaster, used for forward air control (FAC) and psychological operations (PSYOPS) by the US military between 1967 and 2010.
Ask me how I know. Hint: I knew Gene for more than a decade before he passed away in 2004.
Some 0-1 birddogs and then O-2 Skymasters flew out of Udon , Thailand. Spooks were trying to put the Ho Chi min Trail outta business. I was one of the Army guys that spent whole tour in NE Thailand. They called the war in Cambodia and Laos the second front of the Vietnam war. The Thais and Hmong people loved us because we kept the communists out of Thailand.
@@justincase5272 If you are talking about Gene Hackman I believe that he is 93 and is still alive
It is a great movie but sometimes I just scan through it to watch the cool flying scenes 😁
I currently own one of the rare P337G models. I bought it for the safety of having a twin and not have Vmc of a conventional twin. Serenity is a joy to fly.
I heard a lot of noise while flying, what is your favorite plane?
@@Neeko-fz1uk I had a bunch of Skymasters, and the early models with the big windows and light sound proofing are are comparable to a Beech Baron, a 182 or 206. The P337s are pretty civilized and I would say quieter than a Cessna 340 or P-Baron when pressurized. I had a old French Reims version that was pretty much a military version with a civilian interior and little or no Soundproofing and single pane windows and it was LOUD. That was the only 337 didn't like
I had three P337s and thought they were the best of the 337's. I liked the P-Baron and Aerostar and 421 for serious going places better, but the 337 was much less hassle and cost and so much more forgiving.
I have owned 5 of these !! They are great but I prefer the Non-Turbo version which is what we fly now as well as an Epic.
Old CFI here, with not a lot of hours in "Sky Smashers" ... But a few observations:
1: mostly a good airplane as long as you knew a few quirks -- from a CFI POV the one really big blunder that was easy to make was to mis-diagnose which engine is out or worse yet on fire, and shut down/extinguish the working engine. This had to be a key point of training.
2: The 337 was really high maintenance for what it offered. The "monkey motion" landing gear was a maintenance pig, also really upped insurance costs because gear failures were common. Two engines of course means high maintenance.
It is slow for its power and fuel burn.
iMHO the plane that killed the 337 was the 210. Give up the second engine. ... Get a better and much more economical airplane.
In 1968 my father presented me with two plastic models. The first I had ever seen. One of the models was a Cessna Skymaster with maybe 50? parts. The first was a jet airliner with maybe twelve parts, and a red tube of Testor's airplane cement. Of course I left cement fingerprints all over the Skymaster! I had used so much of the tube of cement that before the cement had dried, it looked droopy and kind of sad. But my dad acted proud and smiled at my first efforts.
When I was at Bergstrom AFB, we had a Squadron of O-2s on a taxi way near my unit. In talking to the ground crews, they really loved how easy they were to work on. To change the nose tire, two guys would pull the tail down while one guy would change the tire. It took less than ten minutes.
Exactly! the only twin you don't need a tow bar for, as you can grab it by the tail and and move it around easier than a Cessna 150. But you can also over-rotate and bang the tail on takeoff if you do a no-flap takeoff and get heavy handed on the stick.
When we're you there? I was next door in the CH-53 squadron, '77 to '80.
@deanmccormick8070 I was at Bergstrom from November 68 to November of 72. I was in the 45th recon Squadron and then the 67th Field Maintenance Squadron.
Changing the flex cable used for the tack generator was a bitzh. They built the engine around where the cable mounted into the engine. No way to get a pair of pliers to it. If the tip broke off in the engine and a magnet couldn't pull it out the engine had to be removed.
@@mikecain3134 On the Front Engine or both were difficult. I vaguely remember replacing a tach Generator on an early turbo and, don't recall much trouble, but that was a civilian model.
Did you ever replace the rear engine prop control cables? That's a joy. And the electric (Astrotech?) Cowl Flap motors didn't last long either, and I remember when the replacement planetary gear set went to $800 and the brushes were like $500. I think they were $2500 each to overhaul. I eventually replaced the front motor on my daily driver G-model with an industrial control motor that worked great but it had so much torque I was concerned it might bend the flaps or firewall bracket. I put the overhauled Astrotech back in when I sold it, but for a while I considered trying to STC the retrofit and sell them.
Rear Prop blades were getting pretty scarce and expensive (Like $4,000 each) 20 years ago, and a good reason to do rolling takeoffs with low power on the front engine. I wonder Blades and hubs cost now?
I remember going on a few Air Force TDY's from Myrtle Beach to Fort Stewart Wright Army Airfield with our A-10's in the early 80's. On one of the TDY's....I got a couple rides in our Air Force 0-2's. Within a year...I bought my own Skymaster. I actually loved the aircraft.
In 1965 my dad bought a 337A Super Skymaster. He also owned a couple of 310's. When I was old enough I got my multi eng. rating in a 310 but then was assigned most of the 337 flying. I loved the airplane. It launched my flying career and I retired as a 747 Capt. in 2019. When you hear people making negative comments on the 337 its always from someone who never flew one. Maintenance was involved but our mechanics were good with the 337. We operated our 337 for 23 years and its still on the registry.
Yup, very much my Skymaster experence
It was _okay_ from a maintenance and flying perspective.
IMHO it was no safer than any other aircraft due to its anemic single engine performance, being twice as likely to have an engine failure as a single, and _double_ engine failures not being uncommon due to its highly convoluted fuel system.
For maintenance I actually hated the front engine more than the rear one since there was no room with the nose gear well, the landing gear system was insanely complex (far more complex than a King Air) with tons of actuators, sequencing valves, priority valves, and solenoids. Even the cowl flaps were an absolute nightmare to rig.
It flew okay. The weirdest thing after working your way up the Cessna singles is how light it is in pitch. The one I flew had the Robertson STOL so it floated onto the runway as one of the nicest landing planes I’ve ever flown.
My father owned 2 of them. Awesome and lots of fun. Id rather haul my family around with centerline thrust.
There is an interesting modification to a 336, in Australia. VH-CMY had hinged rear engine firewall, allowing the rear engine, mount and firewall to be swung open to the left and allowing large cargo loading into the cabin from the rear, the only 336 known to have this modification. The plane was operated by Ansett in New Guinea. The l/h i/b flap segment needed to be unlatched and swung down to provide clearance for the engine to swing open. VH-CMY is currently at the Queensland Air Museum.
Took a ride in one in Vietnam, flown by the brigade's USAF FAC/liaison, and we hooked up with a Navy OV-10 for some recreational dogfighting. Amazing flying by those guys (don't remember details- it was 54 years ago).
I flew both C336 G-ATAH; C337's G-AVJG & G-BBBL and C337 Robertson STOL G-BCBZ in 1975/76.
It was my first commercial pilot flying job. I ended up as a Captain on B737 and A320/1.
I was based in Alderney in the Channel Islands and most of our work was flying lorry drivers travelling on Truckline Ferries between Cherbourg, France and Hurn Airport Bournemouth, UK. The ferry was only licenced for 12 passengers so we transported any excess by air.
The Robertson STOL was in my view a bit of a dog's breakfast. It's stall speed was around 38 knots. I never did dare try it out !
The C336 was significantly slower and flew slightly 'nose up'. They all handled beautifully, particularly the C336. Really sharp and precise.
Fond memories.
It was a very good airplane that was quite safe. I’ve flown it about 500-hours in all sorts of weather and onto and off of many kinds of terrain. Saved my butt a few times too! Great bird
@franksgattolin8904
"It was a very good airplane that was quite safe."
Was?
Give us a few stories of in flight happenings, there are many of us who cant fly and would love to read them.
@@Tom-zs6bbhow many are flying today? $$$$
I haven't annualed one since 2008. In fact I've only seen once since.
I got to annual it because nobody else wanted to, and I really liked them.👍👍😎
@@hotrodray6802 "how many are flying today?"
If that's the metric then an awful lot of older airplanes need to be scrapped. What's the magic number that saves an airframe from that fate?
"In fact I've only seen once since."
You're kidding, right?
This plane really captivates me & I would def buy & upgrade one to modern standards if I had the liquidity.
My father-in-law owned one of the aircraft in this video, and he spent a good chunk of time flying us all over creation in it. N37E. Pressurized and turbocharged. It was a good airplane, and I even got a little bit of unlogged control time in it. The video is accurate, it had all of the virtues (and vices) listed.
Unfortunately, he was killed (and the aircraft destroyed) in a controlled-flight-into-terrain incident in September 2014.
Miss them both.
Total production of the Cessna 336/7 Skymaster was about 2468 plus a further 169 built in Reims. Hardly a failure.
Indeed, I bought and sold a bunch of 337's and had an old Reims 337 that had been imported to the U.S. and it was different then the Wichita Skymasters. The rear seat was like a Military O2 and it had the holes and spar mounts for hard points on the wings. It was also slower and felt different on the controls, and the panel was a bit different but I bought it for about 1/2 the cost of a Kansas 337, a great value
The Reims built examples also had anti-corrosion to European standards , much better than US built aircraft.@@jackoneil3933
@1:45, The arrows labeled as "vertical stabilizer" are actually pointing to the wing struts. Vertical stabilizers are a bit higher and further back.
One of my favourite memories is watching a Lynx perform a very fast treetops height run-in on a target that my unit had tracked and located making camp in dense bush.
Because we’d relayed an accurate description of the topography, details of the tree types, and geographical features, we were able to pinpoint the precise location.
At the last moment the pilot gained a few feet of altitude, doped a golf bomb right on top of them, then peeled off towards us, losing altitude as he did so to avoid any ground fire! But he was perfectly safe. Mopping up was easy for the ground sweep and stop group.
War is hell, but if you target civilians, a quick end is far better than you deserve. And there are a lot more modern platforms and systems available today, but in an asymmetric COIN situation, it’s hard to beat a 337 Lynx.
Peace
I got a ride on one of these things from TSN in Saigon to Bien Hoa in 1971 and the pilot showed me how to release the door and said to me just before the take-off that if we got shot down to release the door and "roll out" of the plane. It was a short ride and it was loud and the instrument panel vibrated a lot. That's all I remember. It was at least 40 years ago.
When the 336 arrived in Australia it was hoped the aircraft might prove perfect for Papua New Guinea, then under Australian administration. The territory was notable for its many short bush airstrips served by single engine aircraft and the 336 could use those strips with twin engine safety over what is hostile terrain. The Piper Aztec had good field performance but was a step up in size, complexity and price over the 336. Other twins were designed for speed and not rugged bush runways. The 336 was not as hoped with cooling of the rear engine in the hot and high conditions a major issue. What 336s that didn't crash made their way back to Australia as a bit of a novelty. The BN-2 Islander eventually gave PNG the twin-engine bush plane it needed.
The 337 sold in Australia in modest numbers, about 40 across all models. The market preferred conventional twins. Some 337s were used for tuna spotting where the high wing was an advantage but the Aero Commander 500 was better with faster transit times and more comfort. And no struts.
The problem was there was almost no room for luggage as the tail section contained fuel and the rear engine. The Swedish Coast Guard used them for a few years, till most of them lost their wings in flights, replaced by CASA 212s which eventually were retired in the late '90s after one of them lost its wings! Flying in bad weather at low altitude during SAR missions took its claim again!
It sounds like you have a lot of aviation expertise, are you an airman?
The fuel tanks are in the wings, there are none in the tail (or in the rear of the fuselage).
I have about 80 hours in a 337 and absolutely love that that plane! It was a loud plane and got popped flying out of KSMF (Santa Monica) because I didn't pull the power back enough in the noise abatement takeoff.
we owned 2 336. We used them to haul small packages and some lumber between FL and Family Islands in the Bahamas. Combined we put well over 1100 hours in 6 years. Great platform for utility and sometimes with people.
I find it interesting that no one ever discusses or mention how Cessna came up with the 336 / 337 designation.
Their inspiration had to have been the DO-335 (quite possbly the most bad ass aircraft of WW2).
Correct. Dornier still held the patent on inline twin engine arrangement and Cessna paid Dornier royalties to use the design, hence the 336/337 designation
The Cessna naming of the 336/337 was Not a coincidence.
There is a reason I generally do not post.
Do you happen to know what Coprolallia is ?
It is not opinion it is fact that the 336/337 was inspired by the DO-335
Military is now modifying AirTractors to do the same job that thesis planes did.
I was in love with 3 plans 1 Otter 2 Spymaster 3 A10!
In my opinion, next to the 177 Cardinal, I think the 337 is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever designed. Especially the RG model.
Yep, though the narrator described it as "inelegant." Unfortunately I've not seen one in the air where I live since 1976.
Having read all the replies, I am surprised that I may be the first FAC to post. I flew 300 combat missions in the O-2A. Our normal everyday takeoff weight was reputed to be 500 pounds over civilian max gross, due to all the radios and rockets. Flew it once at an estimated 1,000 pounds over gross. The plane would not hold level flight on the front engine alone, and could barely do it with just the rear unless you jettisoned the rockets and/or flare racks. But it always got me home. It could fly with a lot of bullet holes. The only critical parts were the engines - and me. There were about 2,200 FAC pilots over the course of the war, about half of whom flew the O-2. (The quoted figure of how many O-2s were made is way off, btw) One amazing tidbit is that a few O-2s were ferried across the Pacific Ocean using in-cabin fuel bladders and many refueling stops. Incredible.
When I was living and working in Bogota, Colombia back in the seventies, my business partner, Gabriel (we made television commercials) used a supercub we owned to fly to various clients in the Magdalena valley, such as Cali and Medellin, but we wanted something more survivable at the altitudes and remote rainforests encountered in the Colombian Andes. So we decided we wanted the Super Skymaster with larger engines, pressurized cabin, high single engine altitude and retractable landing gear. Sadly, we couldn't afford one. We did see some of Somosa's U.S. Army Skymasters with HE rockets instead of smoke markers destroy a Red Cross refugee station on the Northern border of Costa Rica with Nicaragua. I still LOVE that airplane!
'67, when 16, me & Dentist near kilt by FAA. He had old Aeronca we had flown all over, but havin' Sunday Dinners at DTE Pilot's Lounge near fatal. FAA Exec pulled Ole Doc over in Restaurant, giggin' him for years of stops w/only 1 radio, & Doc using static for "squawk" of second. FAA not amused, so Doc & "Co-Pilot" had to attend FAA Refresher Course, 1 day a week for 6 Saturdays, beginning next wk. There went our fishin', but Doc agreed to it versus years of fines regarding DTE. Three days later, I biked to Airport, there was Doc gloating over his brand new Skymaster. He had been givin' bunch of our Buds, 1st Day Rides, & noticed Doc bit tired, but he had to show me his Plane! Good Lord it was a beauty, so Doc began his takeoff roll, but remarked not as powerful as this morning, maybe it's the heat of the day? I asked, "Why does your 2nd tach read ZERO? He said expletives gassin' it, I gave 'em little rich, picked gear up instant of lift-off, said veer left, & we just cleared treeline, then Doc shouted, "Gear Up", & couldn't finger out why I didn't answer, so I said, "If I'd have waited for that command, we'd be in that flaming wreck back in the treeline...OF COURSE THE GEAR IS UP!! Doc muttered bunch of, "Oh my's, then requested I fly to Metro, while he napped. Uneventful, woke Doc in time, he readied his landing, just kissing it in, but at Gate, there stood the FAA guy that didn't like us, just a smilin' & a grinnin'. Doc got his 1st lesson of, "Ya can't outrun a Police Radio", as our Buds at Livingston Co. Airport had tattled on us, and by dessert, FAA guy would have, "Clearing a treeline by ZERO inches", as video was on the way, arriving just before dessert. FAA guy just had to spoil our Dinner, so the three of us had to watch it together. DOC sobbin', had so sign rFAA release so could be shown in their training sessions. Doc didn't want nothin' to do with his dessert, so me & FAA guy split Doc's nice big piece of Cherry Pie! FAA guy asked Doc if going to have "Junior" fly us home, to which Doc said, he's not a Licensed Pilot, Sir!" FAA guy finished it with, "are you going to have Junior fly you guys home, Yes or No? Doc said, "Well...ah, I guess so, Sir". FAA guy knowing he had Doc's attention, said "Have nice flights Boys, & see ya on Saturday!!
I started flying with my father when I was about 12. He had an old 1955 canvas Wing Piper tri-pacer. A 4-seat model of the Piper Cub. I just love this Cessna when I saw it, there was one flying out of the airport we were at! It always seems so Advanced to me would love to have had one!
MY brother was a flight instructor / commercial air taxi and LOVED THE SKY MASTER . Anytime there was one to go pick up he WANTED THE JOB . He said it was as easy to fly as a 172 and the rear engine was the best of the twins in ease to fly. He used to really drive people nuts by chopping off power to the front engine and landing with the rear one. He said the skymaster was one of the nicest, most dependable planes he,d evet had the pleasure to fly.
I learned to fly in 1965, but I did not accumulate many hours. However, I managed to log some dual time in a 336. I was enormously impressed with the airplane. It handled not so differently from the lighter, single engine Pipers and Cessnas I was used to. One brilliant thing about this machine was that a Canadian pilot holding a license restricted to single engine aircraft could fly this aircraft in compliance.
I took out the rear seats, leaving 4. With full fuel and 940 pounds in the cabin, it goes 1000 miles at 18gpm and 150 knots. No real blue line speed. Very docile and stable. I love mine.
I think you meant 18gph. At 18gpm, 7 hours (1,000 miles) would consume 45,360 pounds of fuel... :D
@@rogerramjet6134 sorry, I did mean 18gph
@@jimdigriz3436 Those who have, those who will, and those who will again... :)
consumers tend to be the ones who decide if something is good, bad, right or wrong. if you build it, we decide whether you have it right or wrong.
A good friend of the family who was an accomplished airplane mechanic and pilot was flying a Skymaster when the rear engine failed violently There was short term massive vibration but this stopped almost at once. He shut off the fuel to the engine and called a mayday, then performed an emergency landing at a near by airport.
As he taxied to a parking spot he noticed everyone staring at him with their moths open. He understood why once he parked the plane and shut down.
A propeller had departed the engine and the imbalances caused the massive vibration until the engine tore itself clean off the mounts. The engine sat inside the compartment with nothing else holding the engine to the plane. The panels should not have been strong enough to support the engine, meaning this was the first thing that should have killed him.
If the engine had fallen if the airframe the plane would have been left out of balance and he could have done nothing but crash into the ground.
This was not the most astonishing thing though. The reason everyone was staring at him was as the engine was tearing itself off the mounts the one still attached propeller blade had cut clean through one if the tail booms and partly through the other.
This should have resulted in the tail coming off the airplane and there could have been nothing he could do about that other than crash into the ground and die. But the tail stayed on.
He said he didn't care what the critics said, the Skymaster was a damn good airplane.
That particular airplane however, was a write off.
You remember the end of the Last Starfighter? The bad guys ship is all shot up, out of control and headed into a crash into a moon? The bad guy first officer says, "What do we do?"
The bad guy captain looks up and says, "We die."
Most bad ass movie line ever. Bill Decker was that sort of guy.
I asked him once about that close brush with death. He said, "Yea, I could have died, but I didn't. By the time I realized how close it was I was on the ground safe and sound. Why be bothered by not dying?
This is awesome, it looks like you have a great idea for the design of the aircraft, can I have a more conversation with you?
The Cessna Skymaster was 1 of the best single-engine aircraft ever built.... Because most pilots flew it with the rear engine shut down from overheating. Still it did a bang-up job in Viet Nam as a scout and observation plane.
I remember seeing Danny Glover fly a military Skymaster in the great film 'Bat 21' where Glover was obsessed with rescuing Lt. Col. Iceal "Ham" Hambleton played by Gene Hackman.....Incredible true story....Highly recommended....
Spent many hours on this aircraft doing survey work, the single engine performance gave a lot of confidence. Noisy but fun
Had they added two Garrett TPE 331 Turbo prop engines the thing would have been lighter, faster and obviously more expensive but just imagine? Id like to see one modified with a small turbofan in the rear only configuration.
You mean like the Spectrum SA550?
They did have problems keeping their wings in bad weather, adding those engines would mean even more robust wings would be needed!
My dad was a Piper dealer back in the 60's and 70's. He used to laugh at the SkyMaster and called it the "Huff and Puff". When the local Cessna dealer went broke we became a Cessna dealer too. Our shop worked on a SkyMaster for a local guy who became a good friend of my dad. My dad could fly anything and of course he wanted to give the "Huff and Puff" a go...so he got checked out in it and actually said he really liked it except for the noise. We had a very busy flight school back then and we hired a new instructor that flew a SkyMaster in Vietnam and loved it and said it could take alot of hits and always brought him back....as a young guy back then I thought the SkyMaster was the Coolest thing at the airport.
I worked for a Cessna Dealer in Illinois. We were never able to sell a single new Cessna 337, but we did service 4 or 5 of them per year. My boss called them "Suck and Blow" Cessnas. 🤠
The Cardinal RG was the most elegant, and the Skymaster looked like it meant business. Probably the 2 most advanced Cessna high-wings, and both retired too soon, in my opinion.
Agreed. My first 400 hours flying, after my private pilot license, was in an RG. 10 gallons an hour at 170 mph wasn’t bad. Fun to fly too. I only got one hour in the Skymaster. Excellent aircraft very similar to the 210.
Someone rebuilt Cessna 337s with a single turbine rear engine and no forward engine. The rearward change in balance was offset by a fuselage 'plug' that extended the cabin forward. I'm not sure but think the new nose section was from a Cessna 310. I saw one on the ground at Watsonville during a stop there. It was a very good-looking aircraft. I have no idea how many were built, but it deserved some success in my book.
I worked for almost 5 years on construction of McKenzie and Dempster highways in northern Canada, north of 60, in the early 1970s. Included in my duties was meeting aircraft when they arrived at our "airport", a wide place on the highway. There were at least 4 Skymasters from 3 different companies providing services to our DPW/ Keen Engineering construction camps. I don't know what models they were but they had a distinct sound. I flew in a lot of small planes and helicopters in those days but I never flew in a Skymaster. I haven't seeen one for a while.
WhenI was a kid, the Cessna Skymaster was my first attempt a building a model. It cost 25 cents…I then turned my attention to a buttload of WWII fighters and light bombers. By the age of 12, I was an accomplished model builder and an avid reader of the air war. Thanks to the Skymaster…she was a gorgeous lady to me…my muse. I was living within a mile of a large Air Force base with the awesome sounds of 4 engine huge bomber powered be the Wright R-3350 18 cylinder Turbo-compound air-cooled radial engines. I can still hear them roar. It was amazing when a series of aircraft took off. And after missions, my old man would show up after the debrief at home, totally exhausted in his flight suit and carrying his helmut. The ambiance was very inspirational for my hobby…
I loved the Cardinal RG. Performed well, good with luggage, and lower maintenance costs. The local sky-smasher lumbered at best...
1:45 "Vertical stabilizer" arrows pointing to wing struts! Lolol
I nearly bought a pressurised version but the cost of maintenance, the very loud noise and the dimensions negative stories I heard about the reliability of the pressurisation system put me off. I settled on a Piper Arrow and although it was much slower, I think I made the right choice. (Another thing was I preferred Lycoming to Continental engines).
My Dad was the VP of a Cessna dealership. When I was about 12 the first one showed up and we went for a ride. Three men and me. What I remember is climbing at a rather steep rate, when the pilot turned off the front engine and we just kept climbing. It was a bit frightening to see the front prop come to a stop. Well, these were veteran pilots. Earlier in life, my Dad was seriously injured in a Cessna 310, again one of the first ones delivered, when a piston rod blew and disrupted the engine cowling with 4 people and a full load of fuel. I was just short of 3 years old at the time. So, was the push-pull design safer... oh ya!
Yup, my brother-in-law and I had a piston seize on the left engine of a 310D and the prop and crankshaft depart and land in the Colombia river after take-off out of Hood River Oregon. as a result of someone putting the wrong pistons in.
@@jackoneil3933😮
Always liked the concept, despite a friend of mine dying with his family when his 336 went down in water just short of the runway - but I think this was likely a heart attack, not an aircraft issue. A nice presentation, but (to be picky) a little proofreading is in order - it is not a "Rare View" of the plane, "Varients" is "Variants", it's not a "Spuper Skymaster" and the average equipped cost did not "almost double" from $98,000 to $100,000. I think it was nicknamed a "Push-Me-Pull-You" (thanks to Doctor Dolittle) not a "Push-Me-Pull-Me". And inNOV-ative made me do a double take!
I interpreted the "almost doubled" comment to probably indicate the increase since its introduction.
I don't think the narration indicated the original sticker price, but based on the 310 being seen as "too pricey" at $60k it sort of makes sense that the initial 336 would be somewhere in the 50's - though I admit this is something of a charitable guess, as he really did say it "almost doubled" from $98K to $100K.
We had 32 Reims built 337G on Portuguese AF for long years of good service. Once we had a MG failure and the plane landed on nose wheel and over the sturdy MG doors. Only needed new doors. Only one crash due to airbatics.
I heard this news soon. I hope no one was injured. How are you now?
I remember the first time I saw a Skymaster. My dad was a pilot for TACA Airlines in Louisiana, Central and South America, in the mid 1960's. We landed somewhere in Central America and I was sitting in the jumpseat behind my dad in the cockpit when I saw this strange looking airplane on the ramp. I asked my dad, "What kind of plane is that?" He answered, "That's a push me pull you."
I used to work the ramp at John Wayne airport here in Orange County and we always called them the Mix Master. The guys who had them loved them though.
It just feels like new designs that could actually revolutionize the industry just get brushed under the rug. 😊
The cost of certification is hampering the industry...
Imagine if the auto industry was still producing VW Beetles, Dodge Darts and Ford Falcons. These were all great designs for their time, but auto efficiency has greatly improved since the 1930's, 1950's & 1960's...
Many thanks! A sad story about the Cessna Skymaster: In St-Barth (FWI) we used to have the Skymaster landing from time to time 'till one day, as the pilot was boarding his plane, his bag was sucked by the rear propeller that was still turning while the front had been stopped. Hélas, the pilot tried to hold unto his bag & was pulled & killed by the turning rear blades... Amen
One of the best designs in aoronautics. Also 185 Skywagon II was great, but we shared the same hangar with a 336 SkyMaster.
If it was good enough for the USAF, it's good enough for me! Besides, it looks really cool and futuristic! Some design engineers at Cessna were thinking out of the box!
One reason it was superseded is lack of ejection seats. The USAF was desperate when it was procured. They were reliable and cheap to maintain but best for civilian use.
My grandfather flew many missions over Vietnam in this plane as a FAC and never has said a bad word about this plane. I could sit for hours listening to him tell stories about directing the Jerseys guns or marking targets for a bombing runs or providing as much support as he possibly could for LRRP’s or MacV soldiers under fire. He said it was much better and more reliable than the single engine O-1 Bird Dog.
Interestingly, (to me at least ), the arguably next most famous push-pull configuration plane was the Dornier DO 335, which preceded the 336 and 337 models from Cessna. Dornier had a long history of push-pull seaplanes starting probably with the Do X.
A number of them were used in the most unforgiving terrain in the world -- Papua New Guinea. They performed very well.
I lived in Youngstown, Ohio in the 60s and an owner had one based at Lansdowne Airport. You knew every time he took it up, it had such a distinctive sound. Loved that airplane mainly because it reminded me of the P-38.
Wow, it sounds like there are a lot of stories here, are you a veteran?
@@Neeko-fz1uk No stories, I was a fortunate son.
I got to fly one from takeoff to landing, so I have a "twin" in my logbook. I enjoyed the plane and loved it's looks, but found that it handled like a big old Buick in the air; stable, not especially nimble. Which as a student pilot I was grateful for.
This well produced video hits all the marks in my opinion. The narration and graphics combined with tight editing deliver a fascinting, information dense 14 minutes. With great flight videos come great comments and so it here. I was impressed by the segment on the engineering geneology and all the variants.
My friend had a mixmaster, many happy hours flying up the Owens Valley to Mammoth to go skiing, had a stol kit on it too.
My brief time in ac i like em 02....watch temps in rear engine; always lead with rear engine on takeoff.
Place. Hensel Field, Camp Enari, S. Viet Nam. 1968/69'.
I was a company mailman waiting at Hensel for a courier plane from Nha Trang.
One of these Air Forse Skymasters landed and halted about 40 yards from me.
An AF officer got out on the right side and shut the door. He then proceeded to walk straight ahead.
I found myself sucking in a big gulp of air in order to scream at him.
In that instant he realized that he had forgotten the "pull" aspect of the plane and literally, literally, I say did a pirouette around the propeller.
I can imagine how the officer and pilot felt, because I remember quite well how I felt.
I am eternally thankful that my memory of that day was seeing that pirouette.
So back in the mid 70's I was CP for a large well-known company and one of the aircraft we had several jets and one 690B Turbo Commander, and I happened to be flying it one day to stay current in the commander and my final pickup that day was at Charlie West and took off with a full load and was climbing out and got a fire light in the Left engine so caged it and called back to the tower and told them I had a problem...they told me I would then be number two for the finale as there was a 337 down in the trees struggling to get back to the airport has he had last his front engine and could not maintain altitude with just the back one...so the 690 could stay up all day on one engine and it was not a problem and waited for the 337 to struggle back to the airport...always remember that about the 337, you do not want to lose that front engine as apparently, it cannot really fly without the front one...interesting for what is sold as a twin engine...not so much.
I loved every minute I flew the Skymaster. It is still one of my favorite aircrafts.m
Never rode in one but I would love to. I know alot of people disagree with me but I just think it has the looks. As the militarized from with few changes the O-2 saved thousands of lives directing close air support and marking targets. From all the aviation history I have studied if you are on the flight line and see a pusher aircraft make a dead stick landing it tends to be the engine overheating or on out right fire.
The huge advantage was, pilots who switched to twins did NOT get all the problems of the usual twins. Think about the horror when one engine says bye bye. Full rudder means you can hardly turn anymore, yes, to the other side, that's not great. The Skymaster however does fly very much like a 172. If necessary on one engine, you simply fly home and land it. Great design. The military version somehow was better? Why?!
I maintained a Riley Super Skyrocket, a pressured 337 with air conditioning and 2 TSIO520 engines from the Cessna 402C shoehorned into the original cowlings. It was a company aircraft and flew at maximum speed all the time.
There’s a saying. . . “With engine failure in a two, thesecnd engingvwill always get you to the site of the crash”. Not so with the Skymaster
Indeed. As the former of a 172, I lusted after the Skymaster.
I learned to fly at KFUL many years ago. We called the Skymaster the 'Crashmaster' as there were a few Skymaster accidents in SoCal at the time. Primary due to overheating and other problems with the rear engine.
I learned to fly on Cessna aircraft in the early 1970's and thought this plane a great! Too pricey for a personal plane for me though. The turbo models were great! Kind of very utility looking, a classy aircraft in its' own right! Sadly never got to fly one.
Worked the line in the 70s saw an executive 337 , so beautiful
Ascetically I think it’s genius. My father had his Mooney hungered next door to one. I couldn’t keep my eyes off of it.
Yes, I've always wondered why this thing was made. I know personally, being a USAF vet, the 336 or whatever it was called, was used widely as a FAC bird in Vietnam.
There is a gorgeous Skymaster 337 about a half a kilometer from my home. I live next to a very rural airport. She sits there when the farmer is not using it. She wants to come home with me. She told me that. I wish I could help her.
My old boss had a "Mixmaster" as we called it. Or "push me pull you" and other names. Hated working on the rear engine, but it was a cool airplane for the most part. Easy to get in and out of. Don't take your MEL check ride in it though, as you'll be limited to in-line twins. Of where there is basically just the Mixmaster.
It was the noisiest of 160 different types I flew over 30 years as a used aircraft salesperson. It was very mushy on the controls as well. But then, I was contrasting it to the Aerostar, in which I had flown around 4000 hours. One hour is the suck and blow was more than an adequate taste.
I always wanted one of these, and around 1998 you could still pick one up for a reasonable price. I liked the safety factor of two engines and thought the design was gorgeous. Regarding conventional light twins, my old instructor Ray used to describe them as 'two little boys trying to do a man's job'.
My biological father flew the O-2 in Vietnam.
Was shot down 7 times before the military discharged him. He always lost the rear engine.
@1:45 The vertical stabilizers are the vertical tailplanes--not the wing struts.
12:28 -- close, but no kewpie. It was "Pushmi-pullyu," after the two-headed animal in "Doctor Doolittle." Another name was "Duck" (due to the way the main gear retracted).
The O-2A was out of balance due to the radio rack in the back of the cabin. The attitude indicator and the 289/1E gyro compass were notorious for tumbling due to generator voltage spikes. The tach generator indicator had a sync indicator that didn't work. The O-2B had vacuum driven gyros and didn't have the gyro tumbling problem. It also had civilian style engine instruments which looked like they should have been in a car.
Maintained them (O2A) and flew in them in Vietnam. My opinion as a Crew Chief excellent aircraft.
Have time in one for work and the O2 as well. I have seen people do some cool stuff in them. I personally could never get over the sight of the booms doing their dance while in flight.
I have a lot of time in a 337, firstly a nice aircraft to fly. I did water bombing/bird dogging several years. My only complaint is the installed the wrong engines. It was underpowered and the engines never performed well. It was a good instrument platform and with boots quite good in icing. The gear could be finicky at times. With more power it would have been a good bush plane.
Yes, the engine of this aircraft has always been a problem that people have criticized. What type of aircraft do you like to fly?
I am 81 and have long ago hung up my spurs. I flew over 50 types mostly commercially. My favorite Jet was the Falcon On the light side the Skymaster was one of my favorites along with the older Cessna 150 and the J3. I also loved the Cessna 185 on EDO amphibs@@Neeko-fz1uk
Great aircraft! Flew in them several times in early 70’s!
I've always loved the look of the Cessna 337 Skymaster in the movie Bat*21 (1988), one of my favorite movies with Gene Hackman.
1973, Utapao Thailand, we had acres and acres of 0-2'S in open storage. They were still there when I left in the fall of 74.
I flew in one several times while conducting wildlife (elk) surveys using infrared cameras at night. I will have to admit that night flying made me nervous but the pilots were both ex-Air Force experienced with flying C-130 gunships.
I've always loved them... watching one dance around in the movie Bat21 was lots of fun
These were used during the Rhodesian Bush War. They were called Lynx and, fully armed, they were deadly. Underwing rockets and machine guns. Dependable and again....deadly....