C337 twin or single?

[OBH]

Hi guys and gals

This may be a real obvious question... Do you require a multi endoresment to fly a C337, and being centreline thrust is it actually single or multi time?

;)

[Howard Hughes]

You do require an endorsement to fly it and it is a multiengine aircraft.

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[Jamair]

A multi is a multi is a multi; yes it is a multi engine aeroplane, yeah you do need an endo, no a 337 endo wont let you fly other 300-series Cessnas, and the front of most log books states that flight time in centreline thrust aircraft is to be logged as SE....... :confused:

[Icarus2001]

Jamair, I have checked the ATC logbook and the CASA log book and could find no reference to logging time in a multi engine aircraft in the single engine column.

What would multi engine helicopter pilots do in such a case?

[Ang737]

Its rumoured also that Cathay dont count 337 twin as multi when selecting wannabe pilots.

[McRippy]

thats so stupid how often do drivers fly them planes round with one engine i thought when looking at multi time would be more about the managment of two engines and the whole work load and not the asymetric flying

[Dupre]

From my NZ logbook (front page)

"Centre-line Thrust Aeroplanes: Time spent in centre-line thrust aeroplanes shall not count as multi-engined time."

I totally agree this is stupid - maybe it shouldn't count as multi-time towards a multi-rating (as you do need to be proficient in asymmetric operations) but in normal operations, the C337 has all the performance and complexity of other light twins.

Dupre.

[AerocatS2A]

Yes, but if you think about it, while both engines are operating on a twin, it's really no different from a similarly complex single. What's the difference between an Islander and a C182? The BN2 is slower and has two of everything, it doesn't require any extra skill to move two sets of levers and look at two sets of engine instruments. So going by your logic, all twin time should be logged as SE time unless you're actually assymetric.

[Tinstaafl]

Logging it as a single might apply in NZ but that's not the case elsewhere.

In Oz an endorsement on the a/c is required regardless, however for the purposes of Night & Instrument ratings it's considered a 'single' and may be flown at night or IFR using a rating limited to single engine a/c. The reason is that it doesn't display the adverse & severely degraded asymmetric handling qualities of conventional twins.

[QNIM]

Gday

For my two bobs worth, when an engine in a conventional twin isn’t delivering the required power at least your feet are telling you something is amiss and which one, centreline unless the front one seizes your first indication is a drop in performance so early time the only indication is EGT so I know which I would rather have a failure in. I would have to agree with Aerocat, when it’s all ok it’s just another aeroplane.

Cheers Q

[Jamair]

Ic2001 - bvggered if I know.......helicopters are for people who like to hover, and hovering is for people who like to fly but don't have anywhere to go....:p

[Sqwark2000]

Just to add to another NZ uniqueness,

A full 5hr initial multi engine rating is required for a type rating on centreline thrust multi engine aircraft if you are not already the holder of a multi engine rating.

S2K

[Towering Q]

They (NZ), shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If you can't log 337 time as multi then you shouldn't be subject to the 5 hour initial multi rating.:*

[the wizard of auz]

Did mine in an hour.
nothing hard about em. just remember to leave the gear alone when going through your engine out drill. them big doors will cost ya 10knts.

[rosscoe]

C337 requires a multi engine endorsement in Australia as well.

So if you don't have a multi endorsement already you have to do the full endorsement time.

If you then want to fly other multi engine then you have to do the full multi engine asymetric endorsement. So you are better of having a multi engine endorsement on something else first (eg PA30 or BE76) then doing a C337 endorsement which should be no more than an hour or as the flying training organisation you use requires.

As stated just don't try pulling the wheels up during an engine failure as it costs at least 10kts and upto 300ft especially with a rear engine failure. See Bundaberg accident about 2 years ago.

[tinpis]

Expect a gentle ride down if you lose the rear engine.The thud at the bottom be up to you.
Flew 336s in PNG they would lift a load out of a short strip a 185 wouldnt touch,

Balus mix masta bilong Jisas Kraist

[OpsNormal]

Pullim I come pussim I go?

Tin, having never flown one meself, someone I spoke to/with at one stage mentioned they had the same profile wing (laminar) as a 210, but with struts. That sound right?

Geeze they'd wanna be good to outlift the 185, but then again with two airfloggen fans they'd have a better bite on the rare air in the highlands.

[notmyC150v2]

Ok so what would the endorsements be for this particular one.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=681350&WxsIERv=Q2Vzc25hIDMzN0cgU3VwZXIgU2t5bWFzdGVy&WdsYXMg=VW50aXRsZWQ%3D&QtODMg=TWFsbG9yY2EgLSBTb24gQm9uZXQgKExFU0Ip&ERDLTkt=U3BhaW4%3D&ktODMp=U2VwdGVtYmVyIDIyLCAyMDA0&BP=1&WNEb25u=SmltIFdvb2Ryb3c%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=RUMtSUdU&MgTUQtODMgKE=&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MTE1&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwNC0xMC0wMw%3D%3D&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes

[Torres]

Advice from God in Australia indicates:

To all intents and purposes (inline engine aircraft) are currently regarded as a single except that there is an endorsement requirement before one can fly the aeroplane. Under (the new) Part 61 the requirement for endorsement may be dropped. In both cases the aeroplane will be logged as a single in relation to flight time.

[rosscoe]

Torres

What document did this come from as I can find no mention of this in:

http://rrp.casa.gov.au/drafts/draftmos061_v3.pdf

Which is the draft of the new MOS Part 61.

I'd be loath to allow anyone to fly my C337 without being endorsed on type. Witness what happens when the endorsement is not done correctly (Bundaberg accident).

[Capt Fathom]

Balus mix masta bilong Jisas Kraist

OR

em i kam, em igo olgeta!

[robroy]

Sorry Tinpis,

Mix masta belong J C , etc, is a helicopter, a 336/7 is a, pushem me go, pullem me come.

Flown them both and I have savva belong TPNG.

Cheers

robroy

[tinpis]

Yup robroy youre absolutely right I dont know what made me put that up there .Lapun pinis?http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/old.gif

:hmm: EXcept.......

I think it was pullim i kam pusim i go

oh...ohh...just another thought..Cessna named it the "Skymaster"so it naturally got "Mixmaster" among pilots not necessarily in PNG.

[gaunty]

Just like all piston twins it's a single with dispersed power.:} :ok:

OpsNormal

It's a while since I saw Mixmaster but your comment re the wing stirred the other brain cell.

It was a great STOL performer on both and overall a great and safe "twin" for its time.

Around the mid 70's Cessna changed all of the singles wings to a reflex leading edge, I think it was called camber lift although that might have been referring to the new wing tip.

With the exception of the , C207, C210 and i'm not sure about the C336/7, but I have a recollection it did not as it came too late in the production life cycle.

It made a significant difference to the lift and strip performance.

It's that concavity under and behind the leading edge. It's one way of quickly identifying the year model and whether to add a cuppla hundred metres to the TO/Landing dist. :)

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

Gaunty .......I may be mistaken, but I had believed the leading edge "concavity" to be part of the aftermarket STOL kit that some of them got!?

Wiz, Rosscoe .........agreed! Judicious use of the geardoors come airbrakes is good advice, unless you're in one of the fleet that have the electro-hydralic gear system without the airbrake gear doors! These have simple wells......ala C182/C210 This too I think, is a mod of sorts.

The other consideration of course is, if it is a buggy with the ole hydraulic gear system.............Does it have the standard single EDP or the optional second one fitted too?? Although if you're up for a challenge and memory serves me correct, you can pump the wheels up as well as down.:ouch:

Then there's SE sevice ceilings.............How many other twins out there have such a marked difference in performance as Rosscoe mentioned???

While not an exhaustive or extensive list of the idosycracies of the type, it is most surely enough to raise an eyebrow of mine at the thought of guys & gals out there in them without any ME training or "official" endorsement training that may only incorporate a fraction of the current syllabus! :ooh: No matter what column your putting it in!!!!!

[the wizard of auz]

Yup, I seem to remember pumping the gear up. also pumping the doors open on the preflight.
There another little trick to remember.........on the older models, they only had one hydro pump........engine driven, on the front. dont try to land one on the rear engine and leave the gear till late final, it really scrapes up the paint on the pod. :} , as a certain instructor in a certain Goldfields town discovered.
I have flown two models, years apart from each other, and the wings and perfomance were markedly differant. the less older one had a laminar flow type wing and the older one had a huge chord and looked like it should have been on an ag plane. I prefered the older one ( 67' model) as we were lifting some veeeeery heavy loads with it.

[gaunty]

PT6 it might have started that way but it was factory standard for all the high wings except the C210, C207 and the C337.

Young players found often to their surprise that a C207 wasn't just a stretched C206.:eek: