Cessna 337 on single PPL.
 

In the 70's I qualified on a PA28 VH-IAL at BWU (Bankstown} N.S.W.
My Australian licence covered any endorsed single, up to 9 pax.
It also covered flying a twin Cessna 336 / 337. I would like to know
why this was the case with the 336 / 337. ? I continued to increase
my hours at Peach Tree deKalb in Atlanta, after getting an FAA
endorsement.

Lance Shippey

Centre-line thrust; i.e. no asymmetric problems

LS,

But under FAA rules, multi-engine is still multi-engine. I don't know what you meant by "FAA endorsement".

If you got an FAA MEL on your FAA license using a C337 as the first airplane it would be limited to centerline thrust as Herod said.

I must be missing something here.

Australia did some strange things, A Cessna 182 endorsement automatically gave you an endorsement on a Cessna 180, even with tailwheel time on Chippies, Auster and Tiger a 180 without having some dual would have been a step too far.

In an article in 'Flying Review International' (mid '60s) about the Cessna and a French built aircraft also with 'pushme-pullyou' configuration, it said the FAA issued a special 'CLT' rating for it.

The Moynet Jupiter, sadly never produced...

Thanks for the "Centre-Line Trust" answer. Whilst training, I had
endorsements on my licence to fly Cessna 150/172, Grumann
AA-5A / AA-5B Piper PA28 (Various models) After getting my
Aussie Licence, was told by my examiner , who was also my
training captain, that I could hire the Chieftain Aviation C337.,
on my licence after being issued an endorsement on the C337.

I was also informed that to fly in the U.S.A., I would require an
FAA certificate , which I got after 40 minutes of flying with Epps
at DeKalb (Atlanta), The FAA certificate (rather than FAA
endorsement). then allowed me to hire a Cherokee Dakota
from them. I didn't discuss the 337 with them, as it would have
proved too expensive. Hope this clears up the question of
FAA endorsement.

C337 Twin
 

Although the C337 had no assymmetric issues an engine failure would need to identify the 'failed unit' which has to be done on instument readings as opposed to the classic twin 'dead leg dead engine' situation.
In reality an EFTO is no better in a 337 as if the gear is cycling the drag from the doors opening exceeds the single engine performance. The take off should also be started on the rear engine to check it is giving full power then following with the front. this was to stop accidents caused by pilots continuing a t off run on only one engine which would not be a happy event. In fact the C337 is no easier to operate than a convential twin and has a more complicated fuel system than a single. Having said all of that i operated a Robertson Stol version for many years out of a 400m strip, it was great fun and performed as per the brochure with a full load. Single training would not have been sufficient to operate a C337 safely,unless a comprehensive 'check out' of systems and handling given.The CAA required a twin conversion endorsed Centre Line Thrust only. In reality the only benefit with CLT is you do not loose directional control with engine loss,however you do loose CLIMB PERFORMANCE, and consequently any emergengy drills have to be completed switly and correctly to 'claw' any height. A somewhat 'quirky machine that needed to be 'known' but had great handling and economy.

Hi POBJOY

I have a serious doubt about MEP class rating.

As long as I am a Professional Airline Captain, with current ATP ME IR in jet airplanes, am I able to use this privileges to fly a Multi engine piston aircraft or do I need a MEP renewal before?

Second question: my last revalidation on MEP was in 2009 on a Seneca II, how many hours do I need to fly on MEP before I will have a proficiency check?

Thanks Janka

Janka, please check EASA part-FCL for the renewal requirements of your MEP rating. If you fly an airliner you have a type rating, that does not allow you to fly a MEP as that is a different rating.

Tell that to the chaps in the museum at Angers! After an eighteen year restoration, they've now been flying F-BLKY for a couple of years. The other example is static in the museum at le Bourget.

I recall, after my first solo, taxying onto the grass at
Bankstown (BWU) to pick up my Instructor. I got out
out The PA28 to stretch my legs, I heard a strange
engine noise coming from the Chieftain avn. C337.
It appeared to be climbing after airborne from the
centre runway almost vertically. Suddenly, a piece of
undercarriage door fell from the climbing aircraft, and
came to rest on the grass between the centre and
left rnwy. I guess the C337 must have been the STOL
version. ?

Lance Shippey.

No shortage of doors to choose from
 

After a few trips in the 337 it was possible to 'confirm ' the doors closed by the 'tune' as they clomped in or out. After t/off and especially during s eng training it was important to know they were stowed. A main door stuck open was akin to a braking parachute. I have to say in several years of STOL ops in one the doors never gave a problem, but the main UC system did not have a manual back up if the mail hose went. Having said that the STOL version was great fun, and the French festooned theirs with all manner of guns and rockets.

hello
I have over 700 PIC hours now in the 4 years I have been flyng it as a forest fire detection pilot in Northern Canada..just now got a Robertson STOL kit modified C337G...wow..what a machine !!!..would like to exchange some gen about this kit re performance etc...

The fuel system has been mentioned and has a 'gotcha'. A 337 turned up at Portimao on an experience flight from Spain prior to buying it. New owner IIRR was German and bought along a female acquaintance. On take off, he apparently was running both engines off one tank and the resulting loss of power and climbing ability put them into an earth berm beyond the runway. Both died.
Probably inexperience on type led to him continuing the t/o rather than realizing a problem and aborting.

In Canada there is a requirement to.obtain a CLT (Centre Line Thrust) rating.
One lively debate I recall was whether or not to immediately retract the gear in the event of an engine failure on takeoff was a good idea. One school of thought was “Yes, of course, why not?”. The other was “Hell no! If you select Gear-Up the barn sized gear doors will open leading to a huge increase in drag at low speed and altitude! Wait until you are at at least 500 feet and climbing before selecting Gear-Up!”
I wasn’t flying the 337 so don’t recall the outcome of the debate.
Some of the guys luved the aircraft some didn’t.
I got to try it out for a few hours with a pilot-engineer friend who knew the aircraft very, very well and it was sure nice to fly. I was flying a Cessna 185 at the time but found the short field performance of the 337 was nothing to laugh at.
The boss had an interesting experience one dark night when the rear engine crankcase split and exploded. He said the loud noises and strange glow in the clouds it kind of focused his attention
It was only on landing back at base that he discovered that the fire had burned both rear tires (this allowed for a quick deceleration upon touchdown.)
The damage was impressive to see, amongst other damage caused by burning oil there were even burn marks and burnt paint on the horizontal stab. Rear prop spinner looked like a missile nosecone after re-entry and the prop blades were badly burnt from the hub to about 12 inches outboard. The crank case was split right down the middle.

The engines are def the weak spot for the 337, ok for sensible private use, but not beefy enough for single eng training and multiple shut downs. As to the eng failure/gear issue then if it is down leave it there the 337 gets real 'draggy' during deployment and the performance on the front eng rather lacking. The Robertson Stol full mod is great and improves performance but the best answer to performance is to keep the weight down. As to the cowl flaps they are best left wide open.

I gave someone a flight review in a 337 once. It was quite fun ... until he rolled it :uhoh:

I always thought it was a confusing name/number, given that 337 was also taken for the Form 337

Didn't Cessna deliver one to an airshow using just one engine? Landed, then pulled the rear prop out of the cabin and proceeded to bolt it onto the rear engine in front of everyone?

I did read an accident report where the pilot couldn't start one of the engines, so tried to take off on one, hoping the airflow over the other would start it turning ... except it didn't :(

That's pretty much all I know about them, except they're roomy enough to make a great skydiving aeroplane ... well apart from one significant disadvantage :eek:

I used to use one for skydivers by shutting down the back engine as they leapt out.

That was the Aero Commander 500 during certification.