Cessna 337

[Troopie]

Howdy all!

Got endo training for 337 next week and gig a couple of months down the track in QLD.

My Q is - how do you log the times? I have searched and to no avail.

There are differeing opinions. I understand in the US it is logged as multi, but annotated with "centre line thrust".

Is there anyone who has flown one, or actually knows?

Thanks in advance ,

Troopie

[kiwiblue]

Under NZ law, all centreline-thrust time is logged as single-engine. Not too sure about Aus, but wouldn't imagine it's too different.

[Riding the Goat]

All the guys in OZ that I know that have 337 time have logged it as multi (its got two engines!) Not sure of the official reference.

They can actually be a little trickier in an engine failure as their is no dead leg so choosing the engine to feather may take a second longer. The rear engine also provides a lot more thrust so can make a lot of difference to performance depening on which engine goes.

[Troopie]

Thanks for the replies chaps.

I figured that it should be logged as multi. While it won't be as physically demanding to deal with the engine failure, it might take a bit more thinking before identifying the engine/trouble checks/feather etc.

Its no biggie anyway, I'll ask the ATO when the time comes

Troppadooper

[tinpis]

You wont have any problems indentifying which engine has failed
If its the front one youll start drifting down at a gentle glide angle
If its the rear one fails you'll start drifting down with a glide angle of a greased crow bar
Good luck

[Howard Hughes]

Don't forget your EFATO procedures, pitch up, power up, flap up, GEAR DOWN!!

Made that mistake once, only piston twin I know with speed brakes...

As for your original question, log it as multi, you know you want to.

[c100driver]

Can you back up that statement?

Originally Posted by kiwiblue

Under NZ law, all centreline-thrust time is logged as single-engine. Not too sure about Aus, but wouldn't imagine it's too different.

'



Which New Zealand law would this be? Could you quote me the rule that states this as I don't know where it is?
Would this mean that the B727, Citations, Lears, B777 (auto rudder for E.F.) also be logged a Single engine

I have only found rules that mention you must use a "non centerline thrust multi aircraft" (CAA wording from part 61) for a non centerline thrust multi engine instrument rating demonstration.

The bottom of the logbook blurb reference is not covered under a Rule or Act and no legal basis, unless covered buy Act or Rule.

If you can tell me where this is I would be greatful, and better informed

Thanks in advance.

C

[kiwiblue]

C100 -it's been some years since I studied av law, but that is definitely the way it stood in particular reference to the C337 and other CENTRELINE thrust aircraft. If that has changed, then it has snuck under my 'radar' -I'm not current in the 337, and I'll be happy to stand corrected. May I suggest YOU appraise the relevant legislation (as you are obviously much more recently current on it than I, and you may care to post the results of your research here.
Check your definition of centreline. The other airframes you mention are NOT centreline thrust, even though the engines are very close to the airframe centreline, they are offset and as such will exhibit ALL the characteristics of assymetric thrust (to varying degrees) as displayed by other airframes with the thrust-lines further outboard. Indeed that is the very reason aircraft like the C337 were to be logged as Single time -they did not exhibit ANY assymetric thrust characteristics in the engine failure. That is also why a non-centreline thrust aircraft is specified for the multi IFR.

Spot the keyword?

I'm sure there are any number of people within CAA House that would be happy to respond to your query.

[kiwiblue]

further...

Whilst shopping for tea, some other thoughts occured, which I missed in my previous post and are relevant to this discussion...

Take the (extremely simplistic & fictional) case of a pilot with, lets say 10,000 hours muti time in (only) a C337. On the face of it, an extremely well-experienced and competent twin pilot.
However, put that same pilot in a more 'conventional' twin, lets say a Seneca which suffers an engine failure at or shortly after rotate... that pilot is going to have precisely NO IDEA of how to handle assymetric (that term again) thrust. The consequences would (probably) be tragic. That is (in part) reason enough to log centreline-thrust aircraft as single, and predominantly the reason I stand by my original post.

I'm sorry -I fail to see your point with regard the B-777? and, I quote:

for a non centerline thrust multi engine instrument rating demonstration

I was never aware of such a "non-centreline-thrust multi-engine IFR rating"... when I did mine it was simply multi-engine IFR, with the condition that a centreline-thrust aircraft was not appropriate for the flight-test -again, because of its lack of assymetric thrust 'attributes'. Has that much changed in Aotearoa of late??? The rules and reasons always made perfect sense to me.


My recommendation (for what it is worth) would be to make certain with your local regulator that logging multi time for centreline aircraft is indeed appropriate.

[kiwiblue]

Originally Posted by Howard Hughes

Don't forget your EFATO procedures, pitch up, power up, flap up, GEAR DOWN!!

(my bolding KB)

Sorry HH, I have to take you to task on this one... why on earth would I put the gear down on an aircraft that has just lost something in the order of 70% of its available thrust when I want to fly it around a circuit to a safe and controlled landing???

I want the drag minimised, which to my way of thinking is gear UP until the landing is assured on the subsequent approach then, and only then, gear down. Let's face it, these light-twins are never flush with power and are going to struggle to make a safe circuit and approach on one engine, with little or no margin for error, or excessive drag.

There would have to be a fundamentally compelling reason to put the gear down as a part of the EFATO procedures... which I'm afraid eludes me. I may have missed something, so would appreciate your clarification.

[Towering Q]

Troopie, I was taught to apply full power to the rear engine first in the take off roll and then introduce full power to the front engine. This was done to establish that both engines were developing sufficient power. You should feel the increase in acceleration (don't expect anything too mind blowing) upon opening the tap for the second engine.
Otherwise if you advance both at the same time you may not detect a problem with either engine. Not something you would normally try in a conventional twin.
Kiwiblue, HH may be referring to the airbrake-like gear doors fitted to the 337, they create considerably less drag when down and locked than when in transit.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day 'Kiwi'....

Maaate,
IF you are ever actually going to fly this aircraft........

Then, BEFORE you ask such a question... maybe you should take a good look as to what 'comprises' the landing gear - doors and all - and the sequence in which they operate, note just 'what' the wheels actually 'do' , then, send a little note of thanks to HH for the clue....just in case your 'instructor' didn't...

Good luck.....and be carefull....

[Ratshit]

Originally Posted by kiwiblue

(my bolding KB)

Sorry HH, I have to take you to task on this one... why on earth would I put the gear down on an aircraft that has just lost something in the order of 70% of its available thrust when I want to fly it around a circuit to a safe and controlled landing???

I want the drag minimised, which to my way of thinking is gear UP until the landing is assured on the subsequent approach then, and only then, gear down. Let's face it, these light-twins are never flush with power and are going to struggle to make a safe circuit and approach on one engine, with little or no margin for error, or excessive drag.

There would have to be a fundamentally compelling reason to put the gear down as a part of the EFATO procedures... which I'm afraid eludes me. I may have missed something, so would appreciate your clarification.

No big mystery here! Same as the C210, gear doors or no gear doors.

Go somewhere and watch a C210 take off - note what the wheels do.

I don't think HH is advocating you should put the wheels down if already up, so much as leaving them down if down when EFATO strikes.

Cheers

R

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

HH.......I never knew you'd done time in the ole Mixmaster.

Rat**** has hit the nail on the head.......Leave the bloody gear alone! Cycling the airbrakes/barn doors/gear doors will do one no favours. The drag from those fellas can be felt to slow the ship with both engines operating. Leave the gear until a safe height and you've feathered the offending prop. The exception to all this is of course if your particular aircraft has had these clamshell type doors removed!!

The other point of interest is, if your example has the fully hydraulic gear and the factory-standard single hydraulic pump, you'll be pumping the gear to where you want it once you feather that engine. I'm straining here, but from memory it was the front where the sole unit was fitted if that's the case. Somebody might be able to confirm this.

Towering Q also makes a very valid point to add power rear engine first to ensure all is well with your rear end. Now bring it on you amateur proctologists!! This also has the added benefit on gravel strips, of minimising stone chips on the front prop.

Also, care may need to be taken with some examples to keep rear engine temps in check, in which case just use the cowl flaps.
As for logging it..........just consider the SE ceiling graph and think about crossing the Great Divide anywhere around eastern Vic/southern NSW in winter! There's more to dealing with an engine failure in a multi than controlling yaw! And it was a ME aircraft last I looked.

Having said this, it can be flown at night with a SE NVFR rating, but cannot be used to renew a ME Instrument Rating. At least this was the case when I last flew one.

[kiwiblue]

OK, thanks for the info. That would appear to be one of those fundamentally compelling reasons! Treating this particular aircraft as a 'stiff-leg' in EFATO obviously sounds like a good idea! Griffo: My question was valid, my post stands, regardless of your opinion of it. RS & RFKB thanks for posting educational information! Will be kept in mind should I ever approach a 337 or indeed a 210 in future!

[weasil]

True Story...
Back in my instructing days I taught a lot of foreign students (chinese/arab). One of these guys is flying the 337 solo while working on his commercial and as he returns to Oakland Intl he calls the tower

"Oakland tower, cessna 19EZ downwind 9L" (In chinese accent!)

Tower responds

"Was that last aircraft calling the Skymaster?"

Pilot "Ah, no I'm not the skymaster but my instructor says I am a very good pilot!"

[Howard Hughes]

Originally Posted by kiwiblue

(my bolding KB)

Sorry HH, I have to take you to task on this one... why on earth would I put the gear down on an aircraft that has just lost something in the order of 70% of its available thrust when I want to fly it around a circuit to a safe and controlled landing???

I want the drag minimised

You don't actually put the gear down, but if it is already down the EFATO procedures in the POH call for GEAR DOWN!!, until a predetermined height (200ft rings a bell, although it could be more, it has been a very long time since I have had the pleasure), now this goes totally against the principles we have learnt for all other multi engine aircraft.

As I have made this mistake once myself, I was merely pointing out one of the pitfalls of the venerable 337, to a future 337 pilot. In my case, the factories at Moorabbin rose up faster than I have ever seen in any other aircraft I have flown, I would not like to see it again!!

Cheers, HH.

[kiwiblue]

Yeah HH, i see & appreciate the point (and reasons!) now, thanks... just that wasn't apparent from your original post

[Ratshit]

Its not just the gear doors - the wheels turn somewhat side-on to the airflow before going up into the wells - therefore drag increases significantly before eventually decreasing.

R

[Towering Q]

Reverse flow.....it is definitely the front engine that has the sole hydraulic pump. A former colleague found out the hard way when doing his endorsement. The front engine was shut down and when gear was selected down it never came down. This went unnoticed and thankfully the pod aborbed most of the impact.

A LAME with a sense of humour offered to fit castor wheels to the new pod.