AEROPOD wrote:

That's awesome ! ! I would rather have a 336 on Amphibs than a 206... Anybody know anything about this Skymaster?

N300RE wrote:

AEROPOD wrote:

That's awesome ! ! I would rather have a 336 on Amphibs than a 206... Anybody know anything about this Skymaster?

http://www.cessnaowner.org/forums/topic.html?id=12176

Sounds like it was kind of a bust on floats... Looks cool, though!!

I don't know anything about them, but this one caught my eye: http://www.howardaircraft.com/inventory/ At the bottom of the page, twin turbos and a nice panel for 67k!

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote: One of my customers flys a 550 powered 337 for one of the military service contractors ( not Blackwater, but similar company ) ......

I'm curious as to what sort of missions he was flying in it? I know a guy who was flying for a PMC in Afghanistan -- they were using KingAirs to fly around and track cellphone calls etc to ID bad guys who needed to be Predator'd.

hotrod180 wrote:

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote: One of my customers flys a 550 powered 337 for one of the military service contractors ( not Blackwater, but similar company ) ......

I'm curious as to what sort of missions he was flying in it? I know a guy who was flying for a PMC in Afghanistan -- they were using KingAirs to fly around and track cellphone calls etc to ID bad guys who needed to be Predator'd.

Not sure... His twin brother flys King Airs for the other company... Probably doing the same.... They both also fly for the guard flying A-10's... Partners in a Backcountry Cessna 182... Great guys, always enjoy when they are over for working on the Cessna...

Brian

Many moons ago, at a place near and dear to my heart called California City, they were test flying a 337 that had a PT-6 in the back and a nose cone (with baggage compartment) where the front engine used to be.

They had a plan to convert 337's and O-2's under an STC. It was a great airplane, the pilots said they did really well, plenty of thrust, and went faster than the stock twin engine version (lower drag). It was set to be a huge winner.

They got stuck by a small caveat in the FAR's that said you could not STC a change in the number of engines, without a bunch of factory data. Some nice people in Wichita were not willing to furnish that data, because the success of the STC would have undermined their brand new Caravan sales.

So the project died.

Woulda-shoulda-coulda been a neat thing. I have no experience with Skymasters or Caravans, but I'm just guessing that the extra speed of the turbine Skymaster could have been converted into greater range for many operators in the AK area?

EZ...
You can still find pics of it floating around the web...



I think it looked pretty good...

Brian.

Little weird with the big beak, but I kinda like it.

Brett

EZFlap wrote:Many moons ago, at a place near and dear to my heart called California City, they were test flying a 337 that had a PT-6 in the back and a nose cone (with baggage compartment) where the front engine used to be.

They had a plan to convert 337's and O-2's under an STC. It was a great airplane, the pilots said they did really well, plenty of thrust, and went faster than the stock twin engine version (lower drag). It was set to be a huge winner.

They got stuck by a small caveat in the FAR's that said you could not STC a change in the number of engines, without a bunch of factory data. Some nice people in Wichita were not willing to furnish that data, because the success of the STC would have undermined their brand new Caravan sales.

So the project died.

Woulda-shoulda-coulda been a neat thing. I have no experience with Skymasters or Caravans, but I'm just guessing that the extra speed of the turbine Skymaster could have been converted into greater range for many operators in the AK area?

Oh, yeah....hang a $300,000 engine on a $40,000 well used airframe, with an additional, what?....$20,000 in labor and maybe $10,000 in parts....and you now have an airplane that's really not big enough to earn it's keep while supporting that PT 6.

Soloy Conversions have held STCs for 206 and 207 to convert them to turbine power, using an Allison engine, much less expensive engine than a PT 6. And, they're not exactly selling like hotcakes.

Look at the Turbo Beaver. Viking Air holds the Type Certificate for the Beaver, and they'll convert your rumbler (stock MK I Beaver) to a whiner (MK III Turbo Beaver) any time you'd like. How many have they converted? Hardly any.

On the other hand, there are at least two outfits that hold STCs to convert the Single Otter (DHC 3) from that awful geared engine it was born with to either a PT 6 or to a TPE 331 Honeywell engine. Both those companies are turning out Turbine Otters about as fast as they can find rumblers to repower.

The difference? The size of the airplane, pure and simple. You can pay for a turbine in a plane the size of the Otter. One the size of the Beaver, even with the GW increase of the MK III and larger cabin? Not so much.

Turbines are expensive to purchase, expensive to overhaul, and they burn a LOT of fuel. On a plane the size of the Mixmaster, there's no way you'd ever pay for that expense.

BUT, the Skymaster is actually a great airplane as it is, with two good engines.

The float Skymaster was on PK floats. Any seaplane pilot can tell you just looking at the thing what the biggest issue with it is: You're going to be filing and replacing that rear prop frequently, cause on takeoff, it's going to be in the water big time.

MTV

On the same thread, sort of, there was a guy who was pushing (no pun intended) a Rotax powered light kitplane that at a casual look seemed to be based or at least inspired by the MixMaster. Anyone else remember that? It was long enough ago, like 15 or more years, and it's appearance was so brief, I can't remember much about it.

Does it make any sense to spend the extra money on a twin for safety reasons? Compared to a single six place such as a C205, 206, or a cherokee 6.

I get a little nervous going over the sierras with the whole family on board. But in reality a skymaster is probably not something I am ready for.

mtv wrote:

EZFlap wrote:Many moons ago, at a place near and dear to my heart called California City, they were test flying a 337 that had a PT-6 in the back and a nose cone (with baggage compartment) where the front engine used to be.

They had a plan to convert 337's and O-2's under an STC. It was a great airplane, the pilots said they did really well, plenty of thrust, and went faster than the stock twin engine version (lower drag). It was set to be a huge winner.

They got stuck by a small caveat in the FAR's that said you could not STC a change in the number of engines, without a bunch of factory data. Some nice people in Wichita were not willing to furnish that data, because the success of the STC would have undermined their brand new Caravan sales.

So the project died.

Woulda-shoulda-coulda been a neat thing. I have no experience with Skymasters or Caravans, but I'm just guessing that the extra speed of the turbine Skymaster could have been converted into greater range for many operators in the AK area?

Oh, yeah....hang a $300,000 engine on a $40,000 well used airframe, with an additional, what?....$20,000 in labor and maybe $10,000 in parts....and you now have an airplane that's really not big enough to earn it's keep while supporting that PT 6.

Soloy Conversions have held STCs for 206 and 207 to convert them to turbine power, using an Allison engine, much less expensive engine than a PT 6. And, they're not exactly selling like hotcakes.

Look at the Turbo Beaver. Viking Air holds the Type Certificate for the Beaver, and they'll convert your rumbler (stock MK I Beaver) to a whiner (MK III Turbo Beaver) any time you'd like. How many have they converted? Hardly any.

On the other hand, there are at least two outfits that hold STCs to convert the Single Otter (DHC 3) from that awful geared engine it was born with to either a PT 6 or to a TPE 331 Honeywell engine. Both those companies are turning out Turbine Otters about as fast as they can find rumblers to repower.

The difference? The size of the airplane, pure and simple. You can pay for a turbine in a plane the size of the Otter. One the size of the Beaver, even with the GW increase of the MK III and larger cabin? Not so much.

Turbines are expensive to purchase, expensive to overhaul, and they burn a LOT of fuel. On a plane the size of the Mixmaster, there's no way you'd ever pay for that expense.

BUT, the Skymaster is actually a great airplane as it is, with two good engines.

The float Skymaster was on PK floats. Any seaplane pilot can tell you just looking at the thing what the biggest issue with it is: You're going to be filing and replacing that rear prop frequently, cause on takeoff, it's going to be in the water big time.

MTV

Nah, not the size--it's because they take a decent looking airplane, nay, even a classic, and make it super ugly!

Cary

Dirty Kid,
I fly my Cherokee Six from the Central Valley up to Truckee quite a bit. Of the one hour trip there is about fifteen minutes where an engine failure would probably not end well. I have an engine monitor that I watch pretty closely and try to take the safest route but it really is an acceptance of risk. I can't say I didn't feel better making the trip with my brother in his Baron. Engine out on takeoff can be a real handful though.

champflyer wrote:Dirty Kid,
I can't say I didn't feel better making the trip with my brother in his Baron. Engine out on takeoff can be a real handful though.

I had a hankering for a twin about 25 years ago. During this time of looking, I lost a friend due to this exact issue. It was in Hagerstown, MD where I was living at the time and was around 1990 (?). It was a twin Bonanza instead of a Baron if I remember correctly. He had an engine out on take-off, unfortuantely I can't remember how high he was when it occured. He had told me that practicing engine outs on take off were 'spooky'. SUper nice man who had sold his farm and was going to fly his plane all over the US in his retirement years. He had asked me to ride with him to Oshkosh and my schedule didn't allow me the time to go. Can't really remember if it was when he was leaving for Osh or if it was later but the image of what was left of the plane and him still linger in my mind. I believe that was about the time I gave up on looking for a twin. Granted I was a very low hour pilot at the time and told myself I wasn't ready for moving up.

Back to the O-2/337's. My totaly experience to them was in the military at the end of their use. The pilots I had interacted with seemed happy with them. I do remember one pilot in particular that also flew the OV-10 and said it was a dog in the jungles of SE Asia. I think there is one still on display at Hurlburt Fld.....getting off subject again. I am recalling this from memory but I seem to remember him saying he prefered the O-2. To me that says quite a bit but like I mentioned...this is just from memory.
I do remember a bunch of them sitting on the ramp next to my plane while stationed at Ft. Hachuca. They were getting DRMO'd but then all of a sudden I think they were transfered to a 3-letter org. and sent to the drug fields of Central and South America.
Also knew a guy in southern AZ that was the instructor/professor for the A&P course at the Cochise college. He had a 337 that he was restoring. What always struck me was how cheaply they could be bought, often for less that the cost of the engines.

I read the stories and see the YT videos about Asymmetrical Thrust in a Twin, and the first thing that comes to mind is Burt Rutan's Boomerang...

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today ... 55/?no-ist

Delete

ViperPilot wrote:I read the stories and see the YT videos about Asymmetrical Thrust in a Twin, and the first thing that comes to mind is Burt Rutan's Boomerang...

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today ... 55/?no-ist

That's a pretty cool airplane