Cessna 337

[LJS1993]

Hey guys this aircraft is very interesting. Have any of you flown in this plane or possibly own one? How do they compare to other twin engined aircraft?

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...1968-CESSNA-T337/1184219.htm?dlr=1&pcid=12706

 

[Jim Logajan]

It's simple to determine which airplanes were discontinued due to unfavorable reception in the market and those that were discontinued to protest tort law. Only those produced later than 1985 were victims of the protest. 337's weren't in that group.

According to my research, Cessna didn't produce any piston twins after 1986. On that basis there wasn't anything wrong with the 337 market that wasn't also wrong with all the other piston twins.

Let me put my research into the form of a few trivia questions:

(1) What were the top two Cessna twin engine piston aircraft models they ever produced, in terms of units sold after WWII?

(2) What were the three longest running production runs of Cessna twin engine piston aircraft models?

(3) How many twin engine piston aircraft has Cessna produced after 1986?


OK - need help? I started here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cessna_models

And to make this even easier, and assuming the numbers I got from Wikipedia are reasonably accurate, and I didn't miss any important models, I constructed the following table, in no particular order:

Model number: Years produced (number of years, inclusive) Number built

310: 1954-1980 (27) 6321
337: 1963-1982 (20) 2993
402: 1966-1985 (20) 1535
303: 1978-1986 (9) 315
411: 1962-1968 (7) 301
401: 1966-1972 (7) 404
421: 1967-1985 (19) 1901
414: 1968-1985 (18) 1070
425: 1980-1986 (7) 236
441: 1977-? (?) 362

To claim or suggest that Cessna's second best selling twin piston engine model over the course of 20 years had some sort of "unfavorable market reception" is a perverse definition of that phrase.

It might be more reasonable to claim that the missions that the 337 best fit simply dried up. This is a market reason divorced from where the engines are mounted. The longevity and sales numbers don't seem to support the assertion that the market disliked the engine locations, but rather that the economics shifted.

 

[Jim Logajan]

What "mission change" are you asserting that caused the demise?

I don't wish to assert that was the cause, merely that it is one of many more reasonable explanations than a claim about unfavorable market reception. I don't see any strong support in the statistics for the latter claim.

But in response to your question I will say that by "mission change" I was thinking more along the lines of prospects at first wanting twin engines for reliability over hostile terrain with more docile engine-out handling, but they eventually decided that the extra safety was coming at too high a cost. Or the prospects realized the extra safety really wasn't there after all, so the "safety margin" part of the mission requirements was dropped. In either of these cases the shift in requirements affects all twin engine airplanes, not just the 337. (Yeah, I've abused the "mission change" phrase.)

You seem to be saying that the market essentially voted with its feet away from the 337. If it did, it seems to have taken its time making its vote known to Cessna management.