When will A2A tackle this?

[curtis72561]

I bought the Carenado because I flew so much the FSD O2A in FS9. A disappointing purchase.

Disappointing how?

Compared to A2A aircraft? Isn't most addons disappointing that way? Or was it just junk? I ask because I found it for and was thinking about buying it. If it is at least as good as the one I have for than I might pull the trigger.

[Hook]

Someone I know with some experience with the type once commented about Cessna 337: "It is actually not as bad as it looks."

-Esa

I was the Chief Pilot for a Real Estate Corp owned by a close friend back in the stone age. We flew his 336 (a 337 with fixed gear) as well as other planes he owned. Nice plane but nothing special really.
Dudley Henriques

I saw a real one once, an Air Force plane. The pilot commented that it was "a good ash and trash plane."

When I was taking flying lessons I wanted a plastic model so I could visualize the various forces on the plane, and the 337 was the only GA model available at the time. Seemed very odd at first, but I grew to like it a lot, and it was the first plastic model that I did a full paint job on including the interior, the first of many.

The plane has a lot of character, at least from external view. From the inside it's a typical Cessna... "nothing special really." While I enjoy flying it in the sim, it's a bit too modern for my tastes.

There was considerable debate about the rear engine overheating, with most owners saying it wasn't happening. Perhaps different models with some having the problem and others not.

Dudley, did you notice any overheating problem with the rear engine?

Also, I'd heard that the front engine was shut down after landing and you taxied to parking on the rear engine, don't know if this was a common practice. Obviously you'd want to start the rear engine first to make sure it was running as you couldn't see the prop.

Hook

[DHenriques_]

Someone I know with some experience with the type once commented about Cessna 337: "It is actually not as bad as it looks."

-Esa

I was the Chief Pilot for a Real Estate Corp owned by a close friend back in the stone age. We flew his 336 (a 337 with fixed gear) as well as other planes he owned. Nice plane but nothing special really.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley, did you notice any overheating problem with the rear engine?

Also, I'd heard that the front engine was shut down after landing and you taxied to parking on the rear engine, don't know if this was a common practice. Obviously you'd want to start the rear engine first to make sure it was running as you couldn't see the prop.

Hook

Never had any temp issues with the rear engine. You get in the habit of monitoring the rear engine gauges in this airplane (especially on takeoff) and the cowls are adequate.
I taxied using the rear engine to keep the front prop from throwing stones into the rear propeller.
I started the rear engine first to hear it start (and how it was starting) then stabilized the gauges before starting the front engine.
Dudley Henriques

[Hook]

I taxied using the rear engine to keep the front prop from throwing stones into the rear propeller.

Ah, thanks! I hadn't thought about propwash debris, that's a great explanation.

I assume the front engine was started and left in idle while the rear engine provided the thrust for taxi. This would give the front engine time to warm up after starting. Was the front engine actually shut down after landing for the taxi to parking, or was it idled for that? One explanation I read was that it was shut down for safety reasons as any ground crew didn't have to worry about a spinning prop. Maybe for the pilot's peace of mind as well.

So, theoretically the rear engine should overheat, but in practical experience it does not. A good reason to go with practical experience over pure theory.

Hook

[DHenriques_]

I taxied using the rear engine to keep the front prop from throwing stones into the rear propeller.

Ah, thanks! I hadn't thought about propwash debris, that's a great explanation.

I assume the front engine was started and left in idle while the rear engine provided the thrust for taxi. This would give the front engine time to warm up after starting. Was the front engine actually shut down after landing for the taxi to parking, or was it idled for that? One explanation I read was that it was shut down for safety reasons as any ground crew didn't have to worry about a spinning prop. Maybe for the pilot's peace of mind as well.

So, theoretically the rear engine should overheat, but in practical experience it does not. A good reason to go with practical experience over pure theory.

Hook

Shutting the rear down was a suggested procedure when taxiing. I've done both after landing. If the surface was clean and the taxi run looked good I'd simply taxi it on in. There were times when I'd simply zero thrust the front engine and power the rear to taxi. No real big deal either way really. Always a judgment call.
DH

[AKar]

So, theoretically the rear engine should overheat, but in practical experience it does not.

I'd guess it is somewhat the opposite, after all. I mean, if airplane manufacturers did engine installations that should overheat already in theory, given their record they'd surely manage to achieve this in practice!

Out of curiosity, I asked about this supposed overheating issue and with the airframes that one guy happened to have some experience, this was only a problem during extended periods of ground running, particularly on warm days. He commented that incompetent people can overheat even Cessna 150 , and that 337's rear engine was perhaps somewhat more susceptible than most, in particular, when standing still. Not overly so, however, at least in the particular model, in local climate.

-Esa

[Hook]

So, theoretically the rear engine should overheat, but in practical experience it does not.

I'd guess it is somewhat the opposite, after all. I mean, if airplane manufacturers did engine installations that should overheat already in theory, given their record they'd surely manage to achieve this in practice!

-Esa

I figure any engine is going to overheat eventually idling on the ground in hot weather, and the rear engine seems likely to be worse about it than the front. Doesn't seem to be a problem in flight.

Thanks again to Dudley for all the info.

Hook

[AKar]

I figure any engine is going to overheat eventually idling on the ground in hot weather, and the rear engine seems likely to be worse about it than the front. Doesn't seem to be a problem in flight.

Edited the post before, and yes, the experience appears to be along those lines. I can't find any claims that it would tend to overheat in flight, which would indeed be rather bad.

-Esa

[VH-MAL]

During my years in civil aviation I came across these aircraft on a couple of occasions.

Once was through a pilot with MAF in the Northern Territory. He disliked the thing immensely, much preferring to fly singles!

The other time(s) was when working aircraft out on Tuna Spotting operations, mainly south of Port Lincoln. Pilots would report "ops normal" every 30 minutes, giving a code letter for the area they were in. These codes were strictly confidential as there were quite a few operators always out looking for big schools of tuna, and no-one was keen to let anyone else know where they were when they found them! These pilots would go hundreds and hundreds of miles off the coast, spending their maximum operational hours on duty. All communications back then, in the '80s, was on HF, if anyone can remember what that was!
Sadly I saw one of the aircraft that had been used for fish spotting, sitting looking very weather-beaten at Parafield airport, it's 'roaming' days were done....

Certainly an interesting aircraft.

Malcolm

[Dominique]

I bought the Carenado because I flew so much the FSD O2A in FS9. A disappointing purchase.

Disappointing how?

Compared to A2A aircraft? Isn't most addons disappointing that way? Or was it just junk? I ask because I found it for and was thinking about buying it. If it is at least as good as the one I have for than I might pull the trigger.

FSD was the A2A of the FS2k2/FS9 age, excellent modeling all around (VC, fuselage, FDE etc.). Their O-2A was a great bird then. The FSD team split in the early FSX times.

The Carenado bird is not junk but I felt that it was not up to it, I remember a toyish flight model and not so impressive VC (a poor gauge lighting for instance). Nice to do screenshots but not an aircraft I found interesting to fly. I won't be more speciifc because it has been put away on a disk for years now. It is one of the rare payware that I flew very little. YMMV.

[curtis72561]

I bought the Carenado because I flew so much the FSD O2A in FS9. A disappointing purchase.

Disappointing how?

Compared to A2A aircraft? Isn't most addons disappointing that way? Or was it just junk? I ask because I found it for and was thinking about buying it. If it is at least as good as the one I have for than I might pull the trigger.

FSD was the A2A of the FS2k2/FS9 age, excellent modeling all around (VC, fuselage, FDE etc.). Their O-2A was a great bird then. The FSD team split in the early FSX times.

The Carenado bird is not junk but I felt that it was not up to it, I remember a toyish flight model and not so impressive VC (a poor gauge lighting for instance). Nice to do screenshots but not an aircraft I found interesting to fly. I won't be more speciifc because it has been put away on a disk for years now. It is one of the rare payware that I flew very little. YMMV.

I agree 110% on the poor rating of the gauge lighting. It leaves a lot to be desired but at that time I was happy with it. Along comes A2A and that's how we judge all add-ons now. So after reading a couple of reviews that said "New panel lighting technology" I purchased and happy to say the lighting rating can be upgraded from poor to good (maybe a little higher).


FSX




P3D


Have not flown yet but will sometime today.

[Dominique]

I found that my purchase was filed onto my disk in December 2012 and that they have a version 2.1 now. So it may be better than it was then.

EDIT A funny followup. Checking my email account I found that PC Aviator sent me a link to upgrade to v2 two years ago that I had filed and forgotten. I will try the version 2...

[curtis72561]

I found that my purchase was filed onto my disk in December 2012 and that they have a version 2.1 now. So it may be better than it was then.

EDIT A funny followup. Checking my email account I found that PC Aviator sent me a link to upgrade to v2 two years ago that I had filed and forgotten. I will try the version 2...

Too bad they didn't upgrade FSX lighting. I uninstalled my old and reinstalled from this installer and the same poor lighting . At least P3D is better .

[lonewulf47]

When visiting the old Reims Aviation manufacturing plant years ago, the guy who organized the visit told us Cessna choose the "336" nr in reference to the german Dornier 335. Legend ?

At least a dureable legend, if any Back in the "stone age" as Dudley used to call it, I was a delivery pilot for the the Swiss Cessna Dealer and I did dozens of delivery flights from the french manufacturing plant Reims to Zurich - among others also a few 336/7. I was told exactly the same "Legend". So maybe there is some truth in it?
BTW if we did our initial twin rating on a 336/7 (at least here in Europe) we were limited to "2-eng inline" or similar (can't remember the correct wording), stating that this rating was not sufficient to fly "common" twins.

[guillaume78150]

Interesting. Our guide told us this was reported by the "Reims Cessna" CEO at this time, Pierre Clostermann. I guess he knew…