C337 or C210?

[dmbusmc 46]

Hey guys, I've been slacking on the later releases, and wanted some opinions, of which the title asks it all! I will be picking up the C90 as well now that the 2 SP's are out for it, and from what I've seen there seems to be overall good feedback for it now, and I want to pick up another HD series for tooling around and checking the sights in the PNW. Having never flown a 337 or 210 RW, I wanted to know how they are with short-field ops and cockpit visibility, and any pros cons/nuances other than the big ones (ME vs. SE, the in-line, etc). Any insight is welcome, thanks for the time, and any suggestions outside of these two aircraft are welcome as well, though I have pretty much everything from the Baron back. Thanks!

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

If you own the RXP GNS530W, you will really like the C337.

 

They go great together. Short field capability and visibility are both excellent.

 

The 337 has character and oozes "industrial strength" design..

 

I do not own the 210, so cannot comment, but understand it is really good as well.

 

There was a recent Avsim review, http://www.avsim.com/pages/0112/Carenado/210.html

[dmbusmc 46]

Thanks Bert, I like how you put that. I actually don't have the RXP (an FS GA sin, I know, I'm working on it). Anyways, I missed that review somehow, reading now....

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

And the other...

 

http://www.avsim.com/pages/1111/Carenado/337.html

[dmbusmc 46]

Thank you again, I read that one back in December, and just pulled it up again with the first one. I forgot how in depth Mr. Marshall goes with his reviews, always a good read.

[smokeyupahead 6]

I would pick the C337 like Bert said for the same reasons. I own both and although the T210M is a nice plane to I just think the C337 has a better FDE. Just my two cents...

[styckx 1,869]

They are both excellent models and have flown countless hours in them both.

 

It's really hard to say which I'd pick if I had to choose. 337 definitely has a more "natural feeling" FDE and a blast to fly. The 210 has that more traditional high wing Cessna feel to it but the FDE isn't bad at all whatsoever. 337 just has a more "sporty" feel. The major thing different w/ the C337 is going to be the AP. It does not have an altitude pre-select feature. So you basically have to manually set a rate of climb, then engage the AP to keep that rate of climb until you are at the altitude you desire then you can turn on the altitude hold.

 

I personally like the AP because it's different and it gets you more involved in the operation and flying of the aircraft. More hands on etc. Go with the C337.. You won't regret it.. Then pick up the C210 at a later time..

[dmbusmc 46]

Definitely, and it's so unique it almost seems wrong not to have it. So, I think that's what I'm going to do. Thank you all for the prompt input!

[cnault2 3]

Hi Bert!

 

Ah, dang. i get to be the bad guy. I hate when that happens. Or maybe not so bad?

 

I agree with everything that was said and, frankly, I don't think Carenado has ever built a "pig" aircraft at any tiime in their illustrious history.

 

However, as every aircraft has good and bad operational characteristics, the 337 is a workhorse that performs extremely well until you get to about 9500 MSL. I can't say if the RW aircraft has the same charateristics because I'm not a RW pilot (medical keeps me from flying). I've worked avionics maintenance for 33 years in the military and in the civilian world. I wanted to mention the performance at the altitude mid-levels. For the record, I have never regretted any purchase of any Carenado aircraft, including the 337. They're simply works of art, IMHO.

 

One quick war story and I'll shutup. I bought the MixMaster (337) on its opening night and immediately went to KTEX. You probably know that is Telluride, Colorado. I wanted to see how the aircraft performed in a challenging environment. KTEX is pretty tough for any piston aircraft since the field elevation is 9070 MSL.

 

I almost ran off the end of their 7111 x 100 foot runway on the first takeooff and had to nurse it to 11,000 feet.... I immediately assumed I screwed up, so I landed at and re-checked everything.

 

I had started with a 50% fuel load; the fuel and I were the only payload. My takeoff roll started on the numbers - the winds were calm. Prior to takeoff, I performed a ROP mixture adjustment on both engines during runup . Flaps, trim, power and pitch were set in accordance with the POH. I didn't reach VR for my gross weight until I was at the departure end numbers.

 

The extended takeoff roll wasn't an operator error (at least, not this time...). I was really surprised because the aircraft service ceiling - not MAX ceiling but service ceiling is 17,585 according to FSX and it's FL200 (20,050) according to the Skymaster Center. Both were specs for the 337 base model. Carenado says it's sim is of the C337H non-turbocharged model. With some test and odd ducks aside, the line goes from 337A to H, according to the Skymaster Center. http://www.skymaster...eneralspecs.asp

 

I checked Cessna.com - dang - their website didn't have the 337 specs any longer. Wikipedia lists the 337D model as FL195 which is the same spec the Skymaster Center had for its D-model spec.

 

My only point is this - don't be surprised that you'll have to do more power management on the 337 once you get in the mid-9000 MSLrange. I repeated my experience four times and had the same result in the same weather and performance environment at KTEX,. I spent the last 5 years of my military career in flight test, so I apologize for being an anal "spec geek" while talking about a sim aircraft. Carenado builds them with that level of precision, it's only logical to respect that and evaluate them accordingly.

 

All other opinions you received in this topic were spot on, IMHO. And I recognize or have received help from some of these folks. They are real experts in this area, so you've received some great feedback.

 

Bottom line - I have no real problems with the 210 that haven't been mentioned already. The MixMaster (my Dad's nickname for it, as well as many other pilots) is a great plane that gets doggy earlier than I expected it to. I guess that is not really bad news, just a heads up.

 

Have fun - and if I read your nickname correctly, thanks for your service in the Marines. Can an Air Force maintainer (bombers) say "Semper Fi" to a Marine or is that a greeting from Marine to Marine? Well, I hope I don't offend you by saying "Semper Fi", sir! May the USAF always be successful in helping and protecting all ground troops from above.

 

C ya,

 

Mark

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Definitely, and it's so unique it almost seems wrong not to have it. So, I think that's what I'm going to do. Thank you all for the prompt input!

If you do, send me a PM with your email address and I'll send you a small texture fix to get the Collins NAV radio labeled "NAV", instead of "COMM".

[dmbusmc 46]

@ Mark- None taken, and thank you very much for your service, sir, a saying I have always have beared in mind is "if it's in the air, maintenance put it there", and it's absolutely true. Every mechanic I've ever met have been great people, and I couldn't feel higher about your work. Also, thank you very much for your input, as that high-altitude performance is actually a pretty strong consideration for it. So thank you again, it has shaped my outlook on the purchase. Also, how is the 210 with high-field in the same conditions?

 

@Bert- Sent, and thank you very much, on point as always.

[GHarrall 494]

The 210 is good in general but I don't use it much anymore due to the over sensitive pitch which started to grate on me after a while.

 

If Bernt had managed to get data for a rework of the FDE, I'm sure it would be much better in this regard.

 

 

[tttocs 301]

Mark, your comments on high density altitude performance on the 337 are well taken - no normally aspirated light twin is going to be a powerhouse out of high elevation airports like Telluride or Leadville out here in my beautiful state - but that said your experiences don't exactly match mine.

 

To double check, I flew out of Telluride earlier this morning with real world wx - 5C temp, slightly high barometer and I actually had a slight quartering tailwind for departure on 27 (for those who don't know, Telluride is on a mesa in a high box canyon. You land on 9, depart 27). Full fuel, two on board. Was off the runway with a bit less than half remaining, and was able to clean up and establish a best angle climb of around 1000/minute. That's not bad for a pair of normally aspirated IO-360s

 

Now sure, do this on a July afternoon and you'll get a different result, but real world 337 pilots (turboed OR non-turboed) generally won't fly out of Telluride on a summer afternoon.

 

Bottom line for me is 'horses for courses'. The Turbo 210 is certainly a better plane for high density altitude operations, but the 337 is capable within its limitations and a perfectly good mountain plane if you set your mind with real world expectations.

 

That said, and good as the 210 is, in pretty much every other way I simply prefer flying the 337. It has far better visibility, due to the set back wing and larger windows, a somewhat better flight model (mostly subjective, I know, but it just feels more correct and gear retraction drag IS properly modeled on the 337 and is not on the 210) and the VC implementation just works for me. And yes, it's just slightly funky and classic Cessna and I like that, whereas the 210 with it's completely updated panel is a bit sterile.

 

Just thought I'd offer a slightly different view,

 

Scott

[dmbusmc 46]

Thank you Scott, appreciate the views! This is exactly why I started this thread, it's a tough call.

[MrBenevolent 0]

Got both, love both.

 

I flew a lot of hours in my early AirHauler career in the 210 and it was a formative plane in improving my pilot skills as a newbie Flight Simmer - thus I will always have a huge soft-spot for it.

 

The C337 is arguably more "interesting" - it looks great, sounds great and there just aren't many planes around like it.

 

Both are pretty capable on short runways IME - not sure either one runs away with that advantage.

 

Both have that great high-wing visibility - perfect for low-and-slow ORBX sight-seeing.

 

The 210 is perhaps a little more "twitchy" to hand fly - whether that is indicative of the real thing or not, I am afraid I can't tell you!

 

If I had to choose to throw one away?

 

Yikes! Depends which day you asked me I suppose. This morning, I think I would keep the C337 - it has more character.

 

Ask me again tomorrow and I might tell you something different..!

 

Funds permitting, I don't think you would be disappointed by having both in your hangar.