Scudrunners

I've got a soft spot for the Mixmasters so I found myself reading this article tonight and thought I would share.

I know they have a reputation for being a maintenance hog and noisy but hey I like weird planes.
That being said when you get onto the forums of actual owners and not hangar flyers spouting what they heard.
They all say they cost no more than any other twin to operate and maintain, basically don't buy a twin and complain of the costs if you can't afford one.


https://www.cessnaflyer.org/cessna-twin ... sters.html

A lot of people don't like the fuel injected Continentals ....



That's the same TCM IO-360 as in the 336/337. I am very fond of it. Incredibly
smooth, and in the right hands, very reliable. I have been flying behind that one
and wrenching on it for 49 years now - Dad bought it in 1971. Original jugs that
went on it in Mobile in 1967.



Similarly, people have hate for the IO-520 and IO-550 but I love them.

The hate for the GTSIO-520 is amazing. Given that a ham-fisted pilot can kill
a pair of them in 100 hours, I guess it makes sense.

I love all of those engines. Marvellous. I treat them right, they treat me right
and you can't ask for much more than that.

Love that its C reg on the FAA Intrument procedures manual

Up north our C205 had a IO-470 the C206 the IO-520 and the BN2 O-540
We worked them hard and all went well beyond TBO. These are machines that are meant to work and not sit around rusting.

Couple years ago a friend sent me a link to a Cessna 170, if memory serves correctly thing looked original and was low time.
The dang engine only had 300 hours on it so I said looks priced about right but I advised him to get the scan of the maintenance records and log sheets before flying out for a second look or a pre buy inspection

The engine was overhauled in 1985 and most of those hours where accumulated in the next 5 years. After about 92 it had sat and had maybe flown 2 hours a year since. Such a shame

Planes are meant to be flown.

2 hours a year

Yeah. That's not enough to stop internal corrosion, which kills most
privately-owned aircraft engines. Lycomings more than Continentals.

I just did an oil change. Added 11 quarts oil and two cans of Camguard,
and I live someplace with no salt and low humidity. Pretty gentle climate.

I rather like the Cessna 170. I always found them much easier to land
than the Cessna 120/140 which were snaky little bastards, but the 170
(like the 180/185) was much more docile on the runway.

I love taildraggers, but the most fun I ever had in a 170 was on straight
floats. It had a really weird engine conversion, I think it was an IO-346?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-346

Many decades ago. Hard to remember all the details.

This guy has some great videos

What a gorgeous paint job. Hard to believe it's almost 70 years old!

Good landing. Kept it straight and close to the centerline.

A little confused by his "full swivel" tailwheel comment - it should be
auto-locking with a detent, like any Maule or Scott or whatever made
in the last 50+ years. If it doesn't positively lock, replace it.

Or you can manually lock like the Pitts S-1 or Beech 18. A non-locking
tailwheel is a really sporty and strange choice for a taildragger. I think
I've mentioned I used to give Larry Loretto sh1t for having a full swivel
non-lockable tailwheel on his DeHavilland Hornet Moth DH.87B which
might have been ok on grass, but was suicidal on pavement. Only a
stick as good as Larry could have kept it straight on pavement with
a crosswind, with what it had for brakes.

Larry's dead now, of course, but you still want to give yourself the
easiest possible problem to solve.

I remember being asked to do some tailwheel training on an elderly
Maule. Fresh annual. Quick walkaround revealed:

1) broken stall warning horn switch (blade missing)

2) airspeed read 20 mph in the hangar

3) when I pushed on the rudder, it easily popped out of the tailwheel
detent, which is no bueno. When the tailwheel is aligned and locked,
it should greatly resist popping out of the detent with small movements
of the rudder. If not, you're going to have a wild time on the rollout.

Also, you want to glance at the horn springs during the walkaround.



The end clips (above) should not be opening, and there should be decent
tension (but not too much) between the rudder horn and the tailwheel horn,
to help you positively control the tire on rollout. Not like this.



I remember arriving at Key West and walking into Freddy's hangar and
being horrified by the slack in his S-2C tailwheel horn springs. I just
walked to the toolbox, got some long zip ties and pliers, and took a link
out of each side. Freddy's dead now, of course, but what a guy.



PS. Tailwheel shimmy is actually caused by the angle of the vertical
post of the tailwheel. The rest is just trying to damp it.



Poor tailwheel post geometry is usually caused by old, sagging leaf
springs, which is why if you push the stick forward on the rollout, often
the shimmy will stop. You are unloading the tailwheel, reducing the flex
of the worn leaf springs, and improving the geometry. You probably aren't
picking the tailwheel tire off the ground - which works. It's called a wheel
landing and is one time-honored method of dealing with tailwheel shimmy
until you can get it fixed :^)

Some people like to re-arch leaf springs. I like to throw old ones out,
because even if you re-arch old leaf springs, they are only good for so
many cycles and they break, which is not cool. New leaf springs really
aren't that expensive, and need to be changed every 20 years or so in
my experience.

Hey, in 5 weeks, our Maule will have been in the family for half a century!

How about a 336?

https://www.controller.com/listings/for ... 6/aircraft

Well that would certainly solve any landing gear issues.
However from what I’ve read the 336 had some
Issues with cooling the back engine, the 337 addressed all those issues.

But 45k for a twin intrigues me but also Makes me suspicious. “I got a cheap twin for you”

For 5gph more, you can get 40ktas more out of a 310q.

200ish more useful from the 310...



My buddy really wants to spend my money and go in on a 310Q. They certain are a sexy looking aircraft.