Cessna Postwar Projects

Here is a pic of the Cessna 407, a development of the T-37. This is a mock-up.


  • Cessna407.jpg
    579 KB · Views: 166
The light jet project posted by boxkite in #17 and Maveric in #38 looks like the 407 after
a "design review". Could be basically the same project, I think.
...the "407" in color...


  • Cessna 407.jpg
    Cessna 407.jpg
    96.4 KB · Views: 157
  • Cessna 407-.jpg
    Cessna 407-.jpg
    174.1 KB · Views: 200
Anyone ever seen a photo of a Model 330? ???
This twin is described as derived from the Model 340 (Model 411?), but smaller/lighter and intended to fit between the Models 310/320 and 340.
First flight given as 30 November 1966 and engines as two Continental TSIO-520.
Registration N3764C
About the Cessna 407:

PLEEEEASE FOLKS. Stop repeating material that already exists elsewhere in the forum.
Don't forget to use the search engine before posting something...

The 407 (and resources thereof) can already be found here:
walter said:
Anyone ever seen a photo of a Model 330? ???
This twin is described as derived from the Model 340 (Model 411?), but smaller/lighter and intended to fit between the Models 310/320 and 340.
First flight given as 30 November 1966 and engines as two Continental TSIO-520.
Registration N3764C

Hi Walter,

here is a small info if you want to search about it,serial number; N3764C (c/n 659).
walter said:
Anyone ever seen a photo of a Model 330? ???

I have NEVER seen a picture of this elusive bird, nor of the Model 325... certainly the two most unknown types of all built Cessnas. Even the 327 has a picture circulating.
M-306, 1950 Cessna proposal against OS-117. Grumman won with the G-89 that became the S2F.


  • Cessna OS-117 ASW Proposal web.jpg
    Cessna OS-117 ASW Proposal web.jpg
    387.2 KB · Views: 655
Now THAT is brilliant. First time I've seen this! If you've got more rarities like this, keep' em comin'!
Meanwhile, I think it would be great to also feature this beauty in the dedicated OS-117 thread.
N3764C is a Thorp T-18. I read elsewhere on SPF that the 330 was supposedly based on the 411. If the 330 was supposed to be between the 310 and 340, that's interesting because the 411 is even larger than the 340 so I think it'd be difficult for it to fit between those two.
Tailspin Turtle said:
M-306, 1950 Cessna proposal against OS-117. Grumman won with the G-89 that became the S2F.

You made my day,thank you my dear Tailspin.
famvburg said:
N3764C is a Thorp T-18.

Surely you are aware that civil registrations are not once-and-for-all allocated to one single aircraft.

When an aircraft has crashed, was exported or no longer flies, its registration becomes available again and is often reallocated to another, completely different type.

N3764C may be a T-18 at present time, but various sources clearly indicate that selfsame registration as applying to the sole Model 330 prototype of 1966.
Yes, I'm aware. But the current registered aircraft doesn't do much to locate the 330. Neither do the conflicting descriptions. Also, just because an aircraft has crashed doesn't mean it is stricken, only if it is totaled out and no longer will fly.
I just noticed that hesham lists Cessna 340 with "Model 411?" in parentheses, possibly confusing 'the' 340 and 411, which they are very different designs, so which 340 is he referring to in 'between the 310/320 and 340? When I said the 411 is bigger than the 340 so if the 330 was to be between the other two it's conflicting. I've noted that the 401 and 402 designs both flew in 1966, the same year as the elusive 330. Is hesham inferring that the in-house or original designation for the 411 was 340? If so, since the 401 is a 411 subtract 10, and is powered by TCM TSIO-520s, a 401 would certainly be between a 310 and 411. Therefore, the Cessna 330, again assuming hesham is saying the original 411 was designated 340, then a Cessna 330 is simply a 401, i.e., a 340 (411) subtract 10. OTOH if the 340 is the commonly known 340, there's not a lot of room for something to be between it and a 310/320.
Hi Stéphane :D
Cessna 325 photo.
Sorry I cannot make scans at the moment (my machine room started a life of its own), but there is a picture of the Model 325 in "Wings of Cessna" by Edward H. Phillips, Page 64. According to the accompanying text four Model 325s were built (two in 1953 and two in 1956) and that this Cessna ag-plane model was largely based on the Model 305 (L-19).
Regards, Walter
hi famvburg/stargazer2006 ;D
Seems lots of uncertainties on the planned role for the 330. If it was intended to fit between the 310/320 and 340 I guess we should not think of dimensions, but probably weight/engines etc. In my old notes I found that the 330 reportedly had 41.167ft wingspan and 33.33ft length, making it roughtly 411 size.
However, the first 340 (285hp TSIO-520) was only flown in 1970, while the 330 (285-300hp TSIO-520) flew 20 November 1966. The first 401 (300hp TSIO-520) flew in 1965 and the first 411 (340hp GTSIO) in 1968.
The 340/411 were possibly already on the drawing board in 1966 (when the 330 was flown).
Stargazer2006 advised c/n 659 for the 330. Does anyone have knowledge of the Cesssna c/n system with experimental/prototype aircraft. I saw c/n 687 (303), c/n 635 (first 320), c/n 672-673 (2 prototypes 340), so maybe Cessna used a separate series?
A project by Cessna and G.E. in collaboration with NASA for an "N+3"-generation twin-engine commuter type:


  • b83b8772-7635-44c1-b7c7-e36aad5b1221.Full.jpg
    26.3 KB · Views: 746
  • 2035-config-596x450.jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 754
  • 453747main_ge_rgb_1600x1200_1600-1200.jpg
    124.4 KB · Views: 790
I found some Model 160 photos, including in the scrapyard.

Source: http://s720.photobucket.com/user/jaerl101/media/Cessna%20160/Cessna160.jpg.html

Sentinel Chicken said:
Link to original story: http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/features/article.asp?id=461

The Cessnas that got away

Model 160-Cessna was selling most of the single-engine aircraft produced in the world in 1962. With models ranging from the $7,495 two-place 150B trainer to the $23,975 Model 210B, the company had eight models filling the niches. What it needed now, the reasoning went, was a design that would offer more airplane for less money, and the answer could possibly lie in changing labor-intensive production procedures. The four-place Model 160 was to be priced at $8,450, between the 150 and the 172. Its unfashionably square-cut conventionality was more a concession to the economies of manufacturing than to aesthetics of its market.

Fuselage and wing skins relied on heavy beading for strength and low weight, and the strut-braced constant-chord wings and free-caster nose gear provided simplicity of manufacture. The prototype was powered by a 125 hp Franklin engine, and it took the airplane to 134 mph. The 145 hp O-300 Continental engine then in use in the 172 was specified for the production Model 160, and would provide a top speed of 143 mph. In a proposed military version--the 160M--a Continental IO-360 of 210 hp would push it to a theoretical 174 mph top speed.

Flight tests in 1962-63 showed the model had promise, but not enough to make the necessary production and tooling adjustments, so the project was eventually abandoned and the company went back to doing things the way they had always been done. The sole prototype hung around until 1974, when it was reportedly scrapped.

However, the salvage yard kept putting off the job, and a mechanic from Northeast Kansas bought the remains of the prototype a few years ago and has offered it for sale.
At certain time. (mid 00s) Cessna was studying low-boom SSBJ. Do anyone know any details apart from patent showing possible forward fuselage shapes to lower the boom?
Looks like the Skycatcher project is dead and buried.


Skycatcher mockup at Oshkosh in 2007.
[IMAGE CREDIT: Cessna/Things With Wings blog]​

EDIT: Details from 2009 on the prototype here.
As an engineer who works in an industry that sources a lot of manufacturing in China, I can attest to how it isn't as great as many CEO's seem to think it is. I understand the Skycatcher, design wise, was a nice plane. However, it was still way more than I can afford and if I was going to buy something in this class, I would probably just build an RV, or to keep the cost down, a Sonex. Well, a Sonex or Tailwind.


  • 1.jpg
    63.7 KB · Views: 141
  • 2.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 157
hesham said:
I have this old picture from Internet to unknown helicopter
from Cessna,does anyone know it ?.

The Cessna Kinedyne,page 152;



  • 1.png
    170.8 KB · Views: 141



  • 4-4.png
    581 KB · Views: 139
  • 4.png
    198.2 KB · Views: 124
  • 3-3.png
    674.9 KB · Views: 119
  • 3.png
    256.7 KB · Views: 123
  • 2.png
    71.4 KB · Views: 126
  • 1-1.png
    126.6 KB · Views: 123
  • 1.png
    494.3 KB · Views: 135
Nice find Hesham. Some of those iterations remind me of the Learfan. I keep expecting to see something similar in the future using a hybrid system with twin engines driving generators which would power an electric (servo) motor driving the propeller alleviating the need for the gearbox.
What happened to electric Cessna 172? I remember they did a few ground taxi tests and few flights a couple of years back.

here is a Cessna Model-170 as a low-wing replacement Project.



  • 1.png
    90.8 KB · Views: 128
  • 2.png
    62.3 KB · Views: 115
  • 3.png
    59.7 KB · Views: 126
Unfortunately all the photos from the source are gone with ImageShack...



11-20-2013 05:34 AM by Cubdriver
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
The one I was curious about was in the last two pics in part 7 (my mistake, above). Single-engine turboprop, contra-rotating prop. N4571L.

I've never seen that before.
I dug this up about it.

Model: COAX
Date: 1986-1987
Specs: 335 / 340 prototype conversion
(2) Allison 250-C20S 375 shp
Engine-to-prop gear box with coaxial output shaft.
Forward and aft three bladed propellers driven in opposite directions.
Engine nacelles cleaned from wings.
In both multi and single engine climb, COAX beat 340A by
200fpm but there were some who thought the data was suspect.

There is one photo of it on thread 8 of the series too. With two turbines mounted in series it would have to be a pretty expensive airplane. This was a time when GA manufacturers were trying to get rid of low end prop models for liability reasons. Maybe the idea with this one was to make the customer pay for their own insurance policy rather than let the insurance company take away their choices with the other twins, which they did around that time. At any rate I wonder how smooth the setup ran because the second prop gets mostly dirty air.


  • FB_IMG_1466960894209.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 179
Quite an amazing discovery! I'd never heard of the COAX before. Well done. ;)
Just realized that we already had a mention of this aircraft, c/n 673, in our thread for Cessna experimental construction numbers here:
I've attempted to do a three-view of the COAX using a modified Cessna 340 one.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate a plan showing this particular variant of the Allison 250 in front and top views.
Could anyone suggest other aircraft that might have used it, so I can use their plans as a starting point?

Also, I'm not sure if the wing tips are correctly sized and shaped after removing the tanks.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help!


  • Cessna COAX (incomplete).jpg
    Cessna COAX (incomplete).jpg
    76 KB · Views: 887
This is the only western civil coaxial propeller aircraft (besides Reno racers) I have seen so far. Did the powerplant consist of two Allison 250 turbines each driving one propeller?
Basil said:
This is the only western civil coaxial propeller aircraft (besides Reno racers) I have seen so far. Did the powerplant consist of two Allison 250 turbines each driving one propeller?

Yes, independent engines sit side-by-side and drive concentric prop shafts. From a retired Cessna guy on BeechTalk:

This was strictly a concept test bed.

The photo is of the final flight where the tip tanks were removed to test the effects on speed. With only the wing aux tanks (30 gal each?) it was practically in a fuel emergency at takeoff.

I don't have any numbers, but I believe that performance was not quite as good as expected.

Props and prop control system were highly non-standard and a bit awkward. It was said that this project paid the McCauley engineering budget for a year. The drive path for the front and rear propeller were independent and isolated from each other except for the necessary intershaft bearing or in the case of major structural failure. Gearbox was from a small specialty shop with minimal testing beforehand (it was spun, but not under power or prop load.


BTW, the second prototype Cessna 340 (s/n 673) was registered N4571L in August 1970. I presume that same prototype formed the basis for the COAX?


  • cessna-coax-instagram.jpg
    38.3 KB · Views: 689
Regarding the fuel capacity, C340s had either standard 20 gallon aux tanks per side or optional 36 gallon tanks per side. Some also had nacelle tanks of about 20 gallons capacity. Sometimes in 1 nacelle, sometimes both nacelles. Without knowing the exact set-up, the test airplane could have had a minimum of 40 gallons to as much as around 100+ gallons.
Apophenia, thx for the info via an original source. So the propulsion layout was comparable to that of the Fairey Gannet.

Similar threads

Top Bottom