Why not Cessna T303?

[Weeeee]

Mission: Family / friends UK to Europe, non-pressurised, 6 seats though not often filling more than 4, twin (winter sea crossing), 100 - 150 hours per year

Pilot friendly, non-flyer friendly, wallet friendly (within the class).

Things have considered are Baron 58, Seneca (V?), C310R, Twin Com, T303.

Not Tecnam, DA42 etc.

Cost of acquisition rules out very recent Baron / Seneca, but would prefer a generally modern / more recent design if possible.

T303 seems like a nice choice - pax friendly cabin, sounds like a nicely sorted airframe, only mildly blown, flexible use with cargo door (stuff to/from France), relatively economical. Maybe a bit underpowered - speed is OK for the mission, but climb, especially single engine, not inspiring esp. wrt Seneca - lugging that big fuselage I guess.

I know they were only built for a short period, but I hear / read almost nothing about them.

If it weren't for the pax and their general attitude to small planes, the Twin Com would be very appealing on economy. Aerostar might be a similar choice, but all I hear is expensive bills.

So why not the T303, seems like it should be a good fit.

Thoughts?

[stewmath]

I know it may seem like a cheeky question but whats your budget for buying the plane?? and also from which country you hoping to purchase?

[achimha]

The T303 is a great aircraft and a very modern design (only the DA42 could be considered to be more modern).

I looked into it a while ago. Only a few were built and they don't appear on the market very often. The cabin is huge which means that it is rather slow for the fuel burn.

Owners tend to be very happy with the aircraft and keep it for a long time.

From a posting in another forum (owner from Switzerland):

First off a disclaimer: I suffer from owner's blindness - I love my T303 to bits. :-) She's a beautiful aircraft, rock-solid, and her payload and range are perfect for my mission. And she's a dream to fly - engine failures and stalls are benign, intuitive and easily handled. The engines are also rock-solid - they are down-rated from 350hp to 250hp, which gives them a TBO of 2000h. I have not reached there yet, but all the reports I have heard say they will reach TBO if they are not mistreated.

The only real room for improvement are:
- she's not fast
- climb performance could be better (~1000fpm at sea level, ~500fpm at FL200, max take-off weight)
- no pressure cabin.
- the battery is tiny and discharges quickly if you have to wait too long for engine startup
Cruise at 65% Power yields about 170 knots TAS, burning about 24 Gal/h. My first addition to the avionics was a JPI engine monitor, which allows me to run LOP without GAMI Injectors.

Having said all that, we did have our fair share of problems after we bought the aircraft:
- The engine instruments were all unreliable, and required overhaul. I had real trouble getting the tach and the oil pressure indicators working properly, but they are now fine.
- Both waste gates and MP controllers required overhaul after only 400h. We think the previous owner didn't have these overhauled when he replaced the engines at TBO.
- All seat rails were cracked and needed replacing
- We have gone through at least 2 alternators on both sides. We have the heavy duty 95A versions, and these are only available from Kelly Aerospace. Nuff said.
- The landing gear hydraulic pump is installed on the floor behind the panel. There is an overflow outlet at the top of it, which needs to be connected back to the reservoir. The previous owner's shop must have had it out at some stage, and had left the outlet open and unconnected. For 50 hours or so it must have been spattering hot hydraulic oil all over the back of the avionics - all the cables and boxes were covered in a sticky red mess. It took a lot of manpower and a major avionics upgrade to get it cleaned up.
- We found a sizable crack in the aluminium of the nose gear door, around the lever which is connected to the actuator
- We had a leak in the hydraulic brake actuators, which vented hydraulic fluid on to the runway when we braked
- The de-icing boots controller had a really incidious failure: the pressure for the boots is taken from the flip side of the suction pumps, and there is a valve behind the engine firewall which should usually be open so that the pressure from the suction pump is vented to the outside when the system is not in use. When you activate the boots the first thing that happens is that this "de-ice control valve" closes, allowing pressure (18psi) to build up behind the boot actuator flow valves. A partial failure of the boots controller led to this valve being closed permanently => the vacuum pumps had to work against 18psi of overpressure at all times, which led to them wearing out after only about 40 hours! The incidious bit is that the boots worked fine - we had no reason to suspect the boots controller was smoking our vacuum pumps. We went through 2 pumps on the left and 1 on the right before we found that one.
- The left fuel flow sometimes oscillates in cruise - no idea why. It's not the fuel pump because switching on the electric fuel pump has no effect.
- The original autopilot (ARC 400B) was unreliable, and sometimes performed uncommanded turns. We have since installed a new Stec 55x, which is much better.
- We had a bit of corrosion on top of the horizontal stabilizer.
- We had to replace the heater due to a crack in the manifold.
- The engine cowl handles in the cockpit sometimes come loose

Spare parts are also a problem. Cessna only made less than 300 Crusaders, and I have had real problems sourcing parts. Items like the inertia-reel shoulder seat-belt, the original control/gust lock, the cosmetic "T303 Crusader" Tag on the outside of the fuselage and the original tow bar are not available from Cessna, and you will be lucky to find anything second hand. I have also heard of another owner in Germany who damaged his left landing gear and left flap in a hard landing, and is now unable to get replacements. Not good.

This is a complete list of the issues that we have seen. Please don't let them discourage you - I'm sure there are similar issues with all types, and the T303 is such a great aircraft.

[Weeeee]

I was thinking around £150k. Kind of flexible subject to hours etc.

Ideally from the UK, but looking at the scarcity I guess the US could be more fruitful, but not really familiar with the pain / cost / risk mitigation for that route.

[B2N2]

Cessna T303 Crusader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_T303_Crusader)
Operating Costs for CESSNA 303 CRUSADER Per Hour (http://www.what2fly.com/operating_cost/cessna/303_crusader.php)

Only 300 ever build with only a few in UK/Europe.
Maintenenace and spare parts are going to be a nightmare.
Even though I've never flown one the performance figures do not impress.
I have flown Piper Aztec's that "true-ed" at 180Kts.

Either go for a Navajo or a late (70'ies) model Aztec.

[Hodja]

The T303 is probably one of my favourite Cessna twins. Nice & compact aircraft. I actually saw one on the ramp a couple of days ago. (they're quite rare)

It's a real sweet spot of a solid aircraft & right size for 4-6 people. Looks good too. Also relatively modern compared to the older twin cessnas. In fact, I think it was Cessna's last twin.

However, make no mistake about it - you'd be taking responsibility of a 30 year old avgas guzzling twin with ancient avionics & old engines. You'll need to go all-in in terms of personal commitment to keep this one properly maintained & taken care of. Fuel bill won't look good either.

No easy choices here. The P2006T & DA42 are too small for your mission profile. You could take a look at an early 2000 Baron, but again, better be prepared for the fuel bills & mechanical upkeep...

[500 above]

If you're going down the road of difficult to obtain spare parts and rarer types, look at the Beech Duke. Cabin class, very fast, good looking. Few in Europe.

[avionimc]

with fuel in the tanks you get very little payload!

[Pace]

Really look at an early Seneca Five Twin which you should get within that budget.
Spares are readily available it is economical as far as twins go and will go anywhere the 303 will.
I flew a 303 for a year on a contract and loved the aircraft and its handling.
It was a brand new design in about 1982.
We had loads of surging problems with the engine which were altitude related and that to me was the unsorted part of the aircraft the engines!
I felt it needed more power. The undercarriage could be dropped at 170 kts faster than the cruise and I loved the handling.
But its a niche aircraft and spares would be a pain

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

A long time ago, a friend and I ferried a 303 from Canada to the UK. I generally liked it, though still liked the 310 I flew previous to it. I was not keen on the fuel system though. The 310's 6 tanks, and really precise fuel quantity indicators were much preferable to the two tanks of the 303.

We did have a rather brutal scare in it, a description of which follows. I'm sure that any 303 available today would have this problem fixed.

Beware of the special inspections which may be applicable, pre purchase inspection, and compliance confirmed by a very qualified maintainer. There is one based in Bremerhaven, German, where I work several times a year. It is maintained there, by an outfit I'm quite pleased with.

The recount of the event follows:

Bill and I were ferrying a Cessna 303 from Canada to England, for delivery to it’s new owner. With lots of Cessna 310 and 340 experience, I felt extremely comfortable flying the 303, and off we went. This particular aircraft was very well equipped, with full IFR equipment as one would expect, and full known icing equipment. So there we were, flying in IMC, though often with a view of the ground, but picking up ice. No problem, I just selected on all of the deicing equipment, and had a look around the aircraft to assure that is was functioning. The boots on the wings, and just the very tips of the horizontal stabilizer could be seen, and I was able to confirm that they were operating as expected. Obviously, the boot on the vertical fin could not bee seen, and this was an act of faith.

After a while, and while obviously picking up some ice, a slight twitch in the yaw axis developed. It was about what you’d feel if you were alternatively pushing the pedals a little. I looked over at Bill’s knees, and asked, “Are you playing on the pedals down there?” But as I asked, I observed that his knees were still, so this was not his doing. Next I scanned the engine instruments – they indicated that the engines were both purring. The twitching in yaw got a little worse, and was now noticeable in pitch as well. Whatever it was that causing the twitching was making be nervous. When I’m nervous, I like to be closer to maneuvering speed (Va), in case something unexpected happens. So, I pulled the power back, and began to slow down…

As the plane slowed, we were suddenly rodeo riders, the plane was yawing and pitching violently, though roll control was prefect the whole time. Yaw was ten degrees either side uncontrollably, and pitch, though harder to estimate, was enough to give us quite a variation in “G”. Whatever the problem, slowing down made it a lot worse, so I sped up, and it settled down. The only thing it could be was airframe ice, nothing else would seem to have changed since we took off. But this was a known icing certified aircraft! So I flew as fast as I could, knowing that whatever it was, was getting worse, and we were still in the ice. At the higher speed, anything bad which happened, would happen worse, and faster! I had to get out of the ice.

We were able to descend, flying up the valleys in the mountains, not far from Wabush, Labrador. We were lucky enough to find warmer air, and the ice slowly shed on it’s own. An hour or so later, I landed in Shefferville, Quebec for fuel. Of course, slowing down, was an exercise in extreme caution. But the plane handled perfectly. The after landing visual inspection revealed no ice, or other defects at all. Mystery… Our trip continued….

Bill was flying the leg from Iceland to Scotland. I was bored. Searching for some new stimulus, I found the previously unread flight manual for the aircraft, and browsed. Among the commonly found white pages, was an uncommon fluorescent red one. To it’s corner, stapled a tiny zip lock bag, which contained a placard. My interest was peaked now (better late than never). The information on the page instructed that flight into known icing conditions was prohibited, and at the first encounter, an immediate 180 degree turn was to be executed. The placard in the zip bag simply said “Flight in icing conditions prohibited”. Well that was clear! But, with the placard in the bag, and the bag in the book, and the book in the glovebox, the pilot (who had not bothered to read the book prior to flying) had no way of knowing! To read on, it turns out that because the Cessna 303 has a “crucifix” tail, meaning the horizontal stabilizer is mid way up the vertical stabilizer, their respective leading edges form a cross. The middle of this cross was not deiced, and thus a block of ice would form there, and disrupt the smooth airflow over the tail. The result was (in several cases) fatal inflight breakup of the aircraft, due to loss of pitch and yaw control. This, I could imagine! This flight manual page, and placard were required by airworthiness directive 86-01-01.

The final instruction on the page was to install the placard. I did.

I understand that soon an electric pad was developed for installation on the offending leading edges, to correct this design deficiency.

I learned from that to read the flight manual before flying. I don’t know how close we came to breaking that plane up in flight, but it was a lot closer than we should have come!

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you want cabin class and unpressurized, then I would look at a Piper Pa31-310 Navajo.

Tons where built, spare parts support is good and it is a rugged and well mannered airplane and the Lycoming TI0 540 series engines are IMO the best 6 cylinder turbocharged engines made. Speeds will be comparable to the C303 with a much better payload. The only disadvantage to the C303 will be the 8-10 US gallons an hour higher total fuel flow.

[Tinstaafl]

I operate a Panther Navajo (a PA31-325 with -350 engines). With an EDM I get 27-28 USG/hr at 170 kts LOP. Or, if time is pressing, 190kts or more at 44 USG/hr ROP.

With the VG kit increasing the MTOW by 200lb it's a fabulously versatile aeroplane. The -325 has wing lockers, unlike the -310 model. 150lb baggage weight in each locker and enough room for 4-5 golf bags between them without touching the nose locker or aft cargo area.

[peterh337]

That's a scary story from Pilot-DAR...

Such a plane is useless, because ice is a fact of flying in IMC below 0C. Statistically of course it varies; you could fly for half an hour at -5C (the worst temperature for SLDs) and get nothing, and then you could get 30mm in 5 mins (my record so far).

A 180 is a good procedure for getting out of freezing rain, but it could take you just into another region where you collect more ice.

[achimha]

Peter, that oscillating issue in icing conditions was first advised in SNL85-60A (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=23321) and then addressed by Cessna with SK303-39 (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=22715), a free of charge modification.

[peterh337]

That's an interesting modification :)

[VictorGolf]

There are several for sale on Plane Check, including an N-reg in the Uk at £120K.

[PURPLE PITOT]

If you want it ferried from the US, there is a chap called Weaver who specialises in getting as far as greenland!:)

[irish seaplane]

I think the C303 is a really cool design, and was really one of the last cleansheet designs of the GA boom time. The original factory brochure is there on the CPA website, or pm me for a copy of it. The big tires, trailing link gear and air stair are all great features. Fly ASG in Guernsey are the experts on the type, and I believe they had a type fly in there and went through all the issues. I think the engine gauges were a weak point. The fear would be that the SID issue would spread to them, or that Cessna may someday just stop supporting the older twins. That's the advice I was given, as when I sold my 180K I wanted to trade up to one.

I got a B58P share landed on my lap, and fly it a bit, not a huge amount as the fuel is a huge cost, compared to the C182RG it rarely makes sense to take it out. The B58P is a race car... let out at FL240 @ 235Kts, but it does use 161L per hour in the process. You can run around at 28GPH at 165Kts without leaning it too hard. Not really a full six seat, bags etc machine. You need to balance it up, so full cabin load leaves 60% fuel (say 100usg). If you want to fly a B58P send us a pm. We took a Lake Buccaneer, C182RG, C210N and B58P on my stag party (EIWT to EGGP) - and all landed one after another. The speed advantage only really opens up over those long distances.

I've a friend who owned 5 Aztec's and swore by them. Another who pushed Navajo's around Canada in the winter, and said they handled icing like no other. One more guy who has has more money and airplanes than pretty much anyone could have - he says Piper Panther Navajo is his favourite.

Go fly em all, it's a buyers market for twins. :ok:

[Pace]

Go fly em all, it's a buyers market for twins.

That about sums it up! Avgas is now so expensive and short in supply in many parts of the world that fuel takes a big chunk of the hourly running costs.
The twins that are still available are basically the Baron,Seneca or TwinStar while many or rather the majority are 30 yr old airframes.
What do they sell for? Its a buyers market especially in twins.

Pace

[peterh337]

You could run one of these (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tbm850/index.html) for the cost of running a big old twin.

Capital cost excluded of course ;)

Or if you are really poor you could get one of these (http://www.jetprop.com/), which will also completely outclass any piston twin on performance (and most other things other than straight load carrying).

:)

But seriously, this is one reason why piston twins are not worth such a lot these days, and new sales are less than great. The cost of a new Seneca is not far short of the cost of a very nice Jetprop.

[Pace]

Peter

You are looking at at least $1.5 mill to buy an old one of those :{ and not quite within the budget of the thread poster who quoted £150 K!
At the end of the day with the TBM or PC12 at night, over sea or Fog banks you still own a semi detached house :{
The Diamond Twin Star is now a pretty good aircraft which is economical albeit only with seating for 4.
I do feel there is a gap in available twins which are all weather aircraft.
It is a shame that the promised low cost baby turbines never appeared to materialise.
I believe one was being developed for Mooney some time back? as I never felt the Diesel was the answer.
So it is now VLJs or single larger turbines while I am sure there would be a market for a Six Seater baby twin turbine especially pressurised.

Pace

[peterh337]

There are turbines allright but the SFC is ~50% of the piston engines, so the "business case" hangs on flying at FL250+ to get the TAS gain, which limits the mission profile considerably (for traditional GA flying).

I don't want to start another twin v. single thread but there are evidently loads of people who don't attach enough value to the SE risk to pay the extra for the 2nd motor. Or perhaps they looked at the stats and found the PT6 ones rather good.... better than pistons twins for sure.

[achimha]

Yes, turbine SFC is much worse than piston engine SFC and Peter's argument that you have to go to FL250 to get the TAS advantage is mainly true because only turbines can take you there today.

I believe that Diamond's plans of a large piston diesel twin are very interesting. Some years ago, a company tried this using the Thielert 4.0 engine: HPA TT62 (http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=1050523).

[AdamFrisch]

Best bang for the twin buck these days? A Cessna P337 Skymaster or a pressurised Aerostar (601P). The Aerostar will outperform any piston anywhere when it comes to speed. Or if you throttle back, be the highest MPG twin you can own. Yeah, it's a hotrod, but built like a brick house. They have few AD's and have never had an inflight breakup.

Here's a gorgeous example:

Coats and Evans P.C. - Flight Operations (http://www.texasaviationlaw.com/flightops/N702PG/)

[Big Pistons Forever]

Adam

With personal experience on both the P337 and the P Aerostar I can't share your enthusiasms. Both are just maintenance nightmares, especially the Aerostar. Any airplane where you first have to remove the whole engine to do many cylinder exhaust or turbocharger repairs is going to run up stupendous shop bills......

Best bang for the buck IMHO is the late model Cessna 414A's. That is the ones without the tip tanks. Fast comfortable, simple direct drive engines and much more maintenance friendly then the electric gear tip tank early models.

[Pace]

Peter

Its not all about extra money for the second engine its also about presence!
I was at Southend with the Jet I fly and a load of PAX.
Parking up we all disembarked and a non aviation knowledgeable commented at a line of single engine aircraft!
"That little one is quite pretty" One lady said pointing at a TBM850.
When I explained that it cost more than the Jet She had just flown she really thought I was joking as in her words "It cannot be worth more than £100 K?
She then repeated something I had said to her earlier about the fact that if a seagull went through one engine we could happily fly and land with the other!
"What happens if a seagull goes through that or it stops"?
I know PW were building a very small turbine equivalent to 250 - 300 hp for Mooney! It was a very low cost unit with v low maintenance and seemed the best way forward for a smart twin to fill a void between turbine singles and the VLJs

Pace

[peterh337]

"That little one is quite pretty" One lady said pointing at a TBM850.

Did you get her number? :E

I know PW were building a very small turbine equivalent to 250 - 300 hp for Mooney!

They should have chosen a company that lives in the present, rather than in the 1950s which is where Mooney have been living since, ahem, the 1950s.

But nobody seems to have cracked the SFC issue. I was speaking to a Czech company at Farnborough with a TP engine of (vague memory) 300HP and they said their SFC is a few % worse than the RR one. It seems to be an impossible nut to crack, for now.

SFC is quite a problem, because if you reduce the range of a plane (say a TB20, for sake of argument) from 1300nm to say 600nm (this is at common GA altitudes, not at FL250 with a mask) then you haven't got a proposition even if the engine cost $50k. And if you do what everybody else has done and go pressurised, you end up with a big expensive plane which doesn't fit the common GA mission profile.

[stephenwilliams40]

Best source of reliable information on these aircraft is to join www.twincessna.org (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001Xvnk3Qn668F4NrRNkcZTEYSzq4wotLKz9Bv45A3KPP_O_hVX HQpBhBAbubKX0jB97-WUKhFuojwS9vGw-_tdN8Ekq0tJTIlOMr9y6SacxsrAQZJ0WYRBCw==). Its run by Bob Thomasson and he flies a 303.
I have owned a C340 for the past five years and the advice and help on maintenance and operating issues provided by these guys has been invaluable.

[flyer696]

Sorry guys for a little offtopic but does anybody have electronic (preferably pdf) version of Cessna 303 POH/AFM? I'm trying to get some but google doesn't help much.

[Cobalt]

30 years ago they did not do electronic... however, I have a scan. You would have to provide a place to upload it to, or a big mailbox.

[ultimatehigh]

In need of the service manual for a Cessna T303, just wondered if anyone had an electronic copy they could upload to wetransfer or email across. I have just purchased a 1982 vintage T303 and my engineer is asking for the manual. :-)

[Fly4Business]

Mission: Family / friends UK to Europe, non-pressurised, 6 seats though not often filling more than 4, twin (winter sea crossing), 100 - 150 hours per year

Pilot friendly, non-flyer friendly, wallet friendly (within the class).

Things have considered are Baron 58, Seneca (V?), C310R, Twin Com, T303.

...

I was thinking around £150k.

Am I the only one that suspects this is land'o dreams?

[Weeeee]

Please qualify or are you just having a pop?

[Cristhian]

Do you have any experience witht the STC SA02374AT installation on the T303? Is it worth buying?

accordint to the STC Owner: A standard T-303 will normally cruise at approx 170 kts with a 24”/ 2400 rpm power setting at 10,000 ft. With the stc the cruise speed will increase to 190 kts if the aircraft has boots and 191/192 kts without boots.
The climb peformance will increase by approx 250 to 300 ft/min depending on weight & temperature. The fuel burn at these speeds is normally 30 gal/hr.

[cotterpot]

F4B - It might have been land of dreams in July 2012 when this thread started

[ChickenHouse]

Even if somebody would bring me a T303 as a gift, I would be unable and unwilling to cover the operating costs ...

[9 lives]

Even if somebody would bring me a T303 as a gift, I would be unable and unwilling to cover the operating costs ...

Yes, I would agree with that. I enjoyed the one I flew back in the '80's, but it is a rare type, past its prime...

[cessnapete]

Leaving aside its age and potential for expensive bills. I have been flying a well maintained C303 in the last few months. A very comfortable and so far re.iable machine. UK to Cannes or a small grass strip in Ireland, a nice handling and versatile aircraft.
With judicious planning, keeping on N reg., costs can kept down by fuel duty drawback,routing through CI, and VFR in Airways at fuel saving altitudes through France, avoiding Eurocontrol charges.

[DLT1939]

A standard T-303 will normally cruise at approx 170 kts with a 24”/ 2400 rpm power setting at 10,000 ft. With the stc the cruise speed will increase to 190 kts if the aircraft has boots and 191/192 kts without boots.

Yes, but you will burn a lot of fuel. No experience of the STC, but my T303
has been across the pond to Montreal and back and from London to Georgia
(ex Russia, not USA) and back in the last two months.

A very versatile aircraft.