Why not Cessna T303?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Here's a gorgeous example:
Coats and Evans P.C. - Flight Operations
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.
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.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 22nd Jul 2012 at 03:05.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That little one is quite pretty" One lady said pointing at a TBM850.
I know PW were building a very small turbine equivalent to 250 - 300 hp for Mooney!
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cannes & London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twin Cessna Org
Best source of reliable information on these aircraft is to join www.twincessna.org. 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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 36
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Romania
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. :-)
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Greater London Area
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bogota
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if somebody would bring me a T303 as a gift, I would be unable and unwilling to cover the operating costs ...
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.
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.
Last edited by cessnapete; 29th Aug 2016 at 07:03.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
