Cessna T303 Crusader

[20ma30ci]

Hello to all!

This is my first thread on this forum which is very informative! Thnx to all beeing a part and contributing.

Well, I would like to know more about the aircraft stated in the subject. So, if you know some good links to webpages regarding the T303 Crusader (evtl. links to more detailed tech. spec., manuals, corporate or cargo airlines where Crusaders are operating, ...)

Would also be thankfull if you could post if you have experience flying or operating this aircraft.

Many thnx in advance!

[westhawk]

20ma30ci

You don't hear many people speak of this airplane anymore. Not enough of them built I suppose. Poor market timing perhaps. I don't know a great deal about it myself, but when I entered "Cessna 303" in Google, it returned some 220,000 results. Perhaps some of them might provide the kind of information you seek. Give it a try.

Good luck,

Westhawk

[B727]

As a mechanic I remember the counter clockwise rotation prop's (Ahh the mag timing !!!), & if the vacuum pump failed the engine had to be released from the mounts & moved foward. Otherwise not a very troublesome a/c......from what I remember but that was 10 years ago !!:uhoh:

[Capt Chambo]

I last flew the Cessna T303 Crusader about 20 yrs ago, and I didn't do much time in it so excuse any mistakes in my ramblings.
IIRC the T303 was introduced in the '80s to replace the 310 with an easy entry cabin and the new wing planform that was being used on the 404, 421, and 402C. The engines were TSIO-520's of about 250hp (IIRC). In addition the undercarriage was hydraulically operated and had a trailing link design, without "D" doors.
In comparison to the 310 it lacked baggage space, but the ease of entry was good for the passengers. I really can't remember whether it was a good load carrier, as I only ever flew it with one or two pax. The fuel system was far simpler then the 310 and the range was fine, but again not as good as a 310 with optional larger aux. tanks and locker tanks.
Performance was OK, if not as sparkling as the 310. I remember that it was sensitive in pitch on rotation, but was otherwise fine. The cabin was quieter than the 310, and being a later design the level of equipment (radio and autopilot fit) was generally better. The trailing link undercarriage meant it was also nicer to land than the 310.
I did have to shut an engine down once. I forget the problem exactly but it was either the turbocharger pressurising the crankcase and "blowing" the engine oil out through the crankcase breather, or it was the turbocharger "sucking" the oil out. Anyway Cessna/Continental issued an AD and there was a susequent fix.
I don't know if any of the above helps. If you have any specific questions post them here and if I can answer them I will give it a go.

[the wizard of auz]

I think the TSIO 520's were a 300hp engine. they were a standard 285 without the turbo and were upgraded to 300 by tweeking the governer.
I can't imagine them being less powerful than the IO470VO's that I have in my OLD 310, and they are only a 265hoss engine.

[411A]

The Type Certificate Data Sheet for the T303 reveals all...
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/B71250F19801469986256E2E00642711?OpenDocument
The wing is a newer design and is not subject to the spar strap AD as are other cabin class Cessna twins.
Reported to be a tad slow, made in limited numbers, but apparently liked by their respective owners.
Oh yes, as you can see from the TCDS, the engines are indeed 250HP.

[the wizard of auz]

OK, I stand corrected. and I might even add a "Strewth" as well. :eek:
No wonder they were slow. :ooh:
I bet the TBO of the Engines went up to four K for being so derated, and then back to two K fot the turbo. :hmm:

[411A]

Yep, 2000 hours TBO.
A good solid engine.

[20ma30ci]

Thnx for your replies. We are thinking of purchasing this aircraft for business charter under JAR-OPS1 in Europe ...

[Woomera]

It was one of the finest modern twin engine aircraft ever designed, it was still born when Cessna stopped all piston production because of the liability issues.

It was an absolutely clean sheet design because the 310R had been taken as far as it was possible.

It had light turbocharging to flat rate the engine for 10,000 ft CRZ more than for the extra power.

It's aerodynamic behaviour was beyond exemplary and EFATO could be flown with both feet on the floor. I would have been quite happy to give the keys to a competent non ME C182/210 pilot and let em at it.

You would have to work very very hard to get it to kill you.

It didn't have huge HP because it didn't need it and operated properly returned close to C310R performance without the hassles fuel flow or weight.

Favourite demo party trick for the unbeliever was a 60d bank accelerated stall, even slot the bottom engine if you want and it would always fall out straight and level.

Flap and gear speeds and aerodynamic balance designed to allow clean hi speed (180KIAS) approach config amongst heavy traffic right down to whenever, hands off from original trimmed condition, select gear and full flaps from the limit speed (cant remember but it was quick) NO pitch change, deceleration stayed within the various flap limits down to final approach speed, all you had to do was close the throttles and flare :ok: :ok: . Zero pilot work load.

Thats not all, brilliant IFR platfrom and a beauftiful, beautiful aircraft to fly.

It was intended to be presurised which would have realised around 210 +CRZ.