Real world performance figures T303 & Seneca III
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Farnham, Surrey, England
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real world performance figures T303 & Seneca III
Does anyone on the forum have experience in a Seneca III and Cessna T303? (either or both ideally)
We are trying to get an understanding of real world performance figures for these types. ie: what sort of IAS/TAS can we expect at what power settings and what fuel flow?
All help greatfully received
Flt
Sorry but I also posted this in private flying
We are trying to get an understanding of real world performance figures for these types. ie: what sort of IAS/TAS can we expect at what power settings and what fuel flow?
All help greatfully received
Flt
Sorry but I also posted this in private flying
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seneca III "typical cruise" setting: 30 in. MP/ 2200 RPM / 150kts TAS / 10 US Gal/hr.
I've logged 3,000 hrs+ on seneca IIIs and found that the average burn-off was close to 80-85 Litres per hour (including taxi fuel), whether it was a 20 min flight low level or 3h30 trip with a FL100 cruise.
A fairly good and simple-to-fly workhorse.
I've logged 3,000 hrs+ on seneca IIIs and found that the average burn-off was close to 80-85 Litres per hour (including taxi fuel), whether it was a 20 min flight low level or 3h30 trip with a FL100 cruise.
A fairly good and simple-to-fly workhorse.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have over 1800 hrs on senecas mainly fives but 4,3,2 and 1. I also have quite a few hours on the 303 Crusader.
Firstly the speeds are not far off. The Seneca being slightly quicker and the five especially is far better in the climb.
Having said that the five is far better than the earlier senecas anyway.
The Crusader is a joy to fly and feels very like a baby Golden Eagle. Superb views from the cockpit and a larger cockpit.
Handling is very crisp and the aircraft is superb at short field. Infact I was using this aircraft into 500 metre strips.
The undecarriage is built like a tank and has an amazing 175 kt lowering speed which means you can drop the undercarriage in the cruise push the nose over and see 3000 fpm descent.
The aircraft has an airstair and a far better carrying capacity than the seneca.
The aircraft was built over a very short period of time 82-84 and was brand new design rather than a 50 year old design like the seneca.
It even has engine fire extinguishers!
We had a lot of problems with an engine surge on ours which happened above 5-6000 feet an got worse the higher you went.
The engine really is the weak link. I feel the airframe needed a more powerful engine than the 250 horses available.
There was also a pitching tendancy in icing which was caused by icing on the cruciform tail junction. I believe there was a fix for this.
Altogether a very smart looking aircraft with delightful handling seneca speeds and fuel burns but better carrying ability.
All the best
Pace
Firstly the speeds are not far off. The Seneca being slightly quicker and the five especially is far better in the climb.
Having said that the five is far better than the earlier senecas anyway.
The Crusader is a joy to fly and feels very like a baby Golden Eagle. Superb views from the cockpit and a larger cockpit.
Handling is very crisp and the aircraft is superb at short field. Infact I was using this aircraft into 500 metre strips.
The undecarriage is built like a tank and has an amazing 175 kt lowering speed which means you can drop the undercarriage in the cruise push the nose over and see 3000 fpm descent.
The aircraft has an airstair and a far better carrying capacity than the seneca.
The aircraft was built over a very short period of time 82-84 and was brand new design rather than a 50 year old design like the seneca.
It even has engine fire extinguishers!
We had a lot of problems with an engine surge on ours which happened above 5-6000 feet an got worse the higher you went.
The engine really is the weak link. I feel the airframe needed a more powerful engine than the 250 horses available.
There was also a pitching tendancy in icing which was caused by icing on the cruciform tail junction. I believe there was a fix for this.
Altogether a very smart looking aircraft with delightful handling seneca speeds and fuel burns but better carrying ability.
All the best
Pace
