Cessna T303

Lance F

Lance F

En-Route
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
2,946
Location
GA
Display Name
Display name:
Lance F
Does anybody know anything about the Cessna T303 Crusader: good, bad or ?
 
It was discussed on another thread recently. Maybe on one of the other-colored boards.
Lance F said:
Does anybody know anything about the Cessna T303 Crusader: good, bad or ?
Click to expand...
 
found a thread on the red board. unfortunately just the ususal negative comments from posters who've never flown (seen?) the plane, followed by a bunch of posts saying you ought to fly the type I fly. sigh.
 
and ?

Lance F said:
found a thread on the red board. unfortunately just the ususal negative comments from posters who've never flown (seen?) the plane, followed by a bunch of posts saying you ought to fly the type I fly. sigh.
Click to expand...
 
Lance F said:
Does anybody know anything about the Cessna T303 Crusader: good, bad or ?
Click to expand...

Long and short of it is it doesn't do anything particularly well, and is pretty much an orphan. It started life as a trainer with 4 seats and 2 IO-320s (160hp) as a 303 Clipper, and that didn't work out as planned on the marketing end.... So, with a bunch of money tied up into this design they thought "Hey' we'll put bigger engines on it and have it replace the 310", so with that and a threat from Pan Am, we got the T303 Crusader aimed at getting 310 and Baron drivers to step into a "Cabin Class" aircraft. Well, that didn't pan out either, the 310 and Baron drivers failed to flock to it as hoped. IIRC, they added a cargo door in 83 to try to entice commercial and air ambulance operators, not much luck there either, and IIRC they quit production in 85 with less than 300 built. I remember hearing concerns about "It's held together with glue", as it has some bonded structure in the wing, IIRC it was supposed to eliminate rivet leaks in the wet wing. Never heard of a failure related to it, but it may have been one of the factors in poor sales.

I flew in one once, it was pretty unremarkable. I don't have any bad impression of it, and it was roomy for the speed, cruise at 185 or so, econo at 175 IIRC, it was right around 310 numbers. Not a sexy plane which I think did it more damage sales wise. It's a very lightly built airplane as well. Typically for the price they go for, $200k+, I think a 340 is a much better value.
 
Henning said:
Typically for the price they go for, $200k+, I think a 340 is a much better value.
Click to expand...

Or the non-pressurized 335, but I don't think very many of those were made, either.

For a quasi-cabin twin, I like Aerostars...


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Or the non-pressurized 335, but I don't think very many of those were made, either.

For a quasi-cabin twin, I like Aerostars...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Hard to beat an Aerostar for high speed pressurized personal transport value.
 
Trapper John said:
Or the non-pressurized 335, but I don't think very many of those were made, either.

For a quasi-cabin twin, I like Aerostars...
Click to expand...
That's really the kicker for me. Cessna tried really hard to get an advantage by marketing their small twin airplanes as cabin-class. They aren't, though, so the result was a draggier airframe that was a little bit higher off the ground.

From what I gathered talking to a 303 owner at Oshkosh and from what I've read, that airplane is no exception.

-Felix
 
If you can find and afford the MX. I've owned three. Two were new. Ate my lunch.

Henning said:
Hard to beat an Aerostar for high speed pressurized personal transport value.
Click to expand...
 
sba55 said:
That's really the kicker for me. Cessna tried really hard to get an advantage by marketing their small twin airplanes as cabin-class. They aren't, though, so the result was a draggier airframe that was a little bit higher off the ground.

From what I gathered talking to a 303 owner at Oshkosh and from what I've read, that airplane is no exception.

-Felix
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't understand the concept of a plane you have to duck-walk in being called "cabin class". Better to put correctly sized doors in the right places (ala Baron or Seneca) for good ingress/egress and have a smaller, less draggy fuselage, IMO.


Trapper John
 
sba55 said:
That's really the kicker for me. Cessna tried really hard to get an advantage by marketing their small twin airplanes as cabin-class. They aren't, though, so the result was a draggier airframe that was a little bit higher off the ground.

From what I gathered talking to a 303 owner at Oshkosh and from what I've read, that airplane is no exception.

-Felix
Click to expand...

what, in your mind, defines "cabin class"?
 
Passengers like steps and doors. If they turn and sit down that's all that matters. If the pilots have to crawl, it's good exercise for them. Most are too lazy anyway.

Trapper John said:
Yeah, I don't understand the concept of a plane you have to duck-walk in being called "cabin class". Better to put correctly sized doors in the right places (ala Baron or Seneca) for good ingress/egress and have a smaller, less draggy fuselage, IMO.


Trapper John
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
If you can find and afford the MX. I've owned three. Two were new. Ate my lunch.
Click to expand...

Yeah, does help to do your own. They aren't so much parts hogs as time hogs. The Superstar/Machen mods help out some, especially if you had a 601P with the early exhaust system.
 
tonycondon said:
what, in your mind, defines "cabin class"?
Click to expand...
What Henning said. Also, if the plane just has air steps bolted on and the interior is is the size of a Seneca, it's not cabin class. It's a marketing trick. Sort of like one of those Ford F150s with the 10' off the ground suspension. I thought the 303 was just like that, but I'm not a 303 expert.
 
sba55 said:
What Henning said. Also, if the plane just has air steps bolted on and the interior is is the size of a Seneca, it's not cabin class. It's a marketing trick. Sort of like one of those Ford F150s with the 10' off the ground suspension. I thought the 303 was just like that, but I'm not a 303 expert.
Click to expand...

lol, fair enough.
 
Don't know nothin' about 'em, Lance (aren't they the Cessnas with the cruciform tail?), but if you buy one, I'll fly in it with you.
 
I have a little time in a 303 - not enough to be very knowledgeable.

The one I flew, when they rotate, they won't, won't, won't and you wonder if you have enough back pressure and then.....wow, you think you're in a Vx climb out attitude RIGHT NOW.

The guys in our company who flew them a fair amount preferred the 310.
 
I flew the 303's and 310's and owned my own 310Q for about 10 years. The 303 was a very nice flying airplane and fairly reliable.

I prefer the 310 personally. Cabin interior is roughly the same in both models as far as available room.
 
Lance F said:
Uh, so a Lear 35 isn't cabin class :frown3:.
Click to expand...

Hell, it's so small I get a kink in my neck sitting in it....:frown2::rofl:

Really though, no, I don't consider it such. It's an Executive Delivery Device or freight dog. It's another as someone put it "pseudo cabin". Can't stand up and can't take a crap in piece = not cabin class.
 
Certainly is and don't let anybody tell you it's not. Even for a minute. I know several pygmy tribes who swear by them as being plenty roomy and comfortable.

Lance F said:
Uh, so a Lear 35 isn't cabin class :frown3:.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Certainly is and don't let anybody tell you it's not. Even for a minute. I know several pygmy tribes who swear by them as being plenty roomy and comfortable.
Click to expand...

Plus they're good with a litter box....
 
And it's a good looking plane............
 

Attachments

  • Cessna_T303_Crusader.jpg
    Cessna_T303_Crusader.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 45
Keith Lane said:
And it's a good looking plane............
Click to expand...

You think? I always thought it was a swing and miss of a plane in tooks. Just always seemed mis proportioned and misshapen slightly, but enough to keep it from looking "good", just "ok". Like they really didn't try very hard, or had no one with artistic talent on the team. Always reminded me of a mini Jetstream...
 
I like the way it looks. Kinda like a cross between a Cheyenne and an Aerostar.

Then again, I actually like the way Cheyennes and Aerostars look.
 
Flies like a heavy t-tailed arrow.
Lightweight interior- transl: everything breaks
Not QUITE cabin class.
I got into on in ice before they resolved the cruiciform tail Ice AD....it was memorable. The thing shook like crazy.
Light case Contintal 470s- they have a not quite good rep.

A lot of these flying in Europe. It's the interior, stupid!
 
bbchien said:
Flies like a heavy t-tailed arrow.
Lightweight interior- transl: everything breaks
Not QUITE cabin class.
I got into on in ice before they resolved the cruiciform tail Ice AD....it was memorable. The thing shook like crazy.
Light case Contintal 470s- they have a not quite good rep.

A lot of these flying in Europe. It's the interior, stupid!
Click to expand...

Sure about that? I'm pretty sure they had TSIO 520s in the production models. The 411s had the GTSIO 470s
 
Thanks all. After a rocky start this thread generated some actually useful info.

I ain't buying nothin. But like the pigmy class LJ35, if the boss wants to buy one and pay me to fly it, I'll do it. Just looking for a heads up as to what we might be getting into.

and as I understand it, the engines are TSIO 520s.
 
Lance F said:
Thanks all. After a rocky start this thread generated some actually useful info.

I ain't buying nothin. But like the pigmy class LJ35, if the boss wants to buy one and pay me to fly it, I'll do it. Just looking for a heads up as to what we might be getting into.

and as I understand it, the engines are TSIO 520s.
Click to expand...

If that's what he want's WTF, that's what he gets. The question it brings to my mind though is "Why"? What's the mission for the plane? Like I said, it doesn't do anything particularly well and it's orphaned. If I was looking for something that would be comparable, I'd be looking at a 325 Navajo. Same basic parameters, better performance, more common to maintain and there's excellent support in new and used parts as well as modifications to dial it in for a specific mission.
 
I have only one hour of time in a 303 and I liked flying the 310 better but I was excited to fly something different!
 
tonycondon said:
what, in your mind, defines "cabin class"?
Click to expand...
Now, in the mind of the former owner of Twin & Turbine, THE magazine for the pilots of owner-flown cabin class twins, cabin class basically meant two things: air stair door AND a cockpit somewhat separated from the cabin. In his mind, a Malibu is cabin class, a Baron is not. I would certainly call a Baron/Seneca or even a Bonanza/Saratoga near cabin class. They have more inviting interiors than the Eclipse 500. Different people draw the line in different spots. Some say pressurization, but that makes a P210 cabin class but not a 402 or Navajo. That makes no sense.

Some say lavs, but I think the whole lav issue is overrated. But then, people in my family have bladders the size of Montana.

Personally, to me "cabin class" means there's one (main) door and an aisle in the middle for seat access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top