banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 16:16 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 23:22 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19762
Post Likes: +19430
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
A recent listing for a Crusader caught my eye. I got my Multi in the plane and know how nicely it flys, and how big and comfortable it is, but I really know next to nothing about its performance in cruise, payload vs range, and most importantly cost to maintain.

I know there are a few 303 owners lurking here on BT and was hoping to get some information on owning this somewhat unknown bird.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 23:34 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
It's a t310 size engine/airframe

Speeds aren't impressive with the derated engines, there's a paper stc to increase

Bob Thomason, the owner of twin Cessna flyers owns (owned?) one. He would be an excellent source of information.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 23:35 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/20/09
Posts: 2394
Post Likes: +1857
Company: Jcrane, Inc.
Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
:popcorn:
I've heard it's the best piston twin that Cessna built...

_________________
Jack Stull


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 23:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
It was the last/latest

Only one designed with a wind tunnel


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2017, 23:47 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14129
Post Likes: +9074
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Dave Lawlor used to have one. He could probably fill you in if you PM him. Cool airplane.

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 10:24 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/21/13
Posts: 392
Post Likes: +368
Company: Horizon Aviation
Aircraft: T303, Pitts M12, T-6
John,

I bought a 303 about 20 months ago. I have been thrilled with it. I'll give you a run-down on why I chose it, its strengths and weaknesses, and cost to operate.

I had owned a Twin Comanche for 15 years. I wanted to upgrade from the TwinCo in specific areas so the new plane was focused on that. Improvements I wanted were: carry two couples with baggage for a week, a little more speed, FIKI, easy entry and exit to the cabin, and benign handling for a low-time multi-engine pilot (my wife). I didn't want to give up relative efficiency, short/soft field capability, maintainability, and good looks. I think I got all of that. There are planes that beat the 303 in some categories but given my specific priorities I thought it was the best combination of those attributes for me.

The plane goes exactly book speed and fuel flow. I'll go 174 KTAS at 8,000 burning 27 GPH when ROP. If I'm willing to burn 30 GPH I'll get 183 KTAS at 8,000 or 193 KTAS at 10,000. The engines are turbo-normalized (with automatic wastegates) so speed keeps increasing with altitude. I'm getting GAMIs and an engine monitor so I expect the efficiency to improve.

The engines are a funky version of the TSIO-520 that is de-rated to 250. Max RPM is 2,400 so they're really not working hard. That's part of the paperwork STC someone else alluded to before. It gives you a new fuel flow gauge (with different green and blue arcs) and a POH performance supplement. It shows higher percent power settings, speeds, fuel flows. The max is 83% power. But remember, that's 83% of the derated 250 HP. That's 72.8% of the non-derated 285 HP engine. So it really isn't being stretched too hard.

That's part of the magic of this plane. But not working terribly hard the engines have a reputation for making their 2,000 hour TBO. That was important to me. The engines also run very cool (when baffled correctly). I'll be able to support these assertions with hard data in a couple of months because I'm getting new engines, GAMIs, and CGR-30Ps installed right now.

We have spent a chunk getting the airplane VERY healthy. EVERYTHING FWF is being replaced/overhauled. Mounts, all accessories, engines, props, governors, etc. We're also doing all engine control runs, all valves in the FIKI system, trim actuators, etc. So my expense curve is a little twisted. Most of this was for 135 initial compliance - but I'm still excited to have a plane with all of the little stuff done.

That said, I have a fair amount of experience running light planes so I think have a reasonable grip on what a normal user would expect. In the process of upgrading mine, there have been very few parts that are spectacularly and stupidly expensive. And there has been nothing I haven't been able to find. I expect DOCs to be $248/hour. This includes: overhauls of props, governors, engines, scheduled maintenance (100 hr inspections), and a decent unscheduled maintenance reserve. I budget another $35/hour for 135 compliance items that a Part 91 operator won't need. My fuel cost is $6.25 per gallon.

I think the strengths are pretty well covered above. My dad is 80 so I needed a plane he could get into easily (bye bye to the PA30), it has the most benign handling of any twin I've flown, it's a short field monster, cabin and baggage space are superb.

Negatives.

I looked at the Baron 58 but I can't sit upright in the pilot seat (I'm 6'3" and long waisted) and the cabin tapers too much for my liking in back. Otherwise it's a stunner. The 303 is about 10 knots slower than the B58 on the same fuel burn. I can live with that trade-off for the cabin size. But that performance delta does exist.

There were only 300 Crusaders made so aftermarket upgrades are limited. You would think parts would be a problem but so far I haven't found that. Knock on wood. The exhaust system is blindingly expensive. $22K per engines. It's all inconel, they're unique to each engine, they have lots of parts, and there's only one company world-wide that can make it. But, it's last 4,000 hours easily. Otherwise, no part has been too tough to find or more than the usual expense for a GA aircraft part.

When buying one there are a few "hot spots" to watch. Pre s/n 176, you'll want to make sure the turbocharger support bracket has been upgraded by the service kit. The early turbo support (especially) and even the latter support can sag and let the turbo rub on the engine mount. The good news is that the standard overhaul cost on the mount is $675 but if they have to rebuild the entire mount it's capped at $1,850. Not bad. They have my mounts right now so we'll see what the final price is.

The airframe has two recurring ADs: the seat rails have to be inspected every 100 hours. That takes about 10 minutes to comply with. And like most later twin cessnas the fuel inlet float valves have to be inspected every 600 hours. i haven't done that yet but I'm told it's only an hour per side. We'll see. There's an AD to inspect the induction air filters every 100 hours and replace them every 500 hours. No big deal.

There are some SIDS (thanks Cessna!) but they don't apply to Part 91 operators. They're not that bad.

The final limitation is the useful load. It's 1,450 to 1,550 depending on installed equipment. My plane is loaded (electric A/C, heavy duty brakes and battery, FIKI, radar, big baggage door, etc), built-in O2, and mine is 1,480.

Oh - it's 13'6" tall so you need a tall hangar. That's annoying, too.

Good luck with your search.

Zeke


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 12:48 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19762
Post Likes: +19430
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Thanks very much Zeke. It sounds attractive. I'll need to look at the book speeds vs fuel flow. I was thinking it would be similar to the 55 Baron (170ktas/24gph/10,000') since it has a similar power:weight ratio. It sounds from your description like it's either slower or thirstier than that.

The big deal would be the useful load. I need about 800 lbs with full fuel. Your numbers suggest that might be a stretch. Still worth looking.

Thanks again.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 12:57 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/21/13
Posts: 392
Post Likes: +368
Company: Horizon Aviation
Aircraft: T303, Pitts M12, T-6
My experience shows that it hits book speeds. Here are several speeds and fuel flows at 10,000

193 KTAS at 30.7 GPH
188 KTAS at 29.5 GPH
178 KTAS at 27.0 GPH
170 KTAS at 24.5 GPH

These are ROP #s at 2,400 RPM

I expect a 6% loss in airspeed and a 25% reduction in fuel flow when LOP.

WRT weight. So I'm at 1485 right now (I just checked that) but I'm in the process of taking some weight out. Mine has the aftermarket electric A/C. That costs me 73 lbs.

Std fuel is 153 useable. If I get the LOP numbers I'm looking for, I can short fuel the plane and still get lots of range there and pick up cabin load.

But you're right - it's not a monster on useful load.

Zeke


Last edited on 15 Feb 2017, 13:28, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 13:10 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4946
Post Likes: +4781
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
These are nice looking, how's the build quality?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 13:22 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19762
Post Likes: +19430
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
My experience shows that it hits book speeds. Here are several speeds and fuel flows at 10,000

193 KTAS at 30.7 GPH
188 KTAS at 29.5 GPH
178 KTAS at 27.0 GPH
170 KTAS at 24.5 GPH

These are ROP #s at 2,400 RPM

I expect a 6% loss in airspeed and a 25% reduction in fuel flow when LOP.

Zeke

So, just looking at the second row; 188*0.94=176.72 KTAS. 29.5*0.75=22.13 GPH.
The top row works out to 181 and 23.

Those are Baron 55 numbers to me. Now, they may be non-GAMI Baron numbers, but all the same, just fine from where I'm sitting. That's about what I'd want to fly.

The only remaining wrinkle is useful load, and CG which I understand can be an issue much like the early Bonanzas.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 13:41 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/21/13
Posts: 392
Post Likes: +368
Company: Horizon Aviation
Aircraft: T303, Pitts M12, T-6
Michael,

I hear people state it's lightly built. Specifically the wing skins. But I don't see any problems. And many have flown up to 10,000 hours.

There are some really nifty service items. For example, an oil change takes turning two camlocs 90 degrees and a panel on a hinge swings out of the bottom of the cowling with perfect access to the drain plug and the oil filter. Which is mounted vertically. There's a nice avionics bay in the nose baggage area for all of today's shiny goodies for WX, G500, GDL88, etc. Access is very nice for maintenance.

As I said, I've been very pleased in all respects so far.

Zeke


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 13:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/21/13
Posts: 392
Post Likes: +368
Company: Horizon Aviation
Aircraft: T303, Pitts M12, T-6
John,

Our math agrees.

When I flew an SR22 we saw 18.8 GPH at 174 KTAS when ROP. When LOP we went to 13.8 GPH and 164 KTAS and CHTs were 30 degrees cooler. Nicely balanced engine.

I'm dialing those assumptions back just a little to get to my assumptions.

I've never owned one but I hear people say on BT that the B55 is a four hour plane with nice reserves.

When LOP at the power settings you specified, the 303 is five hours to tanks dry at 176 KTAS with 116 gallons on board. I'm assuming 8 gallons extra for taxi, take-off, and the higher flow in the first 10 minutes. That leaves an extra 220 pounds for the cabin. I wouldn't normally like one hour reserves - unless I have a good fuel totalizer that has proven itself over 500 gallons or more. But most of the time when I'm flying with a heavy cabin, my pax don't mind stopping at 3.5 hours.

The CG is an interesting point. But the nose baggage compartment is so far forward, and it is sufficiently large, that it can counter a variety of sins.

Good luck with your search.

Zeke


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 14:11 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
The big deal would be the useful load. I need about 800 lbs with full fuel.

Perhaps it would be better to state this requirement in terms of distance. A longer range plane can be loaded with less fuel and still meet your requirements.

My thinking is that if I am going to maintain two turbocharged piston engines, and I am going to fly a cabin load of people, I want pressurization.

So why not get a 340? Pressurization is a game changer. You go fast, smoother, further, less tired. Typical cruise is 210-215 KTAS. Full fuel useful load in the 800 lbs range are possible.

I bet the cost per mile is really close to a wash with a T303, but the performance and comfort isn't.

Since the 340 falls under the new Basic Med rule, I bet those planes are going to hold or increase in value. It is just about the best traveling airplane you can find under 6000 lbs.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 14:58 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/21/13
Posts: 392
Post Likes: +368
Company: Horizon Aviation
Aircraft: T303, Pitts M12, T-6
Mike,

Your conclusion reflects assumptions and priorities that may not apply.

The 303 handling is dramatically better than the 340 when OEI. Vmc is down at 60 knots. That makes a difference to me with my 6,500 hour wife pilot who only has 100 multi.

Short field capability is superior in the 303. It's rock stable and comfortable at 75 knots on final. Power on, dirty stall is 55 knots or so. I don't have the POH in front of me but I maneuvered happily one day in the mid-50s.

When fully burdened, DOCs on a 340 are usually stated (by 340 owners and operators) at $350-$400 per hour. I'm confident in my math that the 303 is down at $250.

I have more short missions than long missions so climbing to 18,000 to get superior speeds isn't appropriate most of the time.

As is often the case, specific circumstances dictate which aircraft is most appropriate.

Zeke


Top

 Post subject: Re: Relative cost to operate a Cessna T303 (Crusader)
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 16:13 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Your conclusion reflects assumptions and priorities that may not apply.

The OP seemed to want to move 800 lbs of people and bags a long way. That was my assumed mission profile.

Quote:
The 303 handling is dramatically better than the 340 when OEI. Vmc is down at 60 knots.

Vortex generators on 340 lower Vmc to ~70 knots. Higher, yes, but not that much.

Quote:
Short field capability is superior in the 303. It's rock stable and comfortable at 75 knots on final.

Landing will never be the problem, it is the takeoff that will get you in a piston twin.

The T303 might be better than a 340, but we should look at the numbers in the POH/AFM to be sure.

Quote:
When fully burdened, DOCs on a 340 are usually stated (by 340 owners and operators) at $350-$400 per hour. I'm confident in my math that the 303 is down at $250.

That is highly situation dependent, so it is hard to compare a fleet average to one case.

In any case, the speed advantage of the 340 allows for higher per hour costs and still be as economical.

Quote:
I have more short missions than long missions so climbing to 18,000 to get superior speeds isn't appropriate most of the time.

There seemed to be a requirement for range in the original post.

If you truly have short low altitude needs, then why have a turbocharged airplane? That doesn't make sense to spend all that for turbos and their maintenance, and then not use them. It seems your mission could well be done by, say, a normally aspirated Aztec.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.