After selling our 421B for reasons alluded to in prior posts (FAA rules on public benefit flying are stupid) we started a search for a different airplane that would fit our mission. That mission is 1 to 2 hour flights with 2 to 3 people over some of the Great Lakes in the summer and in Florida with an occasional personal trip to the Bahamas in the winter. 80% Angel Flight use 20% personal use.

I looked at and flew the SR22, Twin Commander, Malibu and Cessna 340. I had flown a Cessna T303 last year for about 30 minutes but already had my eyes on the 421B. Having owned a 310R and the 421B what I felt would really fit our mission was an airplane that was a newer design, had a good safety record, had simple systems, had an airstair door for ease of entry for Angel Flight passengers and wouldn’t break the bank in CapX or OpX. In other words, a 421 “lite”. Well, after a successful prepurchase inspection, we closed Wednesday on a one owner 1983 Cessna T303.

I have to say that my initial interaction with this airframe has been positive. Very positive infact. Yes it’s lightly built, yes it has a funky variation of the TIO520 and yes the exhaust looks wierd, but overall Cessna did a great job engineering and designing this airplane. It doesn’t “feel” that much smaller than the 421 inside and the cockpit and systems are well laid out and dirt simple. I don’t plan on any upgrades other than ADSB as I prefer the steam gauges to all the latest glass. (I fly an Airbus for work so I get to play with all of the technology there).

Only time will tell if we’ve made a wise choice or a minor mistake. (I say minor because these rare 303’s sell quickly when priced right). Right now I honestly think we may have found our “forever” airplane. It should fit our mission perfectly and on a budget we can easily afford. I know that a lot of BTers have shown interest in the Crusader over the years so I thought I’d share our experience.

Like art, airplanes are subjective. Beauty and usefulness are in the eye of the beholder. She needs some minor cosmetic TLC but as of now I’m smitten.

Kirk

Congrats! The 303 is a great airplane to fly in up-front and pretty roomy in the back.

Great-looking example of a 303, you're going to love it.

I've only got a 5 or 600 hours on the machine, but it was a superb platform and a very good workhorse.
Very comfortable, easy to fly, awesome presence on the ramp.

Just be careful as it is very simple to overload, and also, if it it quite warm outside, a quick turn-around can lead to some trouble starting the plane, or CHT going through the roof at take off.

Other than that, possibly the best twin I've ever flown.

Oh, and it makes any landing a perfect landing. Just too easy.

If only they would bring it back with a few mods...

I did a complete firewall forward and all the ducts under the floorboards

GB

Embry-Riddle used Crusaders for primary multi training many years ago. Students could actually rent them at one point.

That is a pretty fancy looking exhaust system!

Does the Crusader have the same exhaust inspection requirements as the other Cessna twins? It looks like the turbo is mounted to the engine now.

These have always interested me, but not many around to consider.

I was also thinking the exhaust looks like a better set-up than the 400 series. It looks like they got rid of the canted bulkheads that the 400 series runs through. I changed all four canted bulkheads and two engine beams on a 414 do to corrosion, so if they improved the design to eliminate that issue, I’m impressed. Mounting the turbo to the engine instead of the airframe would be a much better idea. Too bad there are not many 303 flying about.

No exhaust AD like the previous turbo charged twin Cessnas. Totally different design. No canted bulkheads or engine beams. The airplane only has a few very minor ADs to comply with. Very simple, well designed airplane.

Here’s a quick update for posterity’s sake.

We knew from the beginning that this Crusader was going to need some work and we were right. After 2 months in the shop I finally did the post annual test flight yesterday, and started breaking in the cylinders today.

N9635C is all original. Paint, interior, panel...everything. (See the pics in the first post). It’s a FIKI bird with the cargo door and A/C. 4800 hours TT and 1900 hour engines. One was a factory reman, the other a field overhaul. She’s been a one owner, 2 pilot, 135 airplane her whole life. We replaced 6 cylinders with new, both fuel controllers, re skinned a flap due to exhaust corrosion, replaced an alternator mount, did some R and R to one of the engine mounts, repaired some cracked rib material in both wings, installed new plugs and probably 2 dozen other things to get her up to speed. I became an expert on SIDs, the TCDS, and the ALS of the MM. (More to follow on this in a separate post).

As has been covered by others, it is a “light” airframe. Surprisingly, my 421 had more smoking rivets than this 303. I can certainly see where Cessna saved money in the manufacturing process, but all in all, I’ve been impressed with the design and the thought process behind it.

Having flown all the twin Cessnas over the years, the 303 flys like none other. Very crisp, true and stable with well balanced controls. It’s surprisingly quiet in cruise at 24” and 2400rpm. Not as quiet as my 421 but a lot quieter than our 310R was. As to the constant vibration everyone talks about, yep...it’s there. Not really any worse than a Cirrus or the old Commander 112 I had, and about the same as the 310R truth be told. I fly a jet at work so I’m hyper sensitive to vibration which is why the 421 was a dream. I think I’ll just accept that it’s normal, it’s one of the few downsides and I’ll happy “buzz” along. This airplane starts incredibly easy hot or cold. Spins up quickly, more like a Garrett TPE331 turbine engine. As an aside, ATC referred to me as a “Crusader” right from the get go vs the generic “Twin Cessna” call sign. I didn’t initiate this, they did. I found that interesting for a rare bird.

With 2 flights and 3 hours of experience now under my belt I’ve been running 24” x 2400rpm at 15gph/side during break in. I’m getting exactly book numbers. 165 knots at 4000’ and 175ish at 7000’. I don’t have an engine monitor so after break in I’ll just keep running ROP and keep going until one or both engines tell me it’s time to overhaul. At that point, I’ll install a monitor. We never had engine monitors back in the 80’s when I was cutting my teeth in all sort of Twin Cessna models and I never had any problems. Ignorance is bliss I guess. I also like looking at the original panel. Brings back great memories. I’ll always have my iPad up with synthetic vision running just in case I need it, (I’m using the Sentry for ADSB-in and AHRS...highly recommend). My personal piston engine minimums are 1000 and 3 anyway, so probably sufficient redundancy.

I post this simply as another data point for anyone in the future who considers or ends up buying a 303.

Kirk

Hi Kirk (and Fabien?)

Can you share your useful load for the T303s? I am guessing not that much given you have FIKI & A/C?

Thanks Ben

Hi Ben,

My useful load is 1486 so full fuel payload is just shy of 600 lbs. Not great but I can live with it for my mission.

Kirk (no Fabien here)

Fabien IS here

Full fuel (530L, enough for a 5hr20 mission with VFR reserves), we were looking at 300kg of UL. The pilot, the operator, the camera/system and our bags.

I always thought they are a cool plane, but I've never had the opportunity to work on one. Considering the nature of my job, I'll bet Crusader owners don't want me working on their planes anyway

Now I understand! Greetings Fabien fellow 303 flyer.

Kirk