Cessna 303 or Seneca III

J

jayhawk74

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
945
Display Name
jayhawk74
Home Airfield
PYM
Since I retired from my airline job I'm looking to get a light twin for personal use and leaseback to a flight school. I'm leaning towards the Cessna 303 for the personal use but wondering if it would be too much aircraft as a trainer. That is why I'm also looking at the Seneca III. I know that coming to POA I would get plenty of recommendations.
 
I was parked right next to Bob Thomason's (President of the Twin Cessna Flyer) T303 for the week at Oshkosh last year. Learned a bunch about his interesting airplane. I could certainly see the appeal as a personal travelling machine. Especially liked the robust looking landing gear. Can't say I've ever seen one in a training fleet though. Seems a bit too much plane and operating costs for that.

I see Bob has his very well equipped plane up for sale:
https://www.twincessna.org/Crusader4Sale.htm

The Senecas are popular trainers. There's 6 of them (IIs & IIIs) between the three flight training units at my airfield.
 
Last edited:
For my personal use, neither. For a flight school the Seneca.
 
Get a Baron 55. Prices have come down and they work great as personal aircraft and trainers.
 
The only thing I'd say about the Cessna T303 is there were very few built, and even fewer still left flying. The FAA registration database only shows a total of 64. If you need a T303 specific part, you may wind up waiting for Cessna to build you one.

It's a shame they weren't more popular, it looks like a nice design, at least in the photos. I've never seen one in person.
 
jayhawk74 said:
Since I retired from my airline job I'm looking to get a light twin for personal use and leaseback to a flight school. I'm leaning towards the Cessna 303 for the personal use but wondering if it would be too much aircraft as a trainer. That is why I'm also looking at the Seneca III. I know that coming to POA I would get plenty of recommendations.
Click to expand...
My $0.02. I would not put my plane on a leaseback. If you are sure about that, then between these two options, I would pick the Seneca. Much better suited for a trainer. The problem with the III vs the I is it is turbocharged and I especially wouldn't want a turbocharged plane/twin on a lease back getting abused.

Reference the 303, if I was considering that I would take a serious look at 340's. The 340 will give you pressurization at similar acquisition cost with not much more maintenance cost than the 303 (maybe even less as they are more common). It's easy for a pilot to suck O2 through the nose taking advantage of those 2 turbocharged engines but passengers would much prefer not to.
 
As a trainer ,you can’t go wrong ,with the Seneca.
 
I've done leasebacks. Few people actually make money but some people at least reduce their own operating costs over the hours they use it for personal trips.

Your mileage may vary, but in the long run, I didn't quite break even in the sense that the revenue generated covered most maintenance, fixed costs, etc. and when I flew it (and paid an established rate when I used it for personal flights), I ended up paying an hourly rate lower than the market rate, in a plane I knew inside and out. It was also a little cheaper than what I would have paid as an hourly operating cost, including reserves.

And my situation was when insurance and fuel was much cheaper. Those two costs can really break the formula. Putting a twin on the line for student rentals will incur some huge premiums far above what an experience owner would pay as a sole operator.

If the students (or school) are required to take on a high renters policy, that can defray your costs. But you still need serious liability insurance at a minimum in case someone crashes into an elementary school full of kids - and even that may not be enough to cover the multiple law suits. As long as you have ownership, you'll be named in the law suits - even if the FBO is the "operator" responsible for the pilot vetting and maintenance. You can never truly shield yourself, and a twin is far more risky than a Piper Warrior.

Al that being said...if you want to own a twin to carry on your aviation enthusiasm, consider finding a few other solid pilots to form a club. Then it's just a close knit group sharing costs. If you really want to use a school for leaseback, talk to the owner of the school and see what they feel would be the most 'rentable' or 'trainable' model. The Seneca II and III are both turbocharged and will get a lot of abuse. For a trainer, the Seneca I or even a Seminole are non turbo and the engines are a lot more forgiving (which equates to longevity and lower maintenance costs).

I wish I could find a club/FBO in the South Jersey area with twins to rent. I got my multi years back in a Seneca I and flew more rental hours in a Seneca II and loved it.
 
I don’t know of any clubs who’d have a 303 on the line as a trainer. Great personal airplane, but not enough of them out there to see them in rental fleets.
 
FormerHangie said:
The only thing I'd say about the Cessna T303 is there were very few built, and even fewer still left flying. The FAA registration database only shows a total of 64. If you need a T303 specific part, you may wind up waiting for Cessna to build you one.

It's a shame they weren't more popular, it looks like a nice design, at least in the photos. I've never seen one in person.
Click to expand...

This one looks "well used". Took the pic this morning in the hangar attached to my biz office. Serial #28. Looks like it has the Cessna factory optional
non-reflective stealth paint job :)

(But I do like the looks of that trailing link gear. Closest thing on a Cessna twin that might do carrier landings ;) )

Cessna 303T.JPG
 
I appreciate all the answers. For the personal side I do need an aircraft that can carry 3 adults for 3-4 hours that has radar (airline30 years of airline flying has spoiled me :)) and is certified for known icing (I do fly in New England). As most of my flights will be from KMHT to KMVY or K2W6 pressurization is not needed. On the flight school side the students will only fly it for about 5 hours, as most of the training is done on simulators, and it will not b available for rent. So for me that rules out a Seneca I, a Beech 55, and a Cessna 310. If I was getting a twin only for the personal mission I would get a Navajo, but that is definitely too much airplane for those getting their multi engine rating.
 
What kind of multi would the school prefer to train in? That seems to be the driving factor, no?
 
I still don't see why a Baron 55 wouldn't be an option here. They are more and more part of the training fleet.
 
Radar Contact said:
The problem with the III vs the I is it is turbocharged and I especially wouldn't want a turbocharged plane/twin on a lease back getting abused.
Click to expand...

Setting aside the general problems and caveats of leaseback, leaseback a turbo charged airplane, especially for training, is a particularly bad idea. I think the only worse choice would be one with geared engines.
 
N1120A said:
I still don't see why a Baron 55 wouldn't be an option here. They are more and more part of the training fleet.
Click to expand...

Because we are not on BeechTalk where everything Beech is wonderful. :D
Actually, based on the OP statements about his size, the Beech cabin is likely too narrow.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Because we are not on BeechTalk where everything Beech is wonderful. :D
Actually, based on the OP statements about his size, the Beech cabin is likely too narrow.

Tim
Click to expand...

I am also a pretty big guy. For me the issue for the Beech (Bo or Baron) cabin isn't width. Its the headroom issue because the front seats are mounted on top of the main spar.

Even in the current long body 6-seat versions the front seats have to sit higher than those in back. Some friends of mine have had the LF seat padding modified to get more headroom in their Beech planes. I would love to own a Baron, but the big, comfortable front of my Aztec cabin compared to a Beech is like comparing my pick-up truck to a Civic.

da1d43ca5caed15187df27943e53e543.jpg
 
GRG55 said:
I am also a pretty big guy. For me the issue for the Beech (Bo or Baron) cabin isn't width. Its the headroom issue because the front seats are mounted on top of the main spar.

Even in the current long body 6-seat versions the front seats have to sit higher than those in back. Some friends of mine have had the LF seat padding modified to get more headroom in their Beech planes. I would love to own a Baron, but the big, comfortable front of my Aztec cabin compared to a Beech is like comparing my pick-up truck to a Civic.

da1d43ca5caed15187df27943e53e543.jpg
Click to expand...

If room is what you want, get a TBone :)
 
jayhawk74 said:
I appreciate all the answers. For the personal side I do need an aircraft that can carry 3 adults for 3-4 hours that has radar (airline30 years of airline flying has spoiled me :)) and is certified for known icing (I do fly in New England).
Click to expand...

That’s more airplane than most students want to pay for when doing ME training. Just sayin’. They’re looking to get it done as cheaply as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top