Cessna 335? Any info?

[ianders]

I am very interested in moving up from our Cessna 310 to a cabin class twin, however, for insurance purposes, I would like to stay away from pressurized twins. I have been trying to find out some informatin about the Cessna 335, but I am not having much luck. Does anyone have any advice or inside information about this plane. What about ADs and SBs? I know it is essentually the 340 without the pressurization. Any help would be great.

[sternone]

Run away from them, don't walk, RUN!!!!!

[ianders]

Please explain. I am very comfortable with the current expense of my 310. I was hoping that the operating/maintenance expenses wouldn't be a drastic change. If I decide against the 335, I guess I will upgrade to a 310R. But I really like the looks of the 335.

[Denny of Oakland]

The CE-335 Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) is No. 3A25 available for view and down load on the FAA web site at FAA - Home under T/C’s. It was certified in the (Normal Category), Approved October 2, 1979. This aircraft is Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations effective May 15, 1956, as amended by 3-1 through 3-5. This is important because it is not a Part 23 aircraft.

It also came with 2 Teledyne Continental TSIO-520-EB engines. The engine in the rear tends to run HOT because of cooling issues and is a real pain to work on from the mechanic stand point of view.

The propellers are McCauley full-feathering 3-bladed propeller standard installations (a) McCauley hubs 3AF32C87 with 82NC-5.5 blades or McCauley hubs 3AF32C504 with 82NEA-5.5 blades. This you should really check very well because of pitting corrosion in the hubs that make them unusable and very expensive to replace.

The airframe has 11 AD’s 2 are reoccurring.
The engine has 21 AD’s 3 are reoccurring.

Over the years the aircraft has had landing gear issues (failures) and inadvertent gear up landing. Training is a must in this aircraft all the time.

For all the problems the aircraft has had I would suggest you may want to look at a Twin Comanche.

The maintenance costs on this model is very high sorry to say.

Just one man’s opinion.

[C310Q]

Your best bet is to stay with a 310R. The 310 offers a lot of bang for the buck. Comparing the two airplanes depends on your mission. If your going to fill the aircraft up, then maybe there is an argument for more cabin space. Otherwise the R model will do everything the 335 will do at a lower cost. Cessna only made a few hundred 335's. I think if you want an aircraft in this class, the 340 would be a better choice. You will enjoy a pressurized cabin, and be able to get the airplane up in thinner air without having to have everyone on O2. As aircraft age, I beleive maintenance is probaly the biggest factor when selecting an aircraft. All Twin Cessna models with the electro-mech gear have gear problems cited. I don't think it is the gear neccesarily, but improper or neglected maintenance. Theses airplanes maintained by competent mechanics will be a trouble-free and reliable way to get around. This is probaly true for the 335 as well, but to keep it well maintained is going to be more expensive due to being a more complex aircraft. An R model is not going to be much more an hour as what your paying now. The nose baggage will let you balance your load and not go out the aft C.G. limit. The useful load is going to be about the same. Good luck with your search.

[ianders]

Denny, I appreciate the information, however, I think you may be referring to the Cessna 336 and 337 (push-pull twins). I was actually interested in the Cessna 335, which is basically a Cessna 340 without the pressure. I think there were 60-80 of these planes made. I have spoken with Jerry Temple about them and he said they are great airplanes, but hard to get rid of. Currently we have a '65 model 310 and we are hesitant to spend any more money upgrading it due to its age. The 335 was only made in '79 and '80 and a nice one can be obtained for $200,000. We were thinking about buying an '80 model and we should be good to go for a while. Besides Cessna only produced twins until the early eighties. Without the pressure, we can avoid the expensive annual flight safety trip. We live on the east coast and currently flight plan our flights in the 8,000-10,000 altitude range and that suits our needs. But I would still like to speak with someone who has actually owned one.

[C310Q]

I would recommend joining Cessna Pilots Association or Twin Cessna Flyers or both, as I have done. 105/year, get the knowledge and experience of other owners. It has saved me a lot of money.

[Geoff340A]

When considering a 335 vs 340, all costs with the exception of maintaining the pressurization system, insurance and recurrent training are about equal between the two models. I currently own a 340A and have to say the pressurization maintenance is minimal. The benefits of pressurization far outweigh the expenses in my opinion. I would venture to say that I have not spent more than $1,200 over the last 5-6 years on the pressure system. We could debate the need for recurrent training all day; I am of the school that every pilot should be required to attend annual training if you plan to fly actual IMC and require predictable utility from your aircraft. I use Recurrent Training Center in Champaign IL. The training costs are about $1,500 and it is worth every penny! I learn something new every year without fail. You may want to join The Twin Cessna Flyer www.twincessna.org, Larry Ball would be happy to give you the facts when it come to real world comps between twin cessna models. Hope this helps.