Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Cessna 335

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web


Well-known member
Apr 7, 2004
Looking into a Cessna 335 for corporate aircraft.
Average leg is 150 to 500 miles
Average load is 2 passengers plus some gear so maybe 700lbs with a pilot.

Was using a Seneca II and that worked out great. A little larger cabin and AC would be nice. Who has flown one?

Comments? Compared to a Seneca II?
The C335 is basically an unpressurized version of the C340. I've never flown one, but I've got a couple of thousand hours in 340s. Personally, I thought a 340 was a pretty good airplane - they won't carry a lot, but your loads and legs are about perfect.

I've got to ask the question, why would you consider a 335? Once you've flown a pressurized (and airconditioned) airplane you and your passengers won't want to go back. It's an "order of magnatude" improvement over what you've been flying in every way - passenger comfort and aircraft capability. The additional costs associated with maintaining the pressuration system are negligable.

About the only thing that I'd want to make sure every one understands, up front, is that there is a potiential "gotcha" in the form of a wing spar AD lurking in the background. So far it hasn't got to the 335/340 but, from what I've read,that could change.

Last edited:
Like Lead Sled said (say that three times fast!), it's basically a 340 - however I can't see having a cabin class twin without pressurization. If you've been doing the same missions in the Seneca without any problem, maybe it's no big deal for you, but especially in the Summer out here in Texas - I'd be miserable if I had to deal with flying low all the time. The cumulous commonly gets up into the teens, and it's just much nicer to be able to fly above it all. Looking at prices, it doesn't seem that the 340 commands much of a premium over the 335.

That said, I've always enjoyed flying the 340. It handles well, lands easily, the fuel system is reasonably simple (just remember that when running on the aux tanks, it's pumping one gallon of fuel to the mains for every gallon you burn!), and the only thing that'll make it any harder to deal with than the Seneca is that you have to be much more careful with the engines. You just have to plan a little more with your descents.

The 340 I flew was a RAM IV model, and had an increased gross weight - giving it a useful load of just above 1800 pounds. So using your 500 mile example (with reserves), you'd have about a thousand pounds to play with between people and bags. I burned about 21.5 gallons per side, giving me about 205 knots in the mid teens.
I agree with Lead and Big D. I have right at a thousand hours in a 340 and why go unpressurized. The legs mentioned are perfect for its use. Yeah, watch out for the lurking AD.


Latest posts

Latest resources