Cessna 310R

[Squeegee Longtail]

I am trying to get some unbiased (good or bad) views on this model. I have the factory figures, and the salesman's figures, but would like the good, bad and the ugly details regarding ownership.
1979 310R low hrs (2000 A/F, <500 engines/props), recent avionics, known ice, LR tanks, factory o2.
Typical trip - 6-700 nm European airways.

Yeah, I know in the past I have slated light twins!

[AC-DC]

I have never owned one but will passwhat I know.
This aircraft has poor undercarriage history with many collapses. I don't know whether these are due to poor design or poor maintenance, also they are not friendly to work on hence will require more men hour.

[vanHorck]

go for a sub 2000 kg Seneca PA34 with boots. Known ice, King avionics, good single engine performance. It is not without reason many schools teach for their MEP/IR/ATPL on this platform.

They can be had in good condition below 100k GBP these days, just look in the flying mags

I have no experience with the 310, but i've heard parts may be hard to come by.

Good luck!

[Fuji Abound]

What a twin.

If safety is an issue it has the best single engine performance of any of the usual suspects (turbine excluded of course).

A true gentleman's transport.

Not the cheapest to run by far, but ticks all the boxes.

Counter rotating props are a real bonus. Most are not certified for flight into icing - give these a miss if part of your rmission profile. Everyone says the fuel system is complicated - rubbish.

I wish I had more time on type. My friend owned one for many years and I loved the 310 - hopefully someone will be along with far more experience than me to better inform you.

For sure I will come and fly it with you!

[N707ZS]

It's a long time since I put my spanners away but I am sure I read something in a Loop magazine about a big inspection needed on older Cessna twins.

[Pilot DAR]

I have about 200 hours PIC in the 310R and 340A a long time back.

The 310R is a wonderful plane, if budget flying is not your primary interest. The undercarriage is a bit fussy, so don't scrimp on the maintenace dollar there. While it is up on jacks one day, with proper training, and maintenance staff supevision, do a manual gear extension, so you understand how it happens, and confirm that it works properly for yourself.

The fuel system, particularly if wing locker tanks are fitted, is superb, but get competant training on type and on the fuel system specifically. There is a very definate logic flow in using it correctly. I used to cruise at 180kts all day long, but a bit hard on fuel.

The loading is important. Actually do the weight and balance before you fly, particularly if you plan to carry something in the nose baggage compartment.

It's a slippery wing, fast, but not a STOL plane. If you want STOL go Aztec instead. The split flap is good for drag but useless for high lift.

Familarize yourself on the recent airframe maintenance requirements. I am not familiar with thier application to a 310, but they are extensive for some Cessna twins.

The big Continental engines are wonderful, but do have their operating quirks. Get training on them. Starters, and alternator drives are a problem if the engine is not operated and maintained well.

Read "Cessna, Wings for the World II" by Thompson. I just re-read it, and it is an excellent dissertation on the 300 series Cessna twins, by a former Cessna test pilot. It contains a lot of detail on the 310 series, and why they are the way they are.

I'm sure that more will come to my mind, recalling this delightful aircraft.

If you're going to fly this type, get training form a pilot with hundreds of hours on type. A Piper or other light twin type pilot (no 310 time) will not possess the knowledge and experience on type that you will need to operate safely and economically. A Cessna 340 or 400 piston series pilot would be able to help you through ok.

Good luck, Pilot DAR

[dont overfil]

Wonderful handling and very speed stable in the approach although I used to sometimes get a slight dutch roll if I was too sharp levelling out.

65% power gave 175kts and 24GPH total at FL75.

The Seneca is not in the same league for capability but nor will it cost as much to run.

As previous posters have said understand the fuel system or you can end up dumping fuel overboard.
DO.

[Southern Cross]

AC-DC is correct - undercarriage problems are not unknown. My business partner had a share in one that suffered 2 gear ups as a result of microswitch problems (apparently).

On the other hand, he and I used to own a 310Q and we never had a single problem with it. It was fast, had a lot of useful load, and good single engine performance. Expensive to run though and Eurocontrol will catch up with you IFR, which adds to the cost.

[Der absolute Hammer]

KNF.

C 310 R.

All the good things said are true.
All the caveats are true too.
It is not the same as the Seneca which is tractor.
The 310, in fine condition is a more nicer machine to fly than the B55/58.
I can tell you that you can take off and climb in these conditions.......
Elev, 5,500 ft.
Temp, 20c
MAUW.
Full flap selected.

I can also tell you that if you get into VFR trouble on top of cloud, the C310 can fly down like a Stuka.
But watch fuel. If you make the mistake, it comes out tip tanks vents and by by endurance - you do not see this in night time.
It is one light twin that is best to only be flown by one pilot. It is a personal type of aircraft.

[vanHorck]

I fly a Seneca IV, and I m happy with her, very. She ll do close to 190 knots in the high tens on low fuel (JPI LOP) and feels very stable.

I ve always liked the 340 but was told both the 310 and 340 realy suffer from lack of parts and original radio trouble.

Can anyone enlighten me?

[rustle]

Counter rotating props are a real bonus.

Cessna 310R with counter-rotating props? I don't think so. :hmm: :ugh:

Shared one for 7 years and it was brilliant.

Check the ADs are done as some are eye-wateringly expensive :ouch:

Gear-down-and-locked switch can be a bit pernickity and you may have to recycle 2/3 times to get three greens if it has been anywhere muddy (but do check the three GD&L bulbs before you "mayday" ;) ):8

Quite thirsty :ooh:

Enroute charging applies obviously

Very capable aircraft for touring, comfortable...

[Pace]

Van Horck

I have over 2000 hrs in Seneca Fives and they are very capable and forgiving, well tested twins.

I have also flown a number of 310s and never liked them much. Many pilots shout their atributes ;)

They are short coupled and I had complaints from passengers who felt sick and did not like the yawing motion in the back.
I also didnt like the handling unlike the Baron 55/58 which had delicious handling I found the 310 was heavy on the wings and unresponsive.

But hey one mans food is anothers poison

Pace

[UL730]

Did my training and initial IRT in a 310R and found it a very stable instrument platform.

Known ice is helpful but this is a contentious area for any light twin.

Mention of training with a pilot with really good experience on this type is particularly sound advice. http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Cessna%20310R,%20G-FISH%2001-96.pdf

Short field or any “field” is not the natural hunting ground for 310R: – IMHO the Aztec is better.

The 310R with IO-520-MB engines is a greyhound and a serious travelling machine with good single engine performance if required and the operator is profficient.

You will inevitably become well acquanted with our friends in EuroControl or NATS route charging if you tire of the European approach.

Watch out for a major 6500-hour wing inspection that can be costly

You might find this link helpful if comparing with the Baron but normal caveats apply on perceived preferences.

Flight test - Cessna 310R vs Beech Baron 58 (http://www.planecheck.com/baronvs310.htm)