Cessna 310R

[Vulcan607]

Hey,

hoping to fly the C310R pretty soon.
Any guys out there with experience of this aeroplane?

I've heard its a much nicer aeroplane to fly than the seneca........views and opinions appreciated?

Does anyone have a link to a PDF document perhaps containing a C310R POH or any performance data?

Thanks

:E

[jxc]

Cessna 310 R, II Performance Information (http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane172.shtml)

[slatch]

Checkout this thread for some info....

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/347541-cessna-310r.html#post4470123

I don't think I have digital copy of the C310R POH but I will check. In my opinon the 310R is a great pilots aircraft. Not so nice from a passengers seat. It is a slick airplane. You really need to stay ahead of it, especially after starting your decent. It takes some planning ahead to do it without having to pull the power off to far, putting the flaps out early and extending the gear to fast or while turning. I try to start my decent 10 miles for every 1000 ft. IE: if I am cruising 10,000 ft above field elevation I start down 100 miles out. Most pilots that fly with me seem a little surprised but soon see why. This allows me to keep the power up on the descent and cool the engines slowly. Gear speed is either 130 or 140 I dont remember off the top of my head. I always try to be below 120 and flying straight. The gear is electric and there are some long torque tubes, you dont want any more stress on it than neccesary while in transit. VMC is 80 so most approachs are about 100 downwind, 90 base slowing to 80 on final. Most pilots seem to land with power. The long struts and big tires make this a non-event. Pulling the power to early will get your attention as you fall to the runway. Get a good understanding of the fuel system, there are a number of tank options and there is a correct way to do things.

[Vulcan607]

thanks for the info guys!

previous twins flown are pa34 and pa31 so I'm looking forward to this. Sat in the aircraft in questions yesterday and literally cant wait to have a go in it.

Very much appreciated!

Cheers

[SNS3Guppy]

The 310 is a simple light twin. It's got descent speed for it's size and weight, and it flies nicely.

The main fuel tanks are the tips tanks, and if you haven't flown with mass far outboard before, you may find that you fall into the trap of over correcting as you fly...and keep on wing wagging and dutch rolling. The easy solution is to stop moving the controls for a moment.

When you crossfeed or use an aux or locker tank, all the fuel that's bypassed at the fuel pump returns to the main tank. For this reason you have to burn off enough fuel in the main tank to create space for bypass fuel, before you use another fuel source. Use your aux fuel early, because with an engine out, you can crossfeed from the main tank on that side, but the aux tank is useless. You can't get that fuel any more.

Be careful with manual gear extension, and don't allow the handle to slip and freewheel...it can break your fingers. Don't ever try to raise the gear with the hand crank.

A standard descent is 3:1. There is absolutely NO need to go with a 10:1 descent in an airplane such as the 310. It's not that critical, and it's NOT that high performance, or sensitive.

The 310 is a simple, straight forward airplane. Know your systems. Respect your speeds. Treat it as you should any light airplane, and plan ahead. I think you'll like the airplane. While the Seneca is a fine little twin, the 310 in my opinion is a better airplane, albeit a bit more expensive.

[slatch]

Like I said, not everyone agrees with how I fly my 310's. But I would totally disagree with a 3:1 unless you like buying cylinders. There is no way to descend that quickly without cooling the engines too quickly, especially if you have turbos. Next time you fly a C310 try a 8-10:1. just trim the nose down to about 400 ft/min. once it is established you should be doing about 200 knots indicated. Slowly reduce power during descent, about an inch a thousand works well. Result you make up time with a long fast descent, cool the engines slowly, never have ear issues, arrive in the pattern a resonable speed and dont have to close the throttles to slow down to flap speed. I guess it makes more of differance if your flying your own plane and have to pay for the repairs.

[Pace]

Vulcan

I have not flown a 310 for a number of years but was flying one at the same time that I was flying the a Baron 55 so had a direct comparison.

Cannot say it was my favourite aircraft. I go with what Guppy says about the tip tanks and a slight odd feeling I would also add that the aircraft was fairly short coupled and was prone to making passengers feel nauseous.
use the yaw damper as it does fishtail a little.

On the other hand the Baron 55 is a delight with delicious handling, economical, fast and oozes character.

Going up there is the Cessna 303 (brilliant aircraft lousy engines amazing undercarriage) Cessna 340 etc.

The newer Piper Senecas are a dream. I have over 2000 hrs in those. They maybe dull handling wise but they are faithful servants that will take you into the shortest strips as does the 303. They also protect the pilot as they prob have the most forgiving characteristics of any twin.

Be interesting to see what you think of the 310? not my favourite but many adored them and believe there were a number of engine options including one hot rod :)

Pace

[Daysleeper]

Many moons ago I did my multi IR in the 310R. Since then I've flown most of the other cessna twins as well as a range of other machines.
The 310 remains one of my favourite aircraft. Agile, quick, good legs and could lift a surprising amount of people/stuff. The only weaknesses I remember were an overly complex gear extension system, which used to give the engineers nightmares and a high hourly cost (though luckily I had no gear problems myself and I wasn't paying so the cost point was moot).

Actually thinking about it...anyone know of one for hire in the south of england and how much? I'd like to go back and relive my youf :E

[SNS3Guppy]

I guess it makes more of differance if your flying your own plane and have to pay for the repairs.


Not really. I've never seen an aircraft which requires a 10:1 descent unless one is flying a sailplane, but even there that's very optional.

Performing a 10:1 descent means you're crossing altitudes for a very long distance. This is wasteful and unprofessional, as well as exposing anyone along those altitudes to increased risk and exposure...including yourself. If you're going to go down, then go down...but don't take all day doing it.

One can make a safe 3:1 descent in that airplane without difficulty, without danger, and without damage to the airframe or engines. One isn't going to "shock cool" them, crack cylinders, or have pieces raining out of the airplane. One simply has to fly the airplane properly.

If you're flying the airplane properly there's no need to "close the throttles to slow down to flap speed," or any of that nonsense. The mythology of one inch per thousand feet has *some* bearing on operations above barometric, but none on power reduction once one has reached barometric manifold pressure on the descent. One should be slowed down well prior to pattern entry, and there is absolutely no need to retard power to low settings at any time if one plans ahead. Doing a 10:1 descent is a poor practice which you might be able to get away with...but which creates an obstacle for everyone else. Plan your descents, don't take all day doing them.