C310 R
C310 R
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are you doing your endorsement? Can't they send you a set of Handling Notes, or copies of the important pages from the flight manual?
If you don't have any luck there, drop me a line and I might be able to help.
If you don't have any luck there, drop me a line and I might be able to help.
Have you flown a C402? An older model with mains in the tips? The fuel system logic is the same. If not, then make sure you understand it. It's more complicated than is usual in GA. It's been a lot years so I don't remember the exact figures but here's what I do remember:
Loading:
The 'R' models ie long nose types are easier for CG limits than the short nose models due to having a nose locker.
The engine nacelle lockers can hold a lot but it must be reasonably shallow. Suitcases work well as do cartons of beer.
Fuel:
* The mains are the tip tanks. They hold a drum of fuel each (~55 USG ea).
* The aux's are in the wings, outboard of the engine. There are two versions of aux. tanks that may be fitted: long range or standard. Aux. fuel is NOT available for x-feed. This is an important consideration for asymmetric operations.
* A 'slipper' tank can be installed in the nacelles int he forward half of the baggage compartment reducing baggage load & room in the compartment. There can be none fitted, one only, or two fitted (one in each nacelle compartment). This fuel must first be pumped into that wing's main tank using a transfer pump in each slipper tank for it to be available to the engine(s). Each slipper tank holds ~60 mins of fuel. A light for each tank comes on once all its fuel is transferred. This fuel **IS** available for asymmetric use as long as the transfer pump(s) work.
* The injection system returns unused fuel ***only*** to the main/tip tank for the respective engine, no matter which tank is selected for that engine. Any fuel that is pumped or returned to a main will be vented overboard if the tanks becomes full, so
1. You must use ~60 mins of fuel from the mains in order to transfer.
2. Standard aux's need about 30 mins of fuel burnt from the mains before switching to themn to allow for the returned fuel. Long range aux's need about 60 mins burnt from the mains before switching to aux.
Some thoughts about flying for range as a result of the above:
Shortly after take-off when there's some room in the mains test the slipper fuel transfer system. Do this by switching on the pump(s) and watch for a fuel quantity rise in the respective main then switching off after a rise is seen. Keep a note of the time used so you know what's left in the slipper(s).
Back to the mains to burn 30 or 60 mins as appropriate to prep. for switching to aux's.
Burn all the aux's as soon as possible. Remember one of these will become dead weight if you lose an engine!
Once the aux's are empty & back on the mains, transfer the fuel from slipper(s) to mains.
NB: Monitor the fuel gauges for 'full' (and the wing tips for fuel overflow) while feeding from the aux's or while the transfer pumps are on. If the mains get full before the aux's are used or the slippers have finished transferring then feed from the mains for a while to make some more room.
Other stuff:
* Some have a piss tube. In the preflight make sure the outlet tube doesn't face forward and think you'll need to use the tube. Unless you like wearing urine, of course.
* It has Continental IO520s (R models) or IO470s (early-ish models). Any experience you have on Bonanzas, C210s, Barons etc will be beneficial w.r.t operating these engines. Especially for hot starts...
Note that injected Continentals typically use a full rich start, unlike injected Lycomings that typically use a mixture ICO start.
* Hot starts can be made easier by leaving the mixture in ICO while running the high pressure boost pump for few minutes before start.
* Speaking of the HP boost pumps, the IO520's have both LP & HP boost pumps. LP is for take off, landing etc. HP is to replace the engine driven pump if it fails. You can't use both the HP pump & the engine driven pump at the same time or the extra pressure will make the mixture too rich for combustion. As I recall the HPs have a setting to auto ON if the engine driven pump fails. Not sure about the auto bit. It's been years since I last flew one.
I like the C310R & C402 a lot. Nice, roomy cockpit with a good view.
Loading:
The 'R' models ie long nose types are easier for CG limits than the short nose models due to having a nose locker.
The engine nacelle lockers can hold a lot but it must be reasonably shallow. Suitcases work well as do cartons of beer.
Fuel:
* The mains are the tip tanks. They hold a drum of fuel each (~55 USG ea).
* The aux's are in the wings, outboard of the engine. There are two versions of aux. tanks that may be fitted: long range or standard. Aux. fuel is NOT available for x-feed. This is an important consideration for asymmetric operations.
* A 'slipper' tank can be installed in the nacelles int he forward half of the baggage compartment reducing baggage load & room in the compartment. There can be none fitted, one only, or two fitted (one in each nacelle compartment). This fuel must first be pumped into that wing's main tank using a transfer pump in each slipper tank for it to be available to the engine(s). Each slipper tank holds ~60 mins of fuel. A light for each tank comes on once all its fuel is transferred. This fuel **IS** available for asymmetric use as long as the transfer pump(s) work.
* The injection system returns unused fuel ***only*** to the main/tip tank for the respective engine, no matter which tank is selected for that engine. Any fuel that is pumped or returned to a main will be vented overboard if the tanks becomes full, so
1. You must use ~60 mins of fuel from the mains in order to transfer.
2. Standard aux's need about 30 mins of fuel burnt from the mains before switching to themn to allow for the returned fuel. Long range aux's need about 60 mins burnt from the mains before switching to aux.
Some thoughts about flying for range as a result of the above:
Shortly after take-off when there's some room in the mains test the slipper fuel transfer system. Do this by switching on the pump(s) and watch for a fuel quantity rise in the respective main then switching off after a rise is seen. Keep a note of the time used so you know what's left in the slipper(s).
Back to the mains to burn 30 or 60 mins as appropriate to prep. for switching to aux's.
Burn all the aux's as soon as possible. Remember one of these will become dead weight if you lose an engine!
Once the aux's are empty & back on the mains, transfer the fuel from slipper(s) to mains.
NB: Monitor the fuel gauges for 'full' (and the wing tips for fuel overflow) while feeding from the aux's or while the transfer pumps are on. If the mains get full before the aux's are used or the slippers have finished transferring then feed from the mains for a while to make some more room.
Other stuff:
* Some have a piss tube. In the preflight make sure the outlet tube doesn't face forward and think you'll need to use the tube. Unless you like wearing urine, of course.
* It has Continental IO520s (R models) or IO470s (early-ish models). Any experience you have on Bonanzas, C210s, Barons etc will be beneficial w.r.t operating these engines. Especially for hot starts...
Note that injected Continentals typically use a full rich start, unlike injected Lycomings that typically use a mixture ICO start.
* Hot starts can be made easier by leaving the mixture in ICO while running the high pressure boost pump for few minutes before start.
* Speaking of the HP boost pumps, the IO520's have both LP & HP boost pumps. LP is for take off, landing etc. HP is to replace the engine driven pump if it fails. You can't use both the HP pump & the engine driven pump at the same time or the extra pressure will make the mixture too rich for combustion. As I recall the HPs have a setting to auto ON if the engine driven pump fails. Not sure about the auto bit. It's been years since I last flew one.
I like the C310R & C402 a lot. Nice, roomy cockpit with a good view.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't forget to ensure the "clacker/pulse" (internal fuel transfer) pumps in the Mains are working on your preflight.
You should be able to hear them with the master "on" during your preflight and if I recall they are on the Landing Light (retractable) breaker.
They are a "no go" item as their function is to ensure that the fuel sump from which the main fuel is delivered from within the main tank to the engine is kept full. In level flight attitudes it is not a problem but on descent the sump can become uncovered and start sucking air if it is not kept full.
It is especially important if you are expecting to land with minimum fuel.
It's a big tank (and very beautiful piece of metalwork) and with only 30 or so litres sloshing around in the tip on descent you don't need the surprise.
If you're at all inclined to be a "paraplegic pilot" you might have to brush up on your rudder skills
It is a beautful big roomy bird, very responsive and you'll have the time of your life. Enjoy.
You should be able to hear them with the master "on" during your preflight and if I recall they are on the Landing Light (retractable) breaker.
They are a "no go" item as their function is to ensure that the fuel sump from which the main fuel is delivered from within the main tank to the engine is kept full. In level flight attitudes it is not a problem but on descent the sump can become uncovered and start sucking air if it is not kept full.
It is especially important if you are expecting to land with minimum fuel.
It's a big tank (and very beautiful piece of metalwork) and with only 30 or so litres sloshing around in the tip on descent you don't need the surprise.
If you're at all inclined to be a "paraplegic pilot" you might have to brush up on your rudder skills
It is a beautful big roomy bird, very responsive and you'll have the time of your life. Enjoy.
Completely forgot about the tickers! They're in the forward part of the mains. As Gaunty said, if nose down then low fuel can unport the fuel pickup which is in the middle of the tank. The tank is compartmented to make a sump around the fuel port. The tickers server to pump fuel from the forward part of the tank into the sump. Many operators pull the light's CB on the ground to stop them. If you do, make damn sure you reset the CB before take-off.
Don't the landing lights have a limit speed? They have a retraction/extension mechanism I think, rather than being permanently exposed.
Just remembered:
There's quite a lot of mass in the tips with the tanks full. Be aware of the rolling inertia as a result. It can be slight surprise if you're not familiar with the a/c, leading to a little bit of rolling past your intended AoB.
Don't the landing lights have a limit speed? They have a retraction/extension mechanism I think, rather than being permanently exposed.
Just remembered:
There's quite a lot of mass in the tips with the tanks full. Be aware of the rolling inertia as a result. It can be slight surprise if you're not familiar with the a/c, leading to a little bit of rolling past your intended AoB.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 21st Feb 2005 at 17:57.
Seasonally Adjusted
Require a bit of forward planning on the descent. Gear extension speed is 138kt and you can't get near that without first stage of flap, which is 158kt and you can't get near that unless you have flown level for a while at reduced power settings.
Try 180kt joining crosswind if you like but be prepared for a big circuit. OK for us bushys but doesn't look good at a GAAP aerodrome.
Try 180kt joining crosswind if you like but be prepared for a big circuit. OK for us bushys but doesn't look good at a GAAP aerodrome.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to add to what has already been said, they are a damn good looking airplane. (especially the blue and white short nosed ones)
Hey TQ, whats wrong with 180knt crosswind joins?...they SOPs around here.
Hey TQ, whats wrong with 180knt crosswind joins?...they SOPs around here.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TQ,
Don't you fly 180 kt until late downwind? Every minute counts when the boss looks at the paperwork the next day; unless you don't have a problem with the 'please explain' phone call....
The 310s aren't so nice in turbulence for pax. They tend to wallow around a lot, particularly with that fuel all the way out on the wing tips. I also found that they occassionally had a tendency to gently porpoise in the cruise when heavy. The trim sheet showed everything in balance but they still seemed to climb and descend 100-150'. Could just have been my flying though
Don't you fly 180 kt until late downwind? Every minute counts when the boss looks at the paperwork the next day; unless you don't have a problem with the 'please explain' phone call....
The 310s aren't so nice in turbulence for pax. They tend to wallow around a lot, particularly with that fuel all the way out on the wing tips. I also found that they occassionally had a tendency to gently porpoise in the cruise when heavy. The trim sheet showed everything in balance but they still seemed to climb and descend 100-150'. Could just have been my flying though
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ozpilot
Turbulence?? I'd rather be in a C310 than a Baron any day, one of the reasons the fuel is "out there" is wing bending moment relief and it does give a softer ride because of the weight distribution across the wing.
Whilst both were fairly short coupled the Baron was IMHO heaps more so than the C310. Just compare the size of the tail feathers.
Most had a yaw damper installed which worked a treat like it was on rails, first thing ON after TO. If not, getting gently on the pedals would settle any larger excursions.
The porpoising? Can't say I experienced it routinely except maybe when full aft C of G which was pretty hard to get with the long nose, unless you had some 200kg drillers on board then it turned into a 4 pax load., That is if you were in the habit of arguing with 200 kg drillers .
Some of the trim sheets I saw in use were more in the hope than the execution.
Quieter smoother and heaps roomier than anything else in it's class and just as fast.
The 21st Century winglets, now all the rage, were just a bonus.
Turbulence?? I'd rather be in a C310 than a Baron any day, one of the reasons the fuel is "out there" is wing bending moment relief and it does give a softer ride because of the weight distribution across the wing.
Whilst both were fairly short coupled the Baron was IMHO heaps more so than the C310. Just compare the size of the tail feathers.
Most had a yaw damper installed which worked a treat like it was on rails, first thing ON after TO. If not, getting gently on the pedals would settle any larger excursions.
The porpoising? Can't say I experienced it routinely except maybe when full aft C of G which was pretty hard to get with the long nose, unless you had some 200kg drillers on board then it turned into a 4 pax load.
, That is if you were in the habit of arguing with 200 kg drillers .Some of the trim sheets I saw in use were more in the hope than the execution.
Quieter smoother and heaps roomier than anything else in it's class and just as fast.
The 21st Century winglets, now all the rage, were just a bonus.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: camel farm
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looxury.......
Try the 310 Q first so that you really appreciate the R.
BTW I found the Baron a smoother ride in turbulence due to all that fuel sloshing around in the tip tanks on the 310.
Yaw damper??? What's that? If it's a true GA machine, forget it. I never saw one until the 402.
Try the 310 Q first so that you really appreciate the R.
BTW I found the Baron a smoother ride in turbulence due to all that fuel sloshing around in the tip tanks on the 310.
Yaw damper??? What's that? If it's a true GA machine, forget it. I never saw one until the 402.
Seasonally Adjusted
Knockout...another thing to consider with the 310R...with full fuel and your instructor sitting alongside you'll be outside the forward C of G. Shouldn't need full fuel for an endorsement but it is one to watch out for.
Wiz...haven't seen Daisy around for a while, where's she hiding?
Wiz...haven't seen Daisy around for a while, where's she hiding?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C310R ???
GREAT airplane to fly. I LOVED it.
The only problem with it, I found, was that evry time you jumped in a different one, you had to take 10 mins toi find out where everything was .... ie: Headset jacks, avionics master etc etc.
Don't be upset if you do a few... "not so perfect" landings initially. They are a B!TCH to land if you are not flying them continually ... also if not right on the numbers!
GREAT airplane to fly. I LOVED it.
The only problem with it, I found, was that evry time you jumped in a different one, you had to take 10 mins toi find out where everything was .... ie: Headset jacks, avionics master etc etc.
Don't be upset if you do a few... "not so perfect" landings initially. They are a B!TCH to land if you are not flying them continually ... also if not right on the numbers!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
Have flown both the Baron and 310 but it has been a while since I was in a Baron. I loved the Baron and was not a massive fan of the 310. My memory is most likely failing me, but I do seem to recall the Baron being better in turbulence. The 310 does yaw a lot when upset and quite often the yaw dampers don't work. However the 310 is much better for charter; more room, payload etc. I just felt it was more of a work horse where as the Baron is a lovely sports car. A helluva lot easier to land well than the 310.
Have flown both the Baron and 310 but it has been a while since I was in a Baron. I loved the Baron and was not a massive fan of the 310. My memory is most likely failing me, but I do seem to recall the Baron being better in turbulence. The 310 does yaw a lot when upset and quite often the yaw dampers don't work. However the 310 is much better for charter; more room, payload etc. I just felt it was more of a work horse where as the Baron is a lovely sports car. A helluva lot easier to land well than the 310.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TQ, she's tucked away in the back of the hangar having a rest, while I'm flat out trying to recoup some losses from last year. she'll be out in the near future.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ozpilot
The yaw damper does work very well and if it doesn't it should be fixed just for the pax comfort, the Baron isn't much better if at all, it's a characteristic of short coupled aircraft.
Flown both, never had any reason to change my mind.
Sports car or work horse, ask the passengers which one they prefer, they are the ones paying for it after all. ?
Barons are like sports cars unless your baggage is limited to your wetpack and undies and you don't mind having the same leg and shoulder room as an MGB and having to install important flight instruments and radio stuff in the RH seat footwell and have to use a periscope to see out the front, I guess they're fine. 
But I'm not biased you understand
The yaw damper does work very well and if it doesn't it should be fixed just for the pax comfort, the Baron isn't much better if at all, it's a characteristic of short coupled aircraft.
Flown both, never had any reason to change my mind.
Sports car or work horse, ask the passengers which one they prefer, they are the ones paying for it after all. ?
Barons are like sports cars unless your baggage is limited to your wetpack and undies and you don't mind having the same leg and shoulder room as an MGB and having to install important flight instruments and radio stuff in the RH seat footwell and have to use a periscope to see out the front, I guess they're fine.
But I'm not biased you understand