1979 Cessna Turbo 310 R

[tathepilot]

I'm looking for info on this a/c directly from those with time in it.
What do you like/hate about this a/c.

Is this a good a/c for a small 135 startup in the northeast?

How about the Ram I 300hp conversion?

fuel burn per/hr?


thx

 

[Gearmunky]

I have about 80 hours in a 1979 310R, it's not turbo, but that doesn't really make a difference as far as flight characteristics it's the same airframe, the turbo just goes fasterand you have to baby the engines more. I love the 310 it's a great airplane. I've had it in all types of weather and it flies great. It can be a little bit of a bear on landing because it seems stiff on touch down due to the gear for some reason. The models you can find with vortex generators fly a little bit better. I fly one Part 91 for a local charter company, and it's economical and virtually maintenance free. (Having said that it'll probably crap out on me next time I fly it) The turbo will probably save you money coming home empty because you can get higher and take advantage of the winds. The only downfall is wearing oxygen. I can't help you with the fuel burn but just call a company that makes the conversion and ask for the numbers, figure in a little marketing fluff and it should give you some perspective. Over all I find it a great and fun airplane to fly and our passengers love it. I hope I could be of help to you.

 

[Gearmunky]

Computer Screw Up

 

[cptsesso]

I have about 1200 hrs in C310's and have a lot of respect for the plane. I would avoid the turbo though, you really don't need it here in the northeast or the associated additional maintenance. I am not familiar with the Ram 300hp conversion, but I don't know how much an additional 15hp/side will give in additional performance.

My cruise fuel burn in the 310R was about 14 gal/side.

My highlights are that it has great range, speed and plenty of baggage space. It performes very well single engine, I know this from experience and it can handle a good load of ice, also from experience, although not a fun one.

If you do get one, make sure it is known-ice. You will need it here in the northeast.

 

[flytheblue]

I have flown a 310 a few times that had the 300HP conversions. It would cruise easily at 200mph and burned about 25 gph. It can go through fuel quick at the lower altitudes!

 

[vetteracer]

I have flow the 310 (P,Q,R) models and have only flown 1 turbo model once. Most of the R models are either 285 or 300 horse. The P-Q are 265 I think. I would get an R model if it were going to be flown for 135 cargo/charter. The Turbo yielded small benefits bellow 9,000 feet. If you plan on crossing mountains or long haul type flying (more then 500 miles) then a turbo may provide some benefits. In the charter/cargo field were you cycle starts and stops frequently the turbo will be a hindrance were maintenance is concerned.

As mentioned a know Ice 310 would be a necessity were you live. Actual "known Ice" would require a heated windshield and most do not have that. Either a whiskey window or a hot plate. Try to find one with inboard boots as well.

Single engine performance is not that bad in the colder months if you are modestly loaded. It handles ice fairly well. The prop heat pads are the key, clean props can pull a dirty plane.

Any 300 and 400 series Cessna have the gas heaters up front and can be a source of maintenance. They should be treated like a turbo charger, cooled down etc. If they get overheated in flight, you cannot reset the breaker until you land, as it is in the nose gear well. So that can lead to some cold flights.

The R models seemed to burn 18GPH or 36 total. With 160 gallon tanks, this would give you about 4 hours flight time with a modest reserve. Cruise in the R models at 8K feet usually yielded 170 knots.

All in all it flies and handles well. The 310 is more squirrelly then the 400 series and requires you to fly it almost all the time if there is no autopilot. It would not be my first choice for a passenger aircraft.
Mark