Are Cessna 310's fun to fly?

[rumpletumbler]

Well are they? Sometimes I think I might break into one and sit there holding the yoke and throttles making engine noises until the police haul me away. I likes the way they look. They be so bad! Everyone seems to like to fly them so much they never put gas in them according to the NTSB or they forget to switch tanks and crash and die. Anyone in the Atlanta area have one that I can ride in and fine tune my engine noise sound?

RT

 

[bigD]

I've flown one once - it certainly beats the heck out of a Duchess! I thought it was fun, although come to think of it, I'm not sure if I've flown ANY plane and didn't think it was fun. Lots of power (we were light, though), and the controls were lighter than I thought they'd be. Easy to land. Or at least not any harder than the Duchess. Well, I only landed it twice, so it's possible I just got lucky both times!

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of the way the plane looks. But every owner I've talked to swears by them, and a quick search through the newsgroups show they have quite a following.

 

[310]

yeah its a blast- I have a 310C - 1959- 260hp per side- 4830 lbs max gross- good performance on less fuel than most people think.-

 

[rumpletumbler]

Isn't that close to the SKY KING 310? Do you play the theme song after takeoff clearance over the radio?

RT

 

[RockyMnt1]

C310

Lots of time in a C310Q. Great SE performance. I was holding altitude at 11,000 ft. 2 people, no fuel in the aux tanks. Very honest solid airplane. Get as much time in it as you can.

 

[rumpletumbler]

Was that by choice or is there a swashbuckling tale of IMC in the Sierra Neveda's and using a roadmap for navigation assoicated with it?

RT

 

[RockyMnt1]

C310

I wish. The MEAs around here are 16,000 msl and many of the passes are 12,000 so while 11,000 SE might sound impressive, not much IFR at that altitude. This was just a student doing some ME training. We did a complete engine shut down and restart. Of course, we were orbiting the airport at the time.

 

[RJlifer]

I've got a little time in a "Q" model and a much older one. Can't remember the model other than it had the "Tuna Tanks" on it. They were both fun to fly and had lots of pep with just myself and full fuel on board. That long, spindly looking gear though, I swear if you sneeze standing next to it, you might snap it's legs off.

 

[CorpJetPilot]

Awesome airplane. I had a Q for 5 years. 260hp/side, 2 bladed props. I put about 800 hours on it. Never had one ounce of trouble. TAS at 180kts. Can't beat it.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

have had bad luck with 310's. Flew a 310L model for a few months to build sometime. It was on a 135 certificate but just a piece of $hit. Burned oil like it was nothing and I lost the left engine twice due to engine driven fuel pump failures. I don't know if maybe it was just that airplane but I don't care for them .

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

One more vote for the 310!

I had a P model for a while. Turns out I'm the only guy in the state with any real 310 time that is also instructing... It's turned into quite a bit of business for me.

Not only that, but I get to fly around in other people's 310s a good bit, and I've got the keys to more than one on my keychain.

My P did 1,000 fpm out of here (5,800 MSL) with full fuel (aux's to) and four people and bags. Simply great.

One of my students' 310D can hold 10,000 on the right engine with three people and full fuel (but no bags). It's nice being able to count on a solid 750 fpm climb day in day out.

I really love the planes. It's just too bad that they really don't fly very nice (wild pitch with flaps and gear, the 310 wallow under about 120 KIAS, some models are really pitch sensitive, etc...). But that's what I like about them too, they're not all weenie'd out like the Senecas...

Dan

PS-If I'm ever doing the hiring, I'll have separate columns for 310/Baron/Real Twin time and the Seneca/Seminole/Duchess stuff.

 

[hyper]

Fly an R model 5 nights a week. Roomy, loud, slightly unstable and a good looking bird..........ours from a distance. Those that die in them from a lack of fuel management would do so in any other plane with more than 2 tanks. Nothing complicated here. They tend to yaw more than most (especially in turb. air) due to the fuel sloshing in the tip tanks, and the landing gear are notoriously weak, but not too many shortfalls. It's a good platform.

 

[Dep676]

Flew both a R model and a Q turbocharged model. Loved both of them. The only complaint I had was the yoke was close to your knees and that made it tought in cross winds. The R model I flew had 13000 hrs on it. Like metioned before you can't beat the 180 kts true. It's like a sports car. You will enjoy it. It's called fuel management and you won't have a problem.

 

[seattle]

I see that the older Piper Apaches are fairly cheap. I don't think they look as good as the 310's; but are they cheaper to operate / maintain (4 cylinders vs 6). Anybody care to post some comparison numbers between the two types - cruise speeds, fuel consumption, typical annual inspection costs, operational got-ya's, what have you……

 

[avbug]

I had a 310I and 340A once...didn't own them, but they were pretty much mine within the company to use, and I flew them quite a bit. I thought the 310 was great. It has great single engine service ceiling, good speed and performance for it's power, it's economical to fly, the systems are very simple and straight forward, and you wouldn't believe what I could haul around in one. (really).

I operated it in all kinds of weather, and it was just terriffic. I didn't care for the entrance door; it's a flimsy thing that doesn't fit particularly well, like many similiar doors on light singles and twins.

It's an easy airplane to work on, and an easy airplane to fly. I used it for training as well, and did some new hire screening in it occasionaly, as well as training for low level contact work. It did just fine.

Some folks will put down the landing gear...more than a few have folded them. In many cases, it's purely pilot error, often a taxi issue with damage to the nosegear.

I never noticed any of the instabiity that some folks here have mentioned. To each his own, I guess. I've flown some truly unstable airplanes, and this wasn't even close.

I don't understand some of the complaints about Senecas...I flew II's and III's for several hundred hours, and thought they did just fine. I used them in and out of some fairly rough fields in rough conditions, and never had a lick of trouble. Decent single engine performance, decent speed, not a bad airplane, excepting some of the gear maintenance issues.

Running an airplane out of fuel is in most all cases, an act of darwinism, and is only proof of lack of forethought.

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

Avbug:

I said "Seneca." There's a WORLD of difference between the ones with turbos and those without. Not sure if you've ever flown the straight one, but a straight gear 182 handily outruns it, it comes down at 500 fpm up here in New Mexico, doesn't have near enough elevator travel for me, and I've just never liked the plain one, but I've only flown three of them. Kinda like a very slightly better looking Apache, but without the cuteness/toughness aspect, and without the trim on the roof (which I love BTW).

Now, the Fives, there is a sweet ride...

As to the 310s gear--my students' 310 just had the gear rerigged (at a good twin Cessna shop), looks like the previous owner seriously neglected it. roller bearings with only two or three rollers left in them, serious galling on others... The only indication anything might be wrong was a very slight amount of play in the nosegear door linkage... Too bad they're so easy to work on (gotta love that cowling), or I could have made a fortune getting the plane in decent condition after they bought it...

Dan

 

[310]

Seattle, alot of difference in apache and 310. Apache is 150 or 160 hp per side, 310 is 260hp per side except the R is 285 per side- alot of speed difference- etc