Cessna 310

[Don]

Cessna 310 pilots and owners... How does it compare to a Seneca II in performance, maintainence etc...?

 

[FN FAL]

Cessna 310 pilots and owners... How does it compare to a Seneca II in performance, maintainence etc...?

I have significant time in 300 series aircraft, turbo and non-turbo. The Seneca is Ford Focus and the 310 is for purposes of the analogy, insert your favorite performance car here

However, regarding maintenance, the 300 series Cessnas will grapple for your wallet like a hungry bear would roll you around for the jelly doughnut in your pocket.

 

[User546]

I have significant time in 300 series aircraft, turbo and non-turbo. The Seneca is Ford Focus and the 310 is for purposes of the analogy, insert your favorite performance car here

Ferrari Marenello ... errr, although since we're talking C310... Acura NSX!

 

[FN FAL]

Ferrari Marenello ... errr, although since we're talking C310... Acura NSX!

maybe I sould have stipulated "domestic" performance motor cars under 300k?

I like the Seneca. It's an economy six place twin that has a lot of good points. The C-310 is a performance six place twin.

Where the 310 is quirky with it's dutch roll tendancies at slow speed, the Seneca is just as quirky in the greaser landing department. Seneca is simple fuel system, 310 is more complex.

I like them both and if I had to rent a twin for me and the wife to go visit family, the Seneca would be the more economical choice. If I had to squeeze six people and briefcases on a 1.4 hour trip with IFR reserves on a twin, the 310 R model with vortice generators, would be the cat's meow.

I was partners with a couple of guys on a turbo charged 300 series cessna and although the wife and I have a lot of fond memories of trips we took in that plane, we are glad it is someone else's mistriss now...because that biatch was high maintenance.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

The 310R is a great airplane. When you get use to the performance, you can't go back to any other light twin. It would be like going from a Caravan to a C152. Just too bad they didn't put trailing link gear on the 310. You have to work at every landing.

Tires, vacuum pumps, and maint. on the air filter box seems to be the only thing that is pretty recurring. Otherwise, solid maint. on the landing gear system is a must.

 

[NuGuy]

maybe I sould have stipulated "domestic" performance motor cars under 300k?

I like the Seneca. It's an economy six place twin that has a lot of good points. The C-310 is a performance six place twin.

Where the 310 is quirky with it's dutch roll tendancies at slow speed, the Seneca is just as quirky in the greaser landing department. Seneca is simple fuel system, 310 is more complex.

I like them both and if I had to rent a twin for me and the wife to go visit family, the Seneca would be the more economical choice. If I had to squeeze six people and briefcases on a 1.4 hour trip with IFR reserves on a twin, the 310 R model with vortice generators, would be the cat's meow.

I was partners with a couple of guys on a turbo charged 300 series cessna and although the wife and I have a lot of fond memories of trips we took in that plane, we are glad it is someone else's mistriss now...because that biatch was high maintenance.

I agree with FN here. The 310 is a sweet ride...but...

The 310, especially the turbo, will make your large fortune a small one.

It is certainly NOT for the cheap. I wouldn't get near a beater C310 on the hopes that the cheap aquisition costs will let you squeak by. Don't get near one unless you have serious green to keep it up.

Nu

 

[paulsalem]

The flight school I instruct at has a 1977 310R. The thing is a Mx hog, its just old.

The control surfaces are very heavy, yet somehow sloppy.

The a/c ballons like a mother when you put flaps in.

 

[FN FAL]

I agree with FN here. The 310 is a sweet ride...but...

The 310, especially the turbo, will make your large fortune a small one.

It is certainly NOT for the cheap. I wouldn't get near a beater C310 on the hopes that the cheap aquisition costs will let you squeak by. Don't get near one unless you have serious green to keep it up.

Nu

Yea, they would have named it the "mugger" but the marketing department frowned on that idea.

 

[imacdog]

The plane does balloon a lot when putting in the first 15 degrees of flaps but it comes down great when they are all the way out. Great for those non precision approaches so you don't have to yank the power all the way back to make the runway.

I loved the handling and speed of the 310s that I flew. The turbos were quicker at altitude, but there wasn't much difference up to about 7000 feet. Lots of baggage space in the nose (R model), though the rear seats aren't too big. Single engine handling was good and the plane handled ice fairly well. Overall I'm glad I flew freight in the 310 instead of a Navajo or Seneca.

 

[FN FAL]

The flight school I instruct at has a 1977 310R. The thing is a Mx hog, its just old.

The control surfaces are very heavy, yet somehow sloppy.

The a/c ballons like a mother when you put flaps in.

Yea, high perf piston twins are high perfomance wallet.

Yea, old planes require some wrench turning.

I don't know how much the control surfaces weigh, but if they are sloppy that might help with negating P.I.O. or maybe not...only your mx guy knows for sure.

Balloons? Don't be so ham fisted...piloting is about the schmooze, it's not x-box for crying out loud.