14 Jun 2025, 22:50 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 21 Nov 2014, 00:06 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/22/10 Posts: 233 Post Likes: +54 Company: Rushing Media Location: Houma, LA
Aircraft: PA32-300
|
|
Username Protected wrote: When it was suggested to me, I didn't laugh. I listened and bought one. I was looking at 310's before that --
What is laughable to me is the difference between the way people post on a board and the way they talk in person.
Because we've met?! You entirely rebuilt your Tbone. And it came out fantastic. I'm not doing that to an airplane. I'm buying something done so I can just go fly it. Regardless, I'm trying to decide on a twin right now. Tbones were on my radar for a while. If one that has an airstair, decent panel with autopilot, WAAS GPS, etc. leather interior and good paint pops up when I'm ready to buy it'll be on my list. The odds of that happening are almost nonexistent. That's my point. I can find a Baron or 310 that has all that and buy it today, or tomorrow, or any day.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 21 Nov 2014, 00:58 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 10/13/13 Posts: 248 Post Likes: +58 Location: East Prairie, MO
Aircraft: 1962 B33 Debonair
|
|
So much to agree with here, I wanted a twin to get my multi and be the family hauler, wife didn't like the whole "pack light" deal. My 310 was 135 in a former life, has 12,000TT, was purchased in early 2000's by non pilot lawyer, no expense spared during his ownership. Paint and int in 05, 600 hr engines and 7 hrs on props when I bought, plus a nice panel with 530 & 55x autopilot. All for 5 figures...barely, that's right, under 100k! I've really been loving the 310, got my multi in August, have 60 hrs in it now. Have a friend with a 414 and the 310 is very similar, they share many parts which means the 310 is built beefy.
_________________ Commercial ASEL,AMEL, Inst Airplane
Tailwheel HP/Comp High Alt.
62' Debbie N1522S
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 22 Nov 2014, 13:50 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/28/09 Posts: 199 Post Likes: +125
Aircraft: C-310K
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I owned a 310I (first year with wing lockers) that had about 2500 hours on it. All the flush rivets under the wing leading edges were bleeding and would emit gray when flying thru rain. I got rid of it because I feared a nasty AD on the airframe to address that problem. That was in 1975 and it has never happened.
The lever arms in the landing gear are all really short and the rig drifts. Note the number of ac sitting on their noses. So I think you need to really keep after the gear.
It's a comfortable airplane. Not built anywhere as well as a Baron.
BH Could you provide any more information on ownership experience with regards to operating costs, annuals, dispatch reliability etc. I understand that fuel costs used to not be a big issues in the days of $1 or even $2/gal fuel costs + ROP operation. Are these viable twins to own today? I only have 1.5hrs in a 310R and less than 0.5 in the Baron. The Baron for all its strong points is a "small" plane with respect to its cabin. Since i will spend most of my time inside the cabin, comfort trumps "beech handling" or "bult like a tank" so long as parts failure and breakage is not really an issue in the C-310.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 22 Nov 2014, 21:09 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 05/23/08 Posts: 6060 Post Likes: +710 Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
I looked at a T310R my mecanik was maintaining before I purchased a Baron 58. I never did like the exaust going by the spar of the wing. Is this on the turbo only or on all 310? Very bad design and the cause of some wings failing and crashes.
After I bought the Baron my mecanik commented from working on the Baron that he was glad I didnt bought the T310R as the Baron was a better designed and stronger aircraft.
_________________ Former Baron 58 owner. Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 22 Nov 2014, 21:16 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/06/10 Posts: 1478 Post Likes: +802 Location: KMBO Brandon, MS
|
|
For what its worth: early in my in flying career I flew a 1964 Cessna 310I and a 1968 B-55 Baron daily for a State agency. IIRC both burned about 30 gph ROP (this was before the advent of GAMI's and small engine analyzers, both had 260 hp IO-470's) usually running 23x23, flight plan for 180 TAS. Airframe maintenance was probably a bit more on the 310 as it was more popular with pax when they had a choice and consequently stayed in the air more. This popularity, for both pax and crew, was due to a bit more roominess in the Cessna. Other than this about the only difference was that the gear and flap switches were in opposite positions for the two and the throttles were on the left of the quadrant on the 310 and in the middle on the Baron. As an aside, another state agency, the Highway Patrol, had a 1971 Aztec at that time. On many occasions all three aircraft were dispatched from the same base to the same destintion, all fully loaded with legislators (and other assorted political crooks). On these missions if the Aztec departed first, the Baron second, and the 310 last, they would usually arrive 310 first, Baron second, and Aztec last!
Bringing the Twin Bonanza into the discussion, IMO, is akin to introducing oranges into a comparison of apples; a jump in the class of airplanes to be sure. If comfort is your bag, then the T-bone is the hands-down winner for a cost of slightly less speed, a slightly higher fuel burn, and a slightly larger hangar requirement. Because I rate comfort above all but safety, I would choose first, the Twin Bonanza, 2nd the Cessna 310, and third the Baron. Some will agee and some will disagree but, this is why they build Chevy's AND Fords. MM
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 22 Nov 2014, 21:21 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 10/29/11 Posts: 1745 Post Likes: +553 Company: Johnson's Jewelry Inc. Location: Dayton, Ohio (KMGY)
Aircraft: F33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: For what its worth: early in my in flying career I flew a 1964 Cessna 310I and a 1968 B-55 Baron daily for a State agency. IIRC both burned about 30 gph ROP (this was before the advent of GAMI's and small engine analyzers, both had 260 hp IO-470's) usually running 23x23, flight plan for 180 TAS. Airframe maintenance was probably a bit more on the 310 as it was more popular with pax when they had a choice and consequently stayed in the air more. This popularity, for both pax and crew, was due to a bit more roominess in the Cessna. Other than this about the only difference was that the gear and flap switches were in opposite positions for the two and the throttles were on the left of the quadrant on the 310 and in the middle on the Baron. As an aside, another state agency, the Highway Patrol, had a 1971 Aztec at that time. On many occasions all three aircraft were dispatched from the same base to the same destintion, all fully loaded with legislators (and other assorted political crooks). On these missions if the Aztec departed first, the Baron second, and the 310 last, they would usually arrive 310 first, Baron second, and Aztec last!
Bringing the Twin Bonanza into the discussion, IMO, is akin to introducing oranges into a comparison of apples; a jump in the class of airplanes to be sure. If comfort is your bag, then the T-bone is the hands-down winner for a cost of slightly less speed, a slightly higher fuel burn, and a slightly larger hangar requirement. Because I rate comfort above all but safety, I would choose first, the Twin Bonanza, 2nd the Cessna 310, and third the Baron. Some will agee and some will disagree but, this is why they build Chevy's AND Fords. MM Thanks Michael, Good analysis.+1
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 22 Nov 2014, 23:15 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/14/08 Posts: 3133 Post Likes: +2672 Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
|
|
It's good to hear from experience, Michael. I would only say that the Twin Bonanza burns 13 a side, some even more than a gallon less, which I don't think is more, or at least not much more, than the others. Of course, you may be en route slightly longer.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|