Listing an ad with a high price does not assign "value".
Check back in a year and see if the asking price is the same.

Know of another 310 that also has fresh engines and is now for sale. Probably the worst place to be for an owner - kind of like having just remodeled the bathrooms and kitchens and now needing to sell. Figure 35% return on the engines. If I want new engines, I want to be the one to break them in for the first 50-100 hours.

The true value IMHO opinion of a 310 is the turbo version since they can in theory fly on one engine above the highest continental peak. Otherwise it's around 6000 feet. East of the Mississippi, ok, but in the west, it's a complicated, heavy, poorly performing single if an engine fails. With the turbo, I was able to maintain level flight at about 11,500' in mine vs. 14,000' book, so close and a long drift down from say the FL190 usually crossed the Rockies at.

Biggest problem for the new owner is insurability and maintenance. The former can maybe be fixed with money, or the ratty ones are flown naked I suspect. The latter can really bite with the deferred work often seen in these aging, almost all out-to-pasture aircraft. Some Barons are still around and lovely, but the 310s are almost all dead. Of course there are exceptions, but like another poster noted, they have been fixed up with no regard to cost because of the mission of the owner; he or she knows they will get a small percentage of the money spent back on sale.

Built in portable GPS always makes me wonder but each to their own. Unless the perfect buyer comes along ("must have this aircraft") I suspect it sells for much less than advertised. Or it sits for ages like so many aircraft because the owner knows it's worth much more than the offers received. Many hangars filled with those.

That said, the subject aircraft is gorgeous and well equipped panel-wise. If someone had a business/mission that required frequent all-weather trips of 600-800 nm east of the Rockies with some payload requirements, that aircraft would hum. 310s fly beautifully.

If that were a $400K+ 310R it would have to have something better than G5s and had better maintenance. The landing gear looks pretty bad, the boots are questionable, and the struts aren’t serviced properly. That reflects on both the maintenance history and the owners focus on cosmetics. It has a lot of nice attributes and might be worth a premium after inspection.

Is this the plane that was for sale in southern Florida a few years ago?

Some turbo twin Cessnas definitely require some MX inspections. I think in those installations the turbos are mounted to the airframe, not the engine, so there is considerable flex between between the two that causes problems.

Best,
Rich

Watch All the “Save the 310” videos on utube channel Jimmys World. Heartbreaking The ones at TAS where huge issues were uncovered was especially informative.

These planes are all really old, weren’t that well built to begin with, and can have a lot of corrosion and other issues.

Buy what you eventually want. When you fix or upgrade things your money won’t just be going down the drain.

100% correct which is what precipitated the AD for repetitive inspections of the exhaust system. I know this applies to 310's and 320's - don't know about 400 series Twin Cessnas.

The turbo twin Cessnas up thorough the 421B have issues with corrosion from exhaust leaks, due mostly to the placement of the various components. There are a couple of different service bulletins that apply. I was involved in replacing two engine mount beams (one on each side), all four canted bulkheads and both bulkhead caps on a 414 due to corrosion. One of the canted bulkheads was so bad my pick would go right through it.

100% correct which is what precipitated the AD for repetitive inspections of the exhaust system. I know this applies to 310's and 320's - don't know about 400 series Twin Cessnas.

If it's really MEL time you want, I'll add my vote for a Travel Air. bullet proof engines that you can run thru TBO and they sell near salvage price because of the prop AD's and just because they're so old. When you're done, like another poster said, it's still got lots of training value because of the accumulators and those engines can take the endless one-engine restarts.

Worst case, you part it out -- if you're buying it for $75k, what can you lose? 30AMU?

I'm about ready to do this myself.........I think. Keep the Bonanza while I do my multi, make a little back on a lease back to a local club or flight school and see if I 'need' a baron.

What could go wrong? (i know -- PLENTY!)

Of course this is beechtalk.
I am on my 4th 310 and I have owned 7 other twins 3 of which were cabin class. My 310 is not a 1% er but is pretty nice with a 500 TXI/ 750 TXI panel and low engine/ airframe times booted and all mx up to date. I might get a high time baron with a basic panel for the money I have in mine. I certainly could not buy a late 60’s c-182 for that money. But to me once sorted, the 310 is basically like 182 with retractable gear maintenance wise. Very easy to live with and lots of capability for the $. Sure the fuel burn is higher than a single, but that’s easily offset by the capital cost. Signed a satisfied 310 owner.

I owned a C-310F (U-3B) for 8 years. I was determined to make it a top 1% airplane.

Bought for $50K (Cheap!)

Initial firewall forward work, new Aspen 2500 panel, STEC 50 autopilot, 2 X IFD 440, new heater, new windscreen, replace 3/4 exhaust stacks, oh and a new leather interior $100K+

2 new factory engines (0 time factory rebuild IO-470D) $125k, overhauled props and governors $10K.

8 years of $15K/year fuel bills, hangar, insurance and annuals.

Got lucky, sold it to the perfect buyer (who wanted this airplane) - $150K.

The 310 advertised is only worth the price of the engines and the avionics, the airframe is free.

Finally, if you buy this airplane, think what you’ll be able to get for it in 3-5 years. Probably not $400K+.

Butch

Thanks for the insight. Unfortunately most sellers don't subscribe to this belief. I had TAS do a desktop appraisal on it and they said without seeing the plane based on what we are seeing we would be selling it for 325-370k if it was theirs. I came to the seller with that information and said I'd be a buyer in that price range. He basically laughed and said no id rather hang on to it. It's a shame its a very nice plane. Maybe 6 months from now it will still be on market. Maybe not. Re-sale value is important... if i keep financially growing then 5 years from now I may want to unload it and move up. Just like im trying to do now with my bonanza. If barons didn't have such horrible panel ergonomics and narrow cabins I would probably choose a baron. But those seem to fetch and even higher premium!

Anthony, don’t get me wrong, when my 310 was working right I really did love it. My frustration with my 310 wasn’t even particularly the cost, as I said, I knew the expenses needed going in to upgrade the aircraft.

My problem was maintenance and parts for a 60 year old airplane. Plus, Cessna 310s are not built like Beechcraft products. They are lighter and were never designed to last 40-60+ years. The early 310s have massive corrosion problems and absolutely nobody in my area knows how to wrench on them anymore. As the owner you need to be a Cessna systems expert in order to tell a maintenance technician how to fix the airplane, and supply the needed parts as well.

Tony and they guys at TAS are the world experts on Twin Cessnas, but they know the airplanes so well, they will find defects on older 310s that will basically ground the airplane (and they should be, because of long time neglect). Plus their annual inspections can easily run into really big $$$$$$ because of their high standards. Those high standards will literally save your life.

The advertised 310 is very low time, and may not have any serious issues, but even a sales price in the high $300s, it would be difficult to sell later on and not lose a ton of money.

I’m big and can’t fit in a Baron, I could barely fit in my 310, but I loved flying it, I just didn’t enjoy owning and maintaining it.

Butch

I fly a NA baron in California and the southwest and I'm comfortable crossing the Sierras and Rockies, even in IMC if there is no ice. A baron is fine at 17K which will get you above most mountains even in Alaska. I think the performance of a NA 310 is similar.

There is the risk of losing an engine, but you can drift down a long ways, especially if you have GPS terrain maps and can follow the valleys down.

A turbocharged aircraft would be better, a turbine better, a jet better still. You can always spend more money for more capability. Lots of people fly singles in mountainous areas, and I few a bonanza for many years before I could afford a baron.

Needless to say I was and am very careful about maintenance and in the Bonanza I'd pick routes through the mountains that were more likely to provide survivable landing spots.








Is that an Alaska thing? I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. My SOP is to fly as high as I can justify over mountains. Staying low and in the passes means minimal glide range if something goes wrong and a very likely rough ride the rest of the time. Flying high (and even 5,000'+ over the tops of major mountains and mountain ranges) gives me more time and distance to deal with any problems which pop up. Easily reach many more airports on either side of a major mountain range if I had to. It also gives me better radio coverage with ATC, which otherwise will be pretty sparse or non-existent if you're down low. Being high means better situational awareness since ATC will often share radar information, and gives me better communication options if something goes wrong.

Flying through the passes means minimal options in an emergency, no ability to talk to ATC for IFR flight plans, flight following, or for help of any sort. I've gotten caught in some pretty "interesting" mountain wave, too, where flying low would have been a bad idea.