This board seems full of knowledge.


Anyone here have 310D model experience or insight?



I have a chance to trade a Warrior II for one and must say, I am intrigued. Even if it's not a B55.



wjg@mazgadd.com

I have owned a couple what info you looking for?

I used to fly a straight 310 (1955). I loved it! It was big a roomy inside, with a nice commanding pilot position. You looked down on everything else while taxiing. I crammed five adults in it, reasonably comfortably. It was fast (I flight-planned 170-175 Knots, a frequently saw over 190 KTAS), and very stable. Heavy in roll with the tip tanks, but a nice solid airplane.

There's a interesting article on airfactsjournal.com about the design of the 310.

My first plane was a 1961 310F. First year with swept tail and last year with the "tuna" tanks. That was over 25 yrs ago. I went from a 172 right into the 310 and its the only twin Ive ever flown so I cant really compare it to any others.It had the IO470D engines burned 12-14 GPH/side held 50 gal. In each tip tank (mains) and 15 in each wing (aux) would carry 5 adults with bags run 200KTS at 8000 ft and was a joy to fly. I loved that old plane. Very stable,reliable and tough.Instruction with someone very familiar with the 310 is a must! I cannot stress that enough! Under certain conditions single engine performance and climb rate can be anywhere from horrible at best to non existent and you have to really be on top of things if you loose an engine on takeoff. VMC roll can bite you if you don't know how to deal with it. The fuel system cross feed is pretty complex and you need to have a good understanding of how it works as well.

I have owned a couple what info you looking for?

I'll make my one post....

The 470 powered 310s "generally" are inferior to the 55 Barons. However they are a bit wider. Most nit picking maintenance, no nose baggage and don't perform as well. And, as mentions have a poor SE performance.

The 520 powered 310R is not a bad plane. They fixed a lot of the issues, and competes fairly close in performance with the Baron 58. Does not have the nice club door or seating options, but the wing lockers are nice.

Overall, the Beech is a much better plane, if the width isn't an issue.

Look real close to the landing gear!!! Also that plane has over the wing mufflers you need to look close for corrosion.

For it may or may not be worth: I can only recall a couple of flights in the Cessna 310D with no memorable impressions. However, I did fly several hundred hours in the U-3A Blue Canoe (a USAF Cessna 310A in which I recieved the ATP), G, H, I, J, K, N, & P models which were all powered by various versions of the 0-470. The models with canted tips always seemed more roll stable. Generally, one could figure on 180-190 knots, 23 squared, with appox. 30 gph ROP. All were good and comfortable machines with the 1964 I perhaps being the most sprightly. At one time an organization that I was employed with used both the 1964 Cessna 310I and a 1968 B-55 Baron.


Another organization that we routinely flew with employed a 1969 Aztec. Invaribly, if all 3 airplanes were dispatched on the same route, as was often the case, the Aztec would depart first, followed by the Baron, then the 310I. The Cessna would always arrive first, the Baron second, and the Aztec last. It didn't seem to make any difference which pilots flew which airplane. Go figure. Not having flown any of these in a number of years, I understand from reading that some of the older 300-400 series Cessnas are now beginning to show their age as manifested in corrossion problems and I'm sure some lack of parts and OEM support.


As far as comfort and flying (at the risk of being labled a heretic), I personally prefer the 310 over the Baron but, then again I like the Beech 50 series over any of them. As Larry pointed out none of these are "ball of fire" performers on one engine but, then again I am not sure that many Part 23 airplanes of that era are. My .02 worth.

MM

This is what someone else said on another board about the early 310s:

Corrosion: I don't believe you will be able to find a aircraft without severe corrosion in the exhaust area over the wing on the early versions.

Repair parts: Some of replacement Cessna parts will be very hard to find if at all. Engine controls come to mind.

Engines, Not sure they are supported any longer, and if you have ever had to deal with pressure carburetors, you know what a PIA that is, money and tuning.

Buy with care and understand the issues you are buying into.

I fly a Cessna 335 which basically is a 310 with an air stair, or an unpressurized 340. As other have said heavy in roll when tips are full, fuel system is fairly simple to understand but referred to as complex. It's been a great plane. Only dispatch problem I've had was a dead battery. Gear maintenance is important. Pretty docile on one engine.