28 Mar 2024, 14:40 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 14 Sep 2017, 21:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/01/11 Posts: 6689 Post Likes: +4354 Location: In between the opioid and marijuana epidemics
Aircraft: 182, A36TC
|
|
Seem to be a good value. What are the drawbacks? Is one model preferred?
_________________ Fly High,
Ryan Holt CFI
"Paranoia and PTSD are requirements not diseases"
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 15 Sep 2017, 00:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/04/09 Posts: 352 Post Likes: +149
Aircraft: Dakota
|
|
This Cat - Jerry W - on youtube has a great channel depicting his almost daily flights in his 320. He goes over EVERYTHING!! Great videos when you have time to kill. Makes me want a Cessna 320. https://www.youtube.com/user/HOLLYWGE/videosI think there may be some good opportunities out there when most everyone won't touch an airframe. Probably the opposite when you're selling Another guy is (was) out there flying his old straight tail 310 all over Florida. Looks like a great twin too. https://www.youtube.com/user/Giventofly ... =0&sort=dd
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 15 Sep 2017, 00:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/02/08 Posts: 7201 Post Likes: +5100 Company: Rusnak Auto Group Location: Newport Coast, CA
Aircraft: Baron B55 N7123N
|
|
Username Protected wrote: That's just a turbocharged 310... Actually Arlen, they are not! I believe the 320 has a different type certificate and is the same one the 335 and 340 were manufactured on. The 310 has a very comfortable cabin and the 320 even more so (yeah, some of us Baron guys are jealous about that). There is no problem with the 320D (1966), 320E (1967), or the last produced 320F (1968) as they all have the TSIO-520 series engine which is fully supported. The 320 (1962) through the 320C (1965) have the TSIO-470 engine which is not supported so well. There was a period of time that new pistons were no longer being manufactured by Continental. Don't know if that is still true or if there is now an aftermarket supplier. The 320 has the same issues as the T-310 with repetitive exhaust system inspections and landing gear weaknesses (us Baron guys are not jealous in this department) that are common: failure of the MLG sidebrace if the reinforcement kit was not installed and issues with the nose landing gear retract mechanism. I have flown a 320E and really liked the plane despite the fact that I experienced the Dutch roll that an inexperienced Twin Cessna pilot (me) could induce with ease. It was fast and it was relatively quiet in the cabin, especially compared to the Baron which is noisy as heck. Did I mention it was super comfortable? There were not many 320's produced by comparison to the 310 but I would not hesitate to buy one if I was without airplane and a good 320D,E, or F came on the market. You just don't see that very often.
_________________ STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY
Sven
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 15 Sep 2017, 00:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/02/08 Posts: 7201 Post Likes: +5100 Company: Rusnak Auto Group Location: Newport Coast, CA
Aircraft: Baron B55 N7123N
|
|
Username Protected wrote: This Cat - Jerry W - on youtube has a great channel depicting his almost daily flights in his 320. He goes over EVERYTHING!! Great videos when you have time to kill. Makes me want a Cessna 320. https://www.youtube.com/user/HOLLYWGE/videosI think there may be some good opportunities out there when most everyone won't touch an airframe. Probably the opposite when you're selling Another guy is (was) out there flying his old straight tail 310 all over Florida. Looks like a great twin too. https://www.youtube.com/user/Giventofly ... =0&sort=ddVery cool - thanks for posting Jerry's videos with his 320D adventures. He's got a very "dialed in" SkyKnight. Watch the primary engine instruments - they are matched like few twins I have owned or flown.
_________________ STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY
Sven
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 16 Sep 2017, 21:23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/02/08 Posts: 7201 Post Likes: +5100 Company: Rusnak Auto Group Location: Newport Coast, CA
Aircraft: Baron B55 N7123N
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have a few hours in a Colemill 320. If you've flown a 310 then you've flown a 320. It's a roomy plane and the owner loves it. I told him to call me first if he decides to look for a partner.
All things being more or less equal, I'd go with a 320 over a 310. The 36' span may be a bit tight for a standard T-hangar though. It is an an odd bird so it may be tough to sell down the road, too. The Colemill 320 is a good way to avoid complications of the TSIO-470. I've always been impressed with the performance and cabin comfort of the TSIO-520 powered 320's.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY
Sven
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 16 Sep 2017, 22:11 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/04/09 Posts: 352 Post Likes: +149
Aircraft: Dakota
|
|
What is a Colemill 320? I'm guessing they put IO-550's or Navajo Cheiftain engines on them?
edit: found they are actually "just" TSIO-520's
Last edited on 16 Sep 2017, 22:59, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 16 Sep 2017, 22:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/02/08 Posts: 7201 Post Likes: +5100 Company: Rusnak Auto Group Location: Newport Coast, CA
Aircraft: Baron B55 N7123N
|
|
Username Protected wrote: At some point there were issues with supportability of the turbos. With 470 power? The 520 turbo has no support issues that I'm aware of.
_________________ STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY
Sven
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 16 Sep 2017, 23:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/07/13 Posts: 555 Post Likes: +387
|
|
Username Protected wrote: <snip> failure of the MLG sidebrace if the reinforcement kit was not installed and issues with the nose landing gear retract mechanism. <snip> I respectfully disagree. The Side Brace kit addresses cracks in the wing rib due to excessive side loading. This is usually caused by high speed turns while taxiing. Over time this back and forth flexing begins cracking the rib at the clearance holes. The cracks are often hard to see until they progress, but unless and until the rib completely fails the steel forging holding the MLG upper link provides sufficent support as it is tied to the top and bottom of the rib gussets. Gear failures are due to mis-rigging and worn parts. The main gear usually fails at the highly stressed bell crank assembly, which lifts the entire weight of the gear leg and holds it down over center. It is made of forged aluminum and snaps at the pivot when overloaded. Attachment: C310_MLG_weakspots.jpg The nose gear usually fails at the nose gear idler arm, which connects the rear push rod from the gear box to the front push rod to the nose gear torque tube. It too is made of lightweight forged aluminum and couples the rods at different radii, thus amplifying the linear movement and undergoing a bending moment with each cycle. When it snaps the nose gear dangles and folds up on landing. Attachment: C310_NLG_weakspots.jpg Then there are the MLG torque tubes. These develop cracks which then fail to drive the MLG link over center. Cessna went through about 6 revisions starting with 1-1/2" diameter tubes before moving to 2" diameter, which required a hole at one pivot for clearance. This hole was then replaced with a depression, which wasn't deep enough, causing wear on a bearing mount. Deeper depression, bigger fork bolts, added gussets, thicker metal, etc. The current version, which is not life limited to 4000 hrs per an MSB, costs $7.5K EACH. You need a pair, one for each side. Attachment: 5045010-33_1.jpg If I only knew then what I know now I would have bought a B55 Baron instead of my C310. The engineering on the landing gear IMHO is so overstressed that I am amazed it works as well as it does (until it breaks) and Cessna made and sold so many of these planes. Inspecting the gear for cracks, keeping everything well lubricated and checking the rigging at each annual is the only way to prevent gear failures. I believe Mike Busch pretty much came to that same conclusion with his T310R.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ No fighter jet - No Pepsi!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What is wrong with Cessna 320's Posted: 17 Sep 2017, 13:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/21/12 Posts: 1643 Post Likes: +518 Location: SW USA
Aircraft: Lowly renter
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What is a Colemill 320? I'm guessing they put IO-550's or Navajo Cheiftain engines on them?
edit: found they are actually "just" TSIO-520's If I recall, the Colemill 320 replaces the TSIOs with 300hp IO-550s.
_________________ Signature intentionally left blank. Do not read this.
|
|
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 2007-2024
|
|
|
|