BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2018, 12:11

I have never see one of these before.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-Cessna-31 ... DK&vxp=mtr

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2018, 13:02

A Riley Turbostream 310. Those things are totally bad-ass, about the only thing that will catch it is an Aerostar 700.

"Jack Riley produced variants of the Cessna 310 to improve performance. The Riley Rocket 310 and the Riley Turbostream 310 replaced the standard Continental 310 hp (230 kW) engines with Lycoming TIO-540 350 hp (261 kW) engines. These turbocharged intercooled engines were installed with three-blade Hartzell propellers in a counter-rotating configuration to further increase performance and single-engine safety. At 5,400 lb (2,400 kg) gross weight the aircraft had a weight to power ratio of 7.71 lb (3.50 kg) per horsepower. This resulted in a cruising speed of 260 knots (480 km/h) at 18,000 feet (5,500 m) and a 3,000fpm rate of climb."

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2018, 13:21

YGBSM

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2018, 13:22

And you can have this "beautiful" 7000 hour aircraft in "good" condition "as is" for only $35k. Of course they will help you with maintenance to fly it (or truck it) out of there.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2018, 16:41

Username Protected wrote:

A Riley Turbostream 310. Those things are totally bad-ass, about the only thing that will catch it is an Aerostar 700.

"Jack Riley produced variants of the Cessna 310 to improve performance. The Riley Rocket 310 and the Riley Turbostream 310 replaced the standard Continental 310 hp (230 kW) engines with Lycoming TIO-540 350 hp (261 kW) engines. These turbocharged intercooled engines were installed with three-blade Hartzell propellers in a counter-rotating configuration to further increase performance and single-engine safety. At 5,400 lb (2,400 kg) gross weight the aircraft had a weight to power ratio of 7.71 lb (3.50 kg) per horsepower. This resulted in a cruising speed of 260 knots (480 km/h) at 18,000 feet (5,500 m) and a 3,000fpm rate of climb."

Wow!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2018, 18:36

That shouldn’t have any trouble draining the fuel tanks in an hour or so....with legal reserves.

Fun plane I’d bet.

Peace,
Don

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2018, 21:09

On Eclipse day I went to 4M7 and this was in the hangar....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2018, 23:44

I wonder if this plane would give the 56TC a run for it's money.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2018, 18:07

Username Protected wrote:

I wonder if this plane would give the 56TC a run for it's money.

I have been fortunate as an avionics tech to go up in both the 56TC and a converted 310Q. I think the 310 would take it, but I would love to see a comparison run under identical conditions.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2018, 18:13

Username Protected wrote:

I think the 310 would take it, but I would love to see a comparison run under identical conditions.

Oh well then let's get AOPA to do it. They're good at that sort of thing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Mar 2018, 22:02

Are they a worthwhile cross country plane for a family of 4 who doesn't have access to an Oil Company?

Is it possible to run lean of peak?

What is their usual cruise and fuel burn?

Yes my wife actually found a low time example with the engines recently overhauled.

Thank you,

Martin

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Mar 2018, 22:08

Years ago I flew N9RT a Cessna 320 with the Navajo 350hp engines. I believe it was definitely faster than the 56TC. The props on the 56TC are too short and don’t allow full use of the 380HP. If I had the choice I would take the Riley TS before a 56TC every time. It’s faster and has more room for passengers and luggage.

They were a PIA to work on though.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2018, 01:29

A friend of mine has one and says he's never had it wide open. Hasn't yet seen its top speed.
I maintained and flew Navajos for years and never thought they were hard to work on. The engine package was decades ahead of Cessnas. Very well engineered in my mind. Had very few problems with the engines. IIRC we cruised at 16 GPH/side. I want to say leaned to 1550 degrees.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Mar 2018, 10:51

Username Protected wrote:

A friend of mine has one and says he's never had it wide open. Hasn't yet seen its top speed.
I maintained and flew Navajos for years and never thought they were hard to work on. The engine package was decades ahead of Cessnas. Very well engineered in my mind. Had very few problems with the engines. IIRC we cruised at 16 GPH/side. I want to say leaned to 1550 degrees.

Cliff , the Reilly Rocket was the one that was a PIA to work on.
This was the first one and had IO540 290 hp lycomings with dual Ray Jay Turbo’s stuffed into the early 310 airframe. The engine compartment was very compact.
The R. Rocket was also fast but the R. Turbo Stream was faster.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Mar 2018, 20:40

Username Protected wrote:

I have never see one of these before.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-Cessna-31 ... DK&vxp=mtr

What's the catch---seems too cheap no?

Cessna 310 with Navajo engines?