What's the upside and downside on these?


Most like TAS and How big of an issue are the gears if no side brace kit?

The side brace kit on the C310 is a kin to the wing root doubler on a Baron, namely a repair kit for cracks found during inspection.

Twin Cessna's all suffer from a weakness due to the long length of their MLG legs. if the plane is taxied too fast around corners or the brakes are repeatedly applied during a turn, the wing rib behind the upper side brace flexes to the point where it begins to develop cracks at the lightening holes. The side brace kit adds a steel doubler to the rib, an additional angle behind the inboard top of the rib and reinforcements to either side of the upper brace pivot bolt. This serves to distribute the force to the upper wing skin and away from the cracked rib.

Now RAM installs this kit when they install larger engines and increase the gross weight of the airplane, as that exacerbates the flexing during taxi. It is also the best time to install the components with the airframe all apart.

While the kit SK414-8E is still available from Cessna, it only contains the parts common to all variants of C310. Depending on model, additional parts are required to complete the installation. A good portion of these aren't available from Cessna and NOS parts demand a premium price, if you can even find them.

There is this notion that the lack of this kit leads to gear collapse. This is not true. Of course opinions about this are strong and some may disagree. Rigging is critical on these planes and must be checked annually. Not enough down lock tension, insufficient toe-out leading to toe-in when the brakes are applied and insufficient nose strut pressure are the leading factors. Then there are the MLG torque tubes. Cessna went through many iterations, beefing them up each time. They are highly loaded and develop cracks. They usually fail on retraction, when under the greatest load. Then they flex and can't supply sufficient tension required to lock the over center arms.

The key is a thorough inspection by someone experienced with Twin Cessna landing gear. This is one area where routine maintenance is important.

The I model are the 1964’s like mine. The exhaust had been changed to under-wing, and this is the first year they had the nacelle lockers; these storage areas are bigger than one would guess and are very nice. The cabin is big and roomy, it’s easy to add BAS shoulder harnesses, and visibility out front is excellent.

They are fast: with my IO-470’s, I always plan on 180-184 KTAS, and single-engine performance is quite good. These planes have full-fuel useful loads of about 1000 lbs.

The Twin Cessna Flyer sells a great book called “The Marvelous 310” that reports pretty much everything about each model year; get that if you don’t already have it.

As is true for all old twins, you need to find one that’s been cared for and has been flown regularly, and you need someone who is familiar with the breed to do your maintenance and annuals.

Oh, and NOTHING looks better in flight than a 310..
.

Good general info here:

https://www.jerrytemple.com/temples-tips/

The I model are the 1964’s like mine. The exhaust had been changed to under-wing, and this is the first year they had the nacelle lockers; these storage areas are bigger than one would guess and are very nice. The cabin is big and roomy, it’s easy to add BAS shoulder harnesses, and visibility out front is excellent.

They are fast: with my IO-470’s, I always plan on 180-184 KTAS, and single-engine performance is quite good. These planes have full-fuel useful loads of about 1000 lbs.

The Twin Cessna Flyer sells a great book called “The Marvelous 310” that reports pretty much everything about each model year; get that if you don’t already have it.

As is true for all old twins, you need to find one that’s been cared for and has been flown regularly, and you need someone who is familiar with the breed to do your maintenance and annuals.

Oh, and NOTHING looks better in flight than a 310..
.

The I is the best flying of all of the 310’s (IMHO) and the fastest for the horsepower, IIR. My .02.

I remember when Sky King got his new 310..

Then I think this local one might be worth a closer look.

Anyone know how many gallons the I model carries?

John,

Minimum of 50 gallons in each tip tank for 100 total. Then depends upon if a particular aircraft has the optional 15 gallon auxiliary tanks.

See links below.

https://www.twincessna.org/twin-cessna310.htm

https://www.twincessna.org/pdf/310/64%2 ... ochure.pdf

Don

Was hoping for a better. Would like to be able to do KCLW to KEKN non stop. The C55 would do that. I'm not sure the I model would. I was thinking they carried more fuel.

John,

KCLW - KEKN 671 nm

Unofficial sales data from link below indicates;

10,000 ft. Max Range Cruise @ 180 mph with 100 gallons = 980 sm/850 nm 5.5 hours

Suspect this is no reserve or VFR reserve range and no wind.

671 nm would take 4.4 hours.

For what it is worth.

Don

https://www.twincessna.org/pdf/310/64%2 ... ochure.pdf

I haven't personally been involved, but what I remember from a discussion with a friend that's doing now is that many of the airplanes have half the kit installed. His did not have the kit installed, and once they got into it, they opened up a can of worms when they found other items were cracked requiring repair. Some parts of the kit were extremely expensive, therefore why half of the kit was installed.

Before a purchase, I'd have someone that knew what they were looking for inspect the gear/wing in that area...

Jason

Most early 310s have not been modified with the side brace kit.

If you land, stomp on the brakes to make the first turnoff, you’ll need the kit. But if you are mindful of your turning speeds, you can avoid this modification.

As to 600nm+ legs, I have 130 gallons and I plan 170 KTAS and 24 gallons/hr for planning purposes. However, at 10,000 - 12,000’ LOP you can easily get under 22 gallons/hr and at least 4 hours of endurance plus legal reserves.

The biggest advantage of a 310 is a roomy cabin, the most comfortable GA twin out there.

Butch

I don’t think the auxiliary tanks (15 gallons in each wing tank) were “optional” in the I model. The standard fuel is 50 gal in each main/tip and 15 in each aux, so total of 130 gallons. I typically burn about 23 gph total, so it’ll fly almost 5 hours with reserves, well beyond my personal sit-time limit.