10 Jun 2025, 11:22 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 18:00 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/21/09 Posts: 12265 Post Likes: +16548 Location: Albany, TX
Aircraft: Prior SR22T,V35B,182
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Have a friend who just bought a late model Cirrus. I was curious why they didn't consider a Cessna 310 since they fly across Lake Michigan a lot. Evan some other twin Beech aircraft would be a better choice for this type of flying. I looked on the Controller and it is hard to pay over 150K for a good 310. Not too familiar with the 310's. What am I missing? Maintenance? Fuel? Avionics? Comfort? Is it a turbo? If so, he can get high pretty quick? Seems like 11k feet or so gets you pretty close to gliding distance, but it's been a while since I looked at that. I love the looks of a 310, but those would be my thoughts. Of course, I'm biased. And for me, I feel safer in the Cirrus for all times not over a Great Lake. Short answer - it's individual preference. I can't understand why you don't understand. You can't understand why I don't see your logic. 
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 18:09 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6496 Post Likes: +14297 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
My biggest fear of a 3-400 series Cessna is the average TT of the fleet is much higher than the Beeches because the Cessnas were cheaper, hauled more and spent a bazillion hours in -135 service. There are some really high time worn out twin Cessnas flying around in the dark and the potential for a draconian AD is much greater in that fleet than in the Beech Fleet.
Further the Textron folks would just as soon all of our light twins were scrapped.... But IMHO they will have more success killing the Twin Cessnas than the Beeches because of the combination of durability and number of extremely high time airplanes out there....
FWIW I flew a C-402 with something like 27,000 hours. Once. Talk about a loose airplane..... The doors would barely latch...
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 18:26 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/14/08 Posts: 3133 Post Likes: +2672 Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
|
|
What I don't understand is why anyone would choose a 310 over a Twin Bonanza. Or really why anyone would choose a Baron over a Twin Bonanza. But different strokes, I guess.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 19:01 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/09/10 Posts: 3634 Post Likes: +860 Location: KPAN
Aircraft: PA12
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What I don't understand is why anyone would choose a 310 over a Twin Bonanza. Or really why anyone would choose a Baron over a Twin Bonanza. But different strokes, I guess. Well for one reason is that they won't fit in a regular hangar. That's what turned me to the 58.
_________________ 520 M35, 7ECA, CL65, CE550, E170/190, B737 5/19 737 5/18 E170/190 8/17 CL65 3/17 CE500
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 19:44 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/14/08 Posts: 3133 Post Likes: +2672 Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
|
|
Matt, that is the best (and only imho) argument against a Tbone.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 20:28 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/08/11 Posts: 106 Post Likes: +11
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My biggest fear of a 3-400 series Cessna is the average TT of the fleet is much higher than the Beeches because the Cessnas were cheaper, hauled more and spent a bazillion hours in -135 service. There are some really high time worn out twin Cessnas flying around in the dark and the potential for a draconian AD is much greater in that fleet than in the Beech Fleet.
Further the Textron folks would just as soon all of our light twins were scrapped.... But IMHO they will have more success killing the Twin Cessnas than the Beeches because of the combination of durability and number of extremely high time airplanes out there....
FWIW I flew a C-402 with something like 27,000 hours. Once. Talk about a loose airplane..... The doors would barely latch... This is a valid question: how much TTAF is too much? I've seen some charter twins for sale that had very high TTAF. Then again they were constantly flown, often have good deice or anti-ice. Most have middling avionics at best. Many have run out engines. They were maintained pt 135, but is it too "old" to buy.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 20:53 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/31/10 Posts: 13480 Post Likes: +7570 Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC, E-55, 195
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Matt, that is the best (and only imho) argument against a Tbone. 310s are also faster and more efficient. TBone is big and bad, but you pay for it.
_________________ Views are my own and don’t represent employers or clients My E55 : https://tinyurl.com/4dvxhwxu
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 22:24 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/22/10 Posts: 233 Post Likes: +54 Company: Rushing Media Location: Houma, LA
Aircraft: PA32-300
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Matt, that is the best (and only imho) argument against a Tbone. Is the fact that there are a total of 201 Barons and C-310s listed on Controller right now and not a single Tbone listed a good reason? Suggesting that someone buy a Tbone rather than anything else at all when there might be 3 for sale at any one time in the entire country and to find out about those 3 you have to talk to someone in the secret society who's "in the know" is laughable.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 22:25 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/14/08 Posts: 3133 Post Likes: +2672 Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Matt, that is the best (and only imho) argument against a Tbone. 310s are also faster and more efficient. TBone is big and bad, but you pay for it.
Those twenty knots will save you about twenty five minutes on a 500nm flight, but the cramped cabin will make the trip feel twice as long as it does in the spacious, and safer, Tbone. Both will burn close to the same gallons per hour.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310? Posted: 20 Nov 2014, 23:03 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/14/08 Posts: 3133 Post Likes: +2672 Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Matt, that is the best (and only imho) argument against a Tbone. Is the fact that there are a total of 201 Barons and C-310s listed on Controller right now and not a single Tbone listed a good reason? Suggesting that someone buy a Tbone rather than anything else at all when there might be 3 for sale at any one time in the entire country and to find out about those 3 you have to talk to someone in the secret society who's "in the know" is laughable.
When it was suggested to me, I didn't laugh. I listened and bought one. I was looking at 310's before that --
What is laughable to me is the difference between the way people post on a board and the way they talk in person.
|
|
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 2007-2025
|
|
|
|