banner
banner

10 Jun 2025, 11:22 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Garmin International (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 17:43 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 10/29/11
Posts: 1745
Post Likes: +553
Company: Johnson's Jewelry Inc.
Location: Dayton, Ohio (KMGY)
Aircraft: F33A
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?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 18:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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. :cheers:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 18:09 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 18:13 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/18/09
Posts: 1151
Post Likes: +243
Company: Elemental - Pipistrel
Location: KHCR
Aircraft: Citation CJ2+
Interesting thread. I am looking at either a B55 or a 310 as my next "project" plane - i.e. a plane I fly for a few years and do all sorts of upgrades to with no hopes of ever recouping the costs... :-)

_________________
--
Jason Talley
Pipistrel Distributor
http://www.elemental.aero

CJ2+
7GCBC
Pipsitrel Panthera


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 18:26 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 19:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 19:44 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 20:28 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 20:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 21:54 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3307
Post Likes: +1434
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
good points to a 310:

Cheap
Sexy looking
Decent performance
Twin redundancy

Bad points:

Cabin a bit cramped - little / no aisle
Twin costs and mx
Known ice limitations (specific years have limitations)
Somewhat limited baggage areas, compared to other twins

_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 22:24 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 22:25 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 22:50 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile




Joined: 02/26/08
Posts: 3510
Post Likes: +612
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS)
Aircraft: 1964 Bonanza S35
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.

Brian,
I've got a tbone for sale.
No secret. It's for sale... And I don't like dealing with controller, but I do like my BeechBros and would rather a member of the BT family lover and keep her than just some random. :peace:
_________________
Chester Jurskis
I'm broke but not bored.
UAS ATP Pilot 1/24/18 ;)
ATP SEL 8/28/17
ATP MEL 6/15/16


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 22:54 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 10/29/11
Posts: 1745
Post Likes: +553
Company: Johnson's Jewelry Inc.
Location: Dayton, Ohio (KMGY)
Aircraft: F33A
Thanks for your comments since I know very little about a 310 even thought my first corporate job was flying a Cessna 421 and have about 2400 hours in that Cessna product.

I just thought it would make sense to buy a good 310 and drop another 150K in it and one could still be below 225k. That Cirrus went way north of 600K.

I'm not sure when they quit making the 310, but you are right many have a lot of time on them.

BTW I wasn't trying to push Cessna's over Beech products. I own a F33A and it is the apple of my life.

Good discussion.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why not a Cessna 310?
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2014, 23:03 
Offline


 Profile




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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next



B-Kool (Top/Bottom Banner)

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

Jump to:  

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

.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.SCA.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.dbm.jpg.