I never like the C310 just for the reason that the exaust goes trough the wing by the wing spar.
Bad & weak design and the main reason why I had bought a Baron as my first twin.

The Cessna single engine line are well designed altough i would pass on the retractable gear line when you compare it to the simplicity of the Bonanza/Baron gear design.

Any company as its good and bad design.

Beech line as a weak door lock compare to the Cessna line. Bonanza cowling wont come all off like a Cessna design and I could go on ...

Marc,

The overwing augmenter tubes for the exhaust were discontinued after the 1963 model and the exhaust was changed to the usual under engine-wing design. This also allowed for the addition of the spacious nacelle lockers for storage.

There are plenty of the older models still flying; checking for any corrosion in the spar or skins is readily accomplished by someone who knows what they're doing.

The early 310 with the augmenter exhaust (and the T-Bone) simply sound bad-ass on take-off!

I looked at a 79 T310R before I bought the Baron and the exhaust pipes were going trough the spars or right beside, I dont remember.

My mecanik was doing the mx on it at the time and he basically told me after the fact that he was glad I did not buy it as he never liked the exhaust design.

The fuel system of the C310 is also a nightmare compared to the simple design of the later B58.



Marc,

The overwing augmenter tubes for the exhaust were discontinued after the 1963 model and the exhaust was changed to the usual under engine-wing design. This also allowed for the addition of the spacious nacelle lockers for storage.

There are plenty of the older models still flying; checking for any corrosion in the spar or skins is readily accomplished by someone who knows what they're doing.

There is an engine beam the exhaust goes through (on some models) and this was part of the extensive turbocharged twin Cessna AD. The exhaust does NOT go through the main spar.

The non turbocharged versions after 1963 have very simple exhausts, pipes that go under the nacelle. The exhaust system is trivial on those airplanes, basically a collector pipe and tail pipe, nothing else, and trouble free. This is one reason I would favor a Colemill 310 over a turbo for a 310. If you are going turbo, then I'd go all the way and get a 340 or 400 series and get pressurization.


The AD has stopped the accidents, but it came at a cost of having to inspect the system pretty extensively and basically forcing an exhaust overall on engine overhaul. This can be $15K/side pretty easily.


Byzantine is the word I use. Despite that, pilots are not generally having trouble using it.

For some of the later models (402C, 414A, 421C, T303), it got much nicer, just two wing tanks.

Mike C.

Love this thread. I’m a Beech guy but the reality is BOTH Baron’s and 310’s are flying safely FIFTY years after they left the factory. It boggles the mind how well built these airplanes are. All it takes is ownership willing to correctly maintain the plane; these airplanes have the potential to outlive us all.

Beech... Cessna... aren’t they the same company?

Not true. The exhaust passes through stainless steel augmenter tubes and is discharged towards the back of the wing. In the case of my F model, passes through a rectangular glass-pack muffler, before being discharged through a stainless steel outlet. Unless the augmenters or muffler is breached, and they can from vibration fatigue, exhaust never touches the wing skin. Periodic inspections are necessary to check for leaks. Don't inspect, develop and undetected leak and you can damage the wing skin and perhaps more. The under wing exhaust actually suffers from more corrosion in the rear spar area. This is why I chose the F model.

The connection is MUCH older than people realize.

In 1924, Walter Beech (future founder of Beechcraft), Clyde Cessna (future founder of Cessna Aircraft), and Lloyd Stearman (of Boeing Stearman fame) formed the "Travel Air Manufacturing Company" and starting building the iconic Travelair series of airplanes.

There is a fascinating DVD: "Cessna: A Master's Expression" which goes into the history of Cessna and how it is tied to practically ever light airplane maker. They are ran around in the same circles.

So, 90 years later, all back together again...

Mike C.

I cant talk about Cessna twins, but I did own a 182 for a while, before buying back my Debonair. Trust me there is no comparison in quality. The Debonair 52 years old v the Cessna 39 years old.
Seats were loose on the tracks, the fuselage had a number of cracks as did the cowling, it was a clear 15 knots slower than the Deb with similar engines.
The build quality was certainly not as resolved as the Beech.
Positive - The 182 was a fine aircraft to fly and land. The take off when loaded was shorter than the Beech, but I can land the Beech way shorter than I could the Cessna.
The Cessna was a great all round utility aircraft, however where else but Beech can you get an aircraft that will operate off and land off a 1200' grass strip and cruise at 155kts.
And look like Bridget Bardot on wheels.
Love the Beech

Um, seriously?

The evidence of poor quality is a neglected C-182?

The C-182 will be slower (and uglier) than the Beech but will:
* Carry more,
* go farther
* Land shorter
* and stall slower
* facilitate easier ingress/outgress
* have more mechanics familiar with it

The C-182 is also still in production...not so much for the debonair

I personally rebuilt my 210 from stem to stern and some of the things Cessna did has my head scratching. I found rivets unsqueezed and various other things rather amateurish. My vote goes to the Beech boys for quality and paying attention to detail. I flew with a Gulfstream pilot that said, about the Citation 10, he’d question flying Mach.9 in anything built by the company that builds the 172.

I had a '72 C172L before the Bo. The two things that gave me the most heartburn about that model were that Cessna put a 250 watt landing light in the cowl right below the spinner, which made it extremely likely to fail due to vibration, but if it didn't fail, it was likely to burn the switch and wiring because the weren't sized for 250 watts. It's no fun to smell burning electrical after departure at night. I burned up a couple switches before buying a HID kit for it, and completely replacing the cheap bezel mount in the cowling.

The other thing Cessna did was to NOT put a jack point on the gear leg for that model. Earlier ones had the flat spring gear, later models had a jack point under the step. Cessna actually wanted you to use wing jacks for that model C172, which was also stupid for a fixed gear trainer.

the title of this thread is build quality. You are listing design parameters. A sonex will land shorter than a 182, but most I've seen don't have a build quality approaching that of the cessna

don't forget that cessna single engine and multi engine came out of different factories. IMO that's why the 337's had so many quality problems after initial delivery - it was built in the SE factory and was the most complex thing ever to come from there, and maybe they were in over their heads