Hi all,

I have a friend that I’ve been teaching to fly on and off for longer than he cares to remember. He owns a successful precast concrete company and has two young kids at home. The length of his training isn’t for lack of skill or ability, life just gets in the way and he’s prioritizing.

He’s owned a Piper Lance in a partnership with a couple other friends for several years. One is a non-pilot who recently sold his share and purchased a King Air, and the other is a low-time private pilot who has limited interest in flying the airplane solo. As such, I’ve gotten a lot of Piper Lance time. It’s a great airplane, but they’re looking for something different.

My friend Chad is looking at a 172 for private ownership so that he has something to fly and get his private in, at least. He’s also looking at something that can be used in his business. He’s had a hard-on for Beechcraft products for a while and loves my Bonanza and a friends’ super nice A36. He’s been very attracted to the idea of an A36 or F33A, but realizes that it’s going to be a long time at his pace to get comfortable flying the trips I fly him on by himself. His needs for the airplane are becoming more consistent and the scope of regular trips is creeping further and further out.

Because of this, I lofted the idea of a Baron to him because of speed and dispatch reliability in bad weather. He likes the idea, but has come to love the space the Lance has and he knows the Baron won’t exactly have that. A friend suggested a Navajo, which I deterred fairly quickly because I feel that’s more airplane than he really needs. A Seneca is going to be too slow (and I teach in them a lot on my off days, they don’t exactly excite me). There aren’t a whole lot of airplanes that fit the bill that a Baron does, and then I remembered that 310s exist.

I don’t see them around much anymore. My entire thought process was centered around w Baron, and the next step up being a cabin-class Cessna or a Navajo. I’ve flown a 310 once many moons ago (when I was a kid). It was owned by a DPE couple and used for multi engine training. It ended up getting wrecked, and they replaced it with another 310. They got an offer they couldn’t refuse on the second one, and they bought a Baron 55, but I always remembered them talking about how much they liked the 310 better.

Glancing on Trade-A-Plane, 310 values are all over the place. I think a straight tail 310 would have some great swagger on the ramp, but Chad is going to want something newer.

So with that said, what are some real-world thoughts on the airframe? Mostly I’m looking at comparison to a Baron since I know those well. What is the speed like between the two? Useful load? Cabin room? Is there a preference between the 470 and 520 powered models? What are some gotchas on them? I remember spar corrosion with the older airplanes being a big deal. How well supported are they? Why are they not as prevalent as other light twins these days?

To be fair, Chad would be looking at a Baron 58, so giving up the back door is a lot for him, but not necessarily a deal breaker.

Thanks for reading my stream of thought diatribe.

My C310i was the best of the 9 airplanes I bought and sold in my 30 years of flying.

Mine had 470’s, trued at 180, and yes, the cabin is spacious.

Like many older twin brands, some are sitting around….not flying, and some are flown and loved regularly. Get the latter.

The usual caveats apply: pre-purchase inspections are important. The engines are Continentals. Avionics may be from the ‘60s or ‘70s…..or there may be a new Garmin panel. There are many choices.

Great plane.

My time in 310s is limited and quite a while ago, but FWIW here's what I know.

They all handle and fly beautifully, with the earlier (short nosed) models being the better ones in this regard. The later versions (R models) had evolved into extremely capable planes, with a lot being used for check and light freight hauling, charter, etc. They will have deice and radar, which may or may not be good for what you want to do.

Since we're talking about a wide range of aircraft, their weights and useful loads will vary and I never knew them well enough to recite, but my recollection is that they can carry a lot, go slightly faster than a similar Baron, have a few more inches of shoulder room than a Baron, and have excellent ramp appeal.

Things that are known issues are the landing gear, which must be properly maintained and rigged on a regular basis by someone who knows what they're doing. Failure to do so will eventually lead to a collapse. I think the spar corrosion issue was limited to the planes with over-wing exhaust, which are the earlier models. The old straight tail planes are wonderful pieces of history, but as with most things aviation, the farther back you go, the more it's likely to take to find one, or make one, that is practical for regular reliable travel. The 310 goes back to 1954, and if you get to explore the insides of one, it's like a space ship for that era.

To learn about them I'd start with this: https://twincessna.org/310-prospective-owners/ and then explore the rest of the Twin Cessna Flyer website.

Just like any other plane, finding a good one these days can be a hunt, and you want to choose carefully, but if you do find a good 310, you won't be disappointed.

The Seneca 2 through 5 are turbocharged, and deliver around 160KTAS at 8,000 feet and 175 KTAS mid teens. Nice cabin with club seating and I believe never had a Vmc incident/accident. A prosaic design but a solid workhorse.

I worked for a 135 company that had a 310R (and a bunch of other large Cessna's and other fleet types). The 310 was used for charters primarily, but occasionally for cargo. I own a 414 now which has many similarities, and have owned a B55.

My experience is mostly limited to the 310R model. The 310's are a great airplane between the six seat single and the cabin class twin. They make an awesome four person airplane, and six if you need to on occasion. If you are flying six often, there better options as you will be very range limited with six adults in it.

Maintenance wise, John hit most of the highlights. I would add if it's an older model (any model for that point), make sure it has the side brace kit for the MLG. Parts are readily available, both new, NOS and salvage. For the most part, the airplane is simple to maintain, but some items require specific TLC such as the gear rigging that John mentioned.

The nice thing about the 310 is it has huge wing lockers for storage of baggage, etc. in addition to the nose. Part of the wing lockers can have fuel tanks installed (factory or aftermarket) if longer range flights are needed. Most seem to be the normal 163 gallon setup with a few being 183 or 203 gallons. I believe some of the 310R's were eligible for FIKI, but I wouldn't want to be in it for very long. We operated ours from Michigan and in the midwest and rarely canceled a trip due to ice.

The one downfall of the 310 is the size of the main tanks on the wing tips which makes it difficult to fit into many standard T-hangars.

The Twin Cessna Flyer organization that John mentioned supports Twin Cessna's as well, if not better than ABS supports Bonanzas from a maintenance standpoint.

I enjoyed flying/teaching/checking in the 310 and found it to be a fun airplane to fly. I can't say I'd specifically make a personal selection between it and a 55 Baron based on anything other than the way a specific airplane was equipped unless you needed the wing lockers. A 58 Baron vs a 301R would sway me more toward the Baron only due to the large back doors.

If you found a mid range year 310 that was taken care of and upgraded, it could probably be one of the best deals in the industry. The 310R seems to demand a higher price. I personally prefer the longer nose 310R for looks, but that's just a personal preference.

My ideal 310 would be a 1972 to 1974 310Q with Colemill conversion. 1972 was the first year of the elevated cabin height and rear window. 1974 was the last year of the 310Q before the 310R elongated the nose.

The turbo models are more trouble than they are worth and have extra maintenance headaches. If you are into turbos, get a 340 and get pressurization as well.

The heavier R model doesn't buy you meaningful more speed or useful load.

Depending on dispatch importance, full deice would be on the desired feature list.

Landing gear is a weak spot, but can be reliable if taken care of properly. Side brace kit is eventually required, bonus if already done.

Fuel system is complex but doesn't seem to present too many operational challenges.

If it came with ancient avionics, that's okay, then you can upgrade it as you see fit.

Mike C.

What does a 310 do that a Twin Bonanza doesn't do better? The Tbone is more spacious, stronger, carries more, cooler, handles beautifully, lands and takes off shorter and it's a Beech. Of course, I am biased.

Not have weird engines.

Fit in smaller hangars.

Use less fuel.

Access more mechanics who have worked on one.

Have access to more STCs (like autopilots, for example).

Goes faster.

Be newer.

Mike C.

If it's an early model with "Tuna" tanks, it fits in a standard T hangar. A twin-bo ain't gonna do that!

It's a lot of airplane for someone without a ppl. You really think your going to insure that?

You spelled MU-2 wrong!

There's a 1955 310 on barnstormers right now and it looks like a screaming deal for the money, almost like "something must be wrong with it" cheap. https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... atid=22874

You spelled MU-2 wrong!

Our college program had a '60s model 310, don't remember the exact model.

Good--Fun to fly, VFR.

Bad-- it was the worst instrument platform I've flown. Very large pitch trim changes with gear and flaps coming down, and little lateral stability.

Maybe it was just this airplane or model, but I was VERY instrument current at the time, and that 310 was a handful. Shortly thereafter, I got my MEI in a Seneca II, which was a total pussycat on instruments.

Yeah, that one does look nice. The only downside is that it doesn't have any Aux tanks, which makes fuel selection a no-brainer, but also reduces range a fair bit. With only the mains you're looking at less than 4 hours endurance with an hour reserve. Depending on where you're going that may or may not matter. Also, with these older models you only have cabin baggage, nothing in the nose and no wing lockers. Again; it may matter or it may not. I've flown a 1955 model a little and it was a very nice flying airplane.