Cessna 310

Radar Contact

Radar Contact

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,305
Location
Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
Kevin
If at all possible, I'd like to attempt to generate a discussion about the differences between NA Cessna 310 Q and R models. Very little of my flying will be high altitude and I don't want a TC model (mid-west based). I have plenty of time/ratings and while not much in the way of 300 series, I do have quite a bit of 400 series time.

The Q has the IO-470 260HP motors while the R has IO-520 285HP motors. Max weight on the Q is 5300 and the R is 5500. Useful load is 2086 on the Q and 2047 for the R (obviously dependent on whats installed). The book listed cruise is 195kt on the Q and 207kt on the R which is obviously high if you care about the longevity of your motors. I know the R has the extra 32" nose which is nice for baggage and CG concerns maybe. I thought I heard the R has a zero fuel issue that the Q doesn't? Is that an issue? Is the 2 people, full fuel, forward CG an issue on the R?

Between the two, it seems useful load and fuel quantities are similar. My general understanding is the R is 10kt faster in cruise but you pay for that in GPH which are about 6 gallons more? Also, I am reading that the 470's (even with less TBO than the 520's) last longer with fewer issues. Considering non-modified aircraft with stock motors and both being similarly equipped avionic wise and ice protection wise, what say those of you that have experience with both models? Pro's and Con's?

I've read what I can find on them and am looking to pull the trigger on one in the next 6-8 months hopefully and keep going back and forth. Looking for some PoA input.
 
Flown both, and the R's longer nose w/ a baggage compartment does wonders for W&B. Q not so much. IMO.
 
Flown a R Turbo and she's an excellent smooth flying machine. I know you mentioned that a turbo wasn't necessary, but with the Ram conversion you can easily see 210-215kt true in cruise. The RAM also increases your OEI climb performance by nearly 100fpm. Just a thought to chew on. I had a blast flying it and you definitely can't go wrong with a 310.
 
I've got close to 1,000 hours in a 310N with the Colemill conversion, which is pretty similar to a Q model with R engines. I also managed that airplane for that time period (~5.5 years). When you talk Q, I'm assuming you're talking about a later Q that has the hunchback cabin (same cabin as the Rs have). I've also flown a good number of 310Rs, both naturally aspirated and turbo (including the RAM IV T310R - the rocketship of the 310s).

The primary difference from a load perspective is the nose baggage, as has been noted. I never had any issues with W&B in the N, but I did have issues with cargo carrying capacity. It depends on what your mission is. If you're going to be flying 4 people and bags, either plane will do fine. The R will do better simply because you can haul more bags, which is always a good thing when you need it.

Make sure that you measure the hangar you plan to use. There are a number of hangars that will fit a short nose 310, but not a long nose.

In terms of speeds, a lot of it has to do with the specific airplane's condition (I spent a lot of time working to minimize drag on the 310) and what power setting you choose to run. Many 310 owners (whether powered by 470s or 520s) choose to operate LOP, and there's a significant fuel savings. You can expect low 20s GPH combined for speeds in the mid 170s to mid 180s. By the end I managed to get 23 GPH combined for 190 KTAS, but like I said I put a lot of effort into streamlining the 310. Personally, I'm a big fan of more horsepower, and would prefer to have the 520s (or 550s) in any plane that I bought. Yes, the 470s are known for having fewer issues, but my experience with 520s has been positive so long as they're taken good care of.

The biggest difference between a Q and an R that you'll notice off the bat is price. You'll spent a lot more on an equivalent R model. I argue that the short nose 310s offer exceptional value if you don't have a need for the long nose baggage of the R. This does mean that resale of an R will be easier. There are also some more STCs available for the R, such as spoilers (speed brakes). The 310 would benefit from these, but once you get used to the slick nature of the 310, it's fine. 310s aren't dissimilar to Mooneys in terms of being slick planes whose energy you need to manage.

I would also argue that if you are considering a Q, an N or a P is worth considering, too. However with those planes you will get the smaller (non-hunchback) cabin, and that does become restrictive.

Regarding turbos, I would avoid them if you don't need them, and you probably don't unless you head to the Rockies. The turbo systems on Twin Cessnas are subject to expensive ADs, add weight (i.e. reduce useful load) and only will make the plane faster in altitudes where you need to wear oxygen. I did not want turbos, but our mission shifted and turbos became necessary (but also came with pressurization in the form of the 414). The previous owner of the 310 I used to fly bought a RAM IV T310R. It is an awesome plane, super fast and insane performance. Basically you get C90 performance out of a 310. But you burn a lot of fuel to do it, and you have to get into the flight levels to go that fast. At lower altitudes, I found it actually less efficient than the 310N or a standard 310R.

I have yet to find someone who bought a 310 and didn't love it. Cessna did a great job with these planes. Regardless of which one you get, you'll be happy with it. If you want a very nice 310R, there is a member on here who is planning on selling his, and would be worth talking to.
 
mtuomi said:
I can think of one... Tried to sell it for months, and then ended up gear-upping it to get rid of it...
Click to expand...

True, but he still loved the plane, just couldn't sell it. I loved the 310 even though we sold it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
True, but he still loved the plane, just couldn't sell it. I loved the 310 even though we sold it.
Click to expand...

Used to fly for a FBO and we had 5 310s for 135 and ME training. I think an I, M, Q, and 2 Rs, and 2 C402s. Trained and got my ME and MEI in the 310, and taught in it. Fun plane to fly definitely.

Plus it's all Sky King's fault! ;)
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for the replies.

Ted, You were one of the 3 guys I knew for sure owned one and was looking forward to your response. Thank you for taking the time to write it up. All good info. I am a fan of more HP as well and wouldn't be opposed to a colemill converted one, actually found a really nice one a couple months ago and it was gone very quickly. Most aren't converted so that's why I asked about stock ones. You bring up a good point about hangars. Being they are already very expensive here, I am going to verify the lengths to make sure if I can or can't get an R in there. That may be the deciding factor as I prefer a T to a community hangar. And yes, the Q I would take is the later one's with the larger cabin. I have 4 kids (2 younger and 2 teen's) so there would be times all 6 of us go somewhere but more often it would be just 2 or 4 plus bags.

I'll post more once I decide on the model, find the plane and start the process.
 
PM Twin_Flyer here. He owns an R model and can provide details about hangaring it.
 
If you have any 310 questions, feel free to tag me in a post or PM me. Tagging helps to get my attention since I don't read all posts. :)

Given your crew load (4 kids) I would recommend an R if you can find one that fits what you're looking for, and if it will fit in your hangar. With that crew you're going to want all the baggage space you can get. Like I said, there's one member on here who's thinking of selling his very nice 310R. I have another friend with a 310R (not as nice, but still a very solid bird) that I think he might be wanting to sell.
 
Another thread someone mentioned how much longer the R was, seems like it was under 20" but not sure.
 
I simply love my 310R. I think the main differences between the Q and R are -

1. The R is a little faster on more fuel if you want it. I usually planned on 185 ktas on 25 - 26 GPH. She will push 200ktas if you want to suck the dino juice(35+GPH).
2. If you want to take golf clubs or skis you need an R. The R nose will take four sets of clubs easily.
3. If you need/want FIKI you need to get an R. I agree with those that there is not much functional difference between having full de-ice and FIKI, but FIKI was a minimum criteria for me when I was looking because I wanted to be on the total white side of legal.

4. The R is more sexy. :devil:
12002971_10207599199407651_8750853641259031060_n.jpg

I don't know the specifics on the Q for the STC for vortex generators, but on my R they added significantly to the useful load. Mine had a useful of nearly 2000 lbs and with 163 gallons of fuel left 1000 lbs for other stuff. Now... you're only going to take advantage of that with the understanding that your OEI performance is significantly mitigated. Plan accordingly.

I never had an issue with CG in the 310. You could get out the front if you just had a pilot, lots of fuel and stuff in the nose. However the baggage door makes that a very easy fix.

Mine is for sale but not on the open market yet. My heart wants to keep the 310 badly, but my brain keeps telling me no. I'm slowly but surely coming to the realization that I can't safely operate a piston and a turbine twin at the same time and expect the muscle memory to function properly when it needs to. The Conquest stays and the 310 must go....eventually. :)
 
Last edited:
James_Dean said:
Mine is for sale but not on the open market yet. My heart wants to keep the 310 badly, but my brain keeps telling me no. I'm slowly but surely coming to the realization that I can't safely operate a piston and a turbine twin at the same time and expect the muscle memory to function properly when it needs to. The Conquest stays and the 310 must go....eventually. :)
Click to expand...

Sure you can! I flew 402s, 310s, and 4-5 SE at the same time period. Just trying to help! :D
 
That's a purty airplane Ted, very purty. But I too like R as being sexier.
 
mscard88 said:
Sure you can! I flew 402s, 310s, and 4-5 SE at the same time period. Just trying to help! :D
Click to expand...

Turbine vs Piston is the problem. The reaction and the thought process, especially with autofeather in the conquest, is different and I'd like to think I know that my life depends upon being proficient.
 
James_Dean said:
Turbine vs Piston is the problem. The reaction and the thought process, especially with autofeather in the conquest, is different and I'd like to think I know that my life depends upon being proficient.
Click to expand...

:sigh: I tried. :yesnod:
 
@Radar Contact

Noticed you were from Illinois. N317U was purchased by the U of I for their flight department new from Cessna which is where the color scheme came from. The original MX records are all from their in house system and are rather detailed. IIRC, they had it until the mid/late 90's.
 
The nose on the R is 32 inches longer and it becomes the problem when you are looking at hangars. The critical measurements are 1.) from the nose to the rear of the tip tanks and 2.) from the rear of the tip tanks to the rear of the tail. Neither measurement was given on any spec sheet I've seen. I have a T hangar but I would love to have a box hangar. When moving the plane into the hangar it's good to remember that a small turn on the nose swings that tail and wings a lot (don't ask me how I know)...:goofy: You pretty much have to have it lined up before you start to push it back.

As for the plane, the wife (very important) and I love it. It's a great traveling machine. It's fast, comfortable and hauls a lot (that's needed..:yikes:).
 
Thank you @James_Dean , you were one of the three I knew from previous posts that recently/currently owned one I was hoping to hear from. From a strictly looks appeal I've gone back and forth on the short/long nose. I lean towards short nose but having the ability to put golf clubs and snowboards out of the way up there is a huge selling point. The amount of extra gas for extra speed isn't too bad and I'd probably lean towards the extra speed but both are close enough with their own benefits being a bit of a draw. Both of your planes above are great looking plane!

I agree with you that the true benefit of FIKI vs not with ice protection are escape time buyers and not plow through known ice options but it does keep you on the legal side at times. Based on an article I read from Mike Busch and realizing how much hot plates cost to replace, I think for what I will use the plane for (strictly personal travel) vs what you use it for (as a serious business travel machine) has me leaning towards a non-FIKI plane. With that said, when I'm ready to pull the trigger in the upcoming months if yours is on the market for sure I would definitely have it on the short list, providing it will fit in the local T hangars. I would love to have a large multi-use hangar like you have in the pictures but that isn't in the near term for me. I am currently in the Chicago area but I'm a Georgia boy so if it was red and black it would be more of a selling point. :)

The VGs in the Q isn't as much help in the way of GW increase as the R, it only gives an extra 75 lbs. But hey, if I'm bound to a Q that's an extra 12.5 gallons I can take with.

For my immediate planning, I need to get the dimensions of the T's again and see what fits before I make any more plans as that sounds like I may be limited on the short nose ones. More to follow...
 
Radar Contact said:
I agree with you that the true benefit of FIKI vs not with ice protection are escape time buyers and not plow through known ice options but it does keep you on the legal side at times. Based on an article I read from Mike Busch and realizing how much hot plates cost to replace, I think for what I will use the plane for (strictly personal travel) vs what you use it for (as a serious business travel machine) has me leaning towards a non-FIKI plane. With that said, when I'm ready to pull the trigger in the upcoming months if yours is on the market for sure I would definitely have it on the short list, providing it will fit in the local T hangars. I would love to have a large multi-use hangar like you have in the pictures but that isn't in the near term for me. I am currently in the Chicago area but I'm a Georgia boy so if it was red and black it would be more of a selling point. :)
Click to expand...

One thing to note is that not all de-iced 310s are FIKI. It's important to know the equipment that you have and its relative capabilities. For example, the 310 I used to fly had aftermarket de-ice which consisted of hot props and boots on the wings and horizontal tail. The system was much cheaper to maintain than the FIKI system as there was no hot plate and the relays and timer were dirt simple. Alcohol windshields are also much cheaper to maintain (and is what I specifically looked for vs. hot plate for this reason). That said, hot plates and boots are basically binary in their cost - they either break and you need to put new ones on, or they work fine and cost you nothing.

While I do not like boots and de-ice (I've had too many problems with those systems over the past 2,000 hours), the reality is that if you want to do flying on any sort of schedule in the northern part of the country, you will benefit from having them. If you get an R, de-ice is much easier to come by. They're harder to find on Qs, but do still exist.

I can recommend James Dean's very 310 strongly. I even have a few hours in it myself.
 
OP, if you are really considering a Twin Cessna then the first thing you need to do, if you haven't, is go to http://www.twincessna.org and join because there's a wealth of knowledge there. :yes: It could save you major $$$$ and will give you some things to consider that you may not have thought about...

Ted, shame on you for not telling him about TCF...:fingerwag:

BTW, I see numbers slightly higher than Dean listed on most flight. I run LOP with FF of 26 gal/hr. I'm normally between 9 to 12 thousand.

As Fearless mentioned you can PM me with any questions... Keep us updated on your progress...

Blue Skies...
 
I've also flown both... a thousand or so hours between the two.
I didn't read all the responses, but I would be happy to help with any unanswered questions.
 
Radar Contact said:
If at all possible, I'd like to attempt to generate a discussion about the differences between NA Cessna 310 Q and R models. Very little of my flying will be high altitude and I don't want a TC model (mid-west based). I have plenty of time/ratings and while not much in the way of 300 series, I do have quite a bit of 400 series time.

The Q has the IO-470 260HP motors while the R has IO-520 285HP motors. Max weight on the Q is 5300 and the R is 5500. Useful load is 2086 on the Q and 2047 for the R (obviously dependent on whats installed). The book listed cruise is 195kt on the Q and 207kt on the R which is obviously high if you care about the longevity of your motors. I know the R has the extra 32" nose which is nice for baggage and CG concerns maybe. I thought I heard the R has a zero fuel issue that the Q doesn't? Is that an issue? Is the 2 people, full fuel, forward CG an issue on the R?

Between the two, it seems useful load and fuel quantities are similar. My general understanding is the R is 10kt faster in cruise but you pay for that in GPH which are about 6 gallons more? Also, I am reading that the 470's (even with less TBO than the 520's) last longer with fewer issues. Considering non-modified aircraft with stock motors and both being similarly equipped avionic wise and ice protection wise, what say those of you that have experience with both models? Pro's and Con's?

I've read what I can find on them and am looking to pull the trigger on one in the next 6-8 months hopefully and keep going back and forth. Looking for some PoA input.
Click to expand...


I am a Cessna 310 owner, specifically, a K model.

Let me know if you have specific questions to be addressed.

And since pictures and videos are en-vogue, here ya go...wish i knew how to post full size images.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1040.JPG
    IMG_1040.JPG
    160 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top