FS: 1955 Cessna 310

Status
Not open for further replies.
flyingmoose said:
Yup, its a pressure carb, works a bit different than your standard carb.

Here is from the 310 service manual.
Click to expand...

Interesting... Thanks! Any idea where to get more info on how these work? What's the advantage? Are they easy to maintain/replace if needed?

Does this plane have any other tanks, or just the main (tip) tanks?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Interesting... Thanks! Any idea where to get more info on how these work? What's the advantage? Are they easy to maintain/replace if needed?

Does this plane have any other tanks, or just the main (tip) tanks?
Click to expand...

A pressure carb is like a Throttle Body Fuel Injection system, most of the ones I have seen on aircraft are made by Bendix, so a googling of Bendix Pressure Carburetor should get plenty of hits. The advantage is no float system so they work regardless of orientation. As for maintaining, I don't know anymore, but they are still out there so parts must be available.

Most 310s in that vintage have 50 gallon tips and 15 gallon aux tanks in the wing.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Interesting... Thanks! Any idea where to get more info on how these work? What's the advantage? Are they easy to maintain/replace if needed?

Does this plane have any other tanks, or just the main (tip) tanks?
Click to expand...
Pressure carbs are complicated little buggers. They can be quit pricy to overhaul because of the new flourosilicon seals they put in them (orange seals). They are really good for a long time and should really need very little work. These have the new orange seals and are giving us no trouble. I have a box of old PS5 carbs I will give you with the plane :D. Here is some good info from Wiki (take it for what its worth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendix-Stromberg_pressure_carburetor

Yes it has 2 15gal aux tanks. It was an upgrade that was installed in the 60's i believe for a total of 130gal.

Fuel system is dirt simple really. Put the valve on the tank you want fuel from and that is about it.
 
flyingmoose said:
Pressure carbs are complicated little buggers. They can be quit pricy to overhaul because of the new flourosilicon seals they put in them (orange seals). They are really good for a long time and should really need very little work. These have the new orange seals and are giving us no trouble. I have a box of old PS5 carbs I will give you with the plane :D. Here is some good info from Wiki (take it for what its worth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendix-Stromberg_pressure_carburetor

Yes it has 2 15gal aux tanks. It was an upgrade that was installed in the 60's i believe for a total of 130gal.

Fuel system is dirt simple really. Put the valve on the tank you want fuel from and that is about it.
Click to expand...

NO! This thinking is what has gotten a lot of people in trouble! You have to choose the Main tanks first and burn about an hour out of them before switching to the aux tanks.
 
Henning said:
NO! This thinking is what has gotten a lot of people in trouble! You have to choose the Main tanks first and burn about an hour out of them before switching to the aux tanks.
Click to expand...
Ok henning, it was a generalization. How about this: Follow the POH! IT says to Takeoff and land on mains, burn about 30min prior to going to aux tanks. Nothing real hard about this.

So its still dirt simple..:rolleyes:
 
I am going to try and take this thing down to Key west in the next week or so. Ill try and post some actual numbers on what kind of performance we get.
 
flyingmoose said:
Ok henning, it was a generalization. How about this: Follow the POH! IT says to Takeoff and land on mains, burn about 30min prior to going to aux tanks. Nothing real hard about this.

So its still dirt simple..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dirt simple is not the problem in thinking, it is, the problem comes in with the statement "just select the tank you want to burn off" as you see from the owner's manual (no POH;)) there is a restriction. BTW, a half hour may be good if you are running ROP, but if you run LOP it may leave you pumping fuel overboard.
 
Henning said:
Dirt simple is not the problem in thinking, it is, the problem comes in with the statement "just select the tank you want to burn off" as you see from the owner's manual (no POH;)) there is a restriction. BTW, a half hour may be good if you are running ROP, but if you run LOP it may leave you pumping fuel overboard.
Click to expand...
Well this is not a checkout or instruction. I will have that for the next owners.
 
I took this plane on a trip over the last few days. Just a couple stats for anyone that might be interested. Flew 11.5 hrs. Averaged 23gal/hr. TAS around 173kts. Went from I73 to KOPF with a fuel stop in Georgia. Here is a pick of the fuel stop in KBHC on the way home. Also a pic when we arrived in Opa-Locka.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20140423_102632.jpg
    IMG_20140423_102632.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 214
  • IMG_20140420_212417.jpg
    IMG_20140420_212417.jpg
    603.6 KB · Views: 165
He still has it. Now for $28K. Check out the web site on his signature.
 
It is still shown on their web site, but they apparently aren't interested in selling it. Every time I have talked to them the price has gone up and the story has changed.
 
Interesting. Every time I've dealt with them I've found them to be exceptionally honest, reasonable and professional. Perhaps its just a mis-communication.
 
Accusing someone of insurance fraud on 1 Jan? Jesus man pace yourself! :D
 
Word is, this plane is headed to the scrap heap today. :(

I'd do a dry lease on it, but I can't buy it for at least a few months. :(
 
The plane got sold to the scrap yard and made its final flight on Thursday. The reality is, the sort of people who want to buy a plane like this are typically not serious, and can't afford it. This is an unfortunate reality for these old twins. We will continue to see many of these good examples go to the heap.

We were very serious about selling it, and the price continued to come down over the past year. Anyone who looked at the website would know that. In the end, the scrapper gave the best offer, so that's who got it.
 
LDJones said:
Sad. :sad: :sad: :sad:
Click to expand...

My gut reaction as well.

Saw this at Opa Locka a lot in the 1980's, but with passenger jets that were no longer economically viable.

It feels a bit like watching something die and get dismembered.

Though Henning will probably chime in and tell us that's not anything to fear! :mad2:
 
I feel like we owe it a moment of silence, lol.

If you don't mind me asking, what did the scrapyard get it for?
 
Oh no, it's definitely something to be concerned with, because a lot of good planes are going to the scrapper, and that capacity will not be replaced. Pretty soon if you need any load capacity, you will be stuck with a 206 or turbine as choices.
 
It's not just twins either. Plenty of airworthy singles are being scrapped too for the same reason. They are worth more as parts (supposedly).

At some point though, there will be a glut of parts and not enough flying planes to need them and then even the parts won't be worth much. Then it's just down to the value of the metal itself.
 
Dav8or said:
It's not just twins either. Plenty of airworthy singles are being scrapped too for the same reason. They are worth more as parts (supposedly).

At some point though, there will be a glut of parts and not enough flying planes to need them and then even the parts won't be worth much. Then it's just down to the value of the metal itself.
Click to expand...

We aren't far off that point now I bet. It would be interesting to see by model what percentage of serial numbers have gone to parts salvage. I'd bet of the "Pre restart" vintage planes, we have lost over half the production numbers from the operating fleet, with the majority of them already having been salvaged out by now, and the rest economically unrecoverable, some even as scrap won't make their labor in recycling. Every airport used to have a hangar or two with a collection of wings and other salvage parts, not so much anymore except for work planes.
 
Hate to see another twin go for scrap.i guess the future is in turboprop aircraft,or diesels.
 
pmiracing said:
It is still shown on their web site, but they apparently aren't interested in selling it. Every time I have talked to them the price has gone up and the story has changed.
Click to expand...

Those guys are the most upright and honest mechanics I know. A real pity they got stuck with that thing, I feel really badly for them.
 
What happens to the airplane?

Meaning... what process takes place?

Do they sell off engines as a whole? and props... each would have a log that goes with it..

Airframe then broke down for parts?

Im guessing avionics are Ebay'd or sold?

Very sad indeed..
 
SinkorSwim said:
What happens to the airplane?

Meaning... what process takes place?

Do they sell off engines as a whole? and props... each would have a log that goes with it..

Airframe then broke down for parts?

Im guessing avionics are Ebay'd or sold?

Very sad indeed..
Click to expand...

It depends on the demand for parts and the quality of what is there, but yes one of the ways is to dismantle the plane into constituent pieces and sell them as repair parts. Engines will typically stay as an assembly either for sale as running or to a core buyer, same for props. Instruments get cataloged individually, avionics as set to component, and put on eBay for quick sale. After a while when things are slow and stocks high, you pull out the multicutter blade and start cutting clean aluminum from between the rivet lines and start making piles of aluminum to sell to the recycler. Clean panels free of rivets bring the most money. Whole airframes are often turned away.:dunno:
 
Dav8or said:
It's not just twins either. Plenty of airworthy singles are being scrapped too for the same reason. They are worth more as parts (supposedly).

At some point though, there will be a glut of parts and not enough flying planes to need them and then even the parts won't be worth much. Then it's just down to the value of the metal itself.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
We aren't far off that point now I bet. It would be interesting to see by model what percentage of serial numbers have gone to parts salvage. I'd bet of the "Pre restart" vintage planes, we have lost over half the production numbers from the operating fleet, with the majority of them already having been salvaged out by now, and the rest economically unrecoverable, some even as scrap won't make their labor in recycling. Every airport used to have a hangar or two with a collection of wings and other salvage parts, not so much anymore except for work planes.
Click to expand...

We are there now when you do the math on some of the MX. I put a significant fraction of the value of my plane above scrap value (Full value - scrap value) into an annual a couple of years ago because someone in the past used the wrong sealant in the fuel tanks and it took many hours to scrape it out, flush the fuel lines and filters, and replace a couple of drains and fill-flappers (along with a couple of other pricey MX items). When the MX costs are averaged out over a few years, it's not so bad, but on a one-time hit it's pretty pricy.

Heck, engine reman with labor to pull and install (plus accessories) alone is enough to consider scrapping. Turbocharged single.

Before the overhead break guys hop in here, yes, a pretty big portion of that cost could have been saved with an E-AB.
 
If people want to see the trend stop, they need to put their money down instead of bemoaning the loss of these planes. I got a few dreamers pleading at the 11th hour not to scrap it - people who'd known this plane was for sale for a year, done nothing, and had no cash available for even a down payment but "give me a few months."

Q: "Why didn't somebody do something?"
A: "Well, you're somebody. Look in the mirror."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If people want to see the trend stop, they need to put their money down instead of bemoaning the loss of these planes. I got a few dreamers pleading at the 11th hour not to scrap it - people who'd known this plane was for sale for a year, done nothing, and had no cash available for even a down payment but "give me a few months."
Click to expand...

Well, it depends why the plane is going to the scrapper. If it's because it's costing money to hangar it so you're losing money, then a lease arrangement of some sort can make sense, with the plane remaining for sale.

If you just want to get rid of the thing, well, that's all there is to it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, it depends why the plane is going to the scrapper. If it's because it's costing money to hangar it so you're losing money, then a lease arrangement of some sort can make sense, with the plane remaining for sale.

If you just want to get rid of the thing, well, that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

It rarely makes sense to lease a plane like a piston twin that you're trying to sell. The person leasing the plane will break it and then you're responsible for fixing it. It's different if you want to do leaseback/flight school.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It rarely makes sense to lease a plane like a piston twin that you're trying to sell. The person leasing the plane will break it and then you're responsible for fixing it. It's different if you want to do leaseback/flight school.
Click to expand...

It's all in the terms... You can either charge a high rate to attempt to cover those eventualities, or simply go with a lower hourly rate and stipulate that the lessee is responsible for all wear-related maintenance, or a lower rate yet and state they're responsible for ALL maintenance. Everything is negotiable. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top