FS: 1955 Cessna 310

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry I have been pretty busy lately with lots of family issues and work sending me all over the world. But yes I flew it on its last flight. I have put about 60hrs on it over the last year and it has been loads of fun (expensive fun, but fun). It flys great and frankly I feel like an A-hole for sending it where I did. Here is the deal though. I still have a business to run and its costing more to keep then its worth right now. I actually wrote a fairly large check to get rid of it.... so there is my contribution to GA last year. I never really had any serious interest in it. I actually sold it 3 times on ebay, but nobody ever paid for it (that cost me money everytime!) So I waited as long as I could, but a friend of mine who has the capacity to part it out gave us the best deal. It is still together and in annual. He will sell it for what he paid for it..... come get it.
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...
Interesting this is your first post here.... Call me again and lets talk, its still for sale.

steingar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you sir

frfly172 said:
Hate to see another twin go for scrap.i guess the future is in turboprop aircraft,or diesels.
Click to expand...
I hated to see it go to, it was harder than I thought to drop it off.


mrkbbd said:
so what's the airplane worth in scrap value - the cost to take it apart?
Click to expand...
Probably much more in parts, but the problem is that some of it you will have to sit of for a long time, until the right person comes along looking for that part.
 
Dav8or said:
This is why twins are faring worse than singles. A very, very few people are willing to spend what it takes to fly a twin just to bore holes in the sky and that is what a very large portion of the GA fleet is used for now.

Bottom line is, there are more planes than there are pilots wanting to fly them. GA is shrinking and there is a market correction going on. The same thing happened at the end of WWII.

There were thousands of perfectly serviceable war birds but no one to use them. Some of them survive today only because people are sentimental about the heroic deeds in combat in the course of a monumental war. The best thing a Cessna 310 can point to is an old TV show that almost no one remembers.

On the bright side, the 310 in this thread got more life out of it than the designers and builders of it ever dreamed of.
Click to expand...
Most ex military aircraft were only saved if they served a purpose ie: Stearmans were used for sprayers, banner pullers, ( 400 bucks new, never flown). A26 was often used
For fire suppression as were the cods, , same with many many others. Many fighters,( p51, Bearcats were sold to South American military, french, etc. and a few were bought back by private collectors. In the late 50s hundreds of B29's, B25's, Grumman tiger cats, hellcats, on and on were flown to Aberdeen proving grounds where they were cut up, melted into ingots on site and sold by private contractor. Others were hung up in towers on cables and shot at by various rounds to observe damage. Only later did collection start, for the most part by collectors , racers. Ie: During Vietnam for instance, we bought back A26's from the French , refurbished them and used them for ground attack. Very few left now, they all are very expensive to maintain and operate. Gas was 75 cents a gallon back then! ( Sunoco hi test , five gallons for 1.50.) P51 burns about 90-100 gallons an hour. Deep pockets! ( see warbird information exchange, Special K A26 rebuild! Long expensive rebuild. Former fire fighter.) they were also used for executive aircraft in the 50s, rebuilt by L.B. Smith in Florida.
 
Last edited:
My great uncle sold the P-51 he brought back from the war (it was either $500 or $1500 to keep it after the war, I forget which) in the early 70s. He said at that time it was costing him around $500hr to fly.
 
Henning said:
My great uncle sold the P-51 he brought back from the war (it was either $500 or $1500 to keep it after the war, I forget which) in the early 70s. He said at that time it was costing him around $500hr to fly.
Click to expand...

My memory has it that $1500 after the war was the going rate for P-51s. Not 100% on that though.
 
Henning said:
My great uncle sold the P-51 he brought back from the war (it was either $500 or $1500 to keep it after the war, I forget which) in the early 70s. He said at that time it was costing him around $500hr to fly.
Click to expand...

Referencing 1973, that comes to $2,660/hour today.
 
Is there a number to contact you about buying this plane?
 
Last edited:
It seems like planes like this one are perfect experimental test beds for new propulsion systems and engines. Hang your Corvette, diesel, whatever engine, or your 22 blade carbon fiber whiz bang prop on one wing and keep the stock certified engine and prop on the other for back up.

Too bad there's not much experimenting going on. :(
 
Dav8or said:
It seems like planes like this one are perfect experimental test beds for new propulsion systems and engines. Hang you Corvette, diesel, whatever engine, or your 22 blade carbon fiber whiz bang prop on one wing and keep the stock certified engine and prop on the other for back up.

Too bad there's not much experimenting going on. :(
Click to expand...

It was hopeful until I read the proposed weight restriction on Experimental Non Commercial category.:( Even without that though, the FAA doesn't make operating under EXP R&D if you are actually doing something. If you create a new engine installation and spend a decade generating operational data, that is done. Look at the Twin Commander that is sporting Orenda engines. It has been operating Exp R&D since the 90s, and he flies it all over. He was even selling it that way.
 
/rant on

You know, its sad that a good aircraft went to the scrapyard. But let me be the first to say, whatever. I really don't care too much about it.

As a CMEL holder, I have no use for it. I have not flown a twin since completing the check ride in 2008. I can't justify the cost of rent in the very rare rental. The only one I know of here in central Ohio is $317 an hour for a Twinstar. I used to be a member of this for profit club and I just bet they want at least 5 hours in aircraft, probably 10. Can't justify that cost. Before I was unemployed I could barely afford to rent a single an hour or two a month, let alone a twin. Now that I am unemployed, I have to rely on my flight student to get in the air for now.

So, again I say, whatever. Twin engine aircraft relate to the skewed economic/social structure of this country. Twins are for the upper middle class pilot, singles are for the lower middle class to own and renting is for the poorer pilot or those that don't want to own. Jets are for the upper class.

This will never change and the associated costs will never go down. If there was a reasonably priced rental twin out there, I would be interested in renting when I am able but not at $317 an hour plus $55 for the MEI.

It just drives me crazy that this industry feeds on its self so much. It is self-defeating and destructive. In my personal case, I have not gotten much return from the industry for what I put into training for certificates, so it is personal for me. I will be paying on my certificates for another 15 years or so and I barely work in the industry.

The owner of this 310 made a purely business decision and I am sure other people will be making similar decisions in the future. Sad yes, but in the end it is a machine, not a living creature.

David

/rant off
 
Last edited:
flhrci said:
/rant on

You know, its sad that a good aircraft went to the scrapyard. But let me be the first to say, whatever. I really don't care too much about it.

As a CMEL holder, I have no use for it. I have not flown a twin since completing the check ride in 2008. I can't justify the cost of rent in the very rare rental. The only one I know of here in central Ohio is $317 an hour for a Twinstar. I used to be a member of this for profit club and I just bet they want at least 5 hours in aircraft, probably 10. Can't justify that cost. Before I was unemployed I could barely afford to rent a single an hour or two a month, let alone a twin. Now that I am unemployed, I have to rely on my flight student to get in the air for now.

So, again I say, whatever. Twin engine aircraft relate to the skewed economic/social structure of this country. Twins are for the upper middle class pilot, singles are for the lower middle class to own and renting is for the poorer pilot or those that don't want to own. Jets are for the upper class.

This will never change and the associated costs will never go down. If there was a reasonably priced rental twin out there, I would be interested in renting when I am able but not at $317 an hour plus $55 for the MEI.

It just drives me crazy that this industry feeds on its self so much. It is self-defeating and destructive. In my personal case, I have not gotten much return from the industry for what I put into training for certificates, so it is personal for me. I will be paying on my certificates for another 15 years or so and I barely work in the industry.

The owner of this 310 made a purely business decision and I am sure other people will be making similar decisions in the future. Sad yes, but in the end it is a machine, not a living creature.

David

/rant off
Click to expand...

Perhaps the opportunity with this aircraft was a ready to fly twin in annual for the price of a nice Harley or descent mid range car. Someone could have put a several hundred hours on it and it would still be worth what it sold to the scrap yard for. If someone was wanting to build multi-time while going somewhere this really was an opportunity lost IMO. We have to keep this in perspective, when it cost $40-50K to have a license to fly one of these, it doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Perhaps the opportunity with this aircraft was a ready to fly twin in annual for the price of a nice Harley or descent mid range car. Someone could have put a several hundred hours on it and it would still be worth what it sold to the scrap yard for. If someone was wanting to build multi-time while going somewhere this really was an opportunity lost IMO. We have to keep this in perspective, when it cost $40-50K to have a license to fly one of these, it doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.
Click to expand...

I agree an opportunity was definitely missed for some one. For myself though, I have a nice Harley and am paying for it. But I feel I get more enjoyment per dollar out of it than I would a twin. When the weather is good enough, I ride daily. One can't fly daily unless working in the industry or retired/financially able. I enjoy flying but the expenses would kill it for me.

David
 
flhrci said:
I agree an opportunity was definitely missed for some one. For myself though, I have a nice Harley and am paying for it. But I feel I get more enjoyment per dollar out of it than I would a twin. When the weather is good enough, I ride daily. One can't fly daily unless working in the industry or retired/financially able. I enjoy flying but the expenses would kill it for me.

David
Click to expand...

I spend more maintaining and operating my motorcycle than I do my Flybaby. My Flybaby costs $7.22 per hour in fuel right now. It's pretty easy to have enough money to fly it daily at that price. Where there is a will there is a way.
 
flhrci said:
So, again I say, whatever. Twin engine aircraft relate to the skewed economic/social structure of this country. Twins are for the upper middle class pilot, singles are for the lower middle class to own and renting is for the poorer pilot or those that don't want to own. Jets are for the upper class.
Click to expand...

You are seriously delusional. The lower middle class in this country can't afford any functional airplane you can sit in and they can't even afford pilot training. Anybody who owns an airworthy airplane that you need a license for, is not lower middle class.

The truth is, the piston twin is a victim of it's own failures. It was supposed to be safer than a single, but it's proven not to be. It is supposed to be faster than a single, not always the case. It's supposed to carry more cargo, sometimes, but often not. Then there is the real issue, it is very expensive to own and operate.

It has been abandoned on the high end of the market to those going turbine single. On the lower end of the twin market, people are turning to high performance singles, particularly the Cirrus SR-22. Then factor in the fact that there are less pilots and less demand for any piston airplane than there once was. The expensive to operate piston twin is the low hanging fruit. First to go.

The only future the piston twin has is training, a small and shrinking number of enthusiasts and certain rural regional air transportation routes, like in the Caribbean.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Perhaps the opportunity with this aircraft was a ready to fly twin in annual for the price of a nice Harley or descent mid range car. Someone could have put a several hundred hours on it and it would still be worth what it sold to the scrap yard for. If someone was wanting to build multi-time while going somewhere this really was an opportunity lost IMO. We have to keep this in perspective, when it cost $40-50K to have a license to fly one of these, it doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.
Click to expand...

The problem is the fixed expenses and the fuel burn. The storage costs more, the insurance costs more, the annual costs more and finally, the on going fuel costs a lot more. I suspect that even if you bought it, tied it down outside and only planned to operate it for less than a year and scrap it when the annual was due, you would still be better off building time by renting a Seminole, or Twin Comanche. I guess you could fly uninsured?? I wouldn't.

In addition, with each small repair required in between, how much money do you sink into something you know you will be scraping shortly and there will be failures. You can't operate a 1955 anything and not have break downs.
 
Dav8or said:
You are seriously delusional. The lower middle class in this country can't afford any functional airplane you can sit in and they can't even afford pilot training. Anybody who owns an airworthy airplane that you need a license for, is not lower middle class.
Click to expand...

And I would posit that unless you're upper middle class it's tough - that goes down a bit as you get away from major cities, but in areas where the median price for a house is ~$500K, flying becomes a luxury (especially if one has kids).

The truth is, the piston twin is a victim of it's own failures. It was supposed to be safer than a single, but it's proven not to be. It is supposed to be faster than a single, not always the case. It's supposed to carry more cargo, sometimes, but often not. Then there is the real issue, it is very expensive to own and operate.

It has been abandoned on the high end of the market to those going turbine single. On the lower end of the twin market, people are turning to high performance singles, particularly the Cirrus SR-22. Then factor in the fact that there are less pilots and less demand for any piston airplane than there once was. The expensive to operate piston twin is the low hanging fruit. First to go.

The only future the piston twin has is training, a small and shrinking number of enthusiasts and certain rural regional air transportation routes, like in the Caribbean.
Click to expand...

Agree. The degree of proficiency required to gain the benefit of the second engine in terms of "safety" is substantially higher than a single.
 
Dav8or said:
You are seriously delusional. The lower middle class in this country can't afford any functional airplane you can sit in and they can't even afford pilot training. Anybody who owns an airworthy airplane that you need a license for, is not lower middle class.
Click to expand...

Leave CA where real estate values out here in the midwest are less than 1/4 of what they are there, and you certainly can. My base income is less than the median income for my state, and I operate a Comanche as a sole owner.

http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20140401/bci_data/median_income_table.htm

I do get a bonus, but that all goes to retirement funds. So what I live on, I am lower middle class.
 
Last edited:
I have been diagnosed as delusional. Woohoo! Check that one off the list.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
MC: Please close this thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top