FS: 1955 Cessna 310

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ted

Ted

The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
30,006
Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I'm selling a 1955 Cessna 310. Specs:

TTAF: 7250
LE: 1520 SMOH
RE: 20 SMOH
Props: Both 0 SMOH. Freshly overhauled last month
Avionics: 530, KX155
Other: Alternator upgrade
Annual signed off 3/2014
Includes a fresh dynamic prop balance

FlyingMoose and VanDy have been involved with the purchase and return to service of this plane, which had belonged to the same owner for 20 years prior. He passed away in 2005 and his son sold the plane to us last year. This is a well cared for example that received regular ACF-50 corrosion treatments (especially important on 310s) and from our inspections is corrosion free.

It is rare to find a classic 310 that has been taken this good care of. The previous owner obviously cared about doing intelligent upgrades to the plane. It is very rare to find a 530 and an updated instrument panel in a classic 310.

Paint I rate as a 4, interior a 6. The paint can easily be touched up and brightened, and has a classic paint scheme. Interior is in good condition just an older brown style with cloth.

I have flown this plane, and you can't stop saying to yourself "Out of the clear blue of the western sky comes... SKYYYYYYY KING! (brought to you by Nabisco!)" It is a great deal of fun to fly and I was getting 175 KTAS @ 25 GPH roughly. I think it can do better on fuel economy, but this was on a single ferry flight so I didn't get to "learn" the plane as well. Yes, it will fly (and climb) on one engine. Has aux tanks, which is also unusual for early 310s and desirable. The engines have pressure carburetors, which are "particularly resistant to icing" (basically they don't ice) and start beautifully.

This plane represents a great value for someone who is either interested in a time builder or is looking for a classic or inexpensive twin to buy with good operating and performance.

I'll include 5 hours of transition training for anyone from PoA who purchases it, and will also deliver it to your location for the cost of fuel and a plane ticket home.

Asking $35,000. Plane is located between Cincinnati and Dayton. Times will go up as the plane is being flown.

Contact me with any questions.

IMG_20140321_161257.jpg

IMG_20140321_161314.jpg

IMG_20140321_161351.jpg

IMG_20140321_161400.jpg

IMG_20140321_161535.jpg

IMG_20140321_161558.jpg

IMG_20140321_161612.jpg

IMG_20140321_170226.jpg
 
Last edited:
Technically out of the clear blue eastern sky since you flew it from VA. Price is great. Wish I could afford to maintain it.
 
I'll take it. Who wants to loan 35K with a 0% interest?
 
That is pretty. While I'm looking for a plane, I might not want that much plane. Would be fun to get a multi in!
 
ChrisK said:
That is pretty. While I'm looking for a plane, I might not want that much plane. Would be fun to get a multi in!
Click to expand...

I think you'd probably be surprised if you look at $/mile between a 310 and many HP singles. Yes, the 310 will be higher, but not as much as one would typically believe.

I find Cloud Nine's 310 runs about $300/hr all in, and I'd figure this would probably be similar, potentially cheaper depending on how you operate. Insurance will be significantly less due to the lower hull value which will help fixed costs. Lack of de-ice definitely helps reduce costs.

If I had to predict who buys this plane, I'd figure it's a time builder, someone who just loves classic 310s, or someone looking for a cheap twin to do ratings in.
 
hindsight2020 said:
It's not the purchase cost you'll need a loan for.....
Click to expand...

There's some ruth to this. While everyone must look at their own financial situation, I would tend to suggest that if you need a loan for this plane, you probably can't afford to operate it.
 
I'm not a fan of 310s but at least this one is a straight tail! :thumbsup:

Nice lookin' plane, Ted.

Looks like its last caretaker was indeed a fine one.
 
Hmmmm... Very interesting. Too bad my hangar's full of Mooney right now. (Too bad it's not full of money!)

Does it have the GPSS for the autopilot hidden somewhere? Didn't see it in the pics.
 
Is it possible to own and maintain something like this on a $24,000/year budget?
 
Challenged said:
Is it possible to own and maintain something like this on a $24,000/year budget?
Click to expand...


How much do you want to actually fly it?

If you fly it 100 hrs/year, the fuel alone will run you $15k. Insurance, probably at least $3k. Tie down/hangar can vary between $1000-$6000 per year.

You NEED to budget more than $5k per year for maintenance.
 
Challenged said:
Is it possible to own and maintain something like this on a $24,000/year budget?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Obviously it depends on how much you fly, and it also depends on local fuel prices and hangar. I find 310s as around $300/hr airplanes if you participate in some of the work and fly economically. But for a standard hobby pilot who flies under 100 hours per year, just fine.
 
50 hours a year. I'm wondering if this might make a good "last" plane for me..would certainly give me a lot more speed than my Sierra, which would be handy for longer trips.
 
This is the "not-even-an-A-yet" model, right? O-470-B's?

Is the inner portion of the left tip tank not painted? Or the whole thing?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
This is the "not-even-an-A-yet" model, right? O-470-B's?

Is the inner portion of the left tip tank not painted? Or the whole thing?
Click to expand...
Correct "Not an A yet." O-470-M.

The LH wing tank was replaced and it hasn't been warm enough to paint yet. It will be painted soon.
 
flyingmoose said:
Correct "Not an A yet." O-470-M.
Click to expand...

So, it's from the same series of engines as the 182 - 1500 hour TBO, but can last a lot longer. (Our last O-470-R went to 2450 SMOH.)

The LH wing tank was replaced and it hasn't been warm enough to paint yet. It will be painted soon.
Click to expand...

Ah, cool.

I don't suppose you have complete logs? Any damage? What all was done since 2005?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ah, cool.

I don't suppose you have complete logs? Any damage? What all was done since 2005?
Click to expand...
I do have complete logs all the way to 55'. No damage history other than minor stuff. I converted all the Logs to AD log last month and I can send you PDF of the latest entry and I could scan the rest of the entries if you wanted to see them.
I don't have it in front of me, but I believe in 05' they put in the 530 and the alternator upgrade (70 amp). They also overhauled the RH eng. Owner passed away and his some had it annualed until 2008 even though no one flew it.
We overhauled the props with a myriad of other things. It has about 5 hours on it since annual. 530 is at Garmin right now getting overhauled ;)
 
flyingmoose said:
I do have complete logs all the way to 55'. No damage history other than minor stuff. I converted all the Logs to AD log last month and I can send you PDF of the latest entry and I could scan the rest of the entries if you wanted to see them.
I don't have it in front of me, but I believe in 05' they put in the 530 and the alternator upgrade (70 amp). They also overhauled the RH eng. Owner passed away and his some had it annualed until 2008 even though no one flew it.
We overhauled the props with a myriad of other things. It has about 5 hours on it since annual. 530 is at Garmin right now getting overhauled ;)
Click to expand...

Wow... Sounds like the owner never got to enjoy his new gadgets! :(
 
flyingmoose said:
I do have complete logs all the way to 55'. No damage history other than minor stuff. I converted all the Logs to AD log last month and I can send you PDF of the latest entry and I could scan the rest of the entries if you wanted to see them.
I don't have it in front of me, but I believe in 05' they put in the 530 and the alternator upgrade (70 amp). They also overhauled the RH eng. Owner passed away and his some had it annualed until 2008 even though no one flew it.
We overhauled the props with a myriad of other things. It has about 5 hours on it since annual. 530 is at Garmin right now getting overhauled ;)
Click to expand...


Just the standard fixed cost update of all the internals, as needed? Or WAAS upgrade?? ;)
 
AdamB said:
Just the standard fixed cost update of all the internals, as needed? Or WAAS upgrade?? ;)
Click to expand...

It's going to be the standard "flat rate fix". If we had a buyer who wanted to pay the cost difference to WAAS we'd do it.

In the market for a twin, Adam? :D
 
Challenged said:
Is it possible to own and maintain something like this on a $24,000/year budget?
Click to expand...

Yes, but you have to know what you're doing and be willing to put in some labor. Your fixed costs will have a large potential disparity depending on where you live. If you have a $1000 a month hangar bill, that eats a lot of budget. If you are low on time as well as retract time and insure, that will eat a good chunk of that budget. If you operate with the mindset, "I didn't buy this plane to go slow" that will likely put you over budget.

Operate 30°LOP at 2300rpm and let the speed fall where it may, and you will go a long way to achieving your budget for a 75-100hr year depending on your parking costs.
 
Fearless Tower said:
How much do you want to actually fly it?

If you fly it 100 hrs/year, the fuel alone will run you $15k. Insurance, probably at least $3k. Tie down/hangar can vary between $1000-$6000 per year.

You NEED to budget more than $5k per year for maintenance.
Click to expand...

At $5.50 a gallon, 100hrs would cost me $12,650 at my travelling power level and speed of 3 miles a minute; if I was running at time building power levels it would be $9625 (or $6985 if I wanted to slow to L/D max)
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
At $5.50 a gallon, 100hrs would cost me $12,650 at my travelling power level and speed of 3 miles a minute; if I was running at time building power levels it would be $9625 (or $6985 if I wanted to slow to L/D max)
Click to expand...

I was using $6/gallon (average around here) and. 25 gph. You can certainly get lower depending on where you fly and how fast you want to go, but the point is that fuel alone for a twin will eat up up a rather sizeable chunk of that budget leaving not much room for the other things....especially the unplanned for maintenance issues.

If I was looking at it and planned to own it for a while, I'd want to have at least $30k/year for a budget to feel comfortable, unless I had a lot of spare time to do every bit of owner approved maintenance possible, which most of us don't.
 
Last edited:
It all depends on your needs and how much you fly. If you're at 100 hours/year, it'll be tougher. At 50-75, plenty doable. Insurance will be harder the first year and get easier. Hangar is dependent on local rates.

For me, a typical year has been more than $30k in fuel alone, so obviously it wouldn't work. But the person who buys a classic 310 like this will rarely be flying it more than 100 hours per year.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It all depends on your needs and how much you fly. If you're at 100 hours/year, it'll be tougher. At 50-75, plenty doable. Insurance will be harder the first year and get easier. Hangar is dependent on local rates.

For me, a typical year has been more than $30k in fuel alone, so obviously it wouldn't work. But the person who buys a classic 310 like this will rarely be flying it more than 100 hours per year.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Is your assertion based on the demographic you think is likely to buy such an old twin, or something endemic to the old thing itself? Is it not a practical cross country traveler in a way a newer 310 is? Honest question, I haven't seen a typical year's worth of maintenance invoice for a big bore piston twin (I've only owned singles).

My only lay knowledge of these things is that the old ones have noisy over the wing exhausts that are prone to corroding the hell out of the wing and supposedly have rube goldberg fuel systems. I always lust after a twin comanche as a cheap twin to get better performance...then I realize a single engine comanche does the same thing on a lot less duplicity of maintenance cost, so that tempers my enthusiasm. They sure are cool to think about owning, if the maintenance delta wasn't so steep. Hard to love something you can only afford to look at.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Why do you say that? Is your assertion based on the demographic you think is likely to buy such an old twin, or something endemic to the old thing itself? Is it not a practical cross country traveler in a way a newer 310 is? Honest question, I haven't seen a typical year's worth of maintenance invoice for a big bore piston twin (I've only owned singles).
Click to expand...

These days, the majority of folks you see with the early model strait tail 310s are retired old dudes who like their antique airplanes and fly for fun vs business. They just don't fly all that much. That seems to be the demographic that I noticed in the Twin Cessna magazine.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Why do you say that? Is your assertion based on the demographic you think is likely to buy such an old twin, or something endemic to the old thing itself? Is it not a practical cross country traveler in a way a newer 310 is? Honest question, I haven't seen a typical year's worth of maintenance invoice for a big bore piston twin (I've only owned singles).

My only lay knowledge of these things is that the old ones have noisy over the wing exhausts that are prone to corroding the hell out of the wing and supposedly have rube goldberg fuel systems. I always lust after a twin comanche as a cheap twin to get better performance...then I realize a single engine comanche does the same thing on a lot less duplicity of maintenance cost, so that tempers my enthusiasm. They sure are cool to think about owning, if the maintenance delta wasn't so steep. Hard to love something you can only afford to look at.
Click to expand...

It's a fine traveling machine, and the fuel system is as simple as it gets since it only returns to the mains so you don't have to have a dual stage fuel selector valve. You just start on the mains, run them at least an hour, then you can switch to the auxes. If you don't run the mains down first, you end up pumping fuel out of the main tank vent.
 
Henning said:
It's a fine traveling machine, and the fuel system is as simple as it gets since it only returns to the mains so you don't have to have a dual stage fuel selector valve. You just start on the mains, run them at least an hour, then you can switch to the auxes. If you don't run the mains down first, you end up pumping fuel out of the main tank vent.
Click to expand...

Returns to the mains? Returns WHAT to the mains???
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's going to be the standard "flat rate fix". If we had a buyer who wanted to pay the cost difference to WAAS we'd do it.

In the market for a twin, Adam? :D
Click to expand...

Would love to be. It's my telco engineering background/mentality with the need for redundancy that appeals. :)

Probably not the right time though given how many other expenses I have right now. Plus the hassle of trying to sell my share in the Trinnie. In a couple of years that could always change.

I did ask for an insurance quote though, just out of curiosity.
It'll be interesting to see what they say. Something I've always wondered about, so figured, why not ask.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Why do you say that? Is your assertion based on the demographic you think is likely to buy such an old twin, or something endemic to the old thing itself? Is it not a practical cross country traveler in a way a newer 310 is? Honest question, I haven't seen a typical year's worth of maintenance invoice for a big bore piston twin (I've only owned singles).
Click to expand...

It's the typical demographic. Most of the people who fly in the 100+ hour per year range are going to buy a newer plane. Now, I do know a few people who do fly their classic 310s more than 100 hours per year, it's just not many. They own one because that's specifically what they want to own.

My only lay knowledge of these things is that the old ones have noisy over the wing exhausts that are prone to corroding the hell out of the wing and supposedly have rube goldberg fuel systems. I always lust after a twin comanche as a cheap twin to get better performance...then I realize a single engine comanche does the same thing on a lot less duplicity of maintenance cost, so that tempers my enthusiasm. They sure are cool to think about owning, if the maintenance delta wasn't so steep. Hard to love something you can only afford to look at.
Click to expand...

The over wing exhaust is louder than the under wing, but not badly so. The corrosion has to do with care more than anything. This one was well cared for and received regular corrosion treatments. Underwing exhaust 310s can have corrosion issues, too.

Fearless Tower said:
These days, the majority of folks you see with the early model strait tail 310s are retired old dudes who like their antique airplanes and fly for fun vs business. They just don't fly all that much. That seems to be the demographic that I noticed in the Twin Cessna magazine.
Click to expand...

You got it.

flyingcheesehead said:
Returns to the mains? Returns WHAT to the mains???
Click to expand...

Extra fuel. That's part of the Continental fuel system, and the Twin Cessnas don't have a fuel selector that changes the return as well as the source. Your Mooney probably does.

AdamB said:
Would love to be. It's my telco engineering background/mentality with the need for redundancy that appeals. :)

Probably not the right time though given how many other expenses I have right now. Plus the hassle of trying to sell my share in the Trinnie. In a couple of years that could always change.

I did ask for an insurance quote though, just out of curiosity.
It'll be interesting to see what they say. Something I've always wondered about, so figured, why not ask.
Click to expand...

Definitely understand the expenses. And the redundancy. Of course, I'm Mr. Twin. :)

Keep in mind that a first year quote will reduce 25% or more the 2nd year. My Aztec was $4k the first year with 225 TT, 0 MEL, 80 complex, and $60k hull. Second year it dropped to $3k with $80k hull, and it eventually dropped to $2,200 before I sold it. On a plane like this with an even lower hull value, you'd be paying less.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Returns to the mains? Returns WHAT to the mains???
Click to expand...

Fuel, the 55 may not have fuel returns as it has pressure carbs rather than Continental Fuel Injection, but in general the Twin Cessna series with multiple tanks in the wings only return to the mains (Tips) regardless from where they draw. The later model cabin planes without tip tanks used interconnected cells in each wing so you only had either wing to chose from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top