Cesna 310 Fuel burn and seating configuaration!
Hello out there, does any have any information, as to why the cessna 310 have so many diferent seat configuration, and also why there are so many different references, to there performance, cruise speed and fuel burn. I trained in a cessna 310R model, its was fast and burn alot of fuel! It burn around 30 gph .However it had continentals producing 285 horsepower and curise around 185 knots. [I] think the engine was a 520 cont, not sure. However i've notice the throught the years cessna kept changing there configuration and making upgrades, to the 310. eg. the exhaust on the 1962 310G , had wingspar issues, due to corrosive exhaust fumes. So they sent the exhaust augmentors under the wing, i say a quick fix for a big problem. Now wat im asking is why so much different configuration, and different specs, for this aircraft when most of them carry the continental 470, and two blade mc cualey props. The basic body style appears to be the same on the 310, and the average fuel capacity is 130 gals, tips and aux. yet i've heard claims that some models cruise at 175 kts, burning 21 gph, in fact just lately i talk to a retired airline pilot, who owns one and he said he has one wat cruise speed is 160kts and burns 18gph, i talk to a next gentlemen who told me his cruise speed is 172kts and burns 26 gph. All of these aircrafts carry the cont. 470 engine, with 2 blade props mc cauley! I took in to acount engine wear and efficiency, but still something doesnt add up!
If anyone knows or have information , please reply or send info to email!
If CESSNA listening please explain!
First off...seat configuration - 5 is standard (according to the TCDS) with an optional 6th seat available in most models. Any configuration of seating is optional as long as the weight and balance corresponds.
Secondly...of course everyone will get different performance specs due to the weight and balance of the airplane, any STC's that may have been installed, power settings, altitudes, temperatures, quality of maintenance. You have to consider a range.
Thirdly...the underwing exhaust was standard with the 1964 models and later, although the earlier 310's could be converted. And of course the corrosion from exhaust gases is a problem, as it is on any aircraft. Just keep it clean!
What else do you wanna know about 310's?
Still doesnt add up!
Hello there , yes i understand about the weight and balance issue, but i looked at several different 310 models , and still it appears that cessna was doing a trial and error modification to them, throught the aircraft life! Im not taking about mods that a owner did, like installing more avionics or some other device im talking about stock from factory! Maybe im wrong but i thought cruising speed is cruise speed and gph was gph! Yes i know weight and balance changes performance but i cant be that much of a change!
Ok i saw one 310 that stated 160kts cruise speed, burning 18gph total. , then for about a year or two diferences, same setup aircraft, states 172 kts, burning 26gph, bout aircraft are the same in setup, yet its stated in cessna operating manual , diferent fuel burns and cruise speed! bout have the same props and engines, same cinfiguration, how is this possible! Could you explain that! Wat was CESSNA doing!
I appologize, but I can't understand what you're saying.
why cant u understand
Wat im saying sir, is that how come there so many different performance specs for the aircraft, when they are basically all the same, for example, an aztec burns about 26gph they carry the lycoming 540, two blade props, if you look at the performance charts throught the years of there production, they are all the same, 149 kts, 26- 28 gph , 2000lbs payload, ! YET THE 310 VARY DRASTICALLY THROUGHT THERE PRODUCTION, ! YOU HAVE certain models claiming to have lower cruise speeds and different fuel burns, yet they carry same IO- 470 continental engine and mc cauley props, also they have varying payloads ! the payload vary from 1500 to 1800 lbs, , this is very confusing for the 310 buyer! Wat im looking for it which year and model 310 is the fastest with the best fuel economy ! Thats why id like to have a data sheet on the cessna 310 ,s throught there production life!
I hope you understand wat im saying now!
Every aircraft ever made, has a year that the best model was made, sometimes when they try to improve it they do a worst job! So far im my opinion the best model they made for the 310 was the 310 Q , why because its had all the features except for the extend nose of the 310R which is a bagage compartment , which i might say is a plus , if you are part 135 , but its suffers as its a gas hog! Also its a big difference in its pricing!
Wat id like to have it a complete data sheet on the cessna 310s. Please CESSNA- help me out!
Cessna 310 Configurations
Cessna 310's were manufactured in 4 basic configurations: pre 1963 models with straight tip tanks and over the wing exhausts, with several different engines and seating configurations; 1963-69 (C310K - C310P) models with IO470 engines at 260 HP, 6 seats, 140 gals. standard fuel and canted tips; 1970-74 C310Q models with the same engines, an enlarged cabin, 163 gals. standard fuel, and more dorsal fin to damp the dutch roll; and 1975 and later (C310R) models which were a larger airplane with IO520 285 HP engines.
The underwing exhausts are also thrust augmenters and were developed by Jack Riley Sr. in his Riley Rocket conversion. Cessna adopted this improvement after noting that a goodly number of their new airplanes were going straight to Riley for conversion. As Jack told me once, "I had my own airplane manufacturer - Cessna."
Pre 1969 Cessna also sold the C320 - a turbocharged version - which initially had 260HP TSIO470's then was upgraded in 1966 to 285HP TSIO520's. The early C320 models were larger than the contemporary C310 models. In 1969 the two models were combined into the C310P (260HP IO470's) and the T310P (285HP TSIO 520's).
The "Q" models have a much nicer cabin, wings with a bigger chord (an attempt to improve landing characteristics), and improved dorsal fin arrangements in a continuing attempt to kill the dutch roll in rough air. Most were sold with a yaw damper as well. This model is 5-8 knots slower than the 1963-69 models.
I owned a 1964 C310I and a 1969 C310P. Both cruised at about 180K at 75% power. Fuel burn was 34 gals. for the first hour and 26 GPH for the second and subsequent hours of flights. Both were quite reliable and comfortable. Note that the 2 blade props are slightly faster at cruise that the sexier 3 blade props.
The IO470 engine is very reliable and in my experience can be flown well beyond TBO. The IO520 engine (in the T310 and in both models of the C310R) had early crankcase problems which were eventually corrected.
Good used C310's from 1963 on are excellent airplanes for personal transportation. A very thorough pre-buy inspection is mandatory as there are a number of potentially expensive problems with older C310's.
Last edited by Old310guy; 01-01-2007 at 12:50 PM.
Old310guy, welcome to the board. I appreciate your understanding of the Cessna 310. I too believe it is the greatest airplane ever made. I'd love to hear more about your ownership experiences with the 310.
Originally Posted by SkykingC310
Good solid airplane but a bit slippery on instruments, expecially in the roll axis. Will not carry a lot of ice so need boots and heated props if flying in much of it. Not a good choice for a low time pilot - Seneca is more forgiving. Not much else to add. I have about 800 hours in various models. Happy new year to all
Thats wat im talking about!
Thank you Old310guy, i know i was not going insane, u have shined the light on the question that was baffling me! This is the type ok knowledge i was looking for from the beginning! Please sir share some more of your knowledge! I was looking at a cessna 310 to purchase, the airplane is a 1966 310k, its look ok, but i was told it had a gear up in its earlier life, pilot error, when i checked it everything looks ok , but when i put the yoke straight i notice the ailerons where not exactly straight, i havent flown the aircraft but i was wondering if this is a rigging issue, or could it be a frame alignment problem! I was told by a friend that he bought a 310 that never flew straight is this possible and is it a big issue with the 310 or wat! Also i have heard claims of this aircraft doing around 175kts burning 21gph, ive also heard other claims of 310 doing 160kts cruise speed burning 18gph, is this possible!
Also i was looking at a next 310 however it has 5 seats, cruises at 172kts and burns 26gph according to the owner, avionic are old , interior ok, ext ok, biuts is seems likes the 6 seat area serves as a baggage area, i was looking to put a seat in but the aft baggage door seems to be located right where the seat will have to go! Wat do u think ! With full fuel tanks wats the typical range on a 310!
You have posted 4 times so far in this particular thread and each time you have said the same things and asked the same questions.
yes sky king
Yes sky king you are correct, the reason why i keep asking is because hopefully some other member will shine some more light, on the question. Ive learned from early in my career , no question especially in aviation is to stupid to be asked, and the more people you ask the more knowledge you obtain. Im an ASE certified Master, L1 advance , certified technician, and there no question i cant answer pertaining to the automotive industry, i dont give vague answers, i answer with accuracy and to the exact point! The old310guy shed some light on the question, now do u have something of merit to add!
who said the same EXACT airplane can't perform at both of those sets of figures??? you know it depends on density altitude, temperature, power setting, the weight of the plane (fuel and passenger load at that moment), the phase of the moon (kidding...), etc etc.
Originally Posted by mondingo
don't get too obsesed about these figures on paper, or that you receive verbally, you will just have to fly the plane you are considering and find out how THAT PLANE performs.
i have a friend that owns the same exact make and model aircraft that i do (albeit with 3 years difference in age) and despite the fact that we both burn the same amount of fuel, my plane is about 8ktas faster than his. these things happen
Originally Posted by mondingo
Some pilots fly their aircraft at different power settings.. I fly my 310K at 182kts at 26gph.
Dont buy a seneca I have owned 3 of them and they have to be the most unenjoyabe, unrewarding, poorest landing, poorest visibility airplane I have ever flown. Plus the turbo system is junk and all three planes ended up with cracked turbos at some point. They do have a very nice cabin and large cargo door.
Dont buy a cheap 310 and think you made the steal of the century. A poorly maintained 310 will chew you up and spit you out..
66 K models are the best ones out there in my opinion. This dutch roll thing is a myth.
Dont rule out an aztec either.. They are great safe airplanes
Last edited by bell8769; 01-18-2007 at 08:56 AM.
Doing a routine search i ran into your dilema..... Fuel/speed/climb, etc.
I have many years of family dinner table discussions and some cockpit experience regarding these issues. Some considerations to think about, are that with the 310 prop speed, (1)two bladed props have lousy climb, but cruise much faster, and the 3 bladed props are the opposite, climb fast - cruise slower . (2) Every shop has thier own combustion engine tune-up science and ideas. (3) There were many flights to record the famous Riley Rocket 302mph at 20,000 feet in order to get "truth in advertising" that appeared on the back cover of flying magazine.
<from Ft Lauderdale Executive> (4) Over the production years, (1959-1969) there were an enormous amount of speed enhancing mods made to the 310 airframe that did not need FAA approval, such as replacing all forward half of fuselage round head rivets with flush countersunk rivets and then bondo before paint. (5) The price of "COOL", like i told my son is not free. Cool equates to something, always a trade and balance. In this case, the Riley Rocket enhancements that did not add thrust were things like "Bondo, Radar dome, Radar, Muntz 8-track, speakers, Swept tail, additional fuel, Nacelle fuel cells, pumps, 2 additional seats, complete oxygen system, enhanced avionics, twice the paint as Cessna used, etc..."
this came to light in the late 70's, when someone commented on the 4 blade Hartzells on the 400hp 8-cyl IO-720's installed on the 414 conversion. The potential customer stood in front and asked "What do these beautiful 4-blade props and giant shiny chrome spinners add to the performance?"
The response from Jack Riley was:
Based on our extensive FAA flight test STC certiification data, 4 things!...........Weight, Cost, Drag, and Sex.
Good Luck and keep it right side up
Hello. I just stumbled onto this site, and for what it is worth, I'll throw in my two cents worth. Several here have addressed the various reasons for the myriad of spec numbers. I own a C310H (1963). It has the overwing exhaust, canted tanks, swept tail and 6 seats. It is equipped with oxygen and shows a useful load of 1840 lbs. I have flown various 310s, including the Turbo 310R. I have flown Barons, Apaches, Aztecs, Senecas, Twin Comanchees, Navajos (including the P Navajo), various 400 Cessnas, a little B90 King Air time and others. I have over a thousand hours in a C421A, and some time in a C421C.
Point is, I have some experience wherewith I can compare planes. I say this; if God meant there to be only two airplanes, they would be C210s and C310s.
I can fly my 310 (non-turbo) lightly loaded at moderate altitude, slow, burning 18 gph, or say 9000 ft density altitude full throttle, burning (depends on how I lean it) 21.5 gph to 26 gph. Of course I could put more fuel through it if I chose to. By running lean (can't hurt it by being lean as long as it is running smoothe at that altitude) I keep it clean, but lose some speed. I typically see 198 mph (not knots) with a load of 1300 -1500 lbs. Dump in more fuel - up to 26 gph and the speed will increase up to perhaps 210 mph at that altitude.
The tip tanks on these vintage 310s all hold 50 gallons each, with the standard wing aux tanks holding 15 gallons a side, yielding 130 total. Additional bladders up this as options in later years.
I personally like the overwing exhaust. My experience is that the overwing exhaust is easier to keep out of the wing cavity than the underwing. Low pressure of the top of the wing causes underwing exhaust to suck up into the wing (aft spar and flap area). This needs careful and constant attention. On the overwing, the augmentor tubes need attention as well - keep em sealed and keep rainwater from leaching contaminents down into the wing. Of course, the overwing exhaust cause the loss of the nacell lockers/fuel tank options. And they are a little noisier (but I like the sound).
On these early 310s the baggage is behind the aft seats. This leaves little room (travel light) in the 6 seat set-up. The aft two seats fold up readily and provide for more baggage if seating only 4 or 5. The aft two seats come out readily (don't forget weight & balance to stay legal) and yield a cavernous baggage space for four people.
The IO-470 is one of the best powerplants going in my opinion. I prefer the two blade prop. I find all of the twin Cessnas easy to work on.
The efficiency of the 310 is remarkable, with the R model a little off (bigger, bulkier, more engine displacement). I find the R not as sweet to fly. these planes are slippery, but not difficult. They do require some skill, especially in the ground operations. Never brake in a turn (this should be sop in most airplanes). Landings must be sweet - no side loads. Much of the efficiency of the 310 is due to the large diameter props. The squat Pipers (and others) use compact props. The cost is the long landing gear - which can be harmed by side loads. Also, dropping it in with a fuel load out on the wing tip must be avoided. Most twin Cessnas have some sign of loose skin near the landing gear on the underside from the compression stress caused by dropping the plane in with heavy wingtips.
A must is to get a good instructor and be patient.
A point mentioned earlier on this site: Absolutely get a pre-purchase inspection. A little thing overlooked can cost a fortune.
By the way, I am proud of the fact that my 310H was owned for 9 years by Robert Morgan, the Memphis Belle pilot.
Last edited by Airknocker47; 02-12-2011 at 10:41 AM.
Reason: Omitted phrase