Piston Aircraft with 200 kts cruise?

Fearless Tower said:
That is my thought process.....I can't believe some of the trips that they are using RJs for these days.

Yeah, long-ass flights can wear you out, but personnally speaking I 'd still rather be sitting in the front looking out than in the back...even First Class....although there is something to be said about the free drinks. Plus there is the whole TSA headache.
Click to expand...

I owned a 72 310Q for about 10 years. Wonderful airplane, economical, plenty of room for four and lots of baggage space plus a nice hefty useful load.

My 310 had alcohol windshield and boots with hot props and radar, and of course autopilot.

The 310's are hard to beat for what you want to do and won't break the bank. Just go for the latter models and stay away from the real early ones.

The Q (72-74) has the same cabin as the R model.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The 310's are hard to beat for what you want to do and won't break the bank. Just go for the latter models and stay away from the real early ones.
Click to expand...
What was the issue with the early ones? Was it heat or corrosion resulting from the exhaust that was damaging the wing structure?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting point. May be worth considering.

Anyone care to comment on the 340 vs 310?
Click to expand...

When Bob Gerace and I flew across the country in his T310R he made a very good point. He said "The 310 is the ultimate pilot's aircraft, but if you're hauling family and friends, they don't like sucking O2, you need pressurization." There is a lot of wisdom in those words. When you take that one step further, you can add a lav to that as well. Given the current economic situation, I see no sense in a 340 when you can get a 421 and fly it at 180+ very efficiently and get the extra room and a potty along with the pressure for the same money as well as being considerably quieter. Flown LOP and throttled back, the 421 is an efficient and reliable machine with a lot of excess performance capability with all the amenities required for long legs.
 
Last edited:
I've flown my Cessna 180 ~300 hours during the past 3 years. How much have you flown your relic?

Henning said:
He doesn't enjoy flying, personally I'd rather spend 6hrs in my 310 than the 2.5 I did in the ERJ yesterday coupled with the 1.5 in the Q-400.
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
What was the issue with the early ones? Was it heat or corrosion resulting from the exhaust that was damaging the wing structure?
Click to expand...

Overwing exhaust was a major problem, later overwing exhaust have "mufflers" that if they are broke will cost major $$$$ to fix. Aft spar corrosion issues also.

Personally I would stay away from pre '65's.

TAS is a great source on maintenance and maintenance issues as well as Jerry Temple. Also Mike Busch is another good resource on the 310.
 
Fearless Tower said:
What was the issue with the early ones? Was it heat or corrosion resulting from the exhaust that was damaging the wing structure?
Click to expand...

It's the corrosive exhaust gasses going through the augmenters. That's what makes most of the early ones economically unrecoverable. That's why when I saw that the $200k to rebuild all that on the one I have had already been spent and the work done by a pedantic master craftsman metal worker who spared no expense I bought it within 10 minutes of seeing it.
 
Mostly the 18 hours required to accomplish it. If you're alone and want to sit there for that amount of time, knock yourself out. If you think for a minute that passengers other than airplane freaks view GA as an attractive alternative to the airlines for that trip, you're nuts. Most hate it. If it's going to take all day anyway, why not spend it comfortably?

If it's truly a business trip, approach it like any other businessman would do. After considering all of the costs and limitations to make it happen, there's no way that any GA plane makes sense.

The 340 offers the ability to fly a bit more comfortably (we carried a porta-potty and privacy screen) at altitudes that would otherwise require a cannula. That capability is nice on downwind legs, but next-to-worthless upwind due to stronger winds at altitude. Think of it as a P-310 with an air-stair door and much higher MX cost.

I personally liked the 421 (or any wide-body without the tip tanks that are a horrible detriment to vision) much better than the 340, but quickly determined that it was much more plane than I needed and the cost/performance numbers would never work.




Fearless Tower said:
Wayne, what about the trip made the trip so miserable?
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure about the capacity. I've done CA to TX round trip with with 4 OxySavers. So far I haven't had anyone not wear it.

wabower said:
What's the O2 capacity with 4 up? Can you get anybody to wear it?
Click to expand...
 
The Malibu will get you there. 16 GPH and pressurization. With proper care the engine won't fail.
 
I really wish that were true, but it's not. If it were, we might still have the '87.

What kind of care should we have given the crank to prevent breaking into two pieces?

kmead said:
The Malibu will get you there. 16 GPH and pressurization. With proper care the engine won't fail.
Click to expand...
 
Geico266 said:
RV-10

Not quite 200 knots, but 200+ mph . Maintenance will be a lot less than certified, and you can do the work legally. I use 91 octane car gas and save $2.00 a gallon. Easy to fly, low stall speed, proven reliability.

Weak point? Doors must me latched. :lol:
Click to expand...

What's the fuel burn? I'm too lazy to look it up.


Besides, YMMV.

George
 
The T310R, 340, and 414 all can be equipped with the same range of engines. As you'd expect, for any given engine the order of speed/fuel burn from fastest to slowest will be T310R, 340, 414. The 421 reportedly goes about the same speed as the 414, but has a bit more payload and better OEI performance. It's also more of a handful until you cage a failed engine.

I've never flown in a 340 or 414. In the 310, I'm able to put the seat back and get plenty of legroom to stretch out on trips. Not sure if the 340 with club seating gets in the way of this. I know in the A36 it does. One previously local 340 owner routinely has 6 people and full fuel in his plane. He also routinely flies it well over gross. ;)

The downside to the 340 is pressurization, and the extra work that puts on the engines plus the added MX load. The upside is pressurization, which makes it nicer to fly up at altitude.

We have O2 and I've only flown at O2 altitudes solo. I suppose I'll need to buy an O2 setup for more than one person now with more family trips. I wonder what options they have for the baby. One family I know with a T310R doesn't mind using the O2. For them it's just part of the trip, and the way they raised the kids was "This is how we travel," so it was understood.

With the 310s, the R models are roomier in back. I don't find any noticeable difference up front. The R feels a lot more truck-like, whereas our N is very sporty. But the R is nicer in back. You could look for a Riley version with the Turbo Lycomings. That's the fastest, but hasother issues.
 
I think the 310 has more cockpit room than the 340, but seat upholstry can make a big difference. A tightly-wrapped smooth leather seat without the worthless damn-fool crinkles they seem to want to stick in them can add a nice margin of otherwise wasted space for a fully-grown pilot.

Ted DuPuis said:
The T310R, 340, and 414 all can be equipped with the same range of engines. As you'd expect, for any given engine the order of speed/fuel burn from fastest to slowest will be T310R, 340, 414. The 421 reportedly goes about the same speed as the 414, but has a bit more payload and better OEI performance. It's also more of a handful until you cage a failed engine.

I've never flown in a 340 or 414. In the 310, I'm able to put the seat back and get plenty of legroom to stretch out on trips. Not sure if the 340 with club seating gets in the way of this. I know in the A36 it does. One previously local 340 owner routinely has 6 people and full fuel in his plane. He also routinely flies it well over gross. ;)

The downside to the 340 is pressurization, and the extra work that puts on the engines plus the added MX load. The upside is pressurization, which makes it nicer to fly up at altitude.

We have O2 and I've only flown at O2 altitudes solo. I suppose I'll need to buy an O2 setup for more than one person now with more family trips. I wonder what options they have for the baby. One family I know with a T310R doesn't mind using the O2. For them it's just part of the trip, and the way they raised the kids was "This is how we travel," so it was understood.

With the 310s, the R models are roomier in back. I don't find any noticeable difference up front. The R feels a lot more truck-like, whereas our N is very sporty. But the R is nicer in back. You could look for a Riley version with the Turbo Lycomings. That's the fastest, but hasother issues.
Click to expand...
 
The reason they started using Lyc's was that the original Conti's were so bad. We bought it new and fought it for four years. No mas.

Fearless Tower said:
Ouch......Interesting....did not know you could get one with a Continental, but then my research on PA46s ended with the W&B sheet.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I think the 310 has more cockpit room than the 340, but seat upholstry can make a big difference. A tightly-wrapped smooth leather seat without the worthless damn-fool crinkles they seem to want to stick in them can add a nice margin of otherwise wasted space for a fully-grown pilot.
Click to expand...

I find the 310's seats to be very comfy. They were also very expensive.

One note on them is that they only go up to a bit below my shoulders. The passenger coming back from Belize (around your age but a bit smaller) found them good for the first half of our 8ish hour flying day, but didn't complain much and wasn't visibly uncomfortable.
 
wabower said:
The reason they started using Lyc's was that the original Conti's were so bad. We bought it new and fought it for four years. No mas.
Click to expand...
I though it was the other way around starting with Lycomings. A major factor IMO is the same with all HP planes, marketing department numbers and "I didn't buy this plane to go slow" pilots. If you operate any of these engines including the TIO & TIGO 541s and GTSIO 520s including the K at more realistic power settings for longevity and economy they do quite well.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The T310R, 340, and 414 all can be equipped with the same range of engines. As you'd expect, for any given engine the order of speed/fuel burn from fastest to slowest will be T310R, 340, 414. The 421 reportedly goes about the same speed as the 414, but has a bit more payload and better OEI performance. It's also more of a handful until you cage a failed engine.

I've never flown in a 340 or 414. In the 310, I'm able to put the seat back and get plenty of legroom to stretch out on trips. Not sure if the 340 with club seating gets in the way of this. I know in the A36 it does. One previously local 340 owner routinely has 6 people and full fuel in his plane. He also routinely flies it well over gross. ;)

The downside to the 340 is pressurization, and the extra work that puts on the engines plus the added MX load. The upside is pressurization, which makes it nicer to fly up at altitude.

We have O2 and I've only flown at O2 altitudes solo. I suppose I'll need to buy an O2 setup for more than one person now with more family trips. I wonder what options they have for the baby. One family I know with a T310R doesn't mind using the O2. For them it's just part of the trip, and the way they raised the kids was "This is how we travel," so it was understood.

With the 310s, the R models are roomier in back. I don't find any noticeable difference up front. The R feels a lot more truck-like, whereas our N is very sporty. But the R is nicer in back. You could look for a Riley version with the Turbo Lycomings. That's the fastest, but hasother issues.
Click to expand...
Actually, the 340 and 421 do about the same speed and the 414 is slower. If you slow the 421 to 414 speeds LOP, you stand a pretty good chance of making TBO on one set of jugs.
 
Henning said:
Actually, the 340 and 421 do about the same speed and the 414 is slower. If you slow the 421 to 414 speeds LOP, you stand a pretty good chance of making TBO on one set of jugs.
Click to expand...

On the Twin Cessna forum the folks who've owned both say they're pretty much equivalent speed wise. Now, they are specifically referring to RAM 414s, so that's a good point that I forgot to add. Stock 414 definitely a bit slower.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
On the Twin Cessna forum the folks who've owned both say they're pretty much equivalent speed wise. Now, they are specifically referring to RAM 414s, so that's a good point that I forgot to add. Stock 414 definitely a bit slower.
Click to expand...

The RAM kit does add some speed. Is there still an issue with the 414A? Whatever napped with that deal?
 
Henning said:
The RAM kit does add some speed. Is there still an issue with the 414A? Whatever napped with that deal?
Click to expand...

No idea. I don't see it discussed on the forums much, so it must not matter to most people. I'm also not sure what the issue you're referring to is, but the 414s sem to pretty much have happy owners.
 
kmead said:
The Malibu will get you there. 16 GPH and pressurization. With proper care the engine won't fail.
Click to expand...

Payload for 4 adults and baggage? Maybe if the trip is less than 200 nm, the adults are well below the average American adult male and the baggage is limited to 15 lb each? Yes I'm exaggerating a little but not much.
 
RotorAndWing said:
This ain't my first rodeo chuckles.
Click to expand...

You referred to me as "Chuckles" in your sentenence. Chuckles was a rodeo clown. Obviously, this is your "first rodeo" in that you don't even know how to use the expression.

You lose the argument and then try and defect point onto something else.

As you found out an RV-10 is more than capable of carrying a family of 4, full fuel, and a 100 pounds of baggage at 200 MPH, COMFORTABLY. And certainly more economically. That is the mission it was designed for. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
That is my thought process.....I can't believe some of the trips that they are using RJs for these days.

Yeah, long-ass flights can wear you out, but personnally speaking I 'd still rather be sitting in the front looking out than in the back...even First Class....although there is something to be said about the free drinks. Plus there is the whole TSA headache.
Click to expand...

That is what I don't get. Everyone talks about getting there fast. I've flown LSA to Florida and back twice in my -12. I enjoy the journey, the solitude. I guess I like my company. ;)
 
gismo said:
Payload for 4 adults and baggage? Maybe if the trip is less than 200 nm, the adults are well below the average American adult male and the baggage is limited to 15 lb each? Yes I'm exaggerating a little but not much.
Click to expand...
Problem I had with the Malibu (and the reason I did not bother to spend the money to get checked out in the one in the club) is that while it would probably handle the overall weight for my family (wife and two small kids) the baggage space is tiny compared to other similar aircraft and the CG envelope is also very tight. While it was fast, for the shorter trips we were making when we lived in San Diego, it made no sense compared to the 210 (which I found nearly impossible to load outside of the CG envelope).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
No idea. I don't see it discussed on the forums much, so it must not matter to most people. I'm also not sure what the issue you're referring to is, but the 414s sem to pretty much have happy owners.
Click to expand...

There was a big brouhaha on the twin Cessnas several years back that ended up with an AD and a major inspection of the wing spars on the 414A and the TPs I believe that required extensive disassembly to comply with. I haven't kept up with it and I haven't heard much about it here, but the Aussies came out with a major enforcement action that basically end lifed quite a few VQ registry airframes.
 
You got it backwards. First five years were 520's.

Henning said:
I though it was the other way around starting with Lycomings. A major factor IMO is the same with all HP planes, marketing department numbers and "I didn't buy this plane to go slow" pilots. If you operate any of these engines including the TIO & TIGO 541s and GTSIO 520s including the K at more realistic power settings for longevity and economy they do quite well.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
You got it backwards. First five years were 520's.
Click to expand...

Ok, good to know, are the Lycomings doing better? Is there a 550 retrofit for it? I always thought the GTSIO 520 would be the engine to put in the PA-46.
 
As you would expect, Piper said the Lyc's would make it all better but the owners didn't seem to share their optimism. They simply weren't very well-made airplanes in many respects.

In retrospect, our smartest move was renting hangar space from the Piper dealer/service center, since it was always parked where it needed to be most of the time, which was within easy reach of somebody's tool box.

Henning said:
Ok, good to know, are the Lycomings doing better? Is there a 550 retrofit for it? I always thought the GTSIO 520 would be the engine to put in the PA-46.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
In retrospect, our smartest move was renting hangar space from the Piper dealer/service center, since it was always parked where it needed to be most of the time, which was within easy reach of somebody's tool box.
Click to expand...
Ouch.
 
wabower said:
Lest I oversell our omniscience, the 'Bu's wingspan was too long for the T-hangars anyway, so we had no other choice but a spot in the big hangar.
Click to expand...

That was a nice discovery with the 310, it fits in a standard T hangar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top