Smart Plane Shopper: Cessna 310

In the world of light piston twins, there are good reasons why many Cessna 310s are sold without even officially hitting the used airplane market. Owners love their Twin Cessnas for the same reasons they did nearly 72 years ago when the first 310 rolled off Cessna’s assembly line. They carry a decent payload, have roomy cabins, turn impressive cruise speeds, and in a hardened market where insurance underwriters have all but snubbed multiengine models, we’re told the non-pressurized 310 could be among the easiest to insure.

But understand that these are old airplanes, with relatively complex systems that demand good maintenance by shops that understand them, and while flying them doesn’t require an ace-pilot skill set, you do want thorough transition and recurrent training with instructors who have mastered the Twin Cessna. Last, be prepared to pay a sizable price premium for models with recent mods, low-time engines, and other refurbishment. As with most aging airplanes, pay it now or pay it soon enough.

Cessna’s Heyday: Making a Good Twin Better

The 310 was Cessna’s first modern so-called business twin, and it reflected on Cessna’s strong growth in the 1950s. In a way, the first 310 was an answer to Piper’s Apache even though the Piper PA-23 had a lot less power, especially when it came to single-engine performance. In fact, the 310 was better matched against the big Beech Twin Bonanza and later the Beech Travel Air and Baron 55. It was a strong time for Cessna and the flagship 310, made even stronger when the company brought the 337 Skymaster to market somewhere around 1964. There was also the model 320 Skyknight—the short-lived 310-lookalike from 1962 to 1968 that had turbocharged TSIO-470B engines and then TSIO-520Bs on later models. Today, 320s are few and far between (less than 600 were built), if not decent performers—turning well over 200 knots in the mid-teens.

It’s pretty easy to spot early 310s compared to later ones. For one, look for the stubby nose, and these early models had multiple rear windows, a straight tail, and “tuna” fuel tanks, which incidentally had a fuel-pickup problem and an FAA AD mandated a hefty increase in unusable fuel. The first 310 was built in 1955 and sold through 1957. These twins had 240-HP Continental O-470 engines housed in snug aerodynamic cowlings. Even the split-type wing flaps were built with aerodynamic efficiency in mind, with no external flap brackets. The airplane had an electromechanical landing gear system. Other than a 100-pound increase in gross weight, there wasn’t much change in the 1958 Model 310B, but after that, the airplane got a lot better.

In 1959, Cessna put fuel-injected Continental IO-470D engines on the 310C (and another 100 pounds of gross weight), and in 1960 brought the swept-tail Model 310D. The 310G came along in 1962 when Cessna introduced the canted Stabila-Tip fuel tanks, with more aerodynamic efficiency than the old tuna tanks. That airplane, according to many who know the 310 line, might attest that these were the most handsome 310s produced. But Cessna didn’t hold back in refining the 310: There were slight increases in cabin size, more gross weight increases, more fuel capacity in the auxiliary fuel tanks, and three-blade propellers. The 310I brought wing lockers for more storage. Cessna went with the 310Q and T-310Q for five years, and brought the 310R II and T-310R II in 1975.

Aside from another bump in gross weight and the move to 285-HP Continental IO-520M engines on the normally aspirated model, the 310R got a face job, and you’ll recognize newer 310s by the longer snoots that house a good-sized baggage compartment. The 310R also brought an improved landing gear system, though it was still not as rugged as many would like. For that reason, buyers should pay extra attention to the current condition and maintenance history of the landing gear in any 310 model—all the way up to the 310R—which was the final development of the airplane, and it stayed in production until the line was closed down for good in 1981.

The Inevitable Turbo, Performance

Sort of doing some housekeeping of the model line, in 1969 Cessna offered the 5400-pound gross weight T-310P (dropping the Model 320 altogether) that had Continental TSIO-520-B engines. These are 285-HP powerplants with three-blade propellers, and turbocharged 310 owners report brisk performance—moving along at 200 knots at 17,000 feet and more like 185 knots at 12,000 feet. At max takeoff weight on hot days, owners report easily achieving 1000-fpm climb rates to 10,000 feet at 120 to 130 knots indicated. Fuel burn (lean of peak) is around 28 GPH no matter the cruise altitude. “Flying with 100 gallons of fuel and two people, the turbo 310 is a rocket ship,” one owner told us.

Even for normally aspirated birds, lower power settings (say 60% to 65%) still mean 170 to 180 knots true. But perhaps more important is that a 310’s engine-out performance is better than average, with normally aspirated single-engine rate of climb easily making 330 to 380 fpm, depending on the model. For the turbos, single-engine ceiling is about 16,000 feet. But with everything turning, the 310 is a go-places traveling machine if we’ve ever seen one. Moreover, Cessna incrementally added more range over the model line. The earliest models only came with the 50-gallon-per-side tip tanks, and that was simple because since there were no tanks in the wings at all—those were main tanks. But as time went on, horsepower increased and that brings a call for more range. Cessna delivered: First came 20-gallon wing-mounted bladders, followed by an additional 11.5-gallon bladder, for 31.5 gallons in each wing. Then came 20-gallon tanks in the wing lockers. In a 310R, as much as 203 gallons can be available for decent nonstop traveling. We used to easily make South Carolina from northern New England in a normally aspired 310, with the power up.

Looking strictly at book numbers, on the ground, these are decent performers, and compared to other twins in class, the 310 wouldn’t seem like a bad choice for getting in and out of short fields. Landing over a 50-foot obstacle in a 310R will eat 1,790 feet, compared to 2,498 in a typical Beech Baron 58. Taking off over that same obstacle will take 1,700 feet in the 310, while the Baron needs more like 2,100 feet. On the other hand, some pilots might say that raw book numbers might be optimistic. Our advice is to keep the aircraft well rigged and well maintained and do an accurate weight and balance report, starting with accurate numbers off the scales.

Last, realize that book numbers are created by test pilots in factory-fresh airplanes, and the results don’t
always reflect how most of us actually fly. As for the T310R, one pilot had good advice. “Departing in 1,700 feet seems entirely reasonable at sea level on a warm day, but landing over a 50-foot obstacle and stopping in 1,790 feet feels optimistic. In practice, I can touch down on the 1,000-foot marks and exit at the 3,000-foot point—so technically, I’m using about 2,000 feet. Still, if that were the end of the runway, I’d probably need to change my pants—and cool off a set of smoking brakes. For comfort and margin, I plan to use airports with at least 4,000 feet of pavement,” he told us.

Worth mentioning is that plenty of 310 pilots attest that the best mod for a 310 could be vortex generators. “VGs are a huge deal and I wouldn’t fly a Twin Cessna without them installed because of the safety aspect. VGs also increase max takeoff weight by 180 pounds, while dropping Vmca by 9 knots—a huge safety factor,” one 310 owner said.

More on That Fuel System

The way we see it, Twin Cessnas often get slated for having what some people think are complicated fuel systems. While far from simple, the fuel system on the 310 isn’t all that complicated if you know how to operate it and understand its plumbing. Part of the problem that has followed these airplanes from the beginning is Cessna designates the tip tanks as the main fuel tanks. And for many, tip tanks might seem more suited for auxiliary tanks—like the optional ones on the Beech Bonanza, as one example. Start with being cautious when asking line personnel to fuel the airplane, making sure they understand that that the tips are indeed the mains (we still come across workers who don’t get it) and be specific about how much fuel you want in them. And understand the fuel system that’s in the bird you’re flying.

Later-model Twin Cessnas can be equipped with several different fuel system configurations, and understanding which one you have is critical before takeoff. The standard system provides 163 gallons usable, but optional long-range setups of 183 or 203 gallons add complexity—especially when wing locker fuel tanks enter the picture. The simplest setup is in planes with no wing lockers. Fuel is burned from the mains for takeoff and landing, and the aux tanks feed directly to the engines during cruise. Perhaps the most common 183-gallon configuration adds a single 20-gallon locker tank on one wing. After transfer, that main will be roughly 120 pounds heavier than the opposite side. To balance the airplane, pilots must crossfeed fuel from the heavy (transferred) side to the opposite engine until mains are even again. This setup gives extra range but adds workload. The dual-locker, 203-gallon-usable-fuel configuration includes 20-gallon locker tanks on both sides. Each locker transfers independently to its respective main, so pilots simply turn on both locker transfer pumps at the same time. When both Low Pressure lights illuminate, the transfer is complete and the system remains balanced—no crossfeeding required.

Additionally, a fully equipped 310 with wing locker tanks can have up to ten fuel drain points, eight fuel pumps, and a rather complex plumbing system. In stock configuration (these days digital engine/fuel displays take the guesswork out) there’s no separate gauge for each fuel tank, though the gauge does switch automatically to read the tank being used (but not the wing locker tanks, which have no fuel level senders). The pilot can read the tanks not being used by toggling a switch. Moreover, fuel feeds to the engines from either the mains or the aux tanks, but not the wing locker tanks. The mains have to be run for 60 minutes if the airplane has 20-gallon aux tanks (or 90 minutes for 30-gallon aux tanks) because excess fuel is pumped back to the mains, and if there isn’t room for it, guess where it goes? Yep, out in the wild blue yonder.

And how about this one: The fuel pickup from the mains is at the rear of the fuel tank, which means that it won’t get picked up properly during descent. So as a fix, Cessna provided continuous-duty fuel pumps that move fuel from the front to the back of the tank. These pumps are wired to … the landing light circuit breaker, of course, so if the landing light shorts, the mains can unport. And it’s also possible for the pilot to have as much as 30 gallons of unusable fuel because the aux tanks feed directly to the engines, so the only pump that serves these tanks is the engine-driven one. In the event of a fuel pump or engine failure, the aux tank on that side becomes useless … it won’t cross-feed from the aux tanks and it won’t transfer.

One owner reiterated what we said and that’s that the wing locker tank (sometimes called an “auxiliary locker” or “wet locker”) can’t feed the engines directly. The only way to use the fuel is to transfer it to the main tank on the same side using an electric transfer pump. There’s no quantity gauge for the locker tank; you simply run the transfer pump until the Low Pressure light illuminates. That light isn’t a “transfer complete” indicator by name—it’s a pressure-sensing light that turns on when transfer pressure drops, meaning the locker tank is empty or the pump has stopped building pressure.

Landing Gear, MX Matters

Nearly every 310 owner and shop we spoke with pointed to the 310’s landing gear as a system that deserves close attention. While that’s true of all retracs, the gear on the 310 might be less tolerant of the wrong maintenance. First, since there’s a lot of fuel (weight) hanging out on the wingtips, it tends to exacerbate the side loads on the main landing gear—which already sits higher than pilots transitioning from other models are used to. For that reason, could the 310 be less tolerant of hard landings? Perhaps, but in reality, it’s not always the fault of the pilot because the 310’s landing gear has a number of critical components that must be attended to and properly rigged during annual inspections—and we know some shops just don’t get it done. If this is done properly, you can probably avoid serious issues, but failure to properly maintain the gear increases the odds of failure dramatically. Bring it to a shop that knows what it’s looking at.

Many of the gear-related accidents and incidents are related to failure of the nosegear idler bellcrank located under the pilots’ feet area, plus later-model 310s have heavier main gear torque tubes and side brace support brackets. Cessna has a kit available to retrofit earlier airplanes. One 310 owner we talked with battled a problem with a leaking strut and even after having it rebuilt three times, it was unpredictable and unreliable, so he finally had it replaced with a serviceable strut. Sit down when reading that invoice. Other problems include issues with torque tubes, support brackets, and trunnions, but again, many of these failures could be the result of missed or improper maintenance, or simply hard use in the hands of ham-fisted pilots.

“A common teaching phrase is “brake straight.” Applying heavy braking while turning increases side-loading forces on the gear, tires, and trunnions, and is a likely contributor to many Twin Cessna landing gear issues. The system isn’t designed to absorb high lateral loads, especially at higher taxi or rollout speeds. Keep the airplane straight until at a taxi speed,” said Sy Pinkert.

When it comes to evaluating the fuel system in general, give it the sniff test, first. Since those main fuel tanks are way out on the wingtips, that means there are long runs of fuel lines, and the large number of tanks, drains, and pumps means a lot of fittings that can leak. Older tuna-tank models had a lot of problems with their fuel bladders, but this was dealt with through an FAA AD and you’d be hard pressed to find a 310 where it hasn’t been accomplished, but you should still check it out during the prebuy process. Another item that’s important to keep up with is the cabin combustion heater—these gas-burning heaters are efficient, but not without maintenance requirements. Look for evidence that it’s been maintained.

Also worth mentioning are exhaust-related corrosion problems, particularly on early airplanes with over-the-wing augmenter exhaust systems. Turbo models in particular deserve extra exhaust system care and are subject to AD 2000-01-16. Here’s a list of others, thanks to the Cessna Owner Organization. One highly regarded shop for all things Twin Cessna upkeep is TAS Aviation in Ohio. It’s been caring for Twin Cessnas since 1976 and also offers type-specific flight training. TAS Aviation’s Christian Pancake is the Executive Director of the Twin Cessna Flyer, which is the official owners organization for the Twin Cessna fleet, including the 310 all the way up to the 425 and 441 Conquest models. We’d urge anyone considering a Twin Cessna to lean on this shop and the organization for guidance.

Avionics, Market

The Cessna 310 is clearly worthy of the latest avionics upgrades and many have been upgraded with solid-state, all-glass systems and new digital autopilots, including Garmin’s GFC 600 with Smart Rudder Bias. But some earlier models might still sport earlier Cessna/Sperry analog autopilots and radios. These deserve extras attention during the prebuy inspection process because field support for some of this gear is marginal if nonexistent. The same goes for older weather radar systems. The digital radios that were standard in a lot of Cessna 310s were the RT385/485 series navcomms, and common issues include seven-segment display failures. Servo issues and instrument failures in the original attitude-based autopilots in the 310 aren’t uncommon, either. Budget upgrades accordingly when making deals on these planes still equipped with these old relics.

It’s also important to pick the right model—they aren’t all the same operationally. For instance, R models will be more expensive to operate due to their larger, 285-HP engines and they’ll burn more fuel over the C through Q models, if it matters. Turbos will be more, yet.

But despite them being old birds, demand is high for 310s, and late-model planes in particular. We scanned the market in late 2025 and found a handful of 310R models for sale priced north of $200,000. One model had O&N long-range fuel tanks, an air conditioning system, 300-HP IO-550 engines with 1300 hours since new in 1994, and some newer avionics (though it still had round-gauge flight instruments), and it was priced at $250,000. On the other end of the spectrum, there was a 1959 Cessna 310C with one mid-time engine and the other that was 500 hours over the 1500-hour TBO, older analog avionics, and close to 6000 hours total time priced at $79,000.

There’s no saying what anyone will pay for annual inspections or insurance—numbers are all over the board. We heard from folks paying insurance premium that are under $6,000, but these are professional pilots with nearly 10,000 hours of flight time in twins and turbines. Others pay well over $10,000 per year, and others can’t get insurance at all. Get a quote before making any deal on any twin.

Comments From the Field

I had a Cessna 310F for a while, and it’s been a while. Still, it was an absolutely great plane to fly and had rock-solid handling and was good in turbulence. The 310 taught me that my prior experience in a Geronimo-converted Piper Apache and an Aztec were completely useless. Those planes fly and (notably) land like a bigger, marginally faster Cherokee. The 310 is a lot closer to a jet at low speeds and once I understood that, it was a lot easier to get in and out of the 2,700-foot strip where I was based at the time.

The big thing to watch for is corrosion, and a prebuy inspection is going to be useless unless it’s done by a shop that knows these birds. On mine, the main trouble spots were under the augmenters and then also in the nose around the Janitrol heater. I bought mine from a lender out of a default, so I didn’t get hurt in the wallet, but it’s definitely a buyer beware situation and corrosion repairs can lead to breathtaking bills if done right. And even if not done right.

The other thing is the landing gear. Once rigged correctly, it was trouble-free, but I’ve heard horror stories and this is another spot where you don’t want a shop doing on-the-job training on your dime. My airplane had 50-amp Bendix generators with carbon pile regulators. Those were apparently oddball and I never found anyone who really understood them. Thanks for keeping the old-school aviation reporting spirit alive.

—Stan Fetter, via email

From a maintenance standpoint, acquire the assistance of a mechanic well-versed in twin Cessna landing gear and for later versions of the model, pay attention to the pilot’s left side circuit breaker/switch panel installation. There are lots of electrical terminations and heavy gauge wiring in this area, which is often the source of electrical faults, arcing, and smoke in the cabin when abused or mishandled.

—Paul Brevard, via email

I owned a normally aspirated Cessna 310R for ten years before upgrading to a Cessna Conquest turboprop, which was an easy transition with the right training. My advice to anyone even considering writing a check for a new-to-them 310 is to find the absolute best Twin Cessna mechanic they can find to look it over with a fine-toothed comb, starting with the landing gear and then the fuel system. I bought what I thought was a good airplane (it was), but every single annual inspection on the airplane was no cheaper than $10,000—and I didn’t defer anything, flying it nearly 150 hours per year for my business. Insurance for me and my partner (we’re both in our late 60s) was $9,000 per year. He’s a CFI and I am not.

Two years before I sold it, I dropped $160,000 on the overhaul of both engines. They made it to TBO with careful operation using a JPI and then later Garmin EIS engine monitors. The heater system was a sore point of maintenance for some reason, and I suggest making sure the one you buy has a Janitrol that’s been well maintained. I finally ditched the Sperry autopilot in favor of Garmin’s GFC 600 because I was tired of replacing air gyros every few hundred hours and dealing with sloppy pitch excursions. I also added a Garmin big-screen flight display, the latest GPS units, a new interior and kept the 2005 paint job in decent shape by hangaring. The new owner got a good deal at $285,000 and pretty much a turnkey airplane—as turnkey as a Twin Cessna can be. It really isn’t. I’m really enjoying what you guys are doing at AvBrief—a longtime follower.

—George Guilford, via email

Our thanks to our valued readers, and to AvBrief technical reporter Sy Pinkert, for the help with this report.

Note: After we published this report, we heard from Christian Pancake at the Twin Cessna Flyer organization who had some valuable advice for shoppers, so we added it here:

When it comes to buying a 310, there are many things to consider. In a bit of a priority order, the two most critical things to think about are corrosion and the integrity of the landing gear. The entire 310 fleet suffers from corrosion if not properly inspected and maintained. This particularly includes corrosion in the lower wing spars and attach fittings, engine exhaust trail area, and for the early 310 models, the entire nose area. In regard to the landing gear, the number one FAA reported incident among Twin Cessna aircraft that have the electro-mechanical landing gear (310, 340, straight 414, 421B, and many more) is gear failure. This is often a resulted of not rigging the gear often enough and properly. The gear rigging process is lengthy and requires time at The Twin Cessna Flyer, we strongly plead with owners to rig the landing gear using the Cessna maintenance manual guide at each annual inspection. TTCF has a free “rig it right” video and booklet that can be used to help those doing this process step by step.

It’s also important to remember that there is wide variation between the early models and the later models, as Tony Saxton, Director of Tech Support for TTCF, puts it: “There are almost four different types of airplanes when it comes to the 310 over the course of it’s production. This is because there are so many differences between the early 1950’s models and the later 1980’s models and everything in between. Seating arrangements, fuel capacities and tank types, engine variants and such matter. Make sure you understand the differences before beginning your search.”

Another critical item is the heater on all the 310’s. They are gas fired and they have a required AD inspection or recurring inspection on them, and doing this is critical to safety. When it comes to AD notes, making sure the elevator trim tab has been complied with and is up to date is also of critical importance, and often overlooked by the untrained eye. Fuel bladders is another thing to consider, as the early models actually had a rubber bladder in the tuna-style tip tanks and every model has bladder-style tanks in the wings for auxiliary fuel. These have a roughly 15- to 20-year replacement cycle and can be repaired but can be tough to find new, or are very costly to acquire. If you’re looking at upgrades and additives, keep in mind that the only known icing certified 310s were the 310R models—serial numbers 801 and on. Many sport de-ice boots, but do not have the official known icing certification, so please understand your needs when it comes to icing before your search. Last, there are not a lot of airframe options available—that’s different than the pressurized Twin Cessna models. 

When it comes to the market, there are currently 24 available between all the different variants. The average price today is $185,000 and if you narrow down to the R models which are the most popular, there are 11 available (more than in the last few years) and the average price is $208,000. They are still in relatively high demand, and constant interest is still there as entirely level twin that can do regional cross-country trips with two to four people. Avionics options and engine times tend to drive value, as it does for most aircraft. Having an upgraded autopilot seems to drive buying decision (not necessarily price to the same degree) the most when it comes to avionics. Last, the maintenance pedigree brings high value being that these are legacy aircraft. Having a good maintenance background can be the difference between a terrible and terrific ownership experience. Having a good, thorough pre-buy is imperative and highly recommended. 

Christian Pancake
Twin Cessna Flyer