Question About Cessna Skymaster?
 

OK, I am not a pilot and very likely will never be. Nevertheless I think airplanes are very cool.

One light plane I've always thought was neat is the old Cessna Skymaster, the push-pull inline twin. Not sure why, maybe because it is so unusual.

Question is, what do pilots think about it? And why? I get the impression that it is not a very well regarded plane, as light aircraft go.

P.S. Of course, I now think the Adam A500 is neat.

It's still used in a lot of "heavy duty" applications - hauling stuff, bush pilot flying, etc.

I've never had the chance to fly one but what I hear is it's pretty stable and simple, although the centerline thrust actually lures pilots into a false sense of security. Although it gets rid of the problem of assymetric thrust in the event of an engine failure (like you get in a conventional twin), it still puts you in the position of losing 80-90% of your performance even though you're down only 50% of your thrust. That's what kills you, not necessarily the assymetric thrust.

I always thought the Starship was kinda' cool too - two pusher props.

Then you would probably like the Piaggio Avanti. (If you don't mind an airplane made by a moped manufacturer). I think the Starship was prettier, but they are both the same idea.
Avanti
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodyna...cs/PIAGIO1.JPG

Starship
http://www.diseno-art.com/images/bee...arship_001.jpg

And if you want your very own pusher, there is the Berkut. (It's the last evolution of the Vari-Eze - rumoured to be the design that inspired the Starship)
http://www.ulm.it/fly_in/test/berkut/b1.jpg

Have more than a few hours in one and they are ok but flying inside it sounds like you can never get both engines in sync, one sounds faster than the other, even if its not.

It has good single engine handling and there are times when one engine fails and the pilot does not realize it for a while, so no nasty habbits.

Personally I would look for a C-310 or the like. Better than that would be a Beech Baron if you have lots of money to spend. If you want character, get a Twin Beech, the BE-18, like this:http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1162993566.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1162993618.jpg

And as for the 336 / 337 Cessnas...
They have a fairly high wing loading, and can haul a whole bunch of junk. An old saying is, "If you can get it through the door, then the Skymaster can haul it."

Speed is fairly good.

There were some issues of overheating the rear engine, but I think most have been modded to correct that.

They were used in Vietnam as FACs - the designation was O-2.

Some guys I know used to have one, and didn't get to fly it very much, so they donated it to a missionary group in Alaska, and asked if I wanted to ride along.

The Skymaster is prized for being a great workhorse. The guys in Alaska especially like the earlier 336, the fixed-gear version that was produced for only one year. I'm told it has a different airfiol than the 337 that has better low speed lift, allowing shorter take-off runs.

Great trip. Flew the "Huff & Puff" up to Soldatna, took a Super Cub on floats out to a moose hunting camp, then a Navajo back to Anchorage, and an Alaska 737 back to Seattle.

The Skymaster was used heavily for several years, flying out to remote villages, and even across to Russia a few times, and finally met it's demise in a botched landing.

I want an old straight tail C310 to restore in a bad way, just can't justify it. Nothing sounds better taxiing by than an old C310 with the straight exhausts! There are alot of better twins than a C310, but they are my dream twin.

I almost pulled the trigger on one a few years back that needed props and looked pretty ratty for cheap as the basis for what would have been a longterm and costly restoration.....Someday!

with joe on the c-310...a great 'big airplane' feeling twin with plenty of single-engine power, as opposed to say an old apache (yikes). logged maybe 500 or more hours in the old twin beech (be-18), but it was flight for a cargo outfit and the old radials had been pulled in favor of very loud garrett turboprops, the fuselage stretched about 10 feet and a free-castering nosewheel configuration, which was always fun seeing new pilots try to get the hang of taxiing. piper made an aztec, which was a pretty good twin. for speed and looks i always loved the twin commanche..never was a big fan of barons for some reason..felt too confining for my frame. maybe it was just having to do one too many instrument ratings for middle-aged men with money who could barely handle the thing. i even did one with throw-over controls. fun stuff..back when i had more balls than brains. ;)
ryan

I've wanted one of these for just about ever, but they're too costly to rebuild, and now I don't get involved in any other hobbies or projects than I can possibly do.

A friend had one, based in Concord, CA, which he'd purchased when he sold airplanes for a few years in the early-mid '70's. I don't remember what he paid for it, but I'd guess it wasn't much money. Later, when he'd become a successful businessman, and millionaire several times over, he'd had it completely overhauled with zero timed engines, props, and everything else. He flew it to his native South Dakota every year, and lots of other places too. I think it was a 310B or 310C, the one that had the underwing exhausts from the factory, which are much quieter in the cabin.
http://www.esscoaircraft.com/Cessna_310B_Owner_s_Manual_p/4586.htm

Too damn loud!

I have been following these aero threads with a lot of interest, since my wife and I are planning to get licensed next year. And, since we ultimately want to move up to a twin that seats 5 or 6 (probably a pipe dream - but Hey!), I have been idly scanning the used aircraft sites. I ran across an ad for a 1959 Cessna 310C that interested me from a curosity standpoint.

Since some of you seem to want one of these I thought you might be interested. The basics...

4177 hours total time, 1386 hours on each motor, 1025 hours on the propellers, IFR. Exterior shots look really nice, interior is dated.

The price is 22,500 - why it caught my eye. The catch - it's been sitting in a hanger since 1983, last annual was in 1985.

I was curious as to what would be involved in bringing this airplane back to flying capability?

Obviously, the engines need major overhauls - would they still need major overhauls if they were low hours and sitting for 25 years?

What else would be needed? Will 25 year old electronics need to be replaced?

If you are interested, the ad is at www.controller.com

Kevin

If it's been sitting since 1983, then it probably hasn't had the AD's done. And IIRC, there was a pretty expensive one that had to do with the props or prop hubs.

edit: I went and checked.
There was a prop hub AD that may have required replacement of hubs made before 1983 (within a certain SN reange). This AD didn't come out until 94, so it would not have been covered in the 1985 annual. But... it also looks like Hartzell has several methods of compliance that do not necessitate replacement of the hubs. DISCLAIMER: Although I am an aircraft mechanic, this is not my area of expertise. Ask Tim Hancock.... he would probably be able to tell you more about this issue.

And one more piece of advice. The old addage about an inexpensive Porsche is the most expensive one you'll ever own.... well it applies to planes as well. (x10)

I've been told a well sorted 310 should bring about 3 times the price you mentioned.

Cashflyer -

Sorry - I didn't intend to mean I was interested in buying this plane, I was curious on what long term storage (abandonment?) would do to an airplane, and what would be needed to make it ready to fly again. IIRC - the people that mentioned they would like a 310 seemed to have the ability to perform the restoration - something I definitely don't have.

I think I'll learn how to fly first.

Kevin

Ok... I misunderstood.
Think about a car and what long term abandonment does to it. All the engine seals dry up, condensation causes corrosion in the engine, all the rubber goods deteriorate, etc.

Now think about that in a plane - especially a plane with two engines (and twice the amount of expensive stuff to deteriorate).

Now think about the fact that you can't "pull over" when a hose let's go.

Another mechanic and I used to travel around and do some PPIs for people. A plane that had been sitting was immediately getting lots of red ink on the review.

Constant speed props will need replaced $$$$$ (I dont remember for sure but probably 8K each). The engines (Continentals) might be OK depending on corrosion, but the carbs would probably need some attention. When a Lycoming engined plane sits for extended times, corrosion pitting usually takes place on the camshaft lobes. When it gets run again, the pitting from the corrosion quickly causes extreme wear and I have seen 1/4" of a lobe missing on a engine that was in my old Grumman Yankee which had sat for a 7 year period sometime before I bought it. Continentals, due to the location of the cam are less susceptable I am told, however the cylinder bores may have extensive corrosion in them which would lead to rapid cylinder/ring wear. Tires will be dry rotted, and most hoses will be suspect. Radios may be outdated. etc etc.

If you had to pay someone to ressurect this plane, you could be looking at much more than it would cost to but a decent one (which would probably cost 50-75K). That is the exact kind I was looking for though as I would treat it as a very long term project and I can legally do the work myself. If I were ever to do it, rest assured, it would be a show plane when finished which would probably take me 5-10 yrs of part-time work.

Radios may be outdated? 1985?

They may be usable, but there's no question they're outdated.

Guys,

That airplane is a money pit if it has not been flying for a long time.

1. No way that the AD's have been complied with, otherwise it would have had a fresh annual and been flying.

2. 5 years on the props for overhaul, so its due.

3. Tim hit on the engines. Drain the oil and check it but would not be surprised as he mentions that they would need some work.

4. Radios are probably NOT legal unless they were brand new and top of the line when it was last parked. The frequency limitations have been closed up and old units are not legal to transmit any longer.

5. Worst thing, as well as one of the things that I love about the early C310's is the exhaust system. Its the "augmentor" style of exhaust where the pipes exit into a duct in the wing and fumes are pulled out the back. Problem is that fumes are corrosive and if the plane has been sitting for a long time there is a very good chance of its needing extensive work in the exhaust ducting/wing bay area. Remember that this is right in the same area where the landing gear mounts, so you do not want any weakness or corrosion here. Look at the next to the last photo and you will see the retangular outlet for the exhaust on the back of the wing.

Other than this its a very nice airplane and would love to have one. The old IO-470 engine is plentiful and not expensive, so thats not an issue.

If you are getting the plane for a good price, or its been left there and you are buying it for storage fees, thats one thing but otherwise I would look for a flying one otherwise. You can find them for $30-50k on www.barnstormers.com Getting an old one back up very well might cost $40k in repairs alone if you have to overhaul both engines and props, and stick some radios in it. If you are doing much of the work yourself, then cut the costs by 40% but it would still not be cheap.

I grew up watching Sky King, so the C-310 has a special place in my heart...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1163148786.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1163148832.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1163148865.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1163148888.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1163148908.jpg

Here's an interesting C310, a '56 model with the Riley Rocket conversion, sort of a 911 with a 3.6L engine swap.
http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1108320&guid=5F0E20B8E503458D84686 0192CBD65F5

If memory serves, this has two 285 horse FI Lycomings swapped in place of the Continentals.

Edit: Here's that $22,500.00 C310 -
http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?PID=289608&OHID=1105426&guid=5F0E20B8E5 03458D846860192CBD65F5

To address the first question in this thread...
Our company used to have a 337. It is a great concept, but for what ever reason, poor execution. We used to joke that when you shut the hanger door, parts would fall off. We later purchased a pressurized version and can you say $$$$$$$$$$ in maintenance costs. It just seems that the prop wash going over the fuselage meets the rear prop wash and beats the airframe to death. I loved flying it - kind of a little fighter plane.

I also echo the Twin Beech comments. I love that airplane - she is a real sweetheart to fly. Tim's '59 C-310 is a damn cool bird too. I have lusted for one of those for a long time also. Well, any 310 would do...

pat..i logged many hours flying a riley rocket, owned by a business man. it was a real 'rocket ride'..loads of fun. kind of a 'prop lear'.. ;)
ryan