Morgans wrote:
"FlyWithTwo" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have to agree with MD. The Cessna 172 and 182 both have wing areas
of 175 square feet, with gross weights of 2400 and 3100 lbs., if I
recall correctly. The 310 has wing area of 179 square feet, including
the effects of the tip tanks and nacelles. The 310K has gross weight
of 5200 lbs. If high wing loading equates to being a "pig", then I'll
take it on an approach. :-)

I'm not clear on what it is that you are trying to say. Is it that you like
high wing loading for landings, or that you like how a 310 lands compared to
a 172 or 182, or what?
--
Jim in NC

I've been away for a week, so just got back to your response. What I
meant was that higher wing loading makes for a more stable approach, as
in "less like a kite". That would go also for other planes with higher
wing loading like the Baron/Bonanza, etc. Based on experience, the 310
doesn't land better or worse, just require more advance planning. I
think the impressions on this thread of whether a plane handles like a
"pig" or is more or less stable are all rather subjective. I like 'em
all. To paraphrase, "There are no bad airplanes, just airplanes that
are poorly selected for the mission."

Brian