Cessna 310 Down in Compton, Calif.

Ken S. Tucker writes:

So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?

The injured will sue the aircraft manufacturer and the airport, because they
have more money. The manufacturer and airport will pay a settlement, the cost
of which they will pass on to you in the form of fees and premimums. The
injured will end up rich, the pilot will lose his license and his airplane,
and possibly his home if he is sued as well. A call will go up for closure of
the airport and new restrictions on pilots.

Allen wrote:

Tip tanks being "mains" in Cessna 310, etc.


My bad. I shouldn't have generalized in a thread specifically devoted
to the Cessna 310. :-)

Larry Dighera writes:

I tried to have a rational discussion with my son-in-law about this
issue once. He's an avid sailor, and he kept insisting that two
engines make the flight safer, and from his prospective I can readily
see how he would believe this, for it is unquestionably true for
boats. But I believe the statistics fail to support that conclusion
for aircraft.

It's pretty obvious that multiple engines make the flight safer, as long as
the pilot(s) knows how to handle engine failures, and as long as the design of
the aircraft is sufficiently robust to allow reasonable flight characteristics
after the failure of an engine.

That's why airplanes with four engines have fewer restrictions on their
overseas flights than airplanes with three or two engines, and that's why no
commercial passenger jet transports today have just one engine. Even some
military fighter aircraft have occasionally been rejected because they had
only one engine.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Larry Dighera writes:

I tried to have a rational discussion with my son-in-law about this
issue once. He's an avid sailor, and he kept insisting that two
engines make the flight safer, and from his prospective I can readily
see how he would believe this, for it is unquestionably true for
boats. But I believe the statistics fail to support that conclusion
for aircraft.


That's why airplanes with four engines have fewer restrictions on
their overseas flights than airplanes with three or two engines

Name the restrictions on overseas flights that applied to a B727, DC10,
MD11 or L1011 that didn't apply to a B707, B720, B747, A340, or A380.

On Apr 14, 5:57*pm, Frank Olson
wrote:*

There are several twin engined aircraft that can't fly on "one mill".
The Cessna 336/337 springs to mind as the best example (in this case).
Some twin engined helicopters are unable to maintain level flight with
one engine out. *The 310 is extremely difficult to fly on one engine
particularly at lower speeds or with gear and flaps down. *The Aerostar
(of which I'm quite familiar) is another challenge to fly on one mill.

I owned a C310B for 6 years and had over 700 hours on that plane. I
had 4 real engine failures in that time and never found the plane
difficult to fly on one engine, or to land at low speed with gear and
flaps down. The plane was very stable and easy to fly on either one or
two engines. Maybe your comment applies to later models of the 310,
but it certainly doesn't apply to the 310B.

Cary Mariash

Viperdoc wrote:
Anthony, it's obvious that you know absolutely nothing about design strategy
or flying multi engine aircraft (or single engine aircraft). In fact, you
know absolutely nothing about flying.


You and Dudley still read his dribblings? Why?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Apr 14, 8:02 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ken S. Tucker writes:
So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?

The injured will sue the aircraft manufacturer and the airport, because they
have more money. The manufacturer and airport will pay a settlement, the cost
of which they will pass on to you in the form of fees and premimums. The
injured will end up rich, the pilot will lose his license and his airplane,
and possibly his home if he is sued as well. A call will go up for closure of
the airport and new restrictions on pilots.

Well I'd never design an a/c like the 310. By putting
the fuel in the wing tips increases the angular moment,
(like a bar-bell), making spin recovery tough.
I'd likely fatten up the wing root and put the tanks there.
Ken

Cary wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:57 pm, Frank Olson
wrote:
There are several twin engined aircraft that can't fly on "one mill".
The Cessna 336/337 springs to mind as the best example (in this case).
Some twin engined helicopters are unable to maintain level flight with
one engine out. The 310 is extremely difficult to fly on one engine
particularly at lower speeds or with gear and flaps down. The Aerostar
(of which I'm quite familiar) is another challenge to fly on one mill.

I owned a C310B for 6 years and had over 700 hours on that plane. I
had 4 real engine failures in that time and never found the plane
difficult to fly on one engine, or to land at low speed with gear and
flaps down. The plane was very stable and easy to fly on either one or
two engines. Maybe your comment applies to later models of the 310,
but it certainly doesn't apply to the 310B.

Cary Mariash


700 hours and four engine failures... That equates to about one failure
every 175 hours. Now that's scary. I'd be having a serious talk with
your friendly mechanic. There were two 310's (don't recall the
variants) based at Abbotsford (BC) which accumulated over 2000 hours of
flying time between them in a year and NEVER had one engine failure in
the four years I hung around there. Gear problems were another matter.
I never found the 310 "stable" or "easy to fly" on one engine, but
mind you my check pilots/instructors always seemed to favour "killing"
the critical engine. :-)

On Apr 14, 9:40*am, Frank Olson
wrote:

Never implied any such thing. *No one really knows what happened. *We
can speculate that he was practicing single engine stall recovery and
failed the recovery bit.

You dont actually practice engine out stall recovery in a twin. The
closest thing would be a VMC demo.
FB

On Apr 14, 2:09*pm, Robert Moore wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote

A reading of FAR Part 23 indicates that not all light twins are required
to have a positive rate of climb after the failure of an engine during the
takeoff climb. If the Vso is less than 61 kts OR the seats/restraint
systems meet certain strength requirements, the rate of climb/descent needs
only to be determined.

Good point. The 310 will fly (And Climb) just fine with an engine out.
Especially at sea level where this accident happened.