Cessna 310 vs Piper Twin Comanche
The Piper Twin Comanche (light, efficient) and Cessna 310 (faster, larger light twin) are different points in the piston-twin range — the Twin Comanche prioritises economy; the 310 prioritises speed and cabin.
Live Market Snapshot
Current asking-price market, aggregated across multiple marketplaces · refreshed daily
Cessna 310
No active listings right now.
Piper Twin Comanche
- For sale now
- 23
- Median asking
- $143,000
- Range
- $105,000–$210,000
- Model years available
- 1964–1973
Live data from AeroGurus, aggregated daily across the used-aircraft market. Figures are current asking prices, not appraisals — confirm with a pre-buy inspection.
Safety Record
Absolute counts scale with fleet size — the most-produced types log more events without being less safe. Compare the % fatal.
| NTSB (1982–now) | Cessna 310 | Piper Twin Comanche |
|---|---|---|
| All events | 584 | — |
| Serious | 42 | — |
| Fatal | 181 | — |
| Fatalities | 354 | — |
| % Fatal | 31% | — |
Full Specs Comparison
Swipe to see all specs
| Spec / Model | Cessna 310 | Piper Twin Comanche |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Price Range | — | $105,000 – $210,000 |
| Category | — | Multi Engine Piston |
| Model Specifications | ||
| Seats | 5 | 4 |
| Horsepower | 240 HP | 160 HP |
| Cruise Speed | 190 kts (352 km/h) | 155 kts (287 km/h) |
| Range | 800 nm (1,482 km) | 1,000 nm (1,852 km) |
| Service Ceiling | 20,000 ft (6,096 m) | 18,600 ft (5,669 m) |
| Max Gross Weight | 4,830 lbs (2,191 kg) | 3,725 lbs (1,690 kg) |
| Useful Load | 1,700 lbs (771 kg) | 1,450 lbs (658 kg) |
| Fuel Capacity | 100.0 gal (378 L) | — |
| Fuel Burn | 22.0 GPH (83 L/h) | 16.0 GPH (61 L/h) |
| TBO | 1,500 hrs | — |
| Overhaul Cost | $38,000 | — |
| Annual Fixed | $25,000 | — |
| Hourly Variable | $280 | — |
| Engines | 2 x Piston | 2 x Piston |
Cost of Ownership
EstimateCessna 310
Fuel$121/hr
Variable$280/hr
Annual Fixed$25,000/yr
Total (200 hrs/yr)
$81,000/yr
Piper Twin Comanche
Fuel$88/hr
Which Should You Buy: Cessna 310 or Piper Twin Comanche?
Bottom line: Choose the 310 for higher cruise, a larger cabin and a bigger fleet. Choose the Twin Comanche for the lowest piston-twin operating cost and efficient cruising, when the smaller cabin and speed are acceptable.
Pick the 310 if…
- More seats — 5 vs 4.
- Faster cruise — 190 kts vs 155 kts.
Pick the Twin Comanche if…
- Longer range — 1000 nm vs 800 nm.
Auto-generated from current market data and published specs. Confirm with a pre-buy inspection and professional appraisal.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the key difference between the Cessna 310 and Piper Twin Comanche?
Size and speed class. The Cessna 310 (IO-520, ~285 hp each, 6 seats, ~195–210 kt) is the larger, faster twin. The Piper Twin Comanche (PA-39, Lycoming IO-320, ~160 hp each, 4 seats, ~170–180 kt) is the compact, fuel-efficient twin — one of the most economical certified piston twins ever built. The Twin Comanche achieves impressive performance from small engines; the 310 is larger and more powerful.
310 or Twin Comanche — which light twin?
Buy the Cessna 310 if: six seats and 200+ kt cruise are the priorities. The 310 is the more capable aircraft for family flying and business use. Buy the Twin Comanche if: fuel efficiency from a compact twin, lower operating cost, and four-seat personal flying define the mission — the Twin Comanche's IO-320 engines burn significantly less fuel than the 310's IO-520s.
How does the Twin Comanche's fuel efficiency compare?
The Twin Comanche is one of the most fuel-efficient certified piston twins — its IO-320 engines (~160 hp each) consume substantially less fuel than the 310's IO-520s while still achieving ~170–180 kt. For personal twin flying where economy per nm is valued, the Twin Comanche's efficiency advantage is significant.
How do specs compare?
Cessna 310R: IO-520-M (~285 hp each), 6 seats, ~195–210 kt. Piper Twin Comanche PA-39: IO-320 (~160 hp each), 4 seats, ~170–180 kt.
Which is cheaper to operate?
The Twin Comanche is substantially less expensive — smaller engines, significantly lower fuel burn, and lower acquisition cost. For personal twin flying, the Twin Comanche's economics are excellent. The 310's six-seat capacity and higher speed justify its additional cost for family and business missions.
Which should I buy?
Cessna 310 for a capable six-seat light twin with cross-country performance. Piper Twin Comanche for the most fuel-efficient certified piston twin — four seats, lower operating cost, and still respectable speed.
Which is better, Cessna 310 or Piper Twin Comanche?
It depends on your mission and budget.
The 310 cruises at 190 kts with 800 nm range.
The Twin Comanche cruises at 155 kts with 1,000 nm range.
Review the specs table above to find which fits your flying profile.
How do prices compare?
Piper Twin Comanche: from $178,649.
Prices vary by year, hours, avionics, and condition. Always get a pre-buy inspection.
What's the difference between Cessna 310 and Piper Twin Comanche?
310 engine: CONTINENTAL O-470-B;O-470-M (240 hp).
Seats: 5 vs 4.
Cruise: 190 vs 155 kts.
Range: 800 vs 1000 nm.
Which is cheaper to operate per hour?
310: about $280/hr variable cost.
Variable cost includes fuel, reserves and overhaul accruals. Annual fixed costs (hangar, insurance, annual inspection) add to the total.
Which has more seats and useful load?
310: 5 seats / 1,700 lb useful load.
Twin Comanche: 4 seats / 1,450 lb useful load.
Useful load = max gross weight minus empty weight; it determines how much fuel plus payload you can carry.
How does maintenance compare — TBO and overhaul cost?
310: 1,500-hour TBO, overhaul ~$38,000.
Reaching the time-between-overhaul (TBO) triggers a mandatory engine/airframe rebuild that affects resale value.
Disclaimer: All prices and cost estimates are from third-party sources for informational purposes only. Always obtain professional appraisal and inspection before purchase.
Prices updated daily · Data: FAA Registry, NTSB · About our data