Baron V C310

[Scanrate]

Gday punters. Just thought I'd throw this one out there for all you light twin drivers out there. Love to here your thoughts and biases towards either one of these work horses of the GA and charter arena.I'm going to sit on the fence on this one as I'm a big fan of both. Play Ball!!!

[itchybum]

These are my opinions...

Handling: The Baron feels much more responsive in roll, possibly due to C310 having all that fuel sloshing around the tip-tanks.

Cockpit Layout: I reckon the C310 wins. The Baron instrumentation is all over the place like a mad woman's ****.

Speed: In my experience, I've flown a nice C310R and reached as much as 199 KTAS using cruise power which is slightly faster than the one Baron I've flown.

Landings: Baron seems easier to land smoothly than the C310 with those stiff struts.

Range: Can't remember which goes further. I think the B58 I flew had an extra capacity tanks giving it something like 6.5 hrs endurance?????

Cargo: I reckon the C310 wins due to wing lockers.

Fuel: The Baron fuel guages are next to useless as compared to the C310 guages which I recall being very accurate. The B58 has some quite accurate guages outside on the wing however they are not visible from the cockpit. Pretty useful hey...

Appearance: Hard to say. Pretty subjective. I tend to think the C310 looks more rugged and "cool" and more business-like with the tip-tanks and longer (due to wing lockers) engine cowl/housing/locker area. Also it sits up straighter than the Baron which tends to "slump" back, tail-ward. Also the C310 sits up higher overall which I see as a plus. In-flight the ladder on the C310 retracts with the LG thus tidying it up more than a Baron.

Comfort: I think the Baron is the more comfortable aircraft for both passengers and pilot.

Gut feeling... I think out of the examples I've flown the Baron wins overall. By the way, if we're talking 'Q' model C310s here, the Baron wins hands down.

[HEALY]

Biased opinion because I only fly Barons. Handling is very good and as said previously easy to get good landing. Inportant to get the right speed though. Vref speeds vary up to 10 kts given weight and this can make alot of difference especially in the BE55.

Our E55 does 200TAS at slightly reduced range. The large access door on the BE58 makes larger items easier to put in. Yes it does tend to sit down but that can be an advantage getting some people in and out.

In terms of looks, anything with tip tanks seems to do it for some people however 'Snub' nose C310's look a bit ugly.

Just a thought

[MAXX]

having flown barons years ago for over 1000 hrs and 310 only about 40 hrs,id have to say im a little swayed towards the baron. disregarding economics etc from a purely appearence and handling point of view the baron in my humble opinion wins hands down.

i would still be flying one if someone would pay a decent salary to do it,unfortunately you cant pay your bills and eat with fun.:ok:

[Jet_A_Knight]

Baron is nicer to fly (I've only got a few hours on them). The C310 is a pretty good plane, a decent load carrier, decent endurance, decent climb performance (for a piston twin). However it is UGLY and has an absolutely $hithouse driving position.

When all is said and done, out of piston twins, give me an Aerostar ANYDAY :ok:

[itchybum]

Re "driving" position, at least in the 310 you can see over the instrument combing easily, unlike the Baron. :ok:

[Jamair]

As a private aircraft, the Baron is probably nicer to fly although performance-wise there is little to differentiate, but as far as commercial ops go neither of them comes within a bulls roar of an Aztec for the mix of pax comfort & room, low noise, extraordinary range v payload, and economy of operation - all for 10-15 kts less IAS. That's why I bought an Aztec......mind you, the ponderous roll response, enormous chord wing and agricultural structure are seldom a pilots wet-dream material (at least until you're in turbulent clag at night doing a dickey NDB, then you will think that this super stable IFR platform is Gods gift to aviation).:ok:

[Tankengine]

Lets start with Apples to Apples :
ie: B58 to 310R

Speed : same
Engines : same
Range : close to same depending on extra tanks [nacelle etc]
Handling : personal pref [I think 310 lighter and more "sporty"]
Landings : Baron use idle power, 310 use a trickle of power until touchdown for a smooth landing.
Ergonomics : 310
Engine out : pros & cons , about same
Pax comfort : Baron can have club seats so : Baron
Baggage : 310 hands down, nacelle lockers and you can load behind rear seats without the cg probs of Baron
On / off runway : Baron by small margin [310 with Cleveland brakes close, Goodyear brakes are crap!]

My 10c worth after 800hrs 310 & 50 hours Baron :ok:

[itchybum]

Is the Az-truck a 4 or 6 seat machine?

[Jamair]

Aztec is 6 real adult seats; also has a mod available to make the rear bench seat a 3-seater for kids, for a 7-seat total

[Towering Q]

The 310's wider cabin is a bonus. The Baron is too narrow for my liking.

The 310R has a decent sized nose locker. The Baron's nose locker is usually full after stowing the tie down kit, oil bottles and fuel drain.

Interesting that no one has mentioned the throttle quadrant layout on the Baron.

[tinpis]

Not that its relevent to operations here but if I had attempted some of the things Ive done in PNG with a Baron in a 310 , I would be sitting at the bottom of a smoking hole.

There again a Queenair up there was damn scary compared to a 402.
So I guess its horses for courses.
The handling characteristics of the Baron are sublime and a 310 just doesnt compare.
BTW which Baron the B58 or E55?

[HEALY]

I have found a large difference between the BE58 and E55. The 55 is certainly more 'nippy' and can feel a little light on the controls. Trimming it is a bit more of a precise art. The 58 is more stable and when in appch config will stay very responsive thru all axis.

[MAXX]

Have to agree with you there jet _knight about the aerostar,it is a lovely aircraft to fly when all s going well,however engine out after takeoff is very ugly.The aerostar I flew in north qld years ago had that many problems that I do believe everyone that had flown it during a period of about 3 years had and engine fail or at least some other major malfunction.(Once during the early hrs of the morning one of our engineers told me "jokingly" to push the F***** thing off the runway and set fire to it.:ok:

[milehighsociety]

You must have had a DUD aerostar there. I recently bought a 601P.. Marvelous machine at that.

Loaded to MTOW for endorsement flying.

Engine out after take off

500 FPM at blue line + 5.

F*@#ing marvelous

:ok:

[mattyj]

Aerostars a grouse machine..what else can you get 185knots easy with normally aspirated engines..easy handling..easy to slow down..fuel systems so simple it makes the C310 look like a rubiks cube..

..pity about the loading

also IO-540's..easy to maintain..same engine as many other (piper) aircraft..surely proven reliable?

[Capt Fathom]

milehighsociety
The worry here of course is that you think it will fly on one engine at MTOW.
Maybe a bit generous with the zero thrust setting whilst training!
I wouldn't like to experience it for real. :{

[gaunty]

Bahh! Philistines the lot of yez.

Tinny you should know better. :{ :}

Piper Aztec F with the Shark thingy nacelles..:p actually started life as a Consolidated Vultee Stinson.:uhoh:

[Bart Simson]

Don't know how you fly your Aerostar, Mattyj.
With more than 600 Hours on type and lots of mates who fly it you are the first guy that has said a Aerostar is easy to slow down.

As far as Baron v C310 is concerned, with 500 odd hours on each.

Baron wins hands down. :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[mattyj]

Yeah..I only got 80 hours so not that qualified..but..185knots cruise right?
174knots first 20 flap
156knots gear down

once you dirty it up it stops easy

however I am told that it won't slow in descent so I don't try..just try to finish the descent early..and go flat 5 miles or so to slow down..

..when you get speed instructions from ATC..now thats interesting..

..can't argue with experience

As for the Baron..it looks like someone put all the gauges in their mouth and then sneezed

[Transition Layer]

matty,

Yeah..I only got 80 hours so not that qualified..but..185knots cruise right? 174knots first 20 flap
156knots gear down

Just because they are the "limits" doesn't mean you have to work the poor bloody aircraft to the max. Haven't flown an Aerostar myself but on other types always gave myself a big buffer over the Vfe and Vle. And yes, like any slippery piston twin a 2-3min level segment is the way to go.

Cheers,
TL

[Gear in transit]

Just because they are the "limits" doesn't mean you have to work the poor bloody aircraft to the max.

Hey TL, I agree totally that continually operating the a/c on the limits isn't really good airmanship or operation and could easily be avoided with some forward planning, BUT i believe the limit is there for a reason . It is exactly that.
The manufactureres factor in their own buffer also.
So putting the gear down at vle or flap at vfe shouldn't be too much of a problem, you're operating to within the aircrafts POH limits. I can't really see a problem with that?

The reason I see it this way is, where do you draw the line? I'm not an engineer so do I extend 1 or 10kts before the limit?
I was 'taught' to extend the gear 20kts below vle in my initial training :rolleyes: So not to overstress the gear!!!
The same guy then tried to get me to do it in a Baron. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Forget it, we all know how 'easy' it would be to put the wheels down in a baron at 132kts!!!

Back to the topic, aside from the erganomic disaster the baron can be in the business end, the 'barn doors' in the 58 are great for pax.
The 310's fuel system, although easily figured out, is stupid when compared to the Barons.

It's a close call tho, kinda the facon / commonwhore debate of the skies!

[Jet_A_Knight]

Actually, since my post in May2004, I came to a bit of a realisation.

I had been flying the AEST for ages (900+HRS) and then went to C310.

For a plane to carry 4 pax point to point, or even FRX, point to point, AEST for speed, sexiness and ease of operation.

For multisector (eg5-10 sectores per day) bank/frx flying, the C310 for NEAR AEST speeds (185KTAS), better range, heaps of storage compartments, and not having to get out of the seat to load and unload. Still a schiessenhausen driving position, but you can get used to scoliosis after a while:uhoh:

After going back to the AEST for a few flights before moving up to a new job, my thoughts were 'What a ground-hugging mofo this plane is". I never remembered it that way! However, I think it had more to do with the fact that it got abused in my absence.:sad:

Now, so far as 6 seater planes are concerned, you can't go past a PA31-350 with VG kit:E

But in all honesty, I am happy to have gotten out of that category twin before they killed me!

OEI Climb Performance, me @rse!

[milehighsociety]

Capt Fathom..

I have two turbos.. makes all the difference.

Zero thrust setting were as per Aerostar recommendations. Admittedly, if you let it get below the blue line just one knot, its all over red rover... scary then.

On one engine you can climb to altitude and still indicate 145 or so at 5000 ft.

[Capt Fathom]

milehigh. You have not allayed my fears for your safety!:( Regardless of the number of turbos you possess!
You take care out there.

[milehighsociety]

Capt Fathom

Rest assured I do not feel alleviated of risk.. I still have a distinct fear of engine failure.

I was merely pointing out that of all piston twins, it seem to do particularly well. That doesnt mean that all is going fine and dandy.

I know a 737 pilot who had an engine failure 2 tons below mtow and still could not get it above 300 feet off the ground in 15 mins.

I am still wary, just not as scared as... a partenavia pilot for example. : )

Cheers for your concern.

[Capt Fathom]

I know a 737 pilot who had an engine failure 2 tons below mtow and still could not get it above 300 feet off the ground in 15 mins.

Hopefully it is still under warranty and the owner can get his money back!
Or maybe sack the pilot. :E

[gaunty]

Capt Fathom there are none so blind as those who will not see and nobody more dangerous than those who are so certain in their ignorance.:rolleyes:

Methinks the airline should do both, but I suspect the story is just the ususal aero club bar stuff. 0.13% gradient and 20fpm sounds like he might have been way more than a bit overweight.
Rules say something like min gross 3-350fpm second segment not great but it'll get you there if you've done the obstacle clearance sums. Patience is the name of the game.

I sincerely hope mr milehighsociety plans his takeoffs with nothing else in mind for an EFATO but finding the least worse landing spot directly in front of him if he's not going up or stays straight and level and blue line or whatever speed the book says for the weight, until such time as he is at least 500 ft AGL able to accelerate in level flight, get cleaned up and then and only then review his options.

There's been plenty of twin turbos that have done more than scare in the recent past and sounds like there might be the possibility of another.

The saving grace with the Partenavia is that most pilots understand that they are not going up anytime soon and concentrate on whats in front of them and they have a nice big fat slow and forgiving wing to help them land real slow and can keep flying the aircraft until all the noise and sh!t stops happening . The only "benefit" :rolleyes: of being able to go faster in the Aerostar is it gets to the accident scene more rapidly and hopefully your death will be mercifully quick.:{

[tinpis]

Yeh a 733 will really slack off on one to about 1100 fpm ROC it really sucks.

[nomorecatering]

Baron, C310, Aerostar.......which ones better??


Well 2 are out of production and 1 can be bought new today with glass cockpit, FADEC controlled engines.

kinda sums it all up.

[404 Titan]

nomorecatering

Maybe you are too young to remember or you have forgotten, product liability laws in the USA put an end to the production of all piston engine aircraft from Cessna and Piper in the mid Eighties. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t because they weren’t as good as Beechcraft. Beechcraft decided to weather the legal storm. Cessna and Piper decided not to. It was a legal decision at the time based on their own individual legal advice and exposure to litigation.

For the record I have flown all three aircraft mentioned here. All have there strengths and weaknesses. As a pilots aircraft I preferred the Baron, Aerostar and C310 in that order. In terms of ease and cost of maintenance it would be C310, Baron and Aerostar. Usefulness and cost effectiveness as a charter aircraft it would easily be the C310, Baron and Aerostar.

milehighsociety
I know a 737 pilot who had an engine failure 2 tons below mtow and still could not get it above 300 feet off the ground in 15 mins.
If only you realised how silly that comment was. Either the pilot in question is pulling your leg or you are telling little porkies or as Gaunty has said is some wild story that’s gone around aero club bars and with time somehow becomes fact. I can assure you it isn’t. Even a fully load A330-300 (which is a dog on one) goes up at 500 – 700 ft/min on one at max flex. A B737 would sh*t all over an A330 on one.

[milehighsociety]

404 titan.

You basically called my 737 friend silly. He was flying the aircraft at the time and took some birds at take off out of perth some years ago.

The 737 - 200 he was flying did not make it above 300 ft. If you dont choose to beleive it then thats up to you. That information was not an aero club story. It was first hand information to me. At the time of that incident, the pilot flying was the head of the 737 fleet in Oz for QF.

My report of the aerostar info on one engine was not an aeroclub story either. Once again in it forst hand information to you, demonstrated by me. During a flight check with casa a few weeks ago I demonstrated this capability again in hotter conditions.

Should you choose to abuse all those who obviously have experienced first hand what you have not, without KNOWING yourself, then its you who is silly. You come across as one of those top notch know it alls who likes to have an opinion on everthing aviation, even if you have little experience in the feild you speak of.

You need a reality check. Learn form the experience of others, even if you are more experienced in your own feild.

Youd be surprised about how silly you look to me right now.

[404 Titan]

milehighsociety

What the F**K. Where the hell did that come from? I have not abused anyone. If you want to convince some of us on this forum that this story is true, I suggest you produce a reference to the official report of the incident. There has to be one and for the life of me I can’t find it anywhere. If the story is true and this pilot suffered a bird strike both engines could very well have been damaged. Did you think of that?
You basically called my 737 friend silly.
No I didn't.

You don’t come across as a very nice person. You obviously can’t hold a good argument because you are attacking the person. People on this forum that know me know my experience and background and quite frankly your comments make you look like an idiot.

Now if you want to regain any credibility on this forum, (that’s assuming you had any in the first place), I suggest you produce the official report on this incident.

By the way I never made any bad comment about the Aerostar. Read my thread again. You’re obviously illiterate.

[Deepsea Racing Prawn]

MileHigh....you might want to preview/proof read your posts before you submit them.

Otherwise you end up sounding like a retard. Unless of course this is a windup.:rolleyes:

Apologies to any retards out there.

[Transition Layer]

milehighsociety,

The 737 - 200 he was flying did not make it above 300 ft...At the time of that incident, the pilot flying was the head of the 737 fleet in Oz for QF.

Sorry to say but I believe QF, and even TAA didn't ever have 737-200s.

737-300/400s did join the Australian Airlines fleet before they became part of Qantas. Ansett definitely had 737-200s at one stage.

I stand to be corrected though. Your story is starting to look a little shaky.

TL

[tinpis]

Correct TL.

AN introduced the -200 to Oz in 81 or 2 I think it was.
Ive never flown one(only -300) but Im pretty sure it would do more than 300 feet with a bloody big emu stuffed in both engines.

[Chief galah]

I remember a weekly AEST flight from Cobar to Melbourne in the 90's, would pull up on the apron and disgorge the pilot, four burly chaps with guns, and a load of precious metal. I often wondered about the carrying capacity of that machine.

CG