6 seat twins

[bealiba]

Does anyone have a view on the relative merits of a Baron B58 as against a Seneca III (both unpressurized) assuming a mixture of uses (1-5 pax, long/short strips)?

[LHmain]

Been a few years now but, Baron every time.

[FLEXJET]

If you have the budget, go for the BE58.
Otherwise I know a nice Seneca III for sale, 1800TT, 1989 model, with HSI, RMI, co-pilot panel, Alt Sel, A/P, GNS430...

[TiroP]

No contest.

The Baron has it :ok:

TP

[Capt Chambo]

Like LHman it has been a while since I flew either, but just to put the case for the Seneca. It is only about 5-10mins slower in the hour over the Baron. With smaller engines it is more economical. It is quieter for both pilot and pax.

Like everyone else though I would take the Baron.

p.s ever think of the Cessna 310R, which I think is "probably" better than the Baron?

[Baron Von Mildred]

The seneca 1/2 has short TBO on engines, not sure about 3 though.

[bealiba]

Thanks for your replies.

Cpt Chambo is one of few who stick-up for the 310 amongst landing gear problems, loading issues (although more with the 310Q I think), limited access doors, etc. It certainly competes with the Seneca overall, but I'm interested that you think in some ways it challenges the Baron (performance, comfort, or overall on balance??).

As for the Seneca having smaller engines, does that mean they're working harder (especially given the waste-gate on the turbo's is only manual) and therefore cheaper on fuel and more on maintenance? And Seneca is quieter - hadn't noticed but will check next time.

Any other views / issues?

[Capt Chambo]

Before I flesh out my answers, it has been about 20 years since I flew the Seneca (I & II), Barons, and C310's so my brain and memory may be completely addled by the home brew!

I flew all the afore mentioned types in East Africa, where the Baron was probably more popular with pilots than the C310. I don't ever recall having a problem with the undercarriage on the C310 or on the C402, which shared a similar design. I know it looked a bit spindley, and was a bit firm for landings but it was up to the job IMHO. Loading on the C310R was a doddle, I liked the large nose locker and the wing lockers, just so long as people travelled with soft bags. I can't remember if there was luggage space behind the rear seats on the 310. The short nosed 310s P's and Q's are not so good, with a small nose locker and small engines and they must be very old now.

The rear doors on the B58 and Senecas are a nice feature, but I don't believe the overwing entrance to the 310 was too bad. The extra cabin width and "knock back" arm rests meant it was relatively easy to get into and out of the rear seats.

I could be wrong but I thought that all these types had a 2000hr TBO on the engines. I don't believe that the Seneca engines are working any harder. I seem to recall we ran them at 30" and 2200RPM, with two blade props and in over 1000hrs on type I never had a problem. We also (Probably wrongly) used limited boost on take-off, only 35" IIRC, unless we needed the full 40".

With all these things there are some "Urban Myths", we generally reckoned that the Baron had a more rugged undercarraige, but as I mentioned earlier we never had an undercarriage problem with the 310. It was also generally believed that the Baron had better short field performancethan the 310. It probably has but having gotten myself into a short strip in the 310 just by operating as per book figures It came out fine.

I was a fan of the 310 which I reckoned was a tad quicker than the Baron, for long flights it was more comfortable with it's larger cabin. I liked the fuel options, we had a model with mains, large aux's and locker tanks, meaning we could go a long way if we had to. The Baron was good for about 6 hrs of fuel but the gauges never worked properly so I was never 100% confident. The Senecas that I flew had the extra fuel tanks and were good for about 5 1/2 hrs, but like the Barons the gauges were not the best.

You don't mention whether you are flying air taxi or privately. The Baron is wonderful to fly, the C310 great to operate, but if I was looking to make money then the relatively cheaper Seneca would probably get my vote.

[fokkerking!]

BE-58 outperforms the seneca, and a 310 is horrible to look at! The Baron has great performance, and generally a nice interior, it also has a good gear system, which the Seneca doesn't have. I've had some troubles getting those piper gears down, never had problems with the beech, nice dependable twin with a good n-1 performance, I dont think the seneca will really climb when its at MTOW and you get an engine failure, the baron does!

[lancaster52]

Take the Beech ALWAYS.

[aerobatic_dude]

I suppose if you're looking to carry a reasonable load from a short strip you might want to look towards an Aztec 250, but then again they are slower than the Baron/Seneca/310.

[Chilli Monster]

The late model Aztec 'F' turbo's are quite a bit faster than the Seneca, but slightly slower than the Baron.

(165 Kts @ 28"/2200 RPM. 195 Kts @ 30"/2400 RPM)

The problem would be finding one with few hours in good condition (you'd be looking for a '78 onwards realistically)