Baron - 58 vs 58P

[Nivo]

I am hoping that members of PPRuNe wiser and more experienced than me can provide some advice on the practical differences between the 58 and 58P Barons. I have read the published numbers, and some cost reports, but would still appreciate any advice particularly with regard to:
- short strip performance at high density altitudes
- useful loads with full fuel
- operating costs

Cheers,

Nivo

[Howard Hughes]

Nivo,
It has been 8 years, but I will do my best without having the books at hand.

1. Doesn't have much, as I recall TOR around 950 Metres sea level on a 30+ degree day.
2. Around 500-550kg's with 60 US gallons per side, (ie:not full tanks, but good for 4 hours endurance). I think load more like 430kg's with full fuel, of course they do come with several different sized tanks.
NB: newer ones will come no where near this in useful load.
3. No Idea, never paid the bills.

All in all, a really usefull aeroplane, but I would probably steer clear of the pressurised versions, it's only going to cost you more in maintenance, for not much gain (if any), in performance.

[Nivo]

Thanks HH.

I was hoping to get some comments on the differences between the pressurised and non-pressurised variants of the 58 Baron. For example I know the 58P has more power at higher density altitudes (TSIO520 vs IO520 or IO550) but it also weighs more.

Hopefully someone here will have flown both and can help.

cheers,

Nivo

[Dances With Dingoes]

Nivo Im with HH. I would stay away from the P version due to maint costs.

How often would you be flying it? Commercial or Private?

Private I suspect. If you are not flying alot a B58 can be a handfull and Press. is just another system to trip you up. To put it in contest for you I dont' see much of an advantage in a pressuriised however I have never flown one.

I have however flown one that I think you may know of(non press.). A B55 at the big castle, in the days of homer. If you really want short field Baron one similar to that would be the go for you as you have an approved short field configuration so if things do go wrong you are covered in legal terms. I would have to ask you though do you really want to be operating out of short strips in a high performance ac like that? You also probably know that the 55 will reduce your payload.

Happy searching

[gaunty]

My advice is have a nice cup of tea, a Bex and good lie down until the feeling goes away.

Practical difference is one costs a lot to operate and the other heaps and heaps more for no discernable increase in perfomance beyond that granted automatically by the ability to go higher. Buy a Scott O2 bottle and mask 'tis a whole lot cheaper for much the same result.

[PA39]

Pressurised Barons were introduced for the American market where professionals and business people wanted to fly high and in comfort over the Sierras. The pressurised Baron that i had 6 yrs experience with was extremely high on maintenance costs both fixed and unsceduled, much heavier than the std 58 (look at the fuse rivets...mind boggling and the price to replace windows and screen is money most only dream about!). Strictly light 4 placer and if my memory is correct i think the TBO was 14/1500hrs. Performance wise below 10k was much the same but very very smooth to fly. The sound, well, even more so.... typical Baron.

Check the resale on P's on the Continent and in the USA and they are usually or were, considerably lower than the std 58.FWIW, PERSONALLY, i wouldn't look at a 58P for Oz ops.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Just curious Nivo...why a twin and why pressurised?

[Nivo]

Thanks for all the replies - I can see a pattern! I think I need to answer CC's questions to explain how we ended up here in the first place.

I am going to need an aircraft for personal business travel (ie cost of travel is tax deductible), rural Australia, 500nm+, IFR, short (800m) gravel & grass strips. Pax numbers ranging from 1-6. Quite a few people I know have ended up with Barons for similar operations and like them. Some started with Bonanzas, some have migrated to TBM850s or PC12s. Having flown a Baron on similar legs, I liked the comfort, speed, and added security of 2 engines.

My home strip is 3600ft, LSALT is 6600, so 2 levels available each direction IFR if non pressurised. Cloud in winter together with FZL <10000 makes known ice a must have, but it is much preferable to get out of the cloud. Oxygen is a possibility but a hassle with kids. That led me to pressurisation and I noticed 58P Barons are getting cheaper by the day in the US as the doctors and lawers put the payment down on their Eclipse!

I hope that explains my thinking on the issue. I realise that for most of the flights I would be better of with an SR22 or similar, but I suppose it is a bit like buying a 4WD to tow the boat once a month - you look at aircraft that will do 100% of what you want, not just 90%.

Any and all advice is very much appreciated.

cheers,

Nivo

[tinpis]

Did you mention your experience level?
One of these is easy to drive

[Chimbu chuckles]

Fair enough...I think a normal B58 would do you 95% of the time at a fraction of the DOCs of a 58P and I think a 58P's payload range would do what you want 90% of the time too...they are pretty limited with lots of bums on seats and even a 500nm IFR leg would need nearly full tanks by the time you allowed for an alternate etc.

Tinpis' recomendation above, the Crusader, could be good...Gaunty will know what they are like payload/range wise...I suspect they are a 4 seater most of the time...also a C414C could be an good choice too...an 8 seater but really a 6 seater. C340s are very payload range limited...full tanks and it'll just be you and 1 or 2 pax plus briefcases travelling. They don't have long legs either...hence Cessna lost the tip tanks and went wet wing.

My personal choice would be to find a good B58 with perhaps near run out engines but good garmin IFR stack, interior, paint etc. I would upgrade the engines with Gamispec TNIO550bs, JPI engine monitors and install a good oxygen system. There are several good choices for oxy systems and as long as you operate below 18000' you need not bother with oxy masks and instead use nasal cannulas which clip onto the boom mike and squirt oxygen up your nose in controlled amounts...much more comfortable than masks and uses (wastes) VASTLY less oxygen.

The TNIO550bs will give a full 1700 hr TBO (and then some if operated sched 5 and with knowledge) because they are 'ground boosted' only...that is they only give you 29.5 inches MP (up to about 20000') instead of 36in MP or some such cylinder destroying number. With 300 liter tanks and operated LOP you will have a safe IFR range of well over 1000nm and a TAS of >200kts.

Because you're not eating cylinders due overboosting and not running pressurisation system the DOCs will be near identical to a bog standard normally aspirated B58 but it will give you want you want, I believe, 99% of the time. LOP you'll save a lot of fuel which at $1.50/liter is a consideration. It could be as much as 15 USG/hr difference between a

TNIO550b operated LOP and a 58P's TSIO520s operated with bog standard injectors ROP. Think of it this way...that fuel saving pays for the next engine overhauls all by itself.

[j3pipercub]

Hey Nivo,

Are you talking about YARM?

j3

[Chimbu chuckles]

Forgot to add...hot props and boots will cover you 99.9% of the time in Oz...I have VERY rarely ever had enough ice on to bother cycling the boots but that is just my experience...with TN you'll be in clear air so quick not much will have time to accumulate. This is not 'known ice' approved of course, neither is the TKS weeping wing system which is a lot more hassle and expence...but it will give you time to escape the ice.

Personally boots would not be high on my 'must have' list.

Edit: The TSIO520 L/LBs on early 58Ps (310hp from memory) were light case and had a 1400hr recommended TBO..the later TSIO520WBs had heavier cases and a 1600hr TBO..but were developing 325hp so chances of seeing 1600 hrs were remote. The IO550C is on new 58s...I don't know the difference between a IO550B and 550C but would think it will be merely some accessory bolted on somewhere different due to the different cowl on a Baron as opposed to my A36. They have a 1700hr TBO and a 7th stud holding on the cylinders, heavy crankcase and different welding technique for added strength...often see more than 1700hrs operated sensibly.

[Nivo]

Thankyou Chimbu Chuckles, that was just the sort of feedback I needed. Your personal choice suggestion is very sensible. GAMIs and a JPI760 to run LOP were also on my must have list for a 58 or 58P.

Do you know whether anyone in Oz does TN for the IO550 or do you get a kit from TAT/GAMI?

j3 - farm strip close to YARM

cheers,

Nivo

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think your only local option would be kit from TAT...your best option if going with new IO550s would be just order direct from TAT. They do a Gamispec TNIO550 that has Millenium cyclinders, ported, polished, balanced, pastuerised etc etc...the milleniums have better airflows and actually get about 10hp more as a result...they would set up and test the Gamijector flows so the engines would be perfectly balanced and the turbo fine tuned...just bolt em on and go...sorta. They would also come with liquidaire baffles which optimise airflow around the cylinders so you don't get a couple sitting 50F higher than the rest...it would be near bullet proof.

It aint cheap...but by the time you ordered IO550s locally and had the kit and injectors installed and fecked with to get it all running right it probably would be 6 of one and a dozen+ of the other.
If buying an older 58, nothing wrong with them, you might need to take advice on the engine mounts too.

Given the incredibly depressed used market for any twin (actually any second hand aeroplane) at the moment I think you could be in a very strong position to get a good low time, relatively late model (late 70s/early 80s) 58 for a steal and turn it into an absolute weapon.

[gaunty]

Chuckles me old

There is a very good reason the second hand market is incredibly depressed and why it will stay so and actually get worse.

The manufacturers of the airframe and equipment are increasingly reluctant to support the product and it figures in increasing prices and decreasing availability. Certainly there appears to be a vibrant after market industry but with a diminishing number of available serviceable airframes. There were around 500 total B58P produced, last ones built in 1985 with most in the late 70's, I'd be interested to know how many are still in service after 20-35 years.

Nivo

The Crusader if you can find one is bullet proof and dont be put off by the the Conty 250BHP engines, they are "flat rated" with the Turbo and will deliver the same or more BHP at cruise than the normmally aspirated 520, but much less stressed. Max RPM is 2400 for everything, TO Climb Crz etc. And behaves like a single with an engine out. Feet on the floor through all regimes if you are so inclined. It was designed to be pressurised but time and tide caight up with it before they had a chance to get there. But its really only a 4 place aircraft if you have known icing.

The stand success story and IMHO where you should be is the C414A Chancellor with the 325HP engine mod. Fast 200plus KTS, economical, huge 400 series cabin, quiet and you step up into it and stroll up to the huge the cockpit rather than the circus contortionist act involved getting into the Barons. It will also carry 6 POB with known icing fitted. AND it will still be worth something when you get to sell it.

EVERYTHING that is not in current manufacture is subject to a formal Corrosion Protection/Prevention programme. Unless the manufacturer has published a program or your local maintenance provider can provide one the value of your aircraft is effectively zero, so make sure whatever you buy is covered.

Remember the aircraft you are talking about are 20 to 30 plus years old and despite the specious "yes but they are maintained differently to motor cars" argument they are still 20 to 30 plus years old with all of the problems this brings, in other words it is not for the faint hearted or light of pocket.

Ask your friends why they INVESTED in TBM and Pilatus aircraft. I can assure you their actual total cost of ownership at the end of the day will most likely be the same as your B58P and may only be a little more than the C414A, and they have the real speed, assurance of warranties and the incalculable benefit of turbines. I'm not interested in a debate on the truth of that statement it just is.

Your call, heaps lower capital costs/higher operating costs for say C414A over TBM or Pilatus, donate the C414A to the local kindy soon, make the maintenance and supplier guys richer, or have a saleable asset.

Both work, just depends on whose bank account you want your hard earned to retire to.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Ah Gaunty me old...actually you old, me younger

Notice my rec is in current production...spares not an issue...not cheap either but at least beechcraft are well built and don't need that many bits from the manufacturer.

TBM is a great machine but Nivo said he could claim the expences against his business...not that he was made of money.

Insurance, lease and DOCs for a TBM 850 would have to be 300k+/annum on 300hrs flying. Then depreciation etc on top.

The same scenario with a GOOD low hour B58 would be 100-120K

Edit: As annual utilisation falls the TBM and Baron get further apart and the Baron looks better

Turbines are great of you have the cashflow, need and utilisation but piston twins are still very cost effective transports. edit: singles are even better

Prolly why B58s have remained in production...last Cessna piston twin built when?

Edit: comparing a NEW Baron to a TBM 850 I think the numbers would be a LOT closer...but anyone buys a new B58 when the world is awash with good second hand models has rocks in his head.

[gaunty]

Mate, if Cessna thought there was future in piston twins they would be building them still.

not cheap either but at least beechcraft are well built and don't need that many bits from the manufacturer.

hmmmph had both B58 and C310 operating alongside each other in the fleet, which is why when it comes down to money and considering they cost around the same new we ditched the B58s. AND the customers consistently asked for the C310 and there was that little problem with bathtubs and wing attachment on a design that went back to the 40's.

I did say it was his call, but I know where I would be putting my hard earned. But then I'm biased by the economics.

[Chimbu chuckles]

There is a very good reason the second hand market is incredibly depressed and why it will stay so and actually get worse.

I am not sure I completely agree with that actually.

What about the basic utility of a piston twin or single has changed over the last 30 years?

I would suggest nothing.

In inflation corrected $ are they that much more expenive to run (DOCs) than they were 30 years ago?

Maybe a little but I would argue there isn't much in it. In fact given the vaste strides in avionics and engine technologies etc they might even be a little cheaper in some respects...we used to happily burn vast amounts of avgas in the good old days and now we have the technology that enables quite substantial savings in fuel used...yeah fuel is currently peaked in price but it has done that before and then settled back to more normal prices.

Remember I am talking inflation corrected $.

Insurance wise certainly piston twins have suffered...but that seems to me to be an over reaction to the opposite case that existed in the 70s and maybe even into the early 80s when insuring a twin was cheaper than a single...an equally silly scenario. A well flown Baron is as safe as a well flown single...a much safer than a badly flown Bonanza. Overall accident statistics over a VERY LONG TIME support that position. The vast majority of accidents, twin or single, are not engine failure related but brain failure related...flying into a hill in bad weather is equally stupid no matter how many engines are bolted on. Insurance premiums need to be more directly correlated with experience and recurrent training rather than "Baron premium = Bonanza premium x 2".

Age?

What does a brand new Bonanza or Baron do that a well maintained 10, 20 or 30 year old one cannot do?

Apart from cost 3-5 times as much to buy?

Every bit of technology in a brand new aircraft is transportable into a 1975, 1980 or 1985 Baron, C310, Bonanza or 210...except that fast glass G1000 ****...certainly in terms of total system integration anyway.

I personally don't find the G1000 cockpit technology attractive at any price let alone the 6 figure addition to a non glass cockpit equivalent. I do accept that I am standing out here almost alone on that position but there you go...I think the technology has a negative safety implication that has thus far been swamped in "OH WOW".

A fella in the US recently CFIT'd himself + 1 to death in a brand new Cirrus in exactly the same time honoured way people have been doing it since the 1920s so no amount of technology can overcome 'dumb as a box of rocks'

So a fella like Nivo can take, for arguments sake, a 1975-80 B58 Baron with say 5000hr TT and runnout engines but in otherwise very neat condition airframe wise (they do exist) for say AUD80-100k and put new paint, engines, leather interior, Garmin avionics, fuel cells and rewire it for say an additional 200-250k and end up with a Baron that is exactly how different from a 2007 model at AUD1.5 million?

That's a capital cost differential of nearly 1.2 million $

You could go completely spastic and lash out on a new digital autopilot a some of the new glass cockpit stuff, if it floats your boat, and still be a cool million in front.

People will say "but the day after you finish all that restoration it won't be worth what you have spent".

True...go buy a brand new Baron and then see what it is worth a week later....or Cirrus or TBM 850 or Holden Commodore.

The same story holds true for a new Bonanza vs an older one.

Plenty of people seem to have the $ to drop on new Cirrus aircraft..AUD$600k?

A well maintained Car 3 certified aircraft has a VERY long life expectancy...yep annual maintenance on a 30 year old Baron is more than a new one...probably equivalent to about 1/10th the interest payable (assuming say 6%) on the capital cost differential.

I would suggest if you took a 30 year old aircraft and restored it as per above the annual maintenance going forward would be feckall different to a new one.

There are many 1000s of 'old' aircraft flying in Australia...if they all dissappeared tomorrow the maintenance organisations couldn't survive on the small numbers of new aircraft (less than 5 years old say) that remained. The industry would be gutted and VERY few people could afford to fly anymore.

As you may have picked up in my above treatise I have had about a gutfull of hearing about 'uneconomical old piston aircraft'...single or twin.

If you have the money to own one just for fun or work that requires you to travel all over a large area (and is sufficiently well remunerated) something like a C210, 310 or Baron is every bit as cost effective in 2007 as they were in 1977.

[Nivo]

Thankyou for all the replies, especially Chimbu chuckles and Gaunty for sharing your views and experience.

Unfortunately I am not in the position go looking at PC12s, and for most of the flying with 1-2 pax they would struggle to compete on $$/seat/mile with the 20-30yo aircraft I will be looking at. Maybe the rumoured DA52 will have 2x300HP turboprops and seat 6?

FYI Chimbu chuckles, GAMI/TAT do not yet offer a TNIO550 for Barons. Expected in 18 mths.

cheers,

Nivo

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"work that requires you to travel all over a large area (and is sufficiently well remunerated) something like a C210, 310 or Baron is every bit as cost effective in 2007 as they were in 1977"

Yep! The 1977 V35B that I fly today is every bit as cost effective a business tool as the 1977 C210 that I used to fly in 1977.

I joke about winning lotto and heading off to Toulouse to collect the TBM850, but the direct operating cost for 1 up personal transportation is SUBSTANTIAL.

The TBM850 is twice as quick as my Bo. The Bo uses 55 l/hr, so call it $85 an hour for fuel. Anyone in here put a fuel cost on a TBM 850 (Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-66D rated 850)?

I used to think if you could afford a TBM850 then you wouldn't be too concerned about the operating costs, but that doesn't seem to be the case unless you are seriously wealthy.

A G36 would be nice, but a low time, refurbished, nicely tricked out IO550 A36 would do the job just as well - and leave a chunk of change in the bank.

Personally I would not bother with the Baron. I think the safety advantage is mostly physcological. I'd go with the single and not give a fig about the
operating costs. I'd fly the bugger everywhere.

Dr