C310 Vs B58
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NC, USA
Age: 80
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
310 history
Here's the story of the original 310 development & why the tip tanks were thought a great safety feature. Written by one of the engineers on the program:
Defining the Cessna 310 - Air Facts Journal
Defining the Cessna 310 - Air Facts Journal
Fantastic, Bob!
Thanks.
Other commom modifications (besides VG kits) were the Robertson STOL kit, which replaced the split flaps with slotted fowler flaps.
Jack Riley also modified a couple in the US with counter rotating TIO-540 Lycomings (350 bhp and called the Turbostream), but don't think any made it out here. Burlair operates a beautiful turbo converted R model. Pretty sure he's spent over half a mil. Show quality.
Thanks.
Other commom modifications (besides VG kits) were the Robertson STOL kit, which replaced the split flaps with slotted fowler flaps.
Jack Riley also modified a couple in the US with counter rotating TIO-540 Lycomings (350 bhp and called the Turbostream), but don't think any made it out here. Burlair operates a beautiful turbo converted R model. Pretty sure he's spent over half a mil. Show quality.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Barons have a very high nose att when landing, lots of drivers had truble keeping the nw high enuf.
Yep, the Baron is the RR of light twins.
The 310 has a lot more room in the cockpit, at least you can take a deep breath with two largish people in the front.
As everyone says, bout the same for range, fbo, TAS, etc,etc. I've 1000 plus in each, so my choices are:the Baron for stability n handling, the 310 for room, esp the wing lockers.
Yep, the Baron is the RR of light twins.
The 310 has a lot more room in the cockpit, at least you can take a deep breath with two largish people in the front.
As everyone says, bout the same for range, fbo, TAS, etc,etc. I've 1000 plus in each, so my choices are:
the Baron for stability n handling, the 310 for room, esp the wing lockers.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have flown both (including B55 and earlier C310 models) and have to agree with pretty much all of the above comments.
My preference is for the Baron (especially the B55D & E) but it was my initial multi-engine and still enjoy that kick in the back it gives you when you put the throttles up. 
The C310 with VG does give you a bit more load (VG on the Baron only gives you better Vs and VMCA - not load) but the downside of the C310 is that bleedin' awful fuel system. I understand that it caught out a notorious CASA FOI on a trip from Cairns to the Torres Strait once.
The other drawback with the C310 is loading anyone who is not really mobile. The climb up the steps can be an ordeal for some. 
My preference is for the Baron (especially the B55D & E
) but it was my initial multi-engine and still enjoy that kick in the back it gives you when you put the throttles up. The C310 with VG does give you a bit more load (VG on the Baron only gives you better Vs and VMCA - not load) but the downside of the C310 is that bleedin' awful fuel system. I understand that it caught out a notorious CASA FOI on a trip from Cairns to the Torres Strait once.
The other drawback with the C310 is loading anyone who is not really mobile. The climb up the steps can be an ordeal for some.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wheelyubarrabackcreek
Age: 55
Posts: 36
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C310R fuel system.
C310R still is my favorite piston twin.
The fuel system, once you understood it's quirks is fine, the auxiliary tanks (bladders) use the engine driven pumps to supply fuel to the engine fuel control unit and are prone to vapourisation (I recall a pilot getting sacked for scaring passengers by selecting the auxiliary tanks simultaneously at TOPC, both engines surged for quite awhile due to vapourisation) A better technique is to allow the engine and fuel temperatures to stabilise, then select the auxiliary tanks one at a time, monitoring the fuel flow. If the fuel flow fluctuated, re selecting the mains with their electric pumps supporting the engine driven pumps restored the pressure/flow.
After landing, shutting down the engines for around 20 minutes resulted in the injector lines becoming heat soaked and becoming cantankerous to start.
The C310R has more room in the front (two big blokes sitting in the front seats had quite a bit more room between their shoulders than the Baron. The B58 had better access into the rear seats.
LAME's are adamant the C310 is easier to maintain (better access panel design)
Would love to have one for myself, however the fuel burn (115lts/hr) for a six seat twin would be hard to justify.:cool
The fuel system, once you understood it's quirks is fine, the auxiliary tanks (bladders) use the engine driven pumps to supply fuel to the engine fuel control unit and are prone to vapourisation (I recall a pilot getting sacked for scaring passengers by selecting the auxiliary tanks simultaneously at TOPC, both engines surged for quite awhile due to vapourisation) A better technique is to allow the engine and fuel temperatures to stabilise, then select the auxiliary tanks one at a time, monitoring the fuel flow. If the fuel flow fluctuated, re selecting the mains with their electric pumps supporting the engine driven pumps restored the pressure/flow.
After landing, shutting down the engines for around 20 minutes resulted in the injector lines becoming heat soaked and becoming cantankerous to start.
The C310R has more room in the front (two big blokes sitting in the front seats had quite a bit more room between their shoulders than the Baron. The B58 had better access into the rear seats.
LAME's are adamant the C310 is easier to maintain (better access panel design)
Would love to have one for myself, however the fuel burn (115lts/hr) for a six seat twin would be hard to justify.:cool
After landing, shutting down the engines for around 20 minutes resulted in the injector lines becoming heat soaked and becoming cantankerous to start.
The problem (common to both makes) then becomes starters and cabling having incresed resistance because of the abmient heat.
Probably one aspect that many here are interested in, and on a slightly different tack (but still within the scope of this thread) is which of the two would be a better endorsement to have (given the choice of one, but not the other) in terms of securing employment in that first multi-engine job?
To that end, you'll find no real distinct dominance of one type over the other in GA charter companies, although there are probably more Barons than 310s about. Some companies operate one type exclusively, some companies operate both types. Either is a capable light charter twin, certainly when compared to other machines such as Senecas, Partenavias, etc. My thoughts are that a C310/340 endorsement is as valuable as a Baron/Travelair endorsement when seeking work - they serve to show some level of experience with a "useful" GA airplane, but neither is a deal breaker if not held by a prospective pilot...
From a technical standpoint and from my experience, the 310's superior ground clearance is a solid benefit on unsealed airfields, two-bladed Barons in particular are at risk on these. Also, my opinion is that the 310 has a nicer "ride" for passengers - the Baron feels worse in rough air and with it's lower cabin roof, I have sconed my noggin too many times in a Baron on turbulent days to be a massive fan.
The Baron wins with the utility door and operating simplicity of the fuel system (but the engineers hate the bladder fuel cells...), however a big issue with the Baron is that you never positively know how much fuel is on board unless it is full, or empty - the accuracy of the fuel gauging system is a nightmare. The 310 has vastly more accurate fuel quantity sensing, but requires more solid SA in order to manage the fuel system (not altogether a bad thing, as it does get one versed in fuel system management rather than the "fire and forget" selections on the Beech). Never seen a 310 without evidence of the "fuel dump" from the main tanks...
The new model Barons are a beautiful thing with their ergonomics and avionics and it is hard to beat the solid feel of a Beechcraft (but don't you just hate removing the cowls on them?).
So, they are good in their own different ways - it's a bit like a Ford vs Holden thing...
To that end, you'll find no real distinct dominance of one type over the other in GA charter companies, although there are probably more Barons than 310s about. Some companies operate one type exclusively, some companies operate both types. Either is a capable light charter twin, certainly when compared to other machines such as Senecas, Partenavias, etc. My thoughts are that a C310/340 endorsement is as valuable as a Baron/Travelair endorsement when seeking work - they serve to show some level of experience with a "useful" GA airplane, but neither is a deal breaker if not held by a prospective pilot...
From a technical standpoint and from my experience, the 310's superior ground clearance is a solid benefit on unsealed airfields, two-bladed Barons in particular are at risk on these. Also, my opinion is that the 310 has a nicer "ride" for passengers - the Baron feels worse in rough air and with it's lower cabin roof, I have sconed my noggin too many times in a Baron on turbulent days to be a massive fan.
The Baron wins with the utility door and operating simplicity of the fuel system (but the engineers hate the bladder fuel cells...), however a big issue with the Baron is that you never positively know how much fuel is on board unless it is full, or empty - the accuracy of the fuel gauging system is a nightmare. The 310 has vastly more accurate fuel quantity sensing, but requires more solid SA in order to manage the fuel system (not altogether a bad thing, as it does get one versed in fuel system management rather than the "fire and forget" selections on the Beech). Never seen a 310 without evidence of the "fuel dump" from the main tanks...
The new model Barons are a beautiful thing with their ergonomics and avionics and it is hard to beat the solid feel of a Beechcraft (but don't you just hate removing the cowls on them?).
So, they are good in their own different ways - it's a bit like a Ford vs Holden thing...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard procedure on all the fuel injected engines for hot starts was:
Batt power on
mixtures to ICO (throttles didn't matter)
fuel pumps ON and remain on for a good few minutes while you do
passenger brief, door checks, seatbelts etc then
fuel pumps OFF
Lycos - lean start ie ICO, throttle cracked open 1/2 inch-ish crank it till it fires then mix smoothly to rich
Contis - rich start ie throttle 1/2 inch-ish, mix full rich, crank it.
Never failed.
Nothing alarms pax more than a pilot who can't start the bloody aeroplane.
Thread drift over
PS I knew a pilot who landed a C421 straight ahead after an EFATO at Roma (bloody good call too) and he related that his most lasting memory of the event was the tip tanks separating and spinning off on their own path away from the aeroplane, avgas spraying everywhere. Everyone got out, walked back to the apron and got in another aircraft and on their way.
Batt power on
mixtures to ICO (throttles didn't matter)
fuel pumps ON and remain on for a good few minutes while you do
passenger brief, door checks, seatbelts etc then
fuel pumps OFF
Lycos - lean start ie ICO, throttle cracked open 1/2 inch-ish crank it till it fires then mix smoothly to rich
Contis - rich start ie throttle 1/2 inch-ish, mix full rich, crank it.
Never failed.
Nothing alarms pax more than a pilot who can't start the bloody aeroplane.
Thread drift over
PS I knew a pilot who landed a C421 straight ahead after an EFATO at Roma (bloody good call too) and he related that his most lasting memory of the event was the tip tanks separating and spinning off on their own path away from the aeroplane, avgas spraying everywhere. Everyone got out, walked back to the apron and got in another aircraft and on their way.
Last edited by Jamair; 2nd Feb 2013 at 23:45.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NC, USA
Age: 80
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not what he said. He's sitting in the seat with boost pumps running while briefing paxs, etc. Meanwhile the boost pumps are circulating cool fuel from the tanks through the injector lines to the flow dividers & back through the return lines to the tanks. This purges vapor from the lines. It works!
Sorry in advance if I've misunderstood the intention of your post, Jamair, but my point was that Contis recirculate the fuel continually, Lycs just pressurise the heated stuff already in the lines.
Any engineering types want to confirm/explain, please?
Any engineering types want to confirm/explain, please?
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 8th Feb 2013 at 09:59.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Tis those return lines that bedevil the C310 by only going to the mains.On anything other than the b@stard child of a Cessna fuel system they go back to all tanks.
With the mixture in ICO fuel goes from the tanks to the fuel metering system only and is then returned to the tanks. So by running the pumps you will get cold fuel from the tanks in the lines up to the fuel metering unit. Once done a brief run of the aux boost pumps will then put cold fuel in the fuel pumps and injector lines making the start so much easier.
With Lycomings there is no such fuel return line so once fuel has vaporised in the lines, pumps and injector lines making the hot start on such things as Chieftains an art form.
In summary, Contis' take more fuel than they need and return the unwanted to the tanks. Lycomings take what they need so no need for the return lines.
With the mixture in ICO fuel goes from the tanks to the fuel metering system only and is then returned to the tanks. So by running the pumps you will get cold fuel from the tanks in the lines up to the fuel metering unit. Once done a brief run of the aux boost pumps will then put cold fuel in the fuel pumps and injector lines making the start so much easier.
With Lycomings there is no such fuel return line so once fuel has vaporised in the lines, pumps and injector lines making the hot start on such things as Chieftains an art form.
In summary, Contis' take more fuel than they need and return the unwanted to the tanks. Lycomings take what they need so no need for the return lines.
In this day of 'political corectness' I must first state my party choice bias. I am a Cessna person through & through.
Having got that off my chest I have got to say that the 310 is my choice of weapons.
Having flown most of the model numbers - from the B to the R - including the rotton 320 which I could never get a good landing out of!!
Being 6' 4" in the old language I found that I could comfortably sit in the seat & bung my nav bag between the seats.
As for the 'difficult' fuel system - we are supposed to be 'professional' pilots so learning what is really not a difficult set of rules is really a no brainer!!
In & out of dirt strips it is really better than the B58 - as stated earlier by virtue of it's height.
As for the complexity of the landing gear - some 13 seperate adjustments according to my LAME mate made the maintenance a little more demanding - I suppose that's like the fuel system. What that means in practical terms is that a very thorough pre flight is needed on the gear - especially with the older models with the welded struts.
I have done many ferry flights across the Pacific in 310's & found that with my height I could still be relatively supple after getting out of them. Some legs went 16hrs.
As for the B58 - I enjoyed flying them - but not in instrument conditions - not because of any lack of stability - but for the dopey panel set up that always placed the bloody ILS hidden away under the arm that the control wheel was on - for a big bloke that meant some kind of serious uncomfortable body positioning to see it right at a critical time.
Also I never ever felt comfortable in them - always felt confined & could never find a suitable place to put my nav bag.
Gotta say the build quality of the B58 was right up there at the top for that class of aeroplane.
As for pax ingress & exit - bugger them I'm having fun flying the thing!!
BTW as for load carrying capacity - the 310 will always trump the B58 - my record was 48% over gross coming out of Oakland - carrying normal ferry tanks but with all the spray gear from a 188 that was coming with me. In those days rules were not always followed. Even out of Pago Pago with that load the aeroplane worked well.
Having got that off my chest I have got to say that the 310 is my choice of weapons.
Having flown most of the model numbers - from the B to the R - including the rotton 320 which I could never get a good landing out of!!
Being 6' 4" in the old language I found that I could comfortably sit in the seat & bung my nav bag between the seats.
As for the 'difficult' fuel system - we are supposed to be 'professional' pilots so learning what is really not a difficult set of rules is really a no brainer!!
In & out of dirt strips it is really better than the B58 - as stated earlier by virtue of it's height.
As for the complexity of the landing gear - some 13 seperate adjustments according to my LAME mate made the maintenance a little more demanding - I suppose that's like the fuel system. What that means in practical terms is that a very thorough pre flight is needed on the gear - especially with the older models with the welded struts.
I have done many ferry flights across the Pacific in 310's & found that with my height I could still be relatively supple after getting out of them. Some legs went 16hrs.
As for the B58 - I enjoyed flying them - but not in instrument conditions - not because of any lack of stability - but for the dopey panel set up that always placed the bloody ILS hidden away under the arm that the control wheel was on - for a big bloke that meant some kind of serious uncomfortable body positioning to see it right at a critical time.
Also I never ever felt comfortable in them - always felt confined & could never find a suitable place to put my nav bag.
Gotta say the build quality of the B58 was right up there at the top for that class of aeroplane.
As for pax ingress & exit - bugger them I'm having fun flying the thing!!
BTW as for load carrying capacity - the 310 will always trump the B58 - my record was 48% over gross coming out of Oakland - carrying normal ferry tanks but with all the spray gear from a 188 that was coming with me. In those days rules were not always followed. Even out of Pago Pago with that load the aeroplane worked well.
'Tis those return lines that bedevil the C310 by only going to the mains.On anything other than the b@stard child of a Cessna fuel system they go back to all tanks.
Ok, I have read it again
Still doesn't pass with me
Pilot loads pax, hops in, puts bat/pumps on then briefs paxs from his seat position for a few minutes - does this include the rear paxs including 2 brace positions, emergency exits, rear door opening, belts, vents ect
Maybe he just briefs the front seat pax separately for a few minutes having previously briefed the rest.
I'm being picky but in all the years I flew both types I don't remember starting to be much of an issue
Still doesn't pass with me
Pilot loads pax, hops in, puts bat/pumps on then briefs paxs from his seat position for a few minutes - does this include the rear paxs including 2 brace positions, emergency exits, rear door opening, belts, vents ect
Maybe he just briefs the front seat pax separately for a few minutes having previously briefed the rest.
I'm being picky but in all the years I flew both types I don't remember starting to be much of an issue
Doesn't take that long.
Doesn't really matter if no-one told you about it, you managed to get easy starters (lucky you!), the shutdown times were short enough not to heat soak or long enough for the engine to have cooled sufficiently. Maybe you have the knack for hot starts? That's just the difference between Lycs and Contis and if it helps someone who's not aware, it ain't a trade secret.
If anything, I hope it inspires those driving Contis to have a discussion with their LAMEs about the donks they operate.
Next topic...Lycoming Density and Differential Pressure controllers and how Continental does it instead.
Doesn't really matter if no-one told you about it, you managed to get easy starters (lucky you!), the shutdown times were short enough not to heat soak or long enough for the engine to have cooled sufficiently. Maybe you have the knack for hot starts? That's just the difference between Lycs and Contis and if it helps someone who's not aware, it ain't a trade secret.
If anything, I hope it inspires those driving Contis to have a discussion with their LAMEs about the donks they operate.
Next topic...Lycoming Density and Differential Pressure controllers and how Continental does it instead.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the story of the original 310 development & why the tip tanks were thought a great safety feature. Written by one of the engineers on the program:
Defining the Cessna 310 - Air Facts Journal
Defining the Cessna 310 - Air Facts Journal
Maybe some older ex Hazelton guys know the story??
Seasonally Adjusted
The 310R is an awesome machine!
I should also add that I haven't flown a Baron. I've been down the back throwing out rafts/flares during maritime SAR training, but that doesn't count.
The size difference would be my biggest concern. The Baron always seemed too cozy for my liking, and limited in baggage space. The 310R had a massive nose locker, wing lockers and room behind the back seat.
My only gripe with the 310 is the seat position. Although there is plenty of room up front, the seat doesn't seem to wind down low enough. Not ideal for the taller types. I once heard it described as similar to sitting on a bar stool at the kitchen table.
I remember taxiing a 310 to depart a remote Aboriginal community...the nurse started waving frantically from behind the fence. I stopped and shut-down to see what the fuss was all about. She pointed out that the steps were still down after we had shut the doors and started moving!
I should also add that I haven't flown a Baron. I've been down the back throwing out rafts/flares during maritime SAR training, but that doesn't count.
The size difference would be my biggest concern. The Baron always seemed too cozy for my liking, and limited in baggage space. The 310R had a massive nose locker, wing lockers and room behind the back seat.
My only gripe with the 310 is the seat position. Although there is plenty of room up front, the seat doesn't seem to wind down low enough. Not ideal for the taller types. I once heard it described as similar to sitting on a bar stool at the kitchen table.
I remember taxiing a 310 to depart a remote Aboriginal community...the nurse started waving frantically from behind the fence. I stopped and shut-down to see what the fuss was all about. She pointed out that the steps were still down after we had shut the doors and started moving!