C310 Vs B58
 

Which one is better? How much to charter one in the top end?

C310, because it looks better.

Getting passengers into the barn doors of a B58 is a darn sight easier than the 310.

310 has nacelle lockers and less W&B problems.
Same speed/load.
Pretty well personal preference, hire either one!:ok:

I've been told that the C310 is a little better for range/payload (when VG equipped), but I've never flown a Baron so cannot really confirm that.

If by charter you mean you'd like to charter one as a passenger, then I'd agree there's little to no difference. Same number of pax seats, practically same speed depending on props/engines/airframe of the particular aeroplane, and around the same cost.

The baron is the rolls royce, the 310 a work horse.

I'd rather fly the baron, it's hard to beat in the small twin market.

I'd rather operate a 310 as its cheaper, and gets the job done.

Bit like Holden V Ford, both do the same task at the end of the day. Same donks (Similar) same seat No's. I've flown & worked on both, the Baron is built like a tank, the Cessna feels plastic & just doesn't seem to have the same quality about it.
Baron has odd engine management controls, not conventional (accept very late models) so I always found from a pilots POV awkward, personal choice there.
Access wise the Baron beats the Cessna hands down.

Never did like the tip tanks being the main tanks on the Cessna with the continuous operating fuel pumps sharing the same circuit breakers as the Ldg Light motors if I recall.Bit of an odd fuel management system to I think. 1hr out of the mains (Tips) b4 you could use the wing tanks due return fuel???....anyone?
That may not be entirely correct as it has been many years since I flew them so perhaps someone in the know could enlighten me on that.
I used to fly the first Q model 310 that had no Omni vision window, flew straight & fast, an Ex Hazo's job.
'Corv' as far as yr original Q I can't help but it did give me a chance to go back & reminisce thanks:-)

Wmk2

Never flew a 310 but many B58 hours and every one of them was great. It's really beautiful to fly.

For passenger comfort, and ease of entry / exit, its hard to beat the Be-58 with the 'Club Seating' arrangement, and its also easier for the 'l'il ole fat pilot's of today' as well....

We ain't as 'athletic' as we used to be....and to crawl into the Baron is easy....

Cheers:ok:

Got a coupla hundred in both; really is a personal preference thing. The Baron I found to be simpler fuel system and easier for pax to get into and out of, plus it handled really sweet and the engines (although the same model IO520) seemed a lot smoother. Both have good nose lockers. The 310 was slightly more stable in turbulence but a bugger to load, although the wing lockers were useful. Wally, the fuel system was an interesting setup. The mains were the tips, the Auxes inboard and some also had slipper tanks in the nacelles. The fuel return always went to the tips, so you had to use some out of the tips before switching to auxes, otherwise the returns from the engines would refill the tips and then overflow (see the ATSB report from the Newman WA Polair crash). Fuel from the nacelles was sometimes a problem, IIRC it was pumped by a motive unit so if the engine failed on that side, no fuel could be pumped out of that nacelle tank for x-feed. Skytrans (the old, real one) had a good idea: the engineers developed a new system with an STC that had electric pumps in the auxes. You flew on the mains, when they got about half down you flipped a switch and the pumps transferred fuel from auxes into mains. VH-ARN had that I think.

Either aeroplane is a nice ride and a good IF platform.

I doubt you would be chartering either for less than $750/hr.

The 55 had even worse CG issues. Did a charter once with 4 miners. Had to load 136kg (thereabouts) of cinder blocks in the nose just to keep it balanced. Left 1 hr range worth of fuel.:rolleyes:

Jamair,
All correct for the 310 except for the engine failure bit, it is the aux's you can't x feed with an engine out. nacelles are flip the switch job and transfer into the mains (tips). skytrans's mod was a good bit of practical engineering and made things safer for us dumb pilots.:}

I've always found the extra weight right out on the tips of the 310 make it a little unstable in roll, especially at lower speeds.

Tnxs 'Jamair' 4 the in-depth update :)I do recall the fuel going overboard if there was insufficient room in the tip tanks for the return of same.
'Jamair' I found the donks on the Cessna where smoother at low eng RPM as the Baron felt like they had hotted up high lift cams in their engines much like a hotted up V8 car, lumpy cam engines as we used to call our high performance car engines,well if ya can call an old FC Holden grey motor sporting twin Stromberg downdraft carbies "hotted up":ok::-)
The 310 was a good stepping stone onto the 400 series Cessnas I reckon & the old Baron was a good stepping stone to the Qeenies or King's.

Ah the good 'ole days.....damn where did they go:-(

I'd hate to imagine what the chtr rate is these days for such machines.

Wmk2

Yeah 'twit', knew it was one or t'other........

Skytrans also had a STOL 310 which was a novel handling package. I liked it but some guys had trouble doing decent landings.

The Baron does have that lumpy engine feel but once you open the taps it was smoooooth.

I only had single barrel strom on the 138 EK Wal, but I made up for it by dumping the oil bath air cleaner for a paper element thing from the car shop that you could hear the intake noise from at 300 yards....:}

The older you get, the better you were:ok:

Flown the C310R, one with VG Kit and Aircon and was an absolute pleasure. No problems with loadings for me, the nose locker made things pretty easy as it was pretty roomy and the wing lockers were good as well (No Nacelle Tanks in this one). Always did worry me about the strain on the wings with full main tanks with a bit of turbulence!!! And the Aux Tank thing with the waiting for an hour so you didn't dump your fuel overboard was a little odd.

Passenger loading sure looks easier with that rear door and the club config looks nice with the Baron, but I never had any real issues with loading people on or off though.

Really think it depends on the individual Aircraft and what you really want out of it.

Why would this be of any concern at all?:confused:
The main tank placement actually relieves the loads placed on the spar joints at the centre of the aircraft, increasing the zero fuel loading ability and distributing the load more evenly across the span.:8

Several reported reasons (besides the one I just mentioned) as to why the mains were located here include stability about the londitudinal axis and in turns (from the C310G, the tips took on a more aerodynamic shape - "stabila-tips") and crash survival (the tips supposedly separate in the event of a ground impact - this occurred to the second prototype. The tips broke away from the wings and it didn't burn after impact.)

Never could think of a good reason for that fcuked up fuel system, though. Byproduct of adding the aux tanks after the first couple of models?

Huh, never thought about it that way before MakeItHappenCaptain, just always made me a little nervous going through turbulence and watching the aircraft try to flap its wings...

Thats how the C310 rolls airborne, it flaps its wings :cool::cool:

And the '58 wags its tail :E

Lots of options.

If you need double the Cessna 310, how about the Cessna 620?

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/Cessna620.jpg

Or if you need Cessna 310 capacity but double the speed, how about the Cessna 407?

http://www.machdiamonds.com/cessna407.jpg

Lots of options with Cessnas!! :D

Was told by a few people early in my C310 flying that the tip tanks were a contributing factor to the type being a difficult aeroplane to land smoothly or softly. Possibly an OWT, or complete rubbish... but it does remain the most elusive type I've flown when it comes to greasers. The C404 was the other end of the scale.