Baron e55 vs 58
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baron e55 vs 58
Hi
I have been looking at trading up my aircraft for a bigger/faster one.
And I have looked at many kinds of planes.(single piston, single turbine, twin turbine, twin piston)
But I like the Barons. (I know they are expensive in parts)
If any of you have experience with these aircraft please share your thoughts.
The ones I am looking at are an e55 or the 58 (not the g1000)
If you have any pro/cons
The type of flying I do is Buisness and with the family (4 + a dog)
typical trip 300 Nm. Need to have a lot of fuel on my trips, many airports up here dont have 100ll fuel.
Now seems like the time to buy prices are down and so is the euro.
I have been looking at trading up my aircraft for a bigger/faster one.
And I have looked at many kinds of planes.(single piston, single turbine, twin turbine, twin piston)
But I like the Barons. (I know they are expensive in parts)
If any of you have experience with these aircraft please share your thoughts.
The ones I am looking at are an e55 or the 58 (not the g1000)
If you have any pro/cons
The type of flying I do is Buisness and with the family (4 + a dog)
typical trip 300 Nm. Need to have a lot of fuel on my trips, many airports up here dont have 100ll fuel.
Now seems like the time to buy prices are down and so is the euro.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nordic
I did my twin rating in a 55 and loved it! The one I flew had 260 HP engines which were economical on fuel.
The E 55 had 285 hp engines so would be a rocket
I know they fetch a premium on resale so that must say something of the E.
I then flew for a year and a half on a contract into a disused ex military airfield in Cornwall every week.
We had 400 meters of good runway followed by rough and I used a Baron 55 for sometime before we changed the aircraft to a Cessna 303.
The 55 has superb handling and oozes character! Taking it into that strip I always got it down and stopped within the 400 meters of good runway that was after a very low level runway inspection to make sure there were no animals on the runway and often under scud cloud.
It is really a 10-12k aeroplane as non turbo charged the manifold pressures dropped off.
Quirky with all black levers for props, throttle and mixture in that order and I was tempted to stick coloured stickers on the levers.
But my favourite little twin with bulletproof engines.
The E 55 with the 285 HP engines would be faster with better climb rates.
There was a turbo version which would be the ultimate the 56TC
The one I flew was not deiced although it had prop antiice.
You will love it!
The 58? It has a PAX door rather than the usual back to back seating in the 55 and everyone in through the crew door.
If you want club seating and a seperate Pax door go for the 58.
It will be more modern with better avionics fix unless you find an E 55 updated?
The most economical is the straight 55 with 260 hp units Seneca fuel burns but quicker than the Seneca.
There was even a pressurised version with a P
The 55s will be 30 year old aircraft now so if you want newer the 58
Good choice if you like Quirky with character, excellent performers with great handling but expensive to operate? but suppose thats my choice in women too
Beechcraft Baron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pace
I did my twin rating in a 55 and loved it! The one I flew had 260 HP engines which were economical on fuel.
The E 55 had 285 hp engines so would be a rocket
I know they fetch a premium on resale so that must say something of the E.I then flew for a year and a half on a contract into a disused ex military airfield in Cornwall every week.
We had 400 meters of good runway followed by rough and I used a Baron 55 for sometime before we changed the aircraft to a Cessna 303.
The 55 has superb handling and oozes character! Taking it into that strip I always got it down and stopped within the 400 meters of good runway that was after a very low level runway inspection to make sure there were no animals on the runway and often under scud cloud.
It is really a 10-12k aeroplane as non turbo charged the manifold pressures dropped off.
Quirky with all black levers for props, throttle and mixture in that order and I was tempted to stick coloured stickers on the levers.
But my favourite little twin with bulletproof engines.
The E 55 with the 285 HP engines would be faster with better climb rates.
There was a turbo version which would be the ultimate the 56TC
The one I flew was not deiced although it had prop antiice.
You will love it!
The 58? It has a PAX door rather than the usual back to back seating in the 55 and everyone in through the crew door.
If you want club seating and a seperate Pax door go for the 58.
It will be more modern with better avionics fix unless you find an E 55 updated?
The most economical is the straight 55 with 260 hp units Seneca fuel burns but quicker than the Seneca.
There was even a pressurised version with a P
The 55s will be 30 year old aircraft now so if you want newer the 58
Good choice if you like Quirky with character, excellent performers with great handling but expensive to operate? but suppose thats my choice in women too
Beechcraft Baron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 18th Aug 2012 at 07:17.
I agree with Pace's assessment. Having flown the B55, E55 and the 58, I thought the longer 58 was the nicest flying one and the most practical. It is also the only one available with flight into known icing certification.
But, these aircraft are expensive to operate and maintain so do your homework on what it will cost you to own and operate one including insurance. A fellow I know that upgraded from a P model Bonanza (260 hp) to a B55 Baron (2 X 260hp) found his all in cost per flight hour flown over 5 years was almost triple that of the Bonanza. Much higher insurance, the need to get a bigger hangar, more recurrent training, and doubling the engine/prop overhaul costs add up fast. He also found that his average true airspeed was only about 10 % higher then the Bonanza. However for him the safety benefits of the second engine and the much stronger climb were worth it.
IN any case there are lots for sale so buy the best one you can find it will be the cheapest to own in the long run.
But, these aircraft are expensive to operate and maintain so do your homework on what it will cost you to own and operate one including insurance. A fellow I know that upgraded from a P model Bonanza (260 hp) to a B55 Baron (2 X 260hp) found his all in cost per flight hour flown over 5 years was almost triple that of the Bonanza. Much higher insurance, the need to get a bigger hangar, more recurrent training, and doubling the engine/prop overhaul costs add up fast. He also found that his average true airspeed was only about 10 % higher then the Bonanza. However for him the safety benefits of the second engine and the much stronger climb were worth it.
IN any case there are lots for sale so buy the best one you can find it will be the cheapest to own in the long run.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The P model is a bit of a dog with all the added weight. There's a P that comes into my home field quite regularly and it uses more rwy than any twin I've seen except for a Duke. If you need pressurisation, there are probably better options. But if you don't, then they seem like great planes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for all the info
Dont know yet if it will be the 55 or 58.
They seem like very good aircraft.
Will crunch the numbers one more time.
Best regrds
Nordic
Dont know yet if it will be the 55 or 58.
They seem like very good aircraft.
Will crunch the numbers one more time.
Best regrds
Nordic
If I had to choose a Baron then I'd plump for a 58. The extra space & rear doors aren't to be sniffed at. But why limit yourself to a Baron? Why not consider an Aerostar, C310, Partenavia or similar? Or slightly larger, one of the Navajos or Cessna cabin class twins?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly the BE36 (single engine version on the 58??) BE55, BE60 (15 years).
All I can say, nothing else flies like a Beech; parts are expensive but so are other brands these days. Build quality is such that you rarely need Beech parts.
Have a look at Beechtalk.com for advice.
The fact that both the BE36 and BE58 are still being built is a testimony to their quality.
If you don't need a twin, a BE36 with turbonormalizer, gross weight increase to 4000lbs, O2, TKS is about as good as you can get for a non-pressurized piston single. I fly my friends BE36TN side by side with my own BE36, mine is more economical, his is faster and can carry more.
Mid-70s aircraft are lighter and can carry more than later models.
It pays to find a good shop with Beech experience, do a BPPP program yourself, take the APS course if you haven't yet.
After 54 airplane-years of Beech ownership, I have yet to discover any bad hidden traits.
All I can say, nothing else flies like a Beech; parts are expensive but so are other brands these days. Build quality is such that you rarely need Beech parts.
Have a look at Beechtalk.com for advice.
The fact that both the BE36 and BE58 are still being built is a testimony to their quality.
If you don't need a twin, a BE36 with turbonormalizer, gross weight increase to 4000lbs, O2, TKS is about as good as you can get for a non-pressurized piston single. I fly my friends BE36TN side by side with my own BE36, mine is more economical, his is faster and can carry more.
Mid-70s aircraft are lighter and can carry more than later models.
It pays to find a good shop with Beech experience, do a BPPP program yourself, take the APS course if you haven't yet.
After 54 airplane-years of Beech ownership, I have yet to discover any bad hidden traits.
Está servira para distraerle.
The Baron 58 will probably resell more easily in the future. That pax door makes it slightly more versatile as a charter aircraft. I don't know though whether you'd find a dual control 58. I suspect all of them were made with the throw over yoke but as your family get older they might want to fly as well.
As a pilot aircraft I think Barons are unbeatable with two possible thoughts.
I've always rather wanted a Duke and there have been one or two good ones available in South Africa recently. That though is not a cheap option. The other consideration, especially if you fly in hot climates or want a good view might be the Rockwell Commanded 580. That's is even easier to fly well than the Baron.
These have cropped up from time to time on South Africa. Eskom used to have a fleet of them. There may also be some knocking around in the Caribbean but corrosion is always a problem on a sea side aircraft.
As a pilot aircraft I think Barons are unbeatable with two possible thoughts.
I've always rather wanted a Duke and there have been one or two good ones available in South Africa recently. That though is not a cheap option. The other consideration, especially if you fly in hot climates or want a good view might be the Rockwell Commanded 580. That's is even easier to fly well than the Baron.
These have cropped up from time to time on South Africa. Eskom used to have a fleet of them. There may also be some knocking around in the Caribbean but corrosion is always a problem on a sea side aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FMMI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nordic Flying,
You should definitely report your quest here:
BeechTalk - Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group Web Forums
Tons of good and useful experience there.
You should definitely report your quest here:
BeechTalk - Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group Web Forums
Tons of good and useful experience there.
