Baron 58 vs Cessna 310R 5-6 Adults?

James_Dean said:
I'm not a bearcat expert, but I have heard that not all bearcat operators always remember to restrict the mp to obtain 285hp. I think you can plan on about 10 kts over the 520's with the commensurate increase in fuel. I ran my 310 LOP as a rule, sometimes even in climb.

The fuel system isn't complicated if you follow a few rules -

1. First hour and last 30 minutes are on the mains.
2. Return fuel from engines goes to the mains so there needs to be room there when you're running the aux tanks. See rule #1.
3. If engine driven pump fails any fuel in the aux tanks is unavailable. See rules #1 and #2.

I would usually run the mains down to 25 gallons and then switch to the aux tanks and run them dry or until I had 30 min remaining. It really isn't hard.
Click to expand...


What happens if you don't restrict the MP to obtain 285hp? You just get some extra power right? Why would you have to restrict yourself to 285hp?

If you put the long range fuel tanks in the wing lockers, do those run off the aux? Does the 310 have actual tanks or are they bladders?
 
The restrict so they don't have to recertify things like Vmc to do the conversion. You go past 285hp and you are in test pilot land. Don't know about the wing lockers, but the 310R has bladders in the aux tanks but the mains do not.
 
JC150 said:
What happens if you don't restrict the MP to obtain 285hp? You just get some extra power right? Why would you have to restrict yourself to 285hp?

If you put the long range fuel tanks in the wing lockers, do those run off the aux? Does the 310 have actual tanks or are they bladders?
Click to expand...

If it's anything like a IO520D its RPM restricted to 300HP for short periods of time


Long story short, I'd not be looking at a 310, or most any Cessna twin. For me, a commander, 18, that's about it outside of a much larger aircraft or turbine.
 
Another thread I read said the Baron doesn't handle ice very well. Does anyone know how the 310 handles ice?
 
JC150 said:
Another thread I read said the Baron doesn't handle ice very well. Does anyone know how the 310 handles ice?
Click to expand...
Who said that?

Just because there are other airplanes that can carry more ice doesn't necessarily mean that a Baron doesn't handle ice well.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Who said that?

Just because there are other airplanes that can carry more ice doesn't necessarily mean that a Baron doesn't handle ice well.
Click to expand...

The thread was about a Navajo vs a Baron. I know, they're different animals, but I don't have any icing experience with the Baron. Curious as to how a 310 handles ice.
 
mscard88 said:
Yea I counted twice to make sure there were 7 and wondered the same thing.

Here we go on the way reasons why it's ok! :goofy:
Click to expand...
Don't want anyone to hate me for saying this but...


91.107 yada-yada-yada "each occupant must occupy an approved seat belt, and if installed, shoulder harness, during aircraft movement on surface, takeoff, and landing" and an exception in (a)(3)(i)- Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device.
 
JC150 said:
Another thread I read said the Baron doesn't handle ice very well. Does anyone know how the 310 handles ice?
Click to expand...

Mine was FIKI, but my experience was that the equipment was adequate for buying time to find conditions where icing wasn't occurring. I used the adds forecasting stuff and would not depart if it was probable that I would be dealing with moderate without very clear escape routes. It did not take much to lose 10 kts.
 
James_Dean said:
The fuel system isn't complicated if you follow a few rules -

1. First hour and last 30 minutes are on the mains.
2. Return fuel from engines goes to the mains so there needs to be room there when you're running the aux tanks. See rule #1.
3. If engine driven pump fails any fuel in the aux tanks is unavailable. See rules #1 and #2.

I would usually run the mains down to 25 gallons and then switch to the aux tanks and run them dry or until I had 30 min remaining. It really isn't hard.
Click to expand...

For #2, when you say return fuel from the engines, what do you mean by that?

So, let me get this straight, you burn off the tips for an hour to make room for the aux tanks to flow into the tips? So Why would you switch to the aux if the aux just flows into the tips?
 
Maurice Ellis said:
Don't want anyone to hate me for saying this but...


91.107 yada-yada-yada "each occupant must occupy an approved seat belt, and if installed, shoulder harness, during aircraft movement on surface, takeoff, and landing" and an exception in (a)(3)(i)- Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device.
Click to expand...

See the clarification I posted above. FAA has provided guidance that the reg doesn't mean "one belt=one person".

'When § 121.311 and § 91.107 (previously § 91.14) were first promulgated in 1971, the FAA clarified that the separate use provision for safety belts under part 121 was not intended to apply to part 91 operations. Rather, part 91 ‘‘requires only that each person on board occupy a seat or berth with a safety belt properly secured about him.’’ 36 Federal Register 12511 (July 1, 1971). The FAA has previously interpreted this provision as not requiring separate use of safety belts. See Legal Interpretation 1990–14. At the time, this allowance was permissible because seat belts were generally rated in terms of strength and some were rated for more than one occupant to accommodate side-by-side seating arrangements (i.e., bench seats) in certain aircraft that are commonly used in operations conducted under part 91. Thus, under the previous interpretations, the use of a seat belt and seat by more than one occupant may have been appropriate only if: (1) The belt was approved and rated for such use; (2) the structural strength requirements for the seat were not exceeded; and (3) the seat usage conformed with the limitations contained in the approved portion of the Airplane Flight Manual (14 CFR 23.1581(j))."
 
JC150 said:
For #2, when you say return fuel from the engines, what do you mean by that?
Click to expand...
With fuel injected engines, not all fuel that is sucked from the tank is used, and the rest is returned to the tank, but typically the return only goes to the main tanks.
 
mscard88 said:
It's your choice then with your children. Personally I don't agree with the clarification you referred to myself.
Click to expand...

Agree with that. I made the call with the understanding that in the event of an incident the chances of an injury were increased. Which is why the flight was conducted day VMC to minimize the risk. In my opinion, the choice was legal.
 
JC150 said:
For #2, when you say return fuel from the engines, what do you mean by that?

So, let me get this straight, you burn off the tips for an hour to make room for the aux tanks to flow into the tips? So Why would you switch to the aux if the aux just flows into the tips?
Click to expand...

They don't feed directly. They fuel supplied from the aux tanks is more than the engines can use. It's the excess that is returned to the mains (tips).
 
JC150 said:
For #2, when you say return fuel from the engines, what do you mean by that?

So, let me get this straight, you burn off the tips for an hour to make room for the aux tanks to flow into the tips? So Why would you switch to the aux if the aux just flows into the tips?
Click to expand...

I know this might not help much, but look at the schematic attached.

image.jpeg
 
Fearless Tower said:
With fuel injected engines, not all fuel that is sucked from the tank is used, and the rest is returned to the tank, but typically the return only goes to the main tanks.
Click to expand...

With continental fuel injection. Lycoming doesn't have a fuel return.
 
weilke said:
With continental fuel injection. Lycoming doesn't have a fuel return.
Click to expand...
Interesting. It's not just Continentals. My P&Ws with Bendix fuel injection return as well. I assumed it was standard for any fuel injection.
 
Twin_Flyer said:
They don't feed directly. They fuel supplied from the aux tanks is more than the engines can use. It's the excess that is returned to the mains (tips).
Click to expand...
And if you don't burn enough fuel out of the tip tanks, they will overfill and vent fuel out in flight, don't ask me how I know!!
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting. It's not just Continentals. My P&Ws with Bendix fuel injection return as well. I assumed it was standard for any fuel injection.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Iirc the fuel servo for the the Lycomings is made by Bendix.
 
JC150 said:
I'm trying to help a friend find information regarding the 5th and 6th seats in either of these frames. I figured someone on here would have experience with both of these planes.

So here's the question: With both the Cessna 310R and Baron 58 with all 6 seats facing forward, which aircraft allows the passengers in the last row (seats 5 & 6) to have the most 'comfort' (elbow room and legroom)?

We sat in the back of a Baron 58 with club seating to try it out, 3 of us total, and it was really uncomfortable trying to interlace legs and get comfortable. I can't imagine putting 4 adults back there. So I was told forward facing is the only way to go. We couldn't find a Cessna 310 to try out, but a web search for Cessna 310 interior images showed a much wider interior and what appears to be more legroom between the last row and middle row seats compared to the Baron 58 in forward facing configuration; but that's why I'm asking here to confirm that.

His mission is to carry 4 adults plus himself (5 adults total) on 400-500 mile trips. I doubt you could fit 2 adults in the back row of either the 310 or baron 58 in a forward facing configuration unless I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

Just a quick comment: When I was working on THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, Richard L. Taylor (who knows a thing or two about flying) told me that he would never fly a light twin at more than 90 percent of gross and would be happier at 80 percent. He excepted turboprops from that statement.

Bob Gardner
 
bobmrg said:
Just a quick comment: When I was working on THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, Richard L. Taylor (who knows a thing or two about flying) told me that he would never fly a light twin at more than 90 percent of gross and would be happier at 80 percent. He excepted turboprops from that statement.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...
That is a worthy point. One of the best way to stay alive in twins (as far as OEI is concerned) is to stay under gross.
 
bobmrg said:
Just a quick comment: When I was working on THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, Richard L. Taylor (who knows a thing or two about flying) told me that he would never fly a light twin at more than 90 percent of gross and would be happier at 80 percent. He excepted turboprops from that statement.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

80% of gross in most piston twins would be a challenge. Let's take a Seneca for example. Gross is 4750 lbs. 80% of that is 3800 lbs. Typical empty weight of a Seneca III is about 3250 lbs; a newer Seneca V is closer to 3400 lbs empty weight. The 80% of gross limitation would leave between 400 lbs and 550 lbs for fuel, passengers and baggage. Kind of negates the utility of the airplane. However the point about being below gross is well taken. The single engine climb performance change is significant the lighter the airplane.

I try to limit to max 75% of useful load (fly it light). An extended cross country might have 800 lbs of fuel (~5 hours) + 600 lbs of passengers & baggage (max). That's still under my 75% limit. If I have to load the cabin heavier the legs are shorter with more frequent fuel stops.
 
GRG55 said:
An extended cross country might have 800 lbs of fuel (~5 hours) + 600 lbs of passengers & baggage (max). That's still under my 75% limit. If I have to load the cabin heavier the legs are shorter with more frequent fuel stops.
Click to expand...

What aircraft do you fly?

So, using the 80% rule, which aircraft is the best to carry 4-5 adults on a regular basis for 400-500 miles non-stop and can land on 3,000 foot runways? I think Navajos are a bit much for my friend.. but that's his mission.
 
bobmrg said:
Just a quick comment: When I was working on THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, Richard L. Taylor (who knows a thing or two about flying) told me that he would never fly a light twin at more than 90 percent of gross and would be happier at 80 percent. He excepted turboprops from that statement.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

I tried to look at it a little differently because I was normally aspirated. My goal was to have a book performance of no less than 400fpm on one for the expected conditions. At my home airport on a standard day that meant 400 under gross. At 90* it was closer to 800 lbs. At higher density altitudes it gets very challenging.
 
JC150 said:
What aircraft do you fly?

So, using the 80% rule, which aircraft is the best to carry 4-5 adults on a regular basis for 400-500 miles non-stop and can land on 3,000 foot runways? I think Navajos are a bit much for my friend.. but that's his mission.
Click to expand...

'79 Piper Aztec (Lyc IO-540s, no turbos)

[an admittedly biased opinion, but I think the Aztec is one of the best light twins ever made if one wants to use their plane to actually go places and carry stuff - not the fastest, not the sexiest looking, but an honest affordable go-damn-near-anywhere-without-having-to-leave-stuff-behind-plane. I often carry 4 guys + baggage on 2 to 3 hour trips. I've also had 5 guys + an 11 year old aviation crazy boy in the plane on a 2400 nm round trip to OSH and back. If I was to step up from the Aztec, a Cessna 310R would be on the short list of planes I would consider. PM POA member Ted DuPuis, who has experience owning and flying quite a few twins including the Aztec and 310]
 
Last edited:
James_Dean said:
At higher density altitudes it gets very challenging.
Click to expand...

Light twins are such total dogs up here. Even the venerable old Turbo Seminole I'm training in can't do crap for climb above 80F outside, single engine. I can imagine how bad the performance of the normally aspirated ones would be here.

About the only good news about all the delays in my training is that it has cooled off a bit on some days now.

It was kinda nice to see the poor airplane actually hold altitude at 12000 on one engine, just barely, on a cool day a couple of weeks ago. Needed 3000 AGL for the full shutdown / feathered stuff. (Hey, I'm paying for two engines and we fly around on one all day! Grin...)

And we're talking two people and a little over half tanks.

I know it's just an itty bitty training twin, but man... Woof.

Must admit, when they're both turning, the turbo is nice. Just keep adding an inch of MP per 1000 for a nice sedate consistent climb... The 182 won't do that, of course. :)

A turbo-pig is better than a regular pig, up here! LOL
 
Last edited:
I got a good lesson departing KAEG outside of Albuquerque a few years ago. Due to a few circumstances I talked myself into accepting leaving only 300 lbs under gross. Then getting loaded and paid and all the other crap led to a 90 minute later departure than I had planned - as it was getting warmer outside. Long story short, there was far less of the 7500 ft runway left than I had planned on by the time I got her into the air. The book accelerate-stop was about 5000 ft, and I had briefed that if I hadn't reached 80kts by the 3000TG marker I would abort. It was closer than I wanted and I won't do that again.

and yes, I leaned for normal takeoff EGT prior to brake release.
 
denverpilot said:
Light twins are such total dogs up here.

>snip<

A turbo-pig is better than a regular pig, up here! LOL
Click to expand...
I flew a turbo-pig up here that was no better than a glorified single at the weights we used for takeoff. I simply accepted it, but it also left me with a cynical view of light twins on one engine.
 
It is always possible to put people in the 3rd row, but part of it depends on how happy you want them to be. I used to fly 6 adults in the 310N (which has a smaller cabin than the 310R). I always put small women in the back and it worked, although they weren't thrilled with it. I think that a 340 would be a better fit. Navajo would also be a good one. 335 is basically an unpressurized 340.

I am flying a 414 now and love it - if you're considering a 340, I would look at a 414. It costs the same to operate (same systems), and is much more comfortable for a relatively small speed loss.
 
I had 5 passengers once and when we were almost ready to go, the nose extended fully up on the strut. Had to move a heavy guy up front with me and it worked, but glad the feds weren't around doing ramp checks. Hey I was within W&B, that's my story and I'm staying with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top