just daydreaming, but anyone pireps on twin barons?

rbridges

rbridges

En-Route
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,749
Location
Warner Robins, GA
Display Name
Display name:
rbridges
Nothing in the foreseeable future, but I was talking to a friend of mine. He wants to eventually get a twin. Usual arguments--useful load, safety. I have a mooney that I like for its speed and economy, but I'm handcuffed by its lack of space and load carrying. My wife and me=awesome. My wife, me and friends=not gonna happen.

We were just kicking around the idea of him buying into half of my mooney and then splitting the costs of a baron. I have been doing some research on them, and it looks like you get a useful load of 1000+ish lbs with full fuel and 160knots. Fuel burn around 26 gph. Does that sound about right?

We're both instrument rated but fairly low hours (300 for me, 150 for him). Is staying proficient with a twin similar to single engine, or is it a whole different ball game? Also, are the baron's maintenance costs similar to other twins? Just wondering if I should just put this idea to rest or actually entertain it at some point.
 
rbridges said:
Nothing in the foreseeable future, but I was talking to a friend of mine. He wants to eventually get a twin. Usual arguments--useful load, safety. I have a mooney that I like for its speed and economy, but I'm handcuffed by its lack of space and load carrying. My wife and me=awesome. My wife, me and friends=not gonna happen.



We were just kicking around the idea of him buying into half of my mooney and then splitting the costs of a baron. I have been doing some research on them, and it looks like you get a useful load of 1000+ish lbs with full fuel and 160knots. Fuel burn around 26 gph. Does that sound about right?



We're both instrument rated but fairly low hours (300 for me, 150 for him). Is staying proficient with a twin similar to single engine, or is it a whole different ball game? Also, are the baron's maintenance costs similar to other twins? Just wondering if I should just put this idea to rest or actually entertain it at some point.
Click to expand...

What kind of Baron are you looking for? 55 or 58?

I was in the market for a good twin. Looked at 310s and 55 Barons. I ultimately settled on the Baron.

Mine is a '78 B55. I have full de-ice, so I am a little slower than book values. I flight plan for 175 at 24-25 gph. Like the. 310, the 55 has 6 seats, but is really a 4 people and baggage bird.

You can get more bang for your buck with a 310 from a straight acquisition standpoint, but IMO, Beech airplanes are slightly better built than Cessna and Beech is still making Barons and Bo's, so parts are pretty easy to come by. I made my decision after talking to both 310 and Baron owners and A&Ps.

Feel free to ask here or PM with any questions.
 
Figure nominally $300-400/hr to operate a Baron/310/Aztec all-inclusive for 100+ hours per year of use. It basically costs $10k per year to own before you start the engines. A Baron or 310 you can get more like 180 on 25 GPH combined (roughly). At 150 hours for your friend, he may be more difficult to insure, especially without any multi time. However, I bought the Aztec at 225 TT with about 80 hours in the Mooney, and I was insurable.

My personal feeling is that unless you are a professional pilot flying 200+ hours per year, switching back and forth between the Mooney and a twin isn't good for proficiency. If you get a twin, just fly the twin. The mindsets for singles and twins are different. On takeoff you need to decide what you're going to do in the event of an engine failure for every point along the runway before you line up. You need to be proficient in OEI operations, etc. I think maintaining proficiency in a single is much easier. A twin is only safer if the pilot is proficient. Otherwise it's more dangerous.

I think part of the question is how much you would fly your friends around if you had the bigger plane. The answer for most people is a lot less than they think. If you and your wife are happy with the Mooney, I'd stick with it. If you're not and you want a twin, then get it and stick with it.
 
you guys are pretty much telling me what I already thought. I countered with the idea of a 6 place single but he's pretty set on the idea of a twin. It will be a few years before he is ready to purchase so he may change his mind. I like looking at the classifieds in the meantime.
 
If you're at all tempted DO NOT test fly a Baron. They are an absolute delight to fly, so doing so could cause severe damage to your wallet.
 
I had a beech Travelair,used to get 160 in cruise at 22 gph. The Barron's are about 10 -15 knots faster with a higher fuel burn.. It's the maintainence. And insurance that will get you.
 
rbridges said:
you guys are pretty much telling me what I already thought. I countered with the idea of a 6 place single but he's pretty set on the idea of a twin. It will be a few years before he is ready to purchase so he may change his mind. I like looking at the classifieds in the meantime.
Click to expand...

An A36 gives you single simplicity and efficiency with a decent useful load. You could sell the Mooney, partner in one of those, and have a good compromise.
 
rbridges said:
Nothing in the foreseeable future, but I was talking to a friend of mine. He wants to eventually get a twin. Usual arguments--useful load, safety. I have a mooney that I like for its speed and economy, but I'm handcuffed by its lack of space and load carrying. My wife and me=awesome. My wife, me and friends=not gonna happen.

We were just kicking around the idea of him buying into half of my mooney and then splitting the costs of a baron. I have been doing some research on them, and it looks like you get a useful load of 1000+ish lbs with full fuel and 160knots. Fuel burn around 26 gph. Does that sound about right?

We're both instrument rated but fairly low hours (300 for me, 150 for him). Is staying proficient with a twin similar to single engine, or is it a whole different ball game? Also, are the baron's maintenance costs similar to other twins? Just wondering if I should just put this idea to rest or actually entertain it at some point.
Click to expand...

You've got Travelair speed there using Baron fuel burn. 26gph in a Baron gets you 180kts,
 
Last edited:
frfly172 said:
The Barron's are about 10 -15 knots faster with a higher fuel burn
Click to expand...

More like 15-25 kts faster for just a few gallons more. Like I said, mine is admittedly slow, but the de-ice gear will do that to you.

One of the things that is nice about the Baron is that if you want to do the economy thing, the econo-cruise in the 55 is as fast with less fuel burn than max cruise in a Duchess.
 
If all you want is the size to haul friends go for one of the big singles. $/mile they knock the socks off equvelnt twins.


But they are still singles
 
The other thing is that you'll find you don't haul your friends around as much as you think you will. This seems to be a universal truth, or at least close to it.
 
www.beechtalk.com

It's free to sign up. Be advised that for some, it's like the first, free hit off the crack pipe. :rofl:

In all seriousness, they have one of the best travel sections of any of the GA online forums.
 
rbridges said:
you guys are pretty much telling me what I already thought. I countered with the idea of a 6 place single but he's pretty set on the idea of a twin. It will be a few years before he is ready to purchase so he may change his mind. I like looking at the classifieds in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Look for an older 'toga or Lance? Decent load hauling, OK speed, single money.

My partner keeps making noises about more capacity, but it never really seems to go anywhere. If you're willing to make a fuel stop, the Mooney can go 4-up.
 
Twin Barons fly better than single Barons, for sure. The latter tend to fly into the side of the mountain when the engine dies in the soup, but you can watch it happen on the G1000.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The other thing is that you'll find you don't haul your friends around as much as you think you will. This seems to be a universal truth, or at least close to it.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have a Baron, you're likely to have more friends wanting to fly with you! :wink2:
 
Bill Jennings said:
Look for an older 'toga or Lance? Decent load hauling, OK speed, single money.

My partner keeps making noises about more capacity, but it never really seems to go anywhere. If you're willing to make a fuel stop, the Mooney can go 4-up.
Click to expand...

I always thought the PA32Rs were closer to twin money for single performance.

LDJones said:
Well, if you have a Baron, you're likely to have more friends wanting to fly with you! :wink2:
Click to expand...

I'd believe that for a Duke, but not a Baron. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I always thought the PA32Rs were closer to twin money for single performance.
Click to expand...
I have no personal experience with the NA Rs, but the PA32RT is definitely twin cost at single performance. You could overhaul two IO-470s for about the same cost as the TIO-540. And fuel consumption for speed is pretty similar.
 
Having flown a PA32 (Turbo Lance) and a Baron BE58 (IO550) for many years I can tell you they are not equivalent. The interior space is about equivalent and they both have 6 seats but the performance, ride and ability to haul a load is not. I fly 185K on ~24GPH LOP and can push it up to 200K on ~30GPH ROP.

You must stay proficient in the Baron; however, having redundancy on your critical systems provides a great piece of mind. People always focus on the two-engines but remember that also provides two alternators and pressure pumps. The Baron may provide FIKI and active radar; both of which make the plane a true 12-month performer.

People also get hung up on the "engine failure during takeoff"; that is a legitimate concern and you have to have your head in the game. However, the amount of time spent in the "critical zone" is about 10 seconds per flight. After that having the second engine becomes an asset that I personally won't due without. The Twin vs. Single debate has been going on a long time and both sides have legitimate points. It is really up to the pilot to decide what he feel comfortable with wrt safety, performance, and cost.

Did I mention that I like my Baron :yes:
 
Bill Jennings said:
Initial cost but I'd assume ongoing to be only slightly more than a Mooney, but not a lot. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, I think the PA32R shows why twins can be better. You've got a highly stressed and expensive engine and a draggy airframe. Fuel burn is high to get a slow speed as a result, with an expensive overhaul and more frequent top overhauls. You can get the fuel burn down, but then it goes even slower. Systems are otherwise pretty equivalent.

Two lower stress engines can be more reliable and efficient.

The A36 is a much better example of a 6-place single.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
An A36 gives you single simplicity and efficiency with a decent useful load. You could sell the Mooney, partner in one of those, and have a good compromise.
Click to expand...

Bill Jennings said:
Look for an older 'toga or Lance? Decent load hauling, OK speed, single money.
Click to expand...


Both of those are considerations. Ideally I'd like to keep the mooney and have access to a second bigger plane. The idea of burning 20+gph in a twin for every single flight sounds more expensive than I want to deal with.
 
rbridges said:
Both of those are considerations. Ideally I'd like to keep the mooney and have access to a second bigger plane. The idea of burning 20+gph in a twin for every single flight sounds more expensive than I want to deal with.
Click to expand...

I don't know if owning two planes is the "cheap" solution LoL. If I were to own two, one would be a travelling plane and the other would be something totally fun and impractical like a Pitts. Likely won't happen as I'm a self professed CheapBastard[TM].
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, I think the PA32R shows why twins can be better. You've got a highly stressed and expensive engine and a draggy airframe. Fuel burn is high to get a slow speed as a result, with an expensive overhaul and more frequent top overhauls. You can get the fuel burn down, but then it goes even slower. Systems are otherwise pretty equivalent.

Two lower stress engines can be more reliable and efficient.

The A36 is a much better example of a 6-place single.
Click to expand...

OK, I think I agree. I just know I'll never open the wallet wide enough for a twin, unless I was in with maybe 3 other guys.
 
rbridges said:
The idea of burning 20+gph in a twin for every single flight sounds more expensive than I want to deal with.
Click to expand...
That is essentially what you are committing to when you look at a Baron/310/Aztec..etc. You can get a B55 down to just under 20 gph, but you are doing 145-150 KTAS to do it.

Now, if you want twin redundancy with single engine fuel burn and good speed, but don't need quite the load hauling capability of the bigger twins, you might want to look at Twin Comanches. Some great deals to be had on those.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I don't know if owning two planes is the "cheap" solution LoL. If I were to own two, one would be a travelling plane and the other would be something totally fun and impractical like a Pitts. Likely won't happen as I'm a self professed CheapBastard[TM].
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. And when you look at the fixed costs of a second plane, it's hard to make the numbers add up in your favor.

Bill Jennings said:
OK, I think I agree. I just know I'll never open the wallet wide enough for a twin, unless I was in with maybe 3 other guys.
Click to expand...

That's also not a bad idea since it would also keep the utilization higher, which would lower costs since a more flown plane tends to be more reliable.

Fearless Tower said:
Now, if you want twin redundancy with single engine fuel burn and good speed, but don't need quite the load hauling capability of the bigger twins, you might want to look at Twin Comanches. Some great deals to be had on those.
Click to expand...

They're great planes on efficiency for sure. Of course then you're also at similar payload to a Mooney with not good OEI performance.
 
If you want to haul a load and haul fuel, you need big engines, that's really all there is to it. Load+Speed=Horsepower, you just can't violate that rule. The 310 and Baron are going to be your most economical planes to fill the roll, the Aztec is good on load as well, but not so good on speed for the same fuel burn. Personally I also like the IO-470s better than the 540s (or even 520s for that matter.)
 
All I can add to the conversation is my ride yesterday to Leadville, CO and back was quite pleasurable. Baron "D" model. Cabin up front was comfortable, and our rear passenger plus dog was also comfortable.

We cruised at 175KIAS with power settings for 13gpm per side. Taking off from Leadville (9950ft MSL, DA at the time about same) with full fuel and the three of us, we were off the ground at 60% of the runway.

On the return ride, we easily climbed to 15,500 and cruised there nice and easy.

Ride was enjoyable enough that if the need for a twin ever entered my equation, I'd have the Baron on my target list.
 
AggieMike88 said:
All I can add to the conversation is my ride yesterday to Leadville, CO and back was quite pleasurable. Baron "D" model. Cabin up front was comfortable, and our rear passenger plus dog was also comfortable.

We cruised at 175KIAS with power settings for 13gpm per side. Taking off from Leadville (9950ft MSL, DA at the time about same) with full fuel and the three of us, we were off the ground at 60% of the runway.

On the return ride, we easily climbed to 15,500 and cruised there nice and easy.

Ride was enjoyable enough that if the need for a twin ever entered my equation, I'd have the Baron on my target list.
Click to expand...


The Baron and 310 have basically the same performance for the given fuel, actually I beat the numbers you just quoted by 5gph combined by flying LOP. Where the 310 shines is the 7" extra cabin width, (49"vs42") where the Baron shines is the rough field landing gear. I have had three across in my back seat a couple of times and no one ever seemed uncomfortable.
 
Hmmm. We fly for fun (most of us).
We spend gobs of money learning and getting the ratings.
We work all week staring at the sky wishing we were up there flying off to somewhere.
Then we blow the budget on a faster airplane so we can 'get there' and be back on the ground sooner.
Do you not see your twisted logic?

Slow down grasshoppper and savor the moments.
 
Dr. O said:
Hmmm. We fly for fun (most of us).
We spend gobs of money learning and getting the ratings.
We work all week staring at the sky wishing we were up there flying off to somewhere.
Then we blow the budget on a faster airplane so we can 'get there' and be back on the ground sooner.
Do you not see your twisted logic?

Slow down grasshoppper and savor the moments.
Click to expand...

That may hold true for you, some of us fly because we have places we need to get to and don't want to spend forever getting there. There are many different missions for aviation, that's whey there are many different airplanes.
 
rbridges said:
that's actually not a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I had a chance to buy in to a BE55, nice plane, fresh annual, decent avionics. Guys wanted $35k buyin for 1/5 share on a plane that had just been appraised at $89k hull value.

Further research revealed:

1.) They had bought bad, and
2.) They wanted a large kitty for future engine overhaul and avionics upgrades.

The lead partner: "We can have a $250k plane that is as good as a new $1M+ plane."

Walked on that one.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I had a chance to buy in to a BE55, nice plane, fresh annual, decent avionics. Guys wanted $35k buyin for 1/5 share on a plane that had just been appraised at $89k hull value.

Further research revealed:

1.) They had bought bad, and
2.) They wanted a large kitty for future engine overhaul and avionics upgrades.

The lead partner: "We can have a $250k plane that is as good as a new $1M+ plane."

Walked on that one.
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of people trying to pull that game with twin partnerships, and it just doesn't work for obvious reasons. The thing to do if you went that route would be to get the partners first, then buy the plane.
 
Dr. O said:
Hmmm. We fly for fun (most of us).
We spend gobs of money learning and getting the ratings.
We work all week staring at the sky wishing we were up there flying off to somewhere.
Then we blow the budget on a faster airplane so we can 'get there' and be back on the ground sooner.
Do you not see your twisted logic?

Slow down grasshoppper and savor the moments.
Click to expand...

Dunno, most of my flying has been because I've been trying to get somewhere. I love flying, but I've got a job to accomplish. And since flying usually means leaving my family, the faster I can get back, the better.
 
Henning said:
The Baron and 310 have basically the same performance for the given fuel, actually I beat the numbers you just quoted by 5gph combined by flying LOP. Where the 310 shines is the 7" extra cabin width, (49"vs42") where the Baron shines is the rough field landing gear. I have had three across in my back seat a couple of times and no one ever seemed uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Getting to ride right seat with you and your 310 is an item on my aviation bucket list. 1) cuz you're such a character, I want to see if the hype = the man, and 2) the photos I've seen of your 310 are so nice, I want to see for myself if the hype = the airplane :D :D :lol:
 
I know their cost to fly is kinda high, but Aztecs are monsters for load, interior comfort, and are relatively fast. The do burn 24 + gph, but there are many out there for under 100k.

As others have mentioned, the early model Saratogas (before 1984), the Lances, Cherokee 6's, commonly have useful loads in the 1300 range, a nice cabin, cruise in the 145 to 158 (depending on model), with a fuel burn of 14 to 16 gph (non turbo) depending on power % and leaning. Yes you give up speed, but you get load. Another option is an older Bonanza A36 with tip tanks. The modification come with an STC that ups the useful load by about 200 lbs, but it does derate the plane from utility to standard. So some of those Bonanzas will approach the 1300 load mark also.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Getting to ride right seat with you and your 310 is an item on my aviation bucket list. 1) cuz you're such a character, I want to see if the hype = the man, and 2) the photos I've seen of your 310 are so nice, I want to see for myself if the hype = the airplane :D :D :lol:
Click to expand...

Well if you're looking for hype the henning is your guy......
 
Ted DuPuis said:
They're great planes on efficiency for sure. Of course then you're also at similar payload to a Mooney with not good OEI performance.
Click to expand...

You are right around 500 useful in both the Mooney I fly and in a Twin Comanche (assuming the usual ~1200 lbs useful), but that's only if the Twink has all three sets of tanks full. Leaving either the tips or the auxes empty gives you about 675lb payload, or leaving both tips and axes empty and filling the mains gives you about 850lb payload. Endurance/range with an hour reserve would be about 2:45/425nm with just mains full, 5:00/800nm with mains + either aux or tips, and a bladder-busting 6:30/1040nm with all tanks full - Very close to the 6:00/1020nm I expect out of the Ovation (with 31 gallons less capacity).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top