Seneca vs B58 vs 310

flyersfan31

flyersfan31

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
14,269
Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
OK, let's start with the obvious. I'm nuts for starting the thread. I know that. Ken Ibold has a far more immediate need. Still, I'm intrigued by the concept of a twin after a few night IFR flights with pax. Yup, Vmc rollover is an issue. A twin is no safer than the pilot flying it. I'm no dummy, and I am a careful (albeit low time) pilot.

If I were to seriously engage in a search for a twin, what would the lodge (that is, you all) say about the choices in the thread title? Seneca - comfy, cheaper, lots of FIKIs available (I'd like the defenses, whether I opt to fly in wx or not). B58 - snugger, more expensive, better handling. 310 - needs good maintenance, roomy, probably more pilot skills req'd.

What say ye? Rest assured, I wouldn't commit to any twin without committing to recurrent training (FlightSafety, etc) even without insurance co demands. Plus, I still need a few hrs before my logbook hits the magic 300hrs and I even consider such a purchase. I'm not even committed to twins. I'm still more inclined to go single (Bo, Toga)

If you exclude operating costs from the equation ( I can handle the fuel burn and mx if I opt for a mid-weight twin), what are your thoughts???? I'm open to intermediate steps too, like Seminole/Duchess time. Part of my question relates to whether I can skip that step (and any associated aircraft disposition steps).

Yup, question's been asked time and again. Still, every day brings new experience... Thanks all, in advance.
 
Time in all 3. Value goes only to the Seneca II/III. The additional marginal speed of the T310R FIKI is not worth the added $$s. My annual budget for the Seneca II (operations, not upgrades) is about 20K and I fly about 180 hrs in THAT bird/year.

Bob Gerace over on the red board hasn't had a year below 50K with his 310R, which will outrun me handily by about 20 kts.

The FIKI Barons are all afer 1984 and are quite pricey. They don't have the cabin of either of the above, are fast, and are SOB's in a Vmc Rollover. The BEST I can get out a Baron at Vmc rollover is a split S. Once she starts to go, even with throttles closed, over she goes.
 
Andrew

First I hate you! That aside I am friends with the guy that has the Seneca II on the field. Ya know the one with the entire plane covered even the props. I can get you in it if you want. He ( paul) will probably take us up if you like he usually goes out on sundays.
 
With the three you mention, I agree with Bruce. I trained in a B55 doing my MEI and it will eat your lunch in a botched Vmc demo. That said, Barons are sure alot of fun to fly and they remind me of the "Harley Davidsons" of light twins.
What is your mission? Weight hauling? Speed? Reliability? Easy to fly? Cost? Safety? K.I.? STOL?
 
Don't know what my opinion is worth on this, but during my searches I repeatedly came back to bang for the buck. I'm not made of money like a lot of twin owners are, and so purchase price and operating costs were more important criteria than handling and speed. And with a family of 5, I cannot ignore the need to carry volume as well as weight.

Given that, the Seneca has the upper hand in this lineup. You can pay less for a given vintage/equipment example of Seneca than Baron or, for a given dollar investment, get a much nicer Seneca than B58. The mx stories on 310s always steer me away from them, as does the rear seat access issue. The Seneca has the biggest cabin and the most loading flexibility.

To me, getting there 15 minutes later or losing out on the bragging rights or whatever panache might be associated with a B58 are not as important as keeping the pax happy and maintaining my financial solvency. Others with more abundant financial resources won't be as value-conscious as I am, and the B58 is a fine, fine airplane...
 
Bill M. said:
With the three you mention, I agree with Bruce. I trained in a B55 doing my MEI and it will eat your lunch in a botched Vmc demo. That said, Barons are sure alot of fun to fly and they remind me of the "Harley Davidsons" of light twins.
What is your mission? Weight hauling? Speed? Reliability? Easy to fly? Cost? Safety? K.I.? STOL?
Click to expand...

You can tame the VMC beast on any Baron with VGs and they also improve the low speed handling to the point where you have solid roll control just above stalling speed.

There's no question that the Seneca has the most cabin room although most Barons have a lot more baggage space (nose and rear) IMO. The CG range is way better on a Seneca (and likely the 310) than the Barons but the large nose baggage compartment pretty much makes that a non issue. I think the speed advantage of a B58 over a Seneca II/III is considerably more than Bruce is claiming for the 310 unless you are above 12K where the turbos start to even the gap. But Bruce is correct that the initial cost of a KI Baron is likely to exceed that of a Seneca II by a noticeable margin. Oh, and Senecas don't wag their tails without a yaw damper like the Barons (and 310s IIRC) do.

Maintenance costs are likely to be pretty similar between a Baron and a Seneca. Parts (airframe not engine) tend to be pricier for Barons, but they also seem to be required less often IMO so it should pretty much even out.
 
bbchien said:
Time in all 3. Value goes only to the Seneca II/III. The additional marginal speed of the T310R FIKI is not worth the added $$s. My annual budget for the Seneca II (operations, not upgrades) is about 20K and I fly about 180 hrs in THAT bird/year.

Bob Gerace over on the red board hasn't had a year below 50K with his 310R, which will outrun me handily by about 20 kts.

The FIKI Barons are all afer 1984 and are quite pricey. They don't have the cabin of either of the above, are fast, and are SOB's in a Vmc Rollover. The BEST I can get out a Baron at Vmc rollover is a split S. Once she starts to go, even with throttles closed, over she goes.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better. The best all around value will b e Th Seneca II+. As for the intermediate step time, don't bother, it will be of no value. The insurance will still require XX hrs in type, and one of the stipulations on my insurance on the Travel Air (I had 60 some hrs total time and no multi rating and a few hours of Beech 18 time) was that I get my rating in my plane and 25 hrs with instructor. All three have been used to train in. The nicest to fly though will still be the Baron, but it will not be the best value $$$ wise. The 310 has the greatest Cool factor but as noted and as I have stated many times previously it's a maintenance hog. Not only that, When things go wron, it's turns into a handfull real fast, but if you're sharp, she'll get you through. I lost one just after rotation and managed to make it back around. I'd like an old B model myself (I like the Tuna Tanks) but then, I'd be doing my maint. So you have to figure out your budget, mission requirements and desires.

In the end, my recommendation goes to the Seneca line with the exception of the I, it just doesn't cut it.
 
Just had a friend purchase a late 70s KI 58 Baron. He got a pretty good deal on it--John Kidd. Perhaps he'll share some information on it.
I do respect what Bruce says, but once past basic considerations, purchasing a plane is lot like a car: at some point personal preference comes into play. There are different manufactures to suit different tastes.

The Senecas and Cessnas are great planes, I just much prefer the Beech line. Kind of like going to a luxury car. Are you comparing turboed planes or NA when you say the 58 Baron? Sounds like turboed. A K-ice NA 58 could be purchased in the mid 100s for a mid 70s model, with mid time engines and older avionics. The 55 line would be less. The P-Baron or TC 58 will be quite a bit more.

If at all possible, fly in each. If you're ever over my way, I'd be happy to show you the P-Baron. Perhaps John would show you his 58. Lance is flying a nice 55 series.

We all have different tastes, preferences and pocket books. That's why these different planes are made. The P-Baron can go 240 knots according to the POH at FL250. I normally cruise at FL200 at 215 to 220 knots which is easier on the engines, keeps the cockpit at 10,000 feet or less and saves fuel.

Best,

Dave
 
Am I the only one here who saw "B58" and immediately thought of a large delta wing with 4 engines hanging under the wings and lots of speed potential? :D
 
flyersfan31 said:
...310 - snip-probably more pilot skills req'd.
Click to expand...
agree with everything here except that, the 310 is really a pussycat, only thing you have to learn is to not dance on the rudder on final with all that weight out on the wingtips
 
Ghery said:
Am I the only one here who saw "B58" and immediately thought of a large delta wing with 4 engines hanging under the wings and lots of speed potential? :D
Click to expand...

Not to mention the self unloading baggage bays.
 
Yes, I've used B-58 before and had Ron comment on the operating costs <vbg>. Of course, it's the BE-58, but when chatting among Beech folks, they all say B-55 or B-58 <g>. Ken was in Beech mode!

Best,

Dave
 
I was set on a 310 for along time. But became a Beech convert through flying the Bonanzas in RFC Dallas (same club as Dave, Spike ad others) Spent many trips with my family (there are 5 of us) in the clubs A36. It became obvious if we as a family were going to travel GA then it was twin time. Began looking at 55's - specifically the E series - and was quickly sterred towards the 58. I thought insurance would be the big issue but in reality the 55 and 58 insurance was not far apart for me. I did not have my multi and the insurance companies wanted 25 in type at a min anyway so I opted for getting my multi in the bird I bought. I then found the 58TC model and their useful load. Think P-Baron without the pressurized hull. with a 2000 lb useful I can load the tanks and outlast all 5 bladders on board (except for the golden retriever!!) I shopped and shopped and after kissing many frogs I ended up with 942CP. 1978 58TC.

http://www.kiddcorp.com/baron
 
All good airplanes. For handling and a great pilot's airplane the Baron is tough to beat. 310s have never appealed to me, but those who own them, love 'em.

I think if you sit down and run the numbers, a Seneca is tough to beat. Handling isn't great, but they haul a good load, passengers like them, and they won't break the bank.

Jay
 
Seneca = Piper = Automatically the best choice
:blueplane:
ApacheBob
 
Last edited:
N7702Y said:
I think if you sit down and run the numbers, a Seneca is tough to beat. Handling isn't great, but they haul a good load, passengers like them, and they won't break the bank.
Click to expand...

Am I the only person who actually LIKES the way the Seneca handles? I mean, it's no sports car, but it's not supposed to be. It's a traveling machine, and I do actually like the solid feel of the Seneca.

I should be clear, I've only flown Seneca II's. I've heard that the Seneca I handled like crap. I don't think there have been any changes since the II that would affect handling qualities, so presumably a V handles just like a II.
 
Ive only flown seneca I. It is a pig. I think on the IIs they made bigger, more effective ailerons so that would be good.

I is a great airplane on two engines, and just about the worst (save the "twin champ" maybe) on one engine.

All that makes a I a pretty good trainer. no turbos to melt, and the lousy performance trains you for all the bad crap that can happen in a twin. Plus when you step up to anything else, it feels like you are flying a REAL twin!
 
B58 Hustler? Yeah, that's quite a multi!!!

Like I said, no immediate need. I'm not ready to step into a more complex A/C yet. I like doing my homework, though. Mainly I'll be carrying more people for longer distances - 3 or 4 pax, so a 6-seater has lots of utility for me. The pax are relatively light, and we don't travel heavy, so payload isn't prime consideration. Comfort/stability are big factors. These comments have given me lots of food for thought.

If I don't see myself flying the family around at night/in IMC for a while, I'll likely opt for a single when I upgrade.
 
tonycondon said:
Ive only flown seneca I. It is a pig. I think on the IIs they made bigger, more effective ailerons so that would be good.

I is a great airplane on two engines, and just about the worst (save the "twin champ" maybe) on one engine.
Click to expand...

Even worse than the "Twin Arrow?" (aka Seminole)

All that makes a I a pretty good trainer. no turbos to melt
Click to expand...

Yeah, that does make the II a crappy trainer.
 
dang, if I had 55,000 id bring that thing to gastons.
 
Wow, that is an ugly duckling.

You know what just occurred to me? They say how the Champ 402 failed because of the Apache... And for a few grand less you could buy Bob's Apache and bring it to Gaston's instead. And we wouldn't point and laugh. :D
 
Yeah, but it, uh, has a great personality.....

That's a pretty sad excuse for an airplane!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Wow, that is an ugly duckling.

You know what just occurred to me? They say how the Champ 402 failed because of the Apache... And for a few grand less you could buy Bob's Apache and bring it to Gaston's instead. And we wouldn't point and laugh. :D
Click to expand...

That's it. I'm raising my asking price!
 
ye but the twin champ would operate on a probably half the maintenance cost of bob's apache.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top