Because we've met?!

You entirely rebuilt your Tbone. And it came out fantastic. I'm not doing that to an airplane. I'm buying something done so I can just go fly it.

Regardless, I'm trying to decide on a twin right now. Tbones were on my radar for a while. If one that has an airstair, decent panel with autopilot, WAAS GPS, etc. leather interior and good paint pops up when I'm ready to buy it'll be on my list. The odds of that happening are almost nonexistent. That's my point. I can find a Baron or 310 that has all that and buy it today, or tomorrow, or any day.

So much to agree with here, I wanted a twin to get my multi and be the family hauler, wife didn't like the whole "pack light" deal. My 310 was 135 in a former life, has 12,000TT, was purchased in early 2000's by non pilot lawyer, no expense spared during his ownership. Paint and int in 05, 600 hr engines and 7 hrs on props when I bought, plus a nice panel with 530 & 55x autopilot. All for 5 figures...barely, that's right, under 100k! I've really been loving the 310, got my multi in August, have 60 hrs in it now. Have a friend with a 414 and the 310 is very similar, they share many parts which means the 310 is built beefy.

I owned a 310I (first year with wing lockers) that had about 2500 hours on it. All the flush rivets under the wing leading edges were bleeding and would emit gray when flying thru rain. I got rid of it because I feared a nasty AD on the airframe to address that problem. That was in 1975 and it has never happened.

The lever arms in the landing gear are all really short and the rig drifts. Note the number of ac sitting on their noses. So I think you need to really keep after the gear.

It's a comfortable airplane. Not built anywhere as well as a Baron.

BH

Many years ago I went to look at a Cessna 310K, and bought it. It was a beautiful airplane and I much enjoyed it. That's not the point. I took an aircraft broker with me to check out the airplane, and in our time together he told me his truth about airplanes. And I quote " A Piper is a 2000 hour airplane, a Cessna is a 3000 hour airplane, and a Beech is an 8,000 hour airplane." Thus endeth the lesson.

Could you provide any more information on ownership experience with regards to operating costs, annuals, dispatch reliability etc. I understand that fuel costs used to not be a big issues in the days of $1 or even $2/gal fuel costs + ROP operation.

Are these viable twins to own today? I only have 1.5hrs in a 310R and less than 0.5 in the Baron. The Baron for all its strong points is a "small" plane with respect to its cabin. Since i will spend most of my time inside the cabin, comfort trumps "beech handling" or "bult like a tank" so long as parts failure and breakage is not really an issue in the C-310.

I looked at a T310R my mecanik was maintaining before I purchased a Baron 58.
I never did like the exaust going by the spar of the wing. Is this on the turbo only or on all 310? Very bad design and the cause of some wings failing and crashes.

After I bought the Baron my mecanik commented from working on the Baron that he was glad I didnt bought the T310R as the Baron was a better designed and stronger aircraft.

For what its worth: early in my in flying career I flew a 1964 Cessna 310I and a 1968 B-55 Baron daily for a State agency. IIRC both burned about 30 gph ROP (this was before the advent of GAMI's and small engine analyzers, both had 260 hp IO-470's) usually running 23x23, flight plan for 180 TAS. Airframe maintenance was probably a bit more on the 310 as it was more popular with pax when they had a choice and consequently stayed in the air more. This popularity, for both pax and crew, was due to a bit more roominess in the Cessna. Other than this about the only difference was that the gear and flap switches were in opposite positions for the two and the throttles were on the left of the quadrant on the 310 and in the middle on the Baron. As an aside, another state agency, the Highway Patrol, had a 1971 Aztec at that time. On many occasions all three aircraft were dispatched from the same base to the same destintion, all fully loaded with legislators (and other assorted political crooks). On these missions if the Aztec departed first, the Baron second, and the 310 last, they would usually arrive 310 first, Baron second, and Aztec last!

Bringing the Twin Bonanza into the discussion, IMO, is akin to introducing oranges into a comparison of apples; a jump in the class of airplanes to be sure. If comfort is your bag, then the T-bone is the hands-down winner for a cost of slightly less speed, a slightly higher fuel burn, and a slightly larger hangar requirement. Because I rate comfort above all but safety, I would choose first, the Twin Bonanza, 2nd the Cessna 310, and third the Baron. Some will agee and some will disagree but, this is why they build Chevy's AND Fords.
MM

Thanks Michael,

Good analysis.+1

It's good to hear from experience, Michael. I would only say that the Twin Bonanza burns 13 a side, some even more than a gallon less, which I don't think is more, or at least not much more, than the others. Of course, you may be en route slightly longer.