If I'm reading correctly, the original post was talking about one potential owner not having his PPL yet and not having time to fly much. IMHO a twin is a very bad choice for that, even if he can get it insured.

I guess my original post was worded poorly.

I (ATP/121 Captain/CFI/CFII/MEI) will be flying whatever he buys. It’s a business tool. He realizes he’s not going to be able to do the trips we do in a piston single even by himself for a long time and his needs to go further away more frequently have necessitated the discussion of purchasing a twin.

He’s not even able to get on the insurance for his current Piper Lance, not that he needs to be anyway. 90% of the time that Lance moves it’s with me, and the other 10% is with another ATP-rated pilot.

That makes sense.

This is something I wrote a few months ago when a friend asked about the differences between the Baron and 310.

A Discussion of a Baron Versus a 310:
A Baron is a Bonanza fuselage. 42” wide. That’s pretty tight, especially for a twin. A 310Q is, I believe 49”. It is significantly more comfortable. The baggage area in a 310 is much larger than a Baron’s. The Baron needs to have an extended baggage area to get close to the 310 volume. The baggage door is easily twice the size on a 310 as a Baron and probably 50% larger than the large baggage door on a Bonanza/Baron.

The Baron has nose baggage that the 310Q does not but the 310 has nacelle baggage which I prefer. The throw-over yoke is good and bad, personal preference. The 310 has right-side brakes where the Baron generally does not.

There are two steps up to the wing on a 310, and one step on a Baron. The 310 is just a much larger and more stable airplane. The gross weight on a 55, A55, or B55 is 4,800-5,100 lb depending on the year and 5,300 lb on the 310Q. Useful load is 1,700-1,800 lb on the 310 and usually 1,500-1,600 lb on the Baron. They both hold and burn about the same amount of fuel so no real differences there.

They both fit in a traditional small twin hangar and both have IO-470 series engines at 260 HP. The Baron is 3-5 knots faster due to the smaller frontal area and lighter weight. B55 Barons are rarely found with boots, most 310s have them.

The maximum RPM in the Baron is 2,700 and for the 310 2,625. That actually makes a huge difference in noise and living at an Airpark, neighbors appreciate that. Build quality slightly favors the Baron but Twin Cessnas were made on a different assembly line than the single with noticeably better construction.

The 310 has a traditional T-P-M arrangement where the Baron has the throttle between the props and mixtures. Also, the Baron has reversed placement of the flaps and gear switch compared to standard, which the 310 does have.

Mostly it comes down to a few things that make me prefer a 310 over a Baron.
Higher gross weight and noticeably less felt turbulence
More comfortable cabin
A bigger airplane feel
Better baggage areas
Quieter on takeoff
Standard power controls and gear/flap switch placement

2625 is max RPM for the IO-470L powered Barons. 2700 RPM would apply to the IO-520 285 HP Barons. 2900 RPM for the 380 HP Model 56TC.

The 310, like the Apache was designed from the beginning to be a twin. The Baron was a Bonanza in which they added an engine which leads to compromises(like the Seneca, Twin Comanche, Travel Air).

2625 is max RPM for the IO-470L powered Barons. 2700 RPM would apply to the IO-520 285 HP Barons. 2850 RPM for the 380 HP Model 56TC.

2850 rpm for Colemill 600. IO520-e2b

https://aeroresourcesinc.com/uploads/19 ... %20Mod.pdf

Ran a T310Q intensively for about four years and 800 hours between 2014 and 2018. I only have about 40 hours in various Barons so perhaps not the best source for a comparison, but I'll try and recall a few impressions.

Aircraft was based out west but routinely flew everywhere in the country. For that mission a turbo(s) was non-negotiable. I like to think that in the single vs. twin debate, a twin supplies a minute of terror (take-off) followed by hours of bliss. Not much point to the bliss if one is at FL190 over the Rockies and can't maintain more than about 4000' on one engine as is the case in the NA variants. East of the MS the calculus changes a bit, but overall tend to always go for the turbo for its flexibility in altitude selection. Miss it now actually flying an NA aircraft.

It's a much bigger aircraft than a Baron, especially in shoulder room and headroom. It's possible to move front to back in flight if needed. The extended baggage door is a must and with the rear seats removed it has a cavernous baggage compartment. Sits higher and can see better on the ramp and while taxiing.

Only one door - some Barons have a second door which like a Seneca always seemed nicer for loading pax. So pax have to climb in and move to the back and PIC has to mange the door closing from the left seat.

Fuel system with symmetrical tanks (i.e. not one but either no or both wing lockers) is not that hard at all. Mains are the tips and when full with 300# of fuel at the tips per side, the roll behavior on approach will have a different period than one might be used to. A couple of landings and it seems natural. You start on the mains and then aux's can come into play once there's enough room in the mains for the return fuel. Mains are wet and aux's are bladders.

Performance. Mine was about the slowest 310 out there down low it seemed. Maybe 170 ktas below 10k (as opposed to the more typically reported 180), rapidly improving above. Saw over 200 ktas above FL200 several times. Might not be workable for pax since they'll need O2. Typically cruised at 26"/2350 rpm and, once topped, the TIO-520s burned zero oil and had no valve problems. High utilization helps there. Fuel burn was estimated at 40 gallons the first hour and 30 every subsequent hour.

Gross weight was 5700# as aircraft had RAM I engines with 310 hp per side. Recommended. Flew at gross several times and like most Cessna's, could not really tell the difference. Very flexible c.g. range.

Aircraft spent six months getting it up to standards (topped engines, lots of catch up maintenance, new panel) then was pretty much get in and fly. Never AOG once attended too, but fair amount of pro-active maintenance was involved.

Test-flew a Colemill conversion once for a friend considering the breed and it was really zippy and powerful down low.

Have the landing gear looked at by someone who knows the breed. Put Flight IIIs on - lot of aircraft for two little tires.

No autopilot

On the 1955? For the price you could add one and still come out ahead.

A couple other comments:
Corrosion is an issue with all variants of twin Cessnas if they aren’t taken care of properly. The early versions had the over-wing exhaust as noted above and that was / is an issue. However, the under-wing exhaust results in exhaust getting in to the gear wells. If the fume-proofing isn’t maintained, and many aren’t, the corrosive exhaust damages the rear spar. The fume-proofing is simply a membrane that is used to fill the voids in the corrugated metal at the top of the gear well. Paint the wheel wells to protect them, clean on a regular basis, and apply corrosion protection once a year => no corrosion problems.

The earliest variants, 310A and B models, have pressure carburetors. Reports are that getting them serviced is difficult. There are also reports of issues with the fuel pump – can’t get it overhauled. For a straight tail 310, the 310C is the best option since it has the first variant of an IO470.

With regard to the gear, it is not that difficult to maintain properly, if the work is done per the manual. It appears to me that most mechanics feel that FAR 43 Appendix D is sufficient for an annual inspection on these planes, particularly with regard to the landing gear, ( and Beech products too ) – it isn’t.

TAS Aviation in Defiance Ohio has an STC to replace the SPAR cap. I had it done in my plane. Also note the exhaust extensions I mentioned above. Field approval. Really helps with exhaust in gear wells

Is the cappuccino machine for whole milk only or did you get an STC or 337 for oat milk?

Is the cappuccino machine for whole milk only or did you get an STC or 337 for oat milk?