Have a friend looking for a multi. Pros and cons of each airframe? I'm not too familiar with the cessnas

Lots of existing threads on that topic.

Flown the 310 and a 58P. Both are great airplanes, the 58 is built better, flys better and will take less maintenance. Also much better fuel system.

I cannot speak about the 340, the cabin looks much bigger than the 310 or 58. Have no experience flying or maintaining.

KJ

I had a Cessna 310R, a Cessna 421, and now a B55 P2, and flew and considered a 340 in the past. Which is the best is a meaningless question. They are all good planes...you have to have a mission in mind and select accordingly.

For me (15 years ago) I had the very same question and went flying in various types such as those during my search. My uncle in Europe told me I needed to look at Aerostars (which he owned). When I looked at the performance, there was no comparison. I think they are more maintenance intensive (if pressurized), but I don’t believe any of the three models you mentioned can hold a candle to the Aerostar for speed, joy of flight and efficiency, and their useful load is huge with the gross weight increase available. Parts are easy to acquire...just call AAC. I owned a 601-P and later a Superstar for many years before moving on to a turbine. They are great planes, especially if you are “into” working on them, understand systems, and have some level of maintenance available on your field.

This post illustrates the problem with the question (not picking on Tom).

The description above is the opposite of a “good” airplane to me. I need a plane that is simple and reliable with very little downtime. Something that always needs to be worked on would be a nightmare for me. I have a hard time finding the time to have the plane down for a simple oil change every 50 hours. So for me the answer of a straight (non-pressurized) Baron is and was the right answer to me. They’re not as capable as a 340 or even a turbo 310 (or an A*) but they generally fly between annuals with no need to go to the shop for anything but oil changes.

This isn’t to advocate for the Baron over any of the other options, but more to point out that the mission and the owner drive many factors that will lead to one airplane or another. We need a lot more information about both to give a good recommendation of what will work the best.

I have owned a B55, now a Aerostar SS700, help maintain/manage a 414, and managed a C-421C.

The specific airplane you buy can make all the difference in the world. I can't say that I spent appreciably more time working on the Aerostar or the 421 than I did the B55. I will say that even though the airframe for the Aerostar is built like a tank, the majority of my time working on the Aerostar are learning curves with the turbocharger/wastegate system.

Find an airplane that has been flying, and well maintained and you'll find the cost are well within budgeted numbers. Find one that has been sitting and you can count on increased maintenance.

All three of the original listed airplanes have a slightly different mission, and have their own particular plus' and minus'.

Hi, I have owned and operated a C310 for over 20 years and worked for a charter company and flew and maintained a B58 for 5 years.
When I first started shopping for a light twin, my mission was to be able to fly 5 people (3 kids) from the East coast to Chicago where my wife’s family was located. For many years I did this trip 2 or 3 times a year, along with many Florida trips. My decision to buy the 310 was based on many factors. First, I found the 310 offered the most bang for the buck...Comparing apples to apples the Baron was 30-40 percent more expensive getting in. Some might argue that the Baron was, arguably a better built airplane. This is probably true but this was offset that Beech parts were a quantum leap more expensive than Cessna parts. I personally find the planes to require about the same amount of maintenance with the exception of the landing gear on the 310, which need an experienced shop to rig. Early on I started bringing the plane to TAS Aviation in Defiance Ohio to periodically have the gear rigged. TAS is the world’s foremost expert on twin Cessna’s. With either airplane a thorough pre purchase inspection, or better still a pre purchase annual will pay huge dividends, My impression is that the DOC to be about the same for both airframes. I found the 310 to be 5-7 knots slower than the Baron, but with a much higher useful load, and a more comfortable cabin for my mission.Plus the wing lockers are a huge advantage, both for luggage storage and weight and balance considerations. As far as handling, I like the 310 better. I usually hand fly, and find the 310 to be a more stable instrument platform. Plus, in my opinion the 310 is a tougher looking plane on the ramp. I hope this info and opinions helps.
Blue Skies
Steve

Pressurized is a different animal

But overall: condition trumps type design. C310 last built in 1982 i think. For 40 year old twins, upkeep is absolutely everything. Buy the best airframe.

Many threads on this.

I looked for nearly a year for the "right" B58 Baron after coming out of my A36.
I also looked hard at Aerostars, and then the C340/414/441.

Ultimately the 400k I would have spend on the B58 (a mid-90's with mid-time and decent avionics) yields a less capable airframe than the larger Cessna twins; ie, not pressurized, and not turbo-charged.

414s are slower, and I perceived inflated values at the time. They have a spar AD (15k hrs) that I had no interest in. 421 had geared engines, and although they are loved, it was too much for me (one of the leading 421 shops in the country told me it was the same price as operating an older C90). C340 worked because we are normal sized people (3 kids).

Ultimately I bought the 340, but I got a larger airplane than the B58 (C340 has 1,000lbs higher MGTOW), and could fly around above FL200 and over the weather. Pressurization does not add expense; rather turbocharging adds expense.

My annuals were between 8k and 15k. I had a few AMUs/yr in unexpected maintenance. I flew 150-180 hrs/year.

Contrary to opinions on BT, I think the large Cessna twins and the Barons are comparably built airplanes. Both are extremely robust. The 340 (and 414/421) has more ramp presence.
for us, the 340 would have been a long-term player. It was really comfortable, quite heavy in bad wx (I flew in a lot of terrible wx, and have seen as much as an inch of ice on it while climbing to FL250). It is a great instrument platform, and I felt very safe in it.
I can attest to the fact that the 340 flies fine on 1 engine (several times/yr I did OEI op's).

As said, the exact airplane you buy is far more important than the model.

I bet you would find that the 441 is lower cost to operate the an old C90. I was told last week that the one I previously managed was running around $1150/hour for everything but the crew after three years of ownership. The engines are bulletproof... just about literally, and from what I remember reading a few years back statistically less failures than a PT-6. Where you will find the significant difference in cost is the fuel burn, and the intervals for HOT's and OH's.. But, it's a whole different class that this thread....

Most people are not going to get anywhere near the 15k hour AD on the 414's. I would go as far to guess that less that 5% of the fleet will make it that far in our lifetimes. Of the quick search on Contoller.com, only 3-4 of the 21 listed are even half way there.

All three are great airplanes, but without knowing what the OP wants to do, I can suggest 20 airplanes that won't meet his need....

I bet you would find that the 441 is lower cost to operate the an old C90.

I bet you would find that the 441 is lower cost to operate the an old C90. I was told last week that the one I previously managed was running around $1150/hour for everything but the crew after three years of ownership. The engines are bulletproof... just about literally, and from what I remember reading a few years back statistically less failures than a PT-6. Where you will find the significant difference in cost is the fuel burn, and the intervals for HOT's and OH's.. But, it's a whole different class that this thread....

Most people are not going to get anywhere near the 15k hour AD on the 414's. I would go as far to guess that less that 5% of the fleet will make it that far in our lifetimes. Of the quick search on Contoller.com, only 3-4 of the 21 listed are even half way there.

All three are great airplanes, but without knowing what the OP wants to do, I can suggest 20 airplanes that won't meet his need....

310 has the better cabin, maintenance will vary from plane to plane.

310 has the better cabin, maintenance will vary from plane to plane.