Two legacy piston twins with loyal followings, weighing the fast, characterful 310 against the refined, well-supported Baron.
A 310 is bought as an individual aircraft, not as the cheap version of a Baron. Its condition, fuel system, landing gear, engines, modifications and records can move the ownership risk more than the model-level purchase gap, and the newest examples are still old aeroplanes. The G58 offers more payload, range and a more predictable support path, but its acquisition and two-engine operating budget belong to a different tier. Choose the Cessna only with a specialist pre-buy and reserves that survive an early surprise. Choose the Baron when dispatch, cabin utility and eventual resale matter more than entering twin ownership cheaply.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Cessna 310RView aircraft profile | Beechcraft Baron G58View aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 1975 | 2023 |
| Estimated purchase | €188k | €1.44m |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €169k | €104k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €1.03m | €1.96m |
| Cruise speed | 195 kt | 202 kt |
| Advertised range | 1000 nm | 1480 nm |
| Seats | 6 | 6 |
| Realistic payload | 484 kg | 701 kg |
| Runway need | 670 m | 700 m |
| Landing gear | Retractable tricycle | Retractable tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | Multi-engine rating, Complex airplane endorsement | Multi-engine rating, Complex airplane endorsement |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Fast and attractive with good baggage space, but fuel, gear and two-engine reserves make ownership demanding. | A proven, capable piston twin, but two large engines create operating costs close to some older turboprops. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Cessna 310R is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Cessna 310R | Beechcraft Baron G58 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $1.02m (€948k) | $2m (€1.85m) | $975k (€903k) to Cessna 310R |
| 100 h / year | $1.16m (€1.07m) | $2.18m (€2.02m) | $1.02m (€942k) to Cessna 310R |
| 200 h / year | $1.39m (€1.28m) | $2.47m (€2.29m) | $1.09m (€1.01m) to Cessna 310R |
The gap widens as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
Advertised range is a still-air, best-case number. With 4 people aboard and realistic reserves, plan on about 670 nm from the Cessna 310R against 992 nm from the Beechcraft Baron G58. On a return trip without refuelling, that is the radius that decides which destinations are on the list at all.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Cessna 310R has enough runway at 22,916 of them and the Beechcraft Baron G58 at 22,252, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 2,198 ft and 2,297 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
Nothing separates them here. Both require a multi-engine rating, a complex airplane endorsement, so a pilot qualified for one is qualified for the other.
Six-seat light piston twin. Its central ownership trade-off is: Fast and attractive with good baggage space, but fuel, gear and two-engine reserves make ownership demanding.
Planning snapshot: $203k (€188k) indicative price and $182k (€169k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileSix-seat normally aspirated piston twin. Its central ownership trade-off is: A proven, capable piston twin, but two large engines create operating costs close to some older turboprops.
Planning snapshot: $1.56m (€1.44m) indicative price and $112k (€104k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile