|
Jimbo,
First, you can get basic performance comparisons by going to the RisingUp home page and clicking the performance section. All those planes should be there. You can also go to the ASO.com web page where all those planes are sold.
I've owned both a P-210 pressurized and a Baron 58-P pressurized and can give you some info on them. They both use the Continental TSIO 520 engine, of different models. However, in the late '60s, the Baron 56TC carried two 380hp Lycomings. Those are rare, though.
Regarding comfort, pressurization offers the most. So, the pressurized 210, pressurized 340, and Baron 58P would be the most comfortable at altitude and easy on the ears and lungs. No oxygen lines are necessary. The Seneca doesn't come in a pressurized model.
You may want to search keywords Baron, Seneca, and Cessna to find more about operating costs.
In my experience, though some people say they have problems with pressurization seals, the Cessna P-210 was the lowest cost to operate and maintain for the pressurized comfort. I can only guess what it cost me to operate, but likely around $120/hr. The nice thing about Cessnas is that replacement parts are available and cheap and everyone knows how to work on them.
I haven't flown in a 340, but they are similar to the Baron, except cheaper to work on and cheaper parts. Their performance specifications are similar.
I haven't owned a Seneca, but they have smaller engines, I believe the Continental 360 series, unless Piper has hung larger blocks on the new models. They are generally slower, because their airframe isn't as clean nor the wing as efficient. They are very large and comfortable inside, though. You can look up the piper.com webpage to get all the info you need on the newer Senecas.
The Baron is stable, comfortable, responsive, and rugged. It carries the Beechcraft reputation for quality, handling, and performance. However, parts are expensive. It cost approximately $250/hr. to operate the 58P. But there are many non-turbo Barons that handle just as well with smaller engines that are cheaper to maintain.
For the turbo Baron flying at 75% power, you have to flight plan for about 38gals/hr.
There's just too much to discuss for your entire research paper here.
But, if you wanted to create a table, you could start with performances, then engines available for each model, then estimated TBO, then estimated cost per hour to operate, cost, passengers, ceilings, single enging ceiling, safety, and so on.
You'll find that the performance of the Barons and Cessna 340s rank about the same, then the turbo or P-210, then the Seneca. In your discussion, you need to address the fact that there aren't any new 210s available, but new Barons and Senecas are. So you can discuss old vs new. All 340s are old, too, and haven't been made since the early '80s. You may want to limit your research paper to just discussing the differences between the P-210, the Cessna 340 pressurized, and the P-Baron. That way, you're eliminating variables that would make the paper cumbersome. Don't discuss the normally aspirated models. They all have to be turbocharged. They are all pressurized. You have a single engine v. two multi-engines to compare. They are all made by different companies. They have different operating costs and maintenance costs. They can all be flown above FL180--at the flight levels.
I hope this offers a beginning.
------------------
DJSchaut
__________________
DJSchaut
|