I just noticed your reply, I'd forgotten about this thread a bit.
Our experiences are probably pretty similar. The Navajo is an out-of-the-box concept. I did it when starting a charter operation about 25 years ago. I was told to get a 310 or 58 Baron. I was roundly considered to be an idiot for getting a baby Navajo. In practice the baby Navajo was only slightly more expensive than the NA versions of the aforementioned. I have flown the T310R, but have not had to supervise the maintenance. Based on my experience with the 310R and the Navajo C, I doubt there is significant operating expense difference.
I think you're probably right. It's also interesting how, 25 years later, the baby Navajo is still somewhat out of the box when compared to a 310 or 58 Baron.
It was also out of the box a couple years ago when we put the Chieftain on 135. The outfit we were working with didn't see why anyone would want it over the turboprops. Then the chief pilot flew in the thing for the first time (in back) and said "Wow, this is really a nice plane." Our customers thought so, too.
If one goes through the two airplanes and compares system by system, the 310 is at least as complicated overall than the Navajo which is a pretty simple airplane, albeit big. Big can make it easier to work on. The Navajo was also warmer in the cabin on those winter night flights up near the Canadian border. At 65%, my baby Joe burned 32 gph and gave 180-185 KTAS depending on weight.
I'm guessing those 310s were pre-C&D heaters. The 310N I fly will roast you out.
You also got a bit better on economy, but you probably ran our engines a bit leaner. We did 180 on 36 GPH as the owner, knowing I was a LOP fan, said "If you want to fly LOP in a Navajo go spend $100,000 on two new engines like I did and do it." His plane, his rules, no problem. The Chieftain was more like 45 GPH, but we did 190 in it. The owners were in a hurry. I always wished that I'd had an engine monitor to see what they could do LOP, I figured that the fuel burn would be significantly better.
People don't think about a "Joe" because it is big. I went straight from a 310 into a Navajo and was intimidated for a week or so until it dawned on me that the Navajo was easier to fly and more forgiving. It really flies like an overgrown Cherokee, except better. The only downside I can see to a Navajo is that it takes more hangar space. Of course, a C-310R will not fit in most T hangars either.
I had a similar experience. Somewhere around 1200 total time with 600 or so in my Aztec and 200 or so in the 310 was when I started flying the baby 'jo because I needed an 8-seater. After a minimal 1.3 hour checkout involving 2 landings and one ILS, I then flew it up to a gravel strip in the middle of nowhere Canada with 8 people and luggage on a day that involved three actual approaches and a lot of bad weather. The prospect felt intimidating until I got in it and realized that it was quite an easy plane to fly. I later got into the Chieftain, which was also a great airplane, but truthfully I liked the baby 'jo better and have a soft spot for that plane. Among other things, it was significantly quieter up front since the props were further forward from the cockpit. But I also need a crew door for my mission.
Your point about the hangar is also true, and also one of the reasons why I feel like many people overlook the pre-R 310s without good cause. The hunchback cabin is nice in the Q and R, but our N is sportier (especially with 520s), more efficient, and fits into a standard hangar with ease. Plus the N is sportier than the R, and I think handles short runways better. I also think many people that are looking cabin class decide on the 340, 414, or 421 because of the extra speed and pressurization.
