Hey Adam, you forgot the "but better looking" from this!

One of the points above that can't be stressed enough is the availability of second-to-none support on Aerostars. We still have the Aerostar Aircraft Company run by two of the orignal Ted Smith team. You'll see Jim Christy on this forum from time to time (most recently arguing with George Braly )

Apart from their fun projects like the Aerostar jet (google it - it's awesome), their business is based around supporting the fleet. Since I've owned my A*, they've bought to market the following:

1. winglets
2. a new heat exchanger which allows removal of the 'campfire' in the tail (seriously - I'm still perplexed that we all go flying with a fire burning in the tail!

This is on top of all the power, intercooler, pressursation increases and other fixes they've developed over the years.

Also, where there is a support problem with a particular component then they take steps to step in. For example, the Dukes pressurization system was effectively unsupported (well, supported but by a bunch of cowboys) so Aerostar got themselves approved to repair. Mine are just going back in the plane now.


For Josh - a side effect of this is that no two Aerostars are the same (and not even nearly) - with such a massive range of options, the config of each is pretty much individual - and the range of performances is also massive. The Aerostar Owners Association has some info here http://aerostar-owners.com/aerostars.php which has improved things over when I was shopping and found it very confusing.

In the pressurised range, there are high compression (lower power - TN'd) versions (basically a 'straight' 601P) and then a whole range of low compression engines delivering up to 350HP each.

Whilst I get that Aerostar owners generally want to go fast, I've never understood how the extra speed justifies the costs. In a straight 601P at 20k, I can match Forrest's figures - 100L/hr for 208kts TAS (give or take). That's LOP and I have intercoolers fitted (like Forrest). Why you'd burn so much extra fuel (50%?) to go 250ktas seems just not necessary to me. In a 601P I can still fly ROP for +20% fuel and 220kts if I need to.

There is an argument on S.E.P and 350HP but again, thanks to AAC, I have short props to go with my intercoolers and the climb performance difference is significant - enough that at MTOW, the plane will climb on one engine (not as well and at sea level - but it will).

My understanding is that not many flying Aerostars in the US are still straight 601Ps but I'd recomend you spend the time considering all of the models and consider a non-converted 601P as the best utility version of the range.

I also echo those who say NOT to bottom feed. From hard experience, if it hasn't flown 100 hours in the last 12-18 months there WILL be expensive items to find then fix.

Good luck

Thank you Richard. From the research I've done, I've come to the same conclusion. The fuel savings of the 601P makes good sense to me. That is where I'll focus my search.

Looks like I'm too late to test fly Adam's plane, but that's OK. I likely won't be ready to jump until next summer. Congrats!

I know the cure for that disease.

Also, there is more to "speed" than just true airspeed. Mission reliability is a "speed" all its own. I have never failed to meet a schedule with my airplane in the 8 years I've owned my turboprop, and those schedules are often to fly in the morning of the event with 30 minutes margin and fly out in the afternoon. Piston airplanes are just not as reliable mechanically, and not as capable in weather. A 100 nm detour for me is 20 minutes.

An 700 nm business trip can be a day trip in my plane. No hotel. This is a tremendous reduction in time commitment not having to overnight. If I had a piston twin, I'd be far more likely to go the night before since I wouldn't be as confident I could make it in the morning.

I have found that it would cost me a lot of lost business to have a piston twin.

An Aerostar will burn more fuel $ per nm than my plane.

Mike C.

I know the cure for that disease.

Also, there is more to "speed" than just true airspeed. Mission reliability is a "speed" all its own. I have never failed to meet a schedule with my airplane in the 8 years I've owned my turboprop, and those schedules are often to fly in the morning of the event with 30 minutes margin and fly out in the afternoon. Piston airplanes are just not as reliable mechanically, and not as capable in weather. A 100 nm detour for me is 20 minutes.

An 700 nm business trip can be a day trip in my plane. No hotel. This is a tremendous reduction in time commitment not having to overnight. If I had a piston twin, I'd be far more likely to go the night before since I wouldn't be as confident I could make it in the morning.

I have found that it would cost me a lot of lost business to have a piston twin.

An Aerostar will burn more fuel $ per nm than my plane.

Mike C.

Mike,

I just looked at your post on a different string:



".... Jet fuel is lot less expensive than 100LL than most realize.

Compare on my recent west coast trip (prices from today, jet by contract, avgas by Airnav):

KBFF: $2.74 jet, $5.65 avgas
KBFI: $2.83 jet, $6.87 avgas
KLGB: $3.05 jet, $5.69 avgas
KAPA: $2.26 jet, $5.50 avgas

Average: $2.72 jet, $5.93 avgas

You can burn 2.18 gallons of jet fuel to equal one gallon of avgas in price, at least on this particular trip selecting those particular airports. For this trip:

421C at 210 knots and 40 GPH is $1.13/nm.

MU2 at 290 knots and 65 GPH is $0.61/nm.

Going 38% faster on 46% less fuel money, who can argue with that?

The King Air 90 is like a Cadillac. Slow, big, comfortable, inefficient, expensive. You get style points when you eventually get somewhere, but you can find much better rides if you care about speed and money.

Mike C."



Based on the price you are getting on contract fuel:
Your MU2 wins by a few pennies/mile, compared to my 601P using AIRNAV average priced 100LL.

Of course, if I use airnav to buy cheaper than average gas....

It's Hammer Time!

I have both, I fly both.

Shorter than 300NM, A* wins. Longer than 300NM, MU2 wins. Reliability, properly maintained plane wins, but there is a lot more to look at on the A*. In bad WX, MU2 wins. Need to carry more, MU2 wins. On one engine MU2 wins by a wide margin. Overseas where 100LL is scarce, MU2 wins. Parts availability it's a draw.

Decisions, decisions. Poverty sucks, lol.

Show off...

In defense of the Super 700.....

No question I am envious of the fuel economy that Forrest and the rest of the 601P clan are achieving, but the 700 can be flown reasonably economically if you choose to slow down to similar speeds (certainly not AS economically as a 601P), and you shouldn't underestimate the versatility and S.E.P. safety margins you are getting with the 350 h.p. engines. Genuinely the difference between go/no-go at some airports in some circumstances - at least one airport in our regular family travel rotation would not be usable on most days with a 601P given our runway performance criteria.

I was shopping for a 601P but ended up finding a solid 700 for a good price. If I had found the right 601P at the time, I could have happily done that.

My $.02 on 700's....

- Single engine performance in the critical "immediately-after-takeoff" phase
- More speed when you want it / need it
- Stronger climb, altitude versatility with heavy loads

Aerostars have such a broad range of models that there's something that fits your mission. The experience is very turbine-like... I've owned and operated other pressurized recips before and nothing is like the Aerostar. Much closer to the way a jet handles.

Steve Lefferts
Rockville, MD

Welcome to BT Steve! It's customary as a first time poster to throw up lots of photos of your bird... Let's see here!

Hi Don -

I've been lurking for a while and didn't realize I had never posted here! Here's one good shot - I'll try to dig up more later.

Hi Josh,

If you have not done so already, I would join the Aerostar Owners Association. It is well worth the money. A list of the benefits can be found here http://www.aerostar-owners.com/nonmembers.php

We just had our convention in Nashville. We had 80 attendees and 16 or so Aerostars. Next September it will be in South Lake Tahoe, so right up in your neck of the woods. There you will meet many Aerostar enthusiasts and pick up lots of valuable information.

I looked and there are 8 AOA members in your immediate area. I am sure they would be happy to talk to you and perhaps take you on a flight. The first step would to call Ken Bacon at (918) 625-3161. He is the AOA Executive Director.

I would also contact Jim Christy at Aerostar Aircraft (800) 442-4242,
Craig or Bill at The Flight Shop in Utah (435) 723-3469,
Dean at Pacific Aerostar in Sonoma at (775) 721-4618.

They are somewhat near you and a wealth of information.

If I can be of assistance, just ask. PM me or call at (580) 278-9267.

I have an Aerostar 700. I would love an MU-2. I cannot afford an MU-2. Part of the issue is that I could not sell my airplane for anything close to what I have in it. I put two remanufactured engines with all overhauled or new accessories, props, etc. I also put in G600.

I could not even get in this market what I bought the airplane for before I had the engines and other stuff done. I would love to do more stuff like winglets, kfc 225 autopilot, increased pressure differential, upgraded ac duct, etc. It would all be wasted money.

If I could get back what i have in the Aerostar I would buy an MU-2. The cost of operating an MU-2 I am sure is more than the Aerostar but it is a much more capable and reliable airplane as just about any airplane of that class would be. A properly maintained aerostar is no worse than any other piston, pressurized, twin but is not even close to a turboprop.

The Aerostar has never stranded me but it is never perfect either. There is always some issue with something. One must keep up with these issues or they accumulate. Right now I am battling the AC that I think is finally almost solved and an issue with altitude preselect that the avionics guy says is fixed after several attempts.

The aerostar also trades speed for comfort. A 700 or 702 with the gross weight upgrade can carry whatever you can fit in it. However, it is not a true 6 place airplane like a cessna 414.

My airplane is not officially for sale but for the right price I would part with it.

I'd like to have your set of choices and be in your "dilemma"

I think I counted between 20 and 25 Aerostars. Plus they were a few that got into KJWN before it went IFR and the rest of us had to divert to KBNA.

Glenn

Reading over this thread (and Joel's post), I can see how a reader could be confused about the two organizations providing support to existing Aerostar pilots, owners, and those interested in these wonderful aircraft.

The Aerostar-Forum is a new organization, it came into being last September out of a perceived need for an alternative organization to the Aerostar Owners Association.

The A-F is a cloud based organization created & supported by the efforts of its membership. The A-F does not charge dues.

The A-F doesn't have a magazine.
But, it does have a Facebook page.

As of today the A-F has 172 members.


The AOA is the original Aerostar Owners Organization.
The AOA has a paid Executive Director.

They periodically send out a magazine.

They charge dues.


I recommend anyone interested in Aerostars to investigate both organizations.

I strongly encourage anyone who has just purchased an Aerostar to join and participate both on-line, by telephone, and in-person, with at least one type-specific owners group, the knowledge and referrals you'll get from your fellow pilots and owners will prove invaluable.