Back from paint/interior
Mach .67 on test flight

Seems slow, check your rigging.
Looks great! Congrats!

Brad,

You chose your color scheme well. It won't ever get tiring. Since I suggested that shop, I sure hope they lived up to my expectations.

Jg

Brad it looks great. Enjoy.

Wow - the paint and the winglets all say that bird rolled out of the factory yesterday, not decades ago. Excellent choice of scheme and colors. Looks fast even before the props start turning!

Looks good. Any More pic? Interior Pics?

Looks good. Any More pic? Interior Pics?

Looks great! Who did the paint work?

Boss in Salisbury NC (RUQ) did the paint.
Seats had to go back to be cut down a bit as they were too high.

I will post more pictures when interior is back in.

109 pages into it, it's difficult not to feel attracted to the Aerostar. So, here's the question I never thought I'd ask: is a 702P with fresh engines an alternative to a TBM?

I'm very happy with our G58. It's coming up to 1600 hours and has been flawless. Love the G1000, the Beech build, the two engines. But we want to climb out of weather more reliably, and we'd need 40+ more knots to make trips bearable for the kids. Mission is 600nm with a 100nm alternate and 750# of impatient payload.

I thought the 700C2 was the only plane for us. Having read this whole thread, I'm wondering whether the Aerostar is an option. And as it happens, I've been offered a 702P with fresh engines at a keen price.

So: should anyone in their right mind consider that 702P over a TBM?

Thanks!

Aerostar can certainly be considered performance-wise and you have a lot of sexy upgrade options available on the 702P which will make it a real turbine killer (bleed air heating, FL280, 5.5psi etc). But you are flying a turbocharged piston engine plane, with all that entails at the end of the day, and for some that's a deal killer. You will have lower operating costs, for sure. But you also give up a some speed.

Short answer yes.
Longer answer, depends more on what is your priority. Capital Cost, Operating Costs, passenger comfort, ease of entry/exit.

I basically had the 702P. The only thing missing was the digital KFC autopilot.
The Aerostar if you want to run it fast will be within minutes of a TBM 700C2. With the pressurization increase, well maintained turbos, you can fly in the upper FL20s and get around 260KTAS which I believe is actually faster than the TBM 700C2.

However, the TBM 700C2 has a slightly larger cabin, easier entry/exit.

With the gross weight increase, I believe the Aerostar can actually carry more over the distances you mentioned.

The TBM will have fewer systems, less engine complexity, less engine scheduled MX...

The TBM burns Jet-A.

You get the idea. The Aerostar will definitely do the mission. So you should have some fun and get a ride in one and go fly it.

Tim

IF you can afford a TBM, I'd do that in a heartbeat over the Aerostar. I love my 601P/SS700, but it doesn't come close to the reliability of a turbine airplane. The airframe is bullet proof, and the core engine the same, but the turbo SYSTEM is a PITA maintenance wise. I specify system, as even though the physical turbochargers are relatively simple and reliable, there are other parts of the system that require (significantly) more continual maintenance than a turbine airplane.

In two months, I will have fought for my five years of ownership to get one engine to make full power at altitude. Everyone except for Jim Chirsty said the turbo's are junk at 900 hours. I spent $6000 to overhaul the two turbos (vendor cost, no labor) and guess what, the problems are still there and while the turbo's had other minor issues, they were not the cause of my issue (i.e., Jim was right). I've had more ah-ha moments that I can count on both hands and the problem still exists. I have confirmed that the engines and turbos will produce full power at altitude. I'll see next week if this weeks ah-ha moment solves the problem.

I can almost afford the lower end turboprop, but I can't justify the additional cost as most of my non-work related flying is for charity... If I could, I'd take the TBM in a NY minute..

You've been fighting an engine for FIVE YEARS????? That's awful....what's the issue? When you say full power, is the issue manifold pressure or fuel flow or both?

I'm 2 moths and 20 hours into my newly acquired 600A (NA, no pressurisation) and l am absolutely smitten over it !

Whilst everyone talks about the 50 gallon 'hour fire breathing Mach .80 700s and 602Ps, the light and simple , totaling bullet proof 600 gives mind boggling performance on a Baron budget !

Here's a couple of things that I've learned but are not much talked about:

- ECONOMY : The IO-540s can be operated LOP, sans GAMIs, all they way down to 10 gal/H, so whilst the 600A will tool around all day long @ +200 Knots true on about 15gal a side, pulling back the mixture to 12 gals still yields a solid 190K true !

- CLIMB : The 600 has eye-popping climb perf : SL to 8000' in less than 5 minutes, that's over 2000'/minute SL - 5000' and still over 1800'/minute @ 8000' .

- HANGAR - With a wingspan of just 34', the A* takes up about the same a a large single !