You still have turbos to deal with and their direct costs not to mention you are running your engines at higher power settings on a regular basis if you are going to realize the benefits of turbos. The tbo on the 601B S1A5’s are I believe 1,800 hrs. versus 2,000 on the na’s reflecting the additional wear and tear of the turbos on the engines. Install the wing extensions on the 600 and gain an additional 200 lbs. max gross weight. I believe that would exceed the useful load of the 601B.
All that being said, I have often toyed with the idea of putting U2A’s on my 600. Just don’t know if I really want to deal with the initial cap expense not to mention the additional operating cost. I really don’t need the 15,000’ single engine ceiling it would provide. However, what a rocket it would be. Yes, the 601B is definitely a nice compromise between the P and NA models. It’s all about mission, compromise and there is no free lunch and never will be.

You are not running higher power settings with the turbocharged 601B. It is turbo normalized. You can run the same 65% power that you would run at say 6500’, but at a higher altitude and TAS. This also yields better efficiency. When you run it at 65% between 10500 and 12500 the turbos are not working hard at all and will last a long time and require far less maintenance. If you take a P model into the 20s and go hard, plus the draw of the pressurization, that is taxing on the turbo system, especially on the turbocharged vs turbo normalized airplanes. The turbos on the 601 allow the option of higher power if really needed. IE Rated power is available to a higher altitude if needed in the case of an engine out. The better single engine performance is the reason for the turbo models higher gross weight in the same airframe. The B already has the wing extensions and better single engine performance thus the higher gross weight than a 600 and the much higher payload.

You have to run at a higher power setting to get the same speeds as a 600 due to the loss of horsepower in the turbocharging system.

Not true either. There is some loss of efficiency at lower altitudes where you would not want to fly. The efficiencies gained at higher altitudes more than make up for this.

Everyone seems to be nipping at the truth, but not quite.

The advantage of a turbo over a supercharger, especially a TN system, is that it does not draw horsepower. It does create heat and add a more complicated exhaust system.

The 601P is not as "efficient", as far as speed, at lower altitudes because of the addition of intercoolers, and nobody in his right mind would own a 601P without IC.

Even with that small "inefficiency", mine would run off and leave any Baron or 310 even at low altitudes. Once I went over 12.000': Hold my beer and watch this.



Jg

I can't seem to figure out how to search the thread so I'll just ask for help.

Did / has anyone gone through a reasonable estimate of Aerostar operating expenses? Assuming the motors are in good shape are these birds fairly straightforward and o maintain?

Evan,

My wife is the 100% partner in a 50/50 partnership. Being a math major and a tax law professor, numbers are her genre. No matter what I want to do, she expects complete and accurate cost estimates. A fair trade I would say.

When I wanted to buy the Aerostar, I had owned lots and lots of airplanes, singles and twins. She agreed with one simple codicil: how much will it cost to operate. I'll spare you the details, but after my "figgering" I told her that annual maintenance on airframe and engines would be $18,000. This did not address reserve for engine or prop overhaul, avionics upgrades, new paint/interior, insurance, hangar, fuel, oil, or anything else. That you figure for yourself.

I owned the A* for 5 years. It was a good number.

If your only option is a high priced, big city shop, double that. They have babies that need new shoes. Double that.

Jimmy Mullen will become your best friend.

Jg

John, now that’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
I was guessing 15g’s annually not including any surprises.

My wife used to ask me what it would cost.

I’m not all that bright but have been known to occasionally use more than one brain cell....at a time.

My answer,

A few purses, a bunch of shoes, and a couple of yearly trips with your friends.

For my 601P/SS700...

This week is five years since purchase. It was a "flying" project.

$80k total cost not including fuel, storage, capital cost, and only a few dollars in labor costs as I do most of the work myself.

Tom,

I think our figures are most compatible. Annual maintenance cost in the mid teens would assume that your large depreciable items, engines and props, would make it to TBO. I think they would take into account the occasional early turbo or exhaust item failure.

Without going into greater detail (as an interesting note), I put the same numbers to a Model 90 King Air and came up with $50,000 per year. Some would dispute that number as being low, others for it being high. It matters not if my "calculations" accurately correlate between the two aircraft.

As I have gotten our lives back into some order, divested myself of a substantial amount of property, and found some personal emotional stability, I have thought of buying a TP. It is not the $ that is the hurdle, but, like the Aerostar, simple one more thing in my life to have to tend to. My CFO seems perfectly content with first class tickets on Delta and American.

I will say that I would not, in any foreseeable circumstance, go back to a "high performance" piston twin, i.e. turbo/pressurization, of any brand. I never even reached my $18,000/annum figure with the A*, but it "nickeled and dimed" my time away tending to $200 fixes.

Jg

I'm still looking for that elusive "personal emotional stability" John. I do find it, at least temporarily at 8-10,000' in my Aerostar. Closest thing to Nirvana.

We were comparing a turbo non-pressurized 601 vs a 600. Apples to oranges not pomegranates ha ha

There are inefficiencies brought about by the added plumbing on the intake side...a wee bit harder to breathe, but the advantage of carrying power up into more efficient altitudes makes up for it.

As far as costs go, the annuals on my turbo normalized and inter cooled and non-pressurized 601B average $3500. My 36 Bonanza averaged $2500.

Joseph,

Not in my case. I'm trying to recall a maintenance issue that had to do with either my pressurization or turbo charging. I had one minor pressurization leak that took 30 minutes to fix. The Aerostar is not a simple airplane though the 600 is "simpler".

Jg

Oh contrare John. The Aerostar NA is dirt simple. That’s what makes it such a great airplane. It’s when you start adding pressurization and turbos that things start to get complicated. There ain’t no free lunch.