19 Nov 2025, 02:21 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars  Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 09:56 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 01/14/12
Posts: 2001
Post Likes: +1494
Location: Hampton, VA
Aircraft: AEST
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Forrest - are you going to stick with S1A5's or go to 700? I ended up in a 700 and am extremely happy with it and it fits my mission well, but I make a blood sport of second guessing what flavor of ice cream I choose, and 601P's are such efficiency kings. There are flavors of Aerostars that fit every mission. I'm staying with S1A5s. Nothing against 700s, they rock, but for me, I have been very happy with the turbo-normalized S1A5s, no case cracks, no bad cylinders (2nd run), in 1800+hrs. They are still running fine (about 5 hours a quart), by this fall they should be well over 1900 hours, it's time. One of my cases is an earlier (more fragile) version, Lycoming will give me the latest version case, and I can minimize my down time if I go the factory route. IF they were available, I would put on a pair of EPS diesels, that would be an Aerostar that could do California - Hawaii with just the factory optional AUX tank. Diesels open a lot of interesting (to me) doors. Winslow is sending back my raft next week. 
_________________
Forrest
'---x-O-x---'
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 09:59 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3308
Post Likes: +1434
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
I think Piper is selling new Seneca V's for much more than that, which would you rather have?
A new Seneca is a horrible value, IMO. I personally seek bang for the buck value and that's certainly not one. Don't get me wrong about Aerostars. They are very compelling and still remain on my short list for the next step up. However if I decide to spend $600k-$700k, it's going to burn Jet-A. There are far too many turbine options at the price point to consider piston options, IMO.
_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 10:14 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20748
Post Likes: +26220
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: However if I decide to spend $600k-$700k, it's going to burn Jet-A. Absolutely. For that kind of money, you can leave the pistons behind and enjoy the speed and reliability of turbine. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 10:52 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/14/15
Posts: 227
Post Likes: +182
Aircraft: Piper Cheyenne II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: However if I decide to spend $600k-$700k, it's going to burn Jet-A. Absolutely. For that kind of money, you can leave the pistons behind and enjoy the speed and reliability of turbine. Mike C.
I would do the same thing - but there's some value in correcting the lenses through which we look at some of these things.... A fully re-furbished to new condition turboprop would cost several multiples of that. Therefore, like-for-like it's not an appropriate comparison.
I flew for a guy who bought a brand factory new $3 million King Air 90 instead of a decent Citation that would have cost enough less he could buy all the fuel for the interest on the difference. Wouldn't be my choice, but there are those who value new / restored. New Barons that sell for well over a million that don't do anything a well-kept $200,000 example would is a good data point. They don't sell many, but they do sell.
A "new-condition, refurb'd by the factory" Aerostar for $600,000? I actually consider that a pretty decent value proposition.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 12:28 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 9015
Post Likes: +17224
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
|
|
|
A "new-condition, refurb'd by the factory" Aerostar for $600,000? I actually consider that a pretty decent value proposition.[/quote]
This would be my position as well. The aficionados of the low end turbo props have their points and to them, those are the controlling issues.
But, to others, a completely refurbished piston, like an Aerostar, makes a lot of sense.
In any case, $600,000 for an airplane like the A* 700 shown in the ad is chicken feed for the performance and utility it provides.
"We" may be the last of a dying breed (individual pilot/owners), but "we" are enjoying a cornucopia of values in today's aircraft market.
Green
_________________
Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 16:05 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12191
Post Likes: +3075
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: However if I decide to spend $600k-$700k, it's going to burn Jet-A. Absolutely. For that kind of money, you can leave the pistons behind and enjoy the speed and reliability of turbine. Mike C.
The speed part of that statement is funny. The Aerostar 700 is faster then many of the low end turbo-props. KA-90 (with the -21 engines), Cheyenne.....
Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 16:14 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20748
Post Likes: +26220
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The speed part of that statement is funny. The Aerostar 700 is faster then many of the low end turbo-props. KA-90 (with the -21 engines), Cheyenne..... Yes, the Aerostar can just BARELY cruise faster than the WORST turboprops. In any case, there are plenty of FAST turboprops you can own for that money. Ask me how I know this... Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 19:10 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/09
Posts: 707
Post Likes: +177
Aircraft: 1984 B36TC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The speed part of that statement is funny. The Aerostar 700 is faster then many of the low end turbo-props. KA-90 (with the -21 engines), Cheyenne..... Yes, the Aerostar can just BARELY cruise faster than the WORST turboprops. In any case, there are plenty of FAST turboprops you can own for that money. Ask me how I know this... Mike C.
I think that's pretty amazing considering the Aerostar has HALF the horsepower
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 24 Apr 2016, 01:27 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20748
Post Likes: +26220
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think that's pretty amazing considering the Aerostar has HALF the horsepower It's got HALF the cabin as well... Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 24 Apr 2016, 08:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/14/15
Posts: 227
Post Likes: +182
Aircraft: Piper Cheyenne II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think that's pretty amazing considering the Aerostar has HALF the horsepower It's got HALF the cabin as well... Mike C.
Totally true - nothing wrong with that, just another example of buying what fits your mission (and depending on your means, adding your desired component of "what you want"). I think the last recent question posted that sparked the current round of discussion was proposing 6 people and bags to go 800 nm. If that was a regular part of my mission need I would be shopping for C421's without a doubt (unless I had the budget to swallow one of the turboprops that I am sure you will tell me costs less to own and operate  ). Aerostars are not ideal for 6 pax and bags on long legs.
Comparing airplanes in a given category, there's always the inverse ratio of speed to cabin size. Look at Mooneys and Bonanzas..... if you're ok with the cabin dimensions of the Mooney you will get a significant performance bonus from the same power.
We decided that most of our trips were 4 people or less, with a high concentration of just 3 of us. The Aerostar allows us to operate with turboprop performance on piston money. With just 3 or 4 of us aboard, you can navigate the cabin front to back , there's room for a little camping potty for our daughter, and it's a really comfy ride. Far quieter in the back then I would have imagined (especially at less than high cruise power).
The cabin on the 400 series Cessnas were a very tempting alternative and I think they made a very fine line of airplanes. A 414/421 is a compelling airplane if you have a family to move around. BUT - to enjoy that huge cabin came with costs we didn't feel were worth it for our mission. It takes more power (fuel) to move that cabin through the air, more trade-off on climb, OEI, etc.
Like-for-like fuel burn, I think I get a 20 to 30 knot advantage on a 421 and the overall performance from climb to OEI to handling and such were all decision variables since we don't need the cabin size. If I wanted to get 6 folks to Florida from 800 miles away with reasonable bags, a pressurized big cabin Cessna would be my choice for sure. I can't do that without fuel stops and baggage limits. I can easily and speedily do it with 3 to 4.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 24 Apr 2016, 08:40 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/14/15
Posts: 227
Post Likes: +182
Aircraft: Piper Cheyenne II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The speed part of that statement is funny. The Aerostar 700 is faster then many of the low end turbo-props. KA-90 (with the -21 engines), Cheyenne..... Yes, the Aerostar can just BARELY cruise faster than the WORST turboprops. In any case, there are plenty of FAST turboprops you can own for that money. Ask me how I know this... Mike C.
On this note, to go noticeably faster than my 700 at cruise the list gets narrowed pretty fast... I get an honest 245 knots true airspeed, 155 KIAS climb speed yields 1200 fpm until about FL180, then it trails off to about 1000 fpm. I descend at 200 KIAS. The -28 powered King Air I used to fly wouldn't quite match that. Even the Cheyenne II isn't really any faster. There is a layer of turboprops that are a little faster (non -10 Turbo Commanders, MU-2's etc), but the time delta on long legs from 245 knots to 260 is far less noticeable than from 210 knots to 245 knots IMHO. To really go a lot faster you have to be in a -10 powered Garrett machine or a Cheyenne IIIA/400. Pretty small list.... (and let's compare the purchase price of a well kept Aerostar 700 to a reasonable example of any of those).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 24 Apr 2016, 09:24 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3308
Post Likes: +1434
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I get an honest 245 knots true airspeed And that's the allure of a 700 A*. The question is Steve, do you always fly her at that airspeed? I did a little research some time ago on 700's and couldn't find a single one that regularly ran at that airspeed. It appears to me that most run them at far less than 75% power. Do you run her at 75% power on every flight Steve?
_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 24 Apr 2016, 09:40 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12191
Post Likes: +3075
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I get an honest 245 knots true airspeed And that's the allure of a 700 A*. The question is Steve, do you always fly her at that airspeed? I did a little research some time ago on 700's and couldn't find a single one that regularly ran at that airspeed. It appears to me that most run them at far less than 75% power. Do you run her at 75% power on every flight Steve?
Any flight between 1.5 and 3 hours I ran at 65% power which would give 245 KTAS in the upper 20s.
At 75% you are closer 260+ KTAS. I did it a few times, but it was not worth the fuel burn to me.
Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 24 Apr 2016, 10:02 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/03/11
Posts: 170
Post Likes: +62
Location: KSIF, Summerfield, NC
Aircraft: ‘92 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: He actually said 830 lbs of load, not 960 lbs. I just know my airplane and it would make it within legal limits. Numbers attached. My Aerostar would not meet his mission though because it is not FIKI.
(and from a later post:
I feel compelled to add that the trap, regardless of aircraft, is to make the same trip with older/larger kids as they grow. When you are on the edge of the limits, you need to do a weight and balance for each trip with accurate weights. If necessary, leave fuel and therefore range behind. A fuel stop isn't the end of the world. Joel, and others that provided input on their Aerostars, Just wanted to thank you for the W&B data. It can be really hard to find meaningful empty weight info on aircraft in general. It helps a lot to see some real numbers. My real mission is my buddy's house in Steamboat. Plenty of room for us, cheap and he keeps begging for us to come up, any time of the year. KSBS is 762nm from home field as the Bo flies, but with <13,000' front range, 16,000' MEA's, 7000' airport, freezing weather and clouds. There is a 10,000', VFR only, workaround through Rabbit Ears pass (BTDT) and maybe cloud flying in the mountains is a bad idea anyway? A two day trip each way with the kids by car (two cars!). SWMBO won't fly with me, so we have only 6 to fly. Right now 710 lbs of people (grandkids are 2, 4 & 6) and car seats. The 830lbs number was simply my A36's full fuel payload. By myself, I'd just wait for good weather and ski until it comes. With the working kids, they tend to want to get home on time. Grandkids can miss school, so maybe I'll just leave the kids behind and take the cute ones. I hear you about the kids growing! The only good thing in the near term, is that when they grow out of their FAA approved car seats they loose 30 lbs each! Eventually I'd need a C421, or a Model 18! When I was a kid, my Dad's '47 A model Navion was a 7 passenger airplane that carried luggage as well. That's right, 4 kids under two lap belts and the baby on mom's lap with the right wheel removed. A Bo would have been faster, but the Navion only cost 5AMU. Never heard of car seats in those days, but I will do anything to protect my grandkids. Even have shoulder harness's these days to protect myself. And you are right, stopping for gas ain't the end of the world. I just hate to stop. A good reason to fly; on the ground you have to stop every 3 hours with the kids. And when little one's stop, they have to play for an hour before you can get them back in their car seats! Love the idea of an Aerostar, or a B58P, or even a B58! My A36 with TAT TN + IO550 + TKS +Tips + O2 = 175AMU upgrade (with credit for engine overhaul) would do the trick. Hmm. No pressurization no spare engine and not much room for luggage. Thanks again, Rog
_________________
Roger Kingsborough
Last edited on 24 Apr 2016, 10:06, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
