Those numbers are for the lower compression turbo-charged models. The higher compression turbo-normalized 601Ps run 20 knots or so slower. More like 226 knots @ 65%.

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?

I did a pretty extensive analysis of an Aerostar versus 421 about a dozen years ago, to the point I bought an Aerostar POH and 421 POH and ran the numbers.

The fuel consumption per mile was pretty much even in cruise. The TIO540s on the Aerostar needed a lot of fuel per the POH to make power. The GTSIO520s didn't need as much per HP, and then they drove larger, slower props which improved the power efficiency. The GTSIO520 can be flown reliably LOP, the TIO540 not so much from what I hear, so that's an additional factor favoring the 421.

Climb rates, both two and one engine, were not very different.

The Aerostar was faster, by about 15-20 knots per the book, but the cabin comfort difference is huge.

The result of that analysis was I would prefer a 421. The range, comfort, and quiet it provides were worth the small speed loss, IMO.

Mike C.

Rog,

Some one needs to say it.

You don't need an Aerostar.

(You don't need a 421, or whatever)

You have given all the clues:

Wife won't fly with you.
Mission is into and out of the mountains in bad weather, including icing conditions
Planned passengers are your grandchildren.
You really don't know what your load will be.
You are likely to be trying to maintain a pre-arranged schedule.

This is a recipe for a new string on CT.

Keep the Bonanza for VFR trips and get yourself a Wheels-Up membership for the times when the grandkids want to come along.

https://wheelsup.com/membership/

A 350 king air is more capable than any Aerostar or 421 AND Wheels Up is going to provide some level of oversight to counter balance inevitable situations where get-there-itis becomes a factor.

If you are old enough to have grandchildren, and prosperous enough to afford a pressurized cabin class twin, you can afford to have a professional sit up front for the few hours a year when you need a more capable aircraft than the one you have.

That's all I'm going to say about that.

I get an honest 305 KTAS, 155 KIAS climb, 2500 FPM, FL180 in ~10 minutes, descend 250 KIAS, 2000 FPM.

I paid a lot less than $650K for that.


A -5, -6 Commander or MU2 are faster than 260 KTAS, more like 280. They also climb much better than the Aerostar which is a speed advantage since they speed less time slow, and more time in faster cruise at altitude.

The major speed advantage to a turboprop is that the piston aircraft gets 0 knots sitting the shop. The reliability of the turboprop is significantly higher.

Mike C.

For reference, 1976 421C POH:

FL200, ISA, 70% power, 220 knots true, 41 GPH.

So that's 2 GPH more for the same speed, or 20 knots slower of 5 GPH less. Considering this was at gross weight, the 421 will gain some speed when loaded for the same range/payload as the Aerostar, the difference is not much consider the much larger cabin. The above numbers are NOT LOP either.

To go 200 KTAS, 421C is 57% power, 34 GPH, at FL200, ISA.


The 421C can't quite do that, FL250, ISA, 194 KTAS, for 31 GPH. Again, that's not LOP though. Given a long range flight, the 421 pilot can operate at faster speeds due to the longer range tanks, that is, he isn't forced into long range cruise at distances the Aerostar must do that. If the 421C can skip a fuel stop the Aerostar requires, then the speeds and fuel usage are hugely in the 421's favor.


421C time to climb FL220, ISA, MGTOW is 24 minutes for cruise climb, 15 minutes for maximum climb.

The Aerostar is a slick machine, but if you are willing to trade off a few knots of cruise, the 421 is overall a far better traveling machine, IMO.

Mike C.

Mike, you are quoting flight manuals and I am quoting actual observations in real world conditions that include step climbs in busy metro areas and a concernerned owner's fuel settings that are designed around the reliability and longevity of the equipment. When I was in the part 135 business, I found there to be significant difference between the theoretical and the practical. Sales and marketing filters the numbers thatcend up in the book, but eventually I have to cover the long term cost of running low flow / high temps, etc.

On that note I find Aerostar to have the most honest books I have worked with...I usually best book numbers by a slight margin.

The 421 drivers can comment on this more than I can, but my assessment from speaking with them is that the 421 POH is reasonably accurate.

Note that the 421 POH mixtures are based on 50 or 100 ROP depending on power setting, so someone who operates LOP can see some fuel flow savings.


Do you know the 421 POH is dishonest?

Mike C.

Like most threads, this has come down to a very tiresome argument.

Anyone seriously interested in an Aerostar, 400 series Cessna, or turboprop, would be well advised to consider the airplanes as they relate to one's particular mission. Each will shine brightly in its own environment.

IMO.

No offense intended.

Jgreen

This is at the local airport. I've heard many different stories about it but sounds like it was recently purchased at auction. The paint job is.....new.

How's the ground handling with that electric steering?

Very easy. Takes about five minutes to get used to it.
I had the optional second switch installed which was really handy to then be able to have hands on the engine controls and also on the steering switch.

Tim

Forrest,
I want to thank you for the excellent advice.. Really, I do agree.
And the way I put it, it really did sound that bad.

Certainly I don't need an Aerostar and have no interest in flying in the mountains in icing conditions, or even icing conditions anywhere else for that matter. Especially not with my grandkids on board!

But..

But flying high, most any time of the year, there is potential for encountering icing conditions in clouds, and Colorado demands going pretty high. Here in STL, dealing with ice is an issue 6 months of the year even without a turbocharger. So far, with careful planning, I've been able to slide under, but you can't always get warm air below. So ice protection is one of those things I long for.

The day I decided to get an IFR rating was when I realized that even relatively benign cloud conditions, say 1000' and broken, can stop you from flying VFR, safely, for days. The last actual VFR flight I made before getting my IFR, I had to stop and wait to avoid scud running and still had to "sneak" under a 1200' overcast.

Now days I normally file IFR, even on good days, just to keep in practice with ATC, procedures etc. Probably 40% of flights I've made in the last couple years would have been difficult, dangerous or impossible VFR, some even required fairly low approaches.

Getting to Steamboat VFR can be interesting.. Last time I slipped in VFR under a broken 11,000' (MSL) ceiling in snow flurries. No grandkids on board and sun shining through the passes from the other side, but not something I relish doing again even though I had an out with a clear airport before each pass. Definitely not taking the Bo into freezing clouds and couldn't get over them, but it would have been much better going over the clouds.. KSBS was clear and beautiful.

Flew out in CAVU WX all the way to STL a few days later. Some days you win some days you lose. Wouldn't surprise me to wait a week for WX to get out of there. Even driving out you want to plan carefully.

Long and the short of it, I'll probably just drive them out. Not that bad a deal, and better than taking commercial flights. Much prefer a 14 hour drive than 12 hours connecting commercial getting to Hayden (from KSTL). Besides we need two cars when we get there!
On my own, I'll take the Bo. I JUST LOVE FLYING.

Took the kids and grandkids skiing last Jan. Had to take TWO SUV's!
Will post a pic of the little guys (18 months & 6 yrs)..And of course I don't need the Bo either, just ask SWMBO..

But... I still lust after a Baron or Aerostar, or maybe a Shrike, or MU2.. Sorry, getting carried away. I just amazes me that I can't get much more than speed out of going with two engines as compared to the load carrying capacity of a Bonanza. Gotta love that plane.

Please don't worry too much about me being on CT. Not that it can't happen, it can, but I have a healthy fear of dying, despite my skydiving career. Nowadays, some people say it's safer to parachute the plane to the ground than land anyway. Once, could it have been 40 years ago(?), yep, 1976, had to return to land with a load of jumpers in the C180 I was flying. Thought one guy was going to croak. Turns out he'd never been in an airplane and landed before, always jumped out!

I'm not anywhere close to being a bold pilot or a terribly experienced one. I have been studying a long time, virtually since my first flight on my momma's knee in the back of the J5 going to KC some 60 years ago, and will take careful heed of your council.

Sincerely
Roger
PS: SWMBO is scared of flying on 747's and seems to have inversely associated that fear moving to smaller planes, like the Bo.. Looking at data perhaps?

PPS: The little guys..

Very easy. Takes about five minutes to get used to it.
I had the optional second switch installed which was really handy to then be able to have hands on the engine controls and also on the steering switch.

Tim

Very easy. Takes about five minutes to get used to it.
I had the optional second switch installed which was really handy to then be able to have hands on the engine controls and also on the steering switch.

Tim