I've looked at several Aerostars both pictures and on the ramp. I've never seen one with seven seats but I've seen numerous specs that say they can seat seven. Is it s 2+2+3 configuration and is it ever done? I'm sure there's a useful load issue but I'm talking about throwing some small kids in it?

Thanks,

Lance

2+2+3

With both center seats installed.

Little people would be fine.

(Limited leg room)

Let's say just for discussion purposes, you had a potential partner interested in partnering on an A* who only had about 100-120 hours TT (and currently working on his IFR) and no ME yet, do you think you'd be setting them up for failure in considering getting into an A* together?

I have about 900 hrs TT and about 250 hrs multi time and have had my IFR for several years. I don't think I'd have much a problem transitioning but am concerned about my potential partner. Thoughts?

How much mentor time for him do you think would be appropriate / required assuming he has completed his IFR?

We're in the market for an Aerostar, probably a 700/702. I've been reading about the EPS engine and at some point in the future, perhaps a million years, it might be an option for an upgrade.

Their website seems to sort of go blank after 2014. They claim they'll be certified in 2016 but here we are in 2016 and no EPS engine. I don't see anything in the news or even press releases from the company recently.

If the EPS engine is real and would be an option in five years or so, we'd consider a higher time on engines. If not, then lower time engines would be desirable.

So, what's the real story on this engine? Is this just another pie-in-the-sky thing?

There are a couple of A*s I know of that were bought by pilots who were still student pilots at the time and they fly happily and safely now (some years later). The answer to your question depends only on the ability of your potential partner to not rush and allow others to guide them on when they're actually ready.

UTR

Don,

Rich's answer is spot on.

However....

Why are you taking on a partner?

Forrest,

I'm just exploring options my friend. My offices are about 300 ft from an executive hangar that houses ~25 different aircraft ranging from C182s to Barons to Malibus to Learjets to Citations. My Seneca flies about 200-250 hrs per year. No other airplane of the 25 that share my hanger space fly that much. I would venture a guess that the average utilization of all these aircraft is in the 50 hr / yr range. It's unreal.

This experience has given me great perspective on how very under-utilized these assets are. I'm a big believer in a/c partnerships and will try to create a partnership whenever it makes sense with the right partner.

This option may work and may not. We shall see...

The published specs for the EPS engine are great, it would make a 702 into an even more amazing machine. Unless one had a hankering to fly to Hawaii without a ferry tank, one could get rid of the Aux tank and regain a bunch of baggage space.

But, my guess is that a fully approved Aerostar 702D is still five years away, assuming there is a funding source for doing the engineering and jumping through the FAA's hoops.

Cirrus and Robinson are at the front of the line for engines once EPS earns all the approvals, I would not be surprised to see Cessna start building a modern version of the 402, (and Piper the T1040) with diesels as well.

But first EPS needs the approvals and the manufacturing capibility and I hope enough potiential profit margin to attract the investment to make a great concept, reality.

Forrest,

I'm just exploring options my friend. My offices are about 300 ft from an executive hangar that houses ~25 different aircraft ranging from C182s to Barons to Malibus to Learjets to Citations. My Seneca flies about 200-250 hrs per year. No other airplane of the 25 that share my hanger space fly that much. I would venture a guess that the average utilization of all these aircraft is in the 50 hr / yr range. It's unreal.

This experience has given me great perspective on how very under-utilized these assets are. I'm a big believer in a/c partnerships and will try to create a partnership whenever it makes sense with the right partner.

This option may work and may not. We shall see...

We're in it for the long haul. We're planning on keeping the plane for at least 10 years. It would be amazing to have an option other than a 50+ year old engine design. Thanks.

EPS is real and they've been well funded and done good progress. I think they have the best chance of succeeding out of all the newly developed diesels. That said, after the engine is certified, which might be another 5 years, then it'll be at least 2 more years before anyone certifies the STC to retrofit them on any airframes. And after that's said and done, you're looking at an engine that will cost closer to a turbine per hour. There' just no way this engine will cost less than $150K/piece for at best 2000hr TBO. A TPE-331 engined plane is $250K for 5400hrs. That's the reality of this - they will be competing for turbine business and probably end up costing more. Granted, if you calculate the fuel savings, there might be a slight edge for the diesel.

I really hope they succeed and I really hope they can keep pricing sensible. They're already talking big military contracts for UAV's etc, which is a death sentence for affordability. Once they get a little taste of that military sugar where you can charge whatever you want, there will be little inclination to give low price deals and deal with the hassle of GA just to sell 50 engines…

If you are flying 200-250 hrs a year, you don't need a partner, that's good utilization.

The thing to keep in mind is that if you fly a pressurized twin 250 hours a year, capital
cost/depreciation/fixed costs are going to be a minor portion of your total cost of operation, I pay about $3,500.00/YR for insurance, $4,800.00 for hanger space, both are minor expenses.

The big money is in operating expenses.

To my thinking, the most powerful reason to own an aircraft is availability.
The days when your partner is flying and the extra days in the shop fixing the things that broke as of the result of that extra utilization will reduce available days, which was the reason you decided to own in the first place.

If you were considering a TBM or PC12, or a newish King Air where the fixed cost of ownership will make up a much larger portion of the total cost of ownership, there would be good justification to bring on a partner to share those fixed costs, but on an Aerostar what you might save doesn't justify the hassle.(IMO)

[/quote]

Forrest, I'm impressed with this answer. It is about as no BS sensible as you can get.

Jgreen

Considering the overall malaise of the GA market, basing a decision on a "possible" engine alternative sometime in the future is very unrealistic. As Forrest says, the numbers look great and I'll say that the "promises" look better, but realistically the odds are against the eventual application of this engine.

As my grandmother would say, "There's many a slip between the cup and the lip." Cessna went so far with their "dieselization" of the turbo Skylane as to stop production of the Lycoming model, only to have to abandon the project; at least for the foreseeable future.

Buy the Aerostar and enjoy flying it. If the EPS comes available, great, it not, the value of the piston airplane will be "as it has been", but don't let marketing speculation drive your decision.

Jgreen

On request, Post has been relocated to IFR/Weather section.

Thank you to whoever gave me the "like".

http://youtu.be/gXN1yxax448

that post deserves its own thread!