In my experience Aerostars eat main tires at a higher rate than other planes I've owned. They're not terrible expensive, but still a difference I noticed.

Not as bad as my Mooney Bravo!

Jgreen

It may turn out I'm the last.


"TXKF L F WADE INTL A0143/16 - AVGAS 100LL WILL NOT BE STORED OR
DISPENSED ON THE AD. 25 NOV 21:20 2016 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 25 NOV 21:18 2016"

AD = Aerodrome

I'm going back Jan 26 (on Delta).

It should be an interesting visit.

Annual 2016: $16,486.09

That includes $3,500.00 for O/H one turbo and $300.00 for AAC going through but not O/H my left WGs, and two main tires.

Plane runs great!

JOOC, would the costs for a 600a (I think that is the non turboed one) be similar to a baron or TwinBo? Or are there things that would drive it higher?

I don't know if there are any 600A owners on here. I would guess cost may be slightly less than a Baron mainly because of the Lycoming powerplants. It is very similar to the IO540-S1A5 on the 601P which is very solid and durable.

A over half of my bill was turbo related.

No one would consider using a 601P to haul checks and cargo like was done with 600s.

Based on the robust construction of an Aerostar, I'd think a 600 would be less than a Baron for an equivalent quality Annual.

I'm hip deep in a TBone restoration right now, but this thread has got me thinking about the next project. I'll go back through this thread, but any downsides to the 600, besides no turbos/no pressurization?

I don't know about that but here's a project that you can probably get for cheap! (1969 601A KOLV)

Downsides to the 600?

There aren't many low time 600s on the market.

That's about it.

I don't know about that but here's a project that you can probably get for cheap! (1969 601A KOLV)

I can certainly see how some pilot's mission simply does not call for pressurization or turbocharging. That being said, those two systems are not a significant portion of the operating cost of the airplane, IMO. A* owners who have been spending money on these two items recently would be better at projecting cost thereof, but I would think that $20/hour would pretty well cover both.

If $20/hour is a game changer for a prospective A* owner, please don't buy an A* of any model. You will be a marginal and unhappy owner.

Jgreen

I don't get the impression cost of ops is in his criteria. Folks restoring airplanes don't do it for the non-existent money savings. I'm just guessing that wanting an NA ship is to give a degree or two of simplicity to a complicated process.

John makes a valid point.

It you are attempting to figure out what's the best plane for hauling checks or some other moderately heavy cargo at night, 1000 hours a year, cost of operation is an important number.

But, if you are attempting to figure out whether you can afford to own an Aerostar and fly it 100-200 hours a year, the answer is pretty simple: You can't.

If you buy one any way, (even the totally run out planes still fly great (it's an Aerostar)), you won't be happy when the cost of ownership transitions from theory to reality.

I disagree on John's theory that the turbos (and pressurization) cost twenty dollars and hour.

I'm thinking $80-100/HR.

I am NOT saying the cost isn't worth the benefits just that turbos and pressurization add closer to 50% cost of operation.

The 601 was the fastest Aerostar (certified to FL300), but many 601 owners have pulled the turbos and converted them to 600s.

Side Note:

Join the A-F and touch base with Skip D, he has a older 600, and is very involved in maintaining his plane, he can give you accurate numbers on what he pays to run a basic 600.

Forrest,

I just can't see your numbers on turbo and pressurization cost unless the operator is burning turbos and waste gates like camp fire marshmallows.

My A* was run past its first TBO without replacement of either.

$80/hour would be $136,000 in a 1700 hour TBO cycle.
That is not realistic to me.

Jgreen