The issue with turbos is that if you are buying a project airplane, they would add the cost of a third engine into the equation, and a fair bit of complexity to the project. I just don't want to go there.

As a side note, before I bought the T-bone, I saw Adam's Aero Commander on Ebay. That was before I was on BT. I tried to find a way to get in touch with Adam before it sold, as I just couldn't bear to bid on it without a little more info.

Originally my airplane was to be a flying project, but I decided to dig into it deeper once I got into it. Mechanical OCD is a bit of a curse.

John,
That is impressive.
Your experience is an example of how an operator can hold down maintenance costs.

I run LOP, as hard at my TIT limits (1650) will allow, often at 23K' + (150-200hrs/Yr) and if a side can't maintain 29" at 2550 at 24K', I'm having work done at a Aerostar expert (not cheap) shop.

I have the iconal exhaust and tail pipes, so I'm will to accept some additional wear and tear on the turbos and WGs in return for better range or a bit less fuel burn.

Edited opinion:

$80.00/$100.00 an hour less maintenance cost to run a 600 than what I pay to run a 601P.

Have owned Aerostars since 1984. Started with a 79 600A, no boots or hot props. Flew it about 1000 hrs. Only real maint was resealing a couple of gear actuators when we first got it, other than that it was gas/oil/filters/tires. Very trouble free a/c for the time we had it. Bought a low time '84 factory 700P in 85,, was a Piper repo with 300hrs. Flew both for a couple of years, then sold the 600A when my brother quit flying on business as much as I was. (business together). Put 2800 hrs on the 700P, original set of factory engines (U2Aas) went to TBO without replacing anything other than one cylinder. Rebuilt the engines and turbo/waste gates, added the Inconel exhaust system from Aerostar and proceeded to fly them 1000hrs right up until we sold the a/c after getting the Cheyenne. My experience seems to be unusal as most Aerostar operators seem to have a lot more turbo/waste gates issues than I ever did. Ran the TIT at 1600 with a 1650 limit, changed oil every 25-35 hrs. Should have kept the 700P for all the shorter and personal flights, but live and learn. Came upon a really nice 55 Baron President II and bought it for a personal a/c. Flew it about 500hrs but always missed the Aerostar. So sold the Baron and went looking for a lower time late model 600A with deice. Found a really nice a/c down in GA, really stright and true airframe, one low time engine, one high. Horrible paint and interior, but that was what I wanted as I wanted to redo that part to suit me. Some of you guys have seen my 600A at Max's BBQ last year.

As for maint, the 600A and a comparably equipped Baron are going to be very close. Parts are not an issue for either a/c. The 550s in the Baron seemed to be a little more quirky and prone to minor stuff than the Lycomings on the 600A. But neither is that a big deal. Gear and flaps on the Aerostar are hydraulic. Gear is retracted and held up by the hyd pressure, retract cylinders have a huge internal spring to push the gear down/lock, so every gear extension is made by basically releasing hyd pressure and letting the gear extend. Very simple. Fuel system is ON/OFF/XFeed. Turn them on and will run to dry tanks 165.5 gal. 45 gal aux tank available in forward part of baggage compartment, auto or manual fill into main fuse tank, sort of like the tip tanks on the Bo.

Pricing upkeep would be difficult as I do all my own maint work other than avionics/paint/interior. So upkeep for me is cost of parts. A straight B58 and Aerostar 600A are very comparable, Aerostar is a little faster, useful about the same. B58 would work better on a shortish field as the Aerostar wing is made for speed, but not that much difference in runway requirements. Aerostar cabin is about 4 inches wider and same cross section all the way back, so rear seat headroom and shoulder room same as up front. I do like the Lycomings over the limited experience I had with the 550s, but would not let that make a difference in choices of a/c, too minor. Do like the big read door on the B58.

If you like Beech, you will love the 58, my form/fit/function are more closely aligned with the Aerostar.

If the Baron had been 2-4" wider, would probably have kept it. :-)

PM me if you have any specific questions on the Aerostar.

Great info Nathan, thanks!

Just a few other items to consider. The pressurized Aerostars average 300-500 lbs. more than a 600 or non-pressurized plane, hence the difference in landing and takeoff distances. Pressurization, intercoolers and turbos do come at a performance price. While turbos and pressure are nice at altitude, handling and performance are compromised at the lower altitudes.
The stock 600 wing span is two feet shorter than the pressurized Aerostars. Wing extensions are available for the 600s which add 200 lbs. to the useful load along with the obvious performance improvements. Add extensions and winglets and you have a substantial improvement in performance that is nothing short of remarkable.
On mine I not only added wing extensions and winglets, I also added the six puck brakes. I now have short field performance that blows the doors off of any Aerostar out there with anything less. Landing and climb performance is noticeable immediately. It is quite remarkable. The six puck brakes are more like the power braking of a car. Keep in mind, the brake upgrade on a 600 is stopping a plane that is 300-500 lbs. lighter than a pressurized Aerostar.
As far as cost goes, all shops will vary. At my shop, your average non-eventful annual on a 600 will run 5-8,000 while a pressurized Aerostar will run 12 to 15,000. In a pressurized Aerostar you have more parts and more systems that will always take more time to inspect and fix. Hence greater cost and more down time. There is no free lunch. Every plane has its mission. I do love my 600s. Maybe I'll get a 700 one of these days. You just can't beat the finger tip flying of the Aerostar. It's just so responsive and nimble.

Good info Tom. Could you share the costs of the wing extensions, winglets and brakes individually?? Sounds like you own a B58 killer

Wing extensions I believe are 25M installed and winglets are 20M. Six puck brakes I think are around 8M.
All of the aforementioned upgrades are on the Aerostar performance up-grade page.

Tom what kind of short field performance are you getting? T/O and Landing distances and accel-stop?

What's your max cruise speed and fuel?

Really sounds interesting.

Jim

Sunrise at Sedona Airport

Sweeeeet!

25m for wing extensions. that's pretty steep. One of the reasons why I went with the 601B. This is the useful load monster. B' has the longer wing and 6000lb gross weight combined with the lower unpressurized empty weight. At 4076 empty I have nearly 2000lbs useful or full fuel plus 1000lbs. it's crazy!

Tom what kind of short field performance are you getting? T/O and Landing distances and accel-stop?

What's your max cruise speed and fuel?

Really sounds interesting.

Jim

Tom,

A few comments about my A*.

Your cruise/fuel burn numbers don't look right. My 601P will give 210 knots at 14,000 burning 30 gph. Pic shown. That is leaned by TIT numbers, 1575 or less. A 600 should do better at that fuel burn below 10,000.

I have never owned an airplane that flew closer to book numbers than my A*. What does your POH show for max cruise and fuel burn for 8,000'?

My POH shows an accelerate stop distance of just over 3,000' at SL and a 30 degree C day at 5500# (6000 gross). I had a runaway turbo boost at "rotation" speed, 85knots, coming out of KMMS, where my mechanic resides. I have the heavy brakes and stopped easily.

As far as speed control on approach, the A* at full flaps, 45 degrees, reacts instantly to power reduction, making it one of the most controllable airplanes on approach I have ever flown. On the other hand, one must be extremely aware of the affect of power reductions. A go around from a full flap configuration should, IMO, be under emergency procedures. You had better go to full power NOW and get those flaps up or you will not climb. Any A* instructor worth his salt will tell you to never lower full flaps until the runway is made, about 500' AGL.
It makes absolutely no sense to me that winglets would have any affect on speed control on approach, or in any other flight regime for that matter other than adding drag.

To date, I have not seen one single independent test that shows winglets to make any improvement of performance on any piston airplane. If anyone has such a report, I would love to see it.

Jgreen

My average annual on a 600A with 125 hrs/yr is about 8 thousand $

I was taught full flaps between 200ft AGL when IMC, max 500ft AGL when VMC. Therefore it was usually 200ft AGL for me for consistency.
As for full flaps and climb, depends on model and weight. The larger 350HP the plane climbed with full flaps and gear hanging out, slow, but it did climb (practicing aborted landing and forgot to clean up the plane -- more then once on initial training ).

In terms of winglets, they help at high angle's of attack. The greater the angle of attack, the larger the drag reduction. This is why traditionally winglets help on climb but hurt on cruise. This helps explain why you have "better" control when you get into the area of reverse command for power.

In the A* case, you will find a lot of anecdotal comments from before/after winglets about how they help. AAC will likely never make a claim about how much they improve because of FAA rules.

Tim