Thomas,
Thanks, that is a great write-up. Hopefully it will help all pilots and maintenance providers be careful out there. When I saw the comment about flying with you but not in an Aerostar, I had to think, not much of this is Aerostar specific.
By that I mean:
1. and 2. were caused by installing poorly designed brand X overhauled parts.
4. This was an engine failure or was about to be had you not feathered it in time, and is pretty rare but could happen on any piston engine airplane.
5. I have had the oil congeal in the cooler coming out of a warm hangar and into 20 below weather. I think any piston engine could have this issue.
6. The oil breather failure was another maintenance provider failure that could happen to any airplane.
Item # 3. could certainly be considered an Aerostar specific icing issue. I have had the oil coolers congeal as stated above but by reducing power and waiting 5 minutes, they stayed under red line and the coolers cleared themselves. Since then if it is below zero I always tape the bottom third of the coolers as a precautionary measure. Having had some experience with coolers, having blocked them off and measured effectiveness, I can tell you they still radiate a lot of heat, so if oil is still flowing through the cooler and it is completely iced over, they will still cool the oil better than if the cooler was congealed and by throttling back you should be able to keep temps under the red line.
You handled all of those issues very well and I will fly with you any time in an Aerostar or an MU2. Regarding icing, even the mighty MU2 can have issues in icing as reported on this ATC transcript so even turbine operators have to be careful to avoid ice as much as possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbm8xzLVgQ4

Agree. As some may have read me report elsewhere, I think the Aerostar flies nicer than any plane I've ever flown. Most of my issues were engine issues, not airframe issues, but my main points were that things can happen that you aren't even aware of as risks, two engines are nice to have, and turbine engines have more utility and less failure modes than pistons in difficult weather. My Aerostar engines were overhauled (as part of my purchase) by a very reputable shop and the plane was maintained by an Aerostar service center, so I wasn't skimping on maintenance. The "brand-x" wastegates were there when I bought it and they were FAA certified, the breather tube was an error. But it does seem that there are far more failure modes on pistons engines, even when maintained by reputable shops.
Jim, thanks for the info on the coolers. The fact that they can provide enough cooling when fully covered (but not frozen) must be why I made it to my alternate that night. The cylinders were also getting pretty hot because the nacelle air intake was smaller and more turbulent than normal, but I didn't need alternate air. Agreed on the cooler taping issue, as I noted, I did that all winter as well, but this was a Spring storm and my tape was off. I should have put it back on. But I maintain that the very fact you need to consider putting tape on your engine with some environmental conditions is a risk that shouldn't exist. The day my cooler froze I flew for a while at near idle power, but the oil temp exceeded redline anyway. I didn't know what risk there was to coking oil...maybe I should have let it run?
On icing in turbines, clearly ice can bring ANY aircraft down. But on that Canadian instance, they had a dual flameout. I wasn't there, but it's quite likely that they failed to activate one or more available anti-icing measures. You need to turn on the engine intake heat, insure the ignitors are on AUTO, or then put them on CONTINUOUS if it really hits the fan. Otherwise ice coming off the intake (as it is heated from below) is ingested and can cause the engine to flameout. With the continuous ignition activated, the engine immediately relights. I have been in some moderately significant icing (not what I'd call severe) and virutally never saw any ice accumulation on the engine face it works very well when turned on. If you forget, notice the ice, and then turn it on, it sheds big slushballs into the engine and that can be a problem. I don't know of any other airframe that has been subjected to the kind of testing that MHIA elected to do with the MU-2 (flying behind a tanker spraying the plane with ice to see what happens)...it does very well indeed. The fact that it has twice the horsepower of my Superstar helps me get out of a bad situation, but again, any plane can be brought down if it really gets bad.
The Aerostar is a fantastic plane. I might own one again when I'm not flying 2-3x/week on a schedule in the Rockies, at night, in snow. But for now and for me, the turbine has been a outstanding for capability and reliability. I have no idea why their systems are so bulletproof compared to what I saw with twin pistons, but they seem to be. I know my experience with the Aerostar maintenance issues was an outlier, but it was my experience, and it wasn't due to intentionally "skimping" on maintenance.

Thomas, I didn't mean to imply you skimp on maintenance. I think you, and a lot of owners, pay for high quality maintenance but I am not sure you always get your moneys worth. I think the only thing the owner can do is to use a different shop for the annual occasionally to have a different set of eyes look at the airplane.

Regarding FAA approved overhauls, some FAA official has to approve the shop's overhaul procedure, and if it turns out parts are breaking, the system relies on the mechanic or owner to fill out a Malfunction or Defect Report and send it in. If the component failure can cause a big power loss, like you had in one case, and then you had the same failure of the next overhauled component, the FAA needs to be notified so they can review the procedure. I don't know how often that happens.

I've had my A* taken apart in my hangar for the past month doing a little "owner maintenance", all that little stuff the never seems to really get done like pulling out all the old dead wires, tubes, hoses and antenna cables left over from multiple up-grades. Up to 30# so far...

Another thing on the list was to fix those pesky little fuel seeps in the wings that I never really noticed when the plane was blue, but now that it's white stand out like a sore thumb. A few days of digging (literally) removed about a pint or better of old sealant, some as much as 1/2" thick. It was like a archaeological dig going down thru the layers of previous attempts, gray, green, grown... A great way to spend the day with your arm stuck up in the wing.

Once the old goop removal was about good as it was going to get it was time for the re-seal. First off was to get the correct sealant, not the gray stuff most of the previous attempts had used, but the actual stuff specified in the A* MM, turned out to be a bit more difficult to source but SkyGeek came thru when my normal source (Spruce) failed. Now came the goop, wait, re-assemble the covers, pressure test and repeat. A few goes and I had the weeping rivets under control but the covers were kicking my butt, I simply couldn't determine exactly where the leak was originating; was it the cover gasket, the screw hole caps, the rivets, or the mounting ring? Once assembled a leak in any all looked the same. There had to be a better way.

I was about to call John at the factory and beg for advice when the obvious solution hit me... Plumbing test balls! I could stick them in the holes with the covers removed, apply air pressure to the wing and the leaks would show up exactly where they actually were, be it screw hole, rivet, or mounting ring. Now maybe most folks would have figured this out right off, for me it took a few days of pissing and moaning to figure out a better way. Here are a couple pictures. Yea I know, I'm using too small of test ball, that was the size I had.. You can see one of the little bubblers on one of the nut plate attach rivets. A little dab of the proper sealant in the right place did what multiple gobs of the wrong stuff in the wrong place failed to do. I should have taken a picture of the other wing, a couple of those were blowing bubbles like at a child's birthday party.

That fancy looking piece of plywood in the background is the manometer filled with blue windshield washer fluid so I don't unintentionally change the camber of my wing.

Maybe my trashing around will save some of you the same frustration if you are confronted with the same issues.

Jeff

Hello all,

I want advice on a crack we have in our airplane.

I'm attaching some pictures of a crack in the lower wing skin just in front of the main landing gear. It developed exactly the same on both on both sides.

have you seen anything like this?

?do you think this is structural, or just skin damage?

The shop is saying that it is only skin and that it can be replaced; But I want to be sure that this is not a known big problem!!

Hope to get any advice or comments.

Thanks,

Miguel

Don't quote me, but I believe that's a common place to crack. I have patches on both landing gear, but the only picture I have shows it behind the gear. I seem to remember having a conversation with John in Aerostar parts about a SB or modification of that area. If it's the same one I'm thinking of, the GW increase checklist refers to it as the Wing Skin Reinforcement 200137-001 and kit AAA00450.

Again, check with someone at Aerostar if Jim or someone more knowledgable doesn't show up here and explain it...

The below picture shows mine aft of the gear.

Jason

You're correct.

Hi Miguel,

The area you are pointing at will require a doubler. AAC has a service bulletin and a horseshoe shaped doubler to repair this area.

Fly Safe!
Ken

In honor of JG, I took this photo today at the Van Nuys Prop Park where Aerostar 449JG just might be a new resident.

The new owner is a speed freak, I think.

He called me a couple of months after taking delivery and had seen 242 true at 24,000'.

No doubt, with no boots, it is one fast 601P.

Jg

Heard that an Aerostar owner just completed a 1000 KM world-record flight and finished up with 278 kts. Pretty fast

Spirit of Kai Tak averaged 279kts between London and Sydney, so this must have been another category of record.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/its-whats-up-front-that-counts/#.XKgaiS2ZPOQ

If they Aerostar came with turboprops, it would simply beat everything out there in speed. Amazing planes.

Gear cycle is not limited by attitude - BUT those are good size gear doors ad it makes a lot of sense not to subject them to side forces while they are open. On takeoff you are not often skipping - so not worth considering . On landing - gear-down cycle is about THREE SECONDS so not hard to fit it in during the approach sequence. I have some video - blink and you mis it

Bob

Kai Tak article refers to a Super-700 - I believe Jack's is a 601P

Bob