You pay a big price to go fast both in fuel burn and maintenance. There's no getting around it. It is what it is.

I flight planned 222 at 16,000-FL 180 in the 700; 240-245 at FL250. Mine was limited to FL250 as I did not have the 5.5 diff. Fuel flow was 22.5 to 23/side. In my prior 601-P, I flight planned for 215 and burned about 15/side. The big advantage of the 700 was a remarkably high useful load (GW increase) and performance on one engine. The disadvantage was high fuel burn and a propensity to require that good performance on one engine.

I purchased Aerostar instead of a 2007ish Meridian. I could not have made this trip in Meridian due to useful load of 1700 pounds.

I saved around 500K buying Aerostar...or Did I
Over time Aerostar will likely require higher maintenance and definitely more $ for fuel.
Yes...I can fly LOP at 45% while only burning about 26GPH total....someday I might try this....probably 35 knots slower....me...Just not tired of going PHAST yet

I have been told by people with more knowledge than I that keeping TIT at/under 1580 and they will last a long time. Push TIT to 1650 and see about 700 hours. I have FOUR turbos.
I choose to spend more on gogo juice now and hope turbos last until engine overhaul needed.

You are part of close knit circle of Aerostar aficionado's who are helping to insure the viability of the Aerostar for decades to come.

I have been praying for this on the Duke for the last 4 years...

I have a 601P/SS700 with U2A's, without the GW increase.

As some have said, it has two speeds, fast, or efficient, you have to pick one.

I have only had mine to FL230, but in the past five years of ownership, I have seen 255KTAS there, and have seen ground speeds as high as 350 in cruise (and 367 in decent). At 75% power, mine burns basically 49-50 GPH at 1550 TIT, ROP. 60% I'll be down to 32GPH at 215-220 KTAS in the low 20's.

In efficient mode, the one thing that I have found is particularly when high AND heavy, the lower power settings become very inefficient as that wing has a definite step that it likes to ride on. I have a Shadin fuel flow indicator tied into my GTN-750, and you can play with power settings and see a significant difference in the landing fuel on a long trip. Most efficient in that case is around 65-70% and about 40 GPH.

Mine does not like LOP. It will run there, but the power loss is significant enough that the MPG calculation is a loosing venture. At light weights, 60% power, around FL200, you will embarrass a NA 58 Baron efficiency wise, and comfort wise.

About once or twice a year, I fly it from Michigan to Florida, usually Kissimmee, Lakeland, or Ft. Myers (900NM). I can do then non stop, even with a small headwind if I do the fuel trip to "overfill" it. My last trip I had a headwind from Lakeland until crossing the mountains and zero wind until landing in Michigan, 4:30 enroute and I landed with an hours worth of fuel on board. Usually I'm around 3:50-4:00 enroute when southbound.

I operate a mix for 75% power, or 60% power depending on the particular use. If my fuel is being reimbursed (i.e., by a charity) then I run it at 75% power. If I'm buying the juice, I run it around 60% unless I'm heavy.

With all that said, I use mine about 75% of the time for charity, and the remainder for personal use which would skew to about 95/5 once my project Bonanza is done. I'll likely put the Aerostar up for sale or trade in the next couple weeks as I need six plus seats over speed. A Twin-Cessna it my most likely candidate, with a PA31 or even another Baron as close followers. It's a great five person airplane, but a horrible six (or seven) person airplane. I would have loved to seen the 800 produced with a longer fuselage and then you couldn't pry it out of my hands! It's likely as close to owning a jet that I'll ever get, buy I'll let my employer pick up that tab!

You are part of close knit circle of Aerostar aficionado's who are helping to insure the viability of the Aerostar for decades to come.

Adam I don't think those words can be in the same sentence in aviation.

Not just Forrest, but ALL of the Aerostar owners...passionate, infectious lot.

This is the post from Forrest that started the unquenchable thirst for an Aerostar.
Owning a Columbia with VNE of 235knots I did not want to give up anything on a move up to a pressurized piston twin. I talked to a salvager that cut up an old Aerostar recently ...he said it took three times the blades on over any other airplane he had cut up....nuff said

In case it hasn't already been mentioned, why not just get rid of those twirly things all together and get one of these Aerostars ?

400 knot cruise, FL410, up to 5,000 feet/minute climb. Want!

I ran all day long 32"/2200 at 22.5 gph at get 1570 TIT ROP. 24 gph seems high to me.

$500k invested @ 8% = $40k worth of maintenance/fuel per year.

Jason - You should consider a 600 : It is indeed a true six-seater, far cheaper to run than your 700, 1,000NM range and , drum roll please, it will kick the living %#$@ out of every-other-production-NA-twin in the Galaxy ! And if you slow down to Baron flat-out speeds, you will be burning a miserly 24G/h total.

(ask me how I know ...)