banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 05:57 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 2880 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 ... 192  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2023, 07:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/12/18
Posts: 7
Post Likes: +7
Aircraft: Rv9, Aerostar 600A
Username Protected wrote:
Yes, that is my 601P listed on TAP. I sold it five years ago. Now, it gets weird. The add shows me as the owner with my phone number and email. :scratch:

The airplane lost an engine over the high desert and was landed on a remote strip. I am told, without damage. The engine was replaced on site and the airplane flown out. That is all I know.

Without being maudlin, when I sold the Aerostar, I was still unsure of my emotional status after the loss of Grant. Healing had come slowly and maintaining concentration was a challenge. The Aerostar is a very heavy work load airplane, and I felt I needed simplicity.
The last thing my children needed was to lose Karen and me in an airplane crash because I was not an adequate pilot.

About two years ago, I seemed to be much more stable and started looking for another twin. Still, I wanted something relatively simple: the Baron seemed to fit the mission.

Today, I am better still and spent several days in the Sitcom sim to prove that to my own satisfaction. My level of performance impressed them and almost impressed me.

If I could go back, I would still own N449JG and hang two new engines on it. The performance of some airplanes doesn't meet the promise but the Aerostar does.

I will leave you with this caution with my own actions, described above, as validation. The Aerostar is a high performance, high work load airplane. If you are not willing to commit yourself to being "adequate" with the bird, LEAVE IT ALONE.

Jg


After my first round of Covid, I too questioned my responsiveness. I loved my Aerostar but you just need to be on your game. So I sold mine and after a year when the long covid cleared up I bought a Turbo Aztec C which I still have. Coming over the fence at 80 mph and landing on 2500ft grass has opened up a lot more adventures that I missed in the Aerostar. The Aerostar is a great plane but not for the timid.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2023, 10:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/14
Posts: 209
Post Likes: +93
Username Protected wrote:
If I could go back, I would still own N449JG and hang two new engines on it. The performance of some airplanes doesn't meet the promise but the Aerostar does.

I will leave you with this caution with my own actions, described above, as validation. The Aerostar is a high performance, high work load airplane. If you are not willing to commit yourself to being "adequate" with the bird, LEAVE IT ALONE.

Jg


John, my condolences. I didn't realize what prompted you to surrender your Aerostar. My sympathies.

I do, however, disagree with your recommendation to settle for "adequate." The Aerostar is a superlative airplane and it deserves a competent pilot, not just an adequate one. Remember, most Aerostar accidents involve high time pilots with low time in type. Never settle for average in an Aerostar. It's not an Az-truck. Fly with someone who knows the airplane and learn its capabilities. Because I'm based at a high volume airport in crowded airspace I routinely get asked to maintain 180 to the marker. And on a VFR day can land it in under 2,000 ft.

I can't see bitching about the price of admission. 200 knots @ 30 / hr in a 600? Only way I'm going faster is adding turbos and pressurization to the maintenance bills. Or doubling the burn in kerosene along with six figure hot sections.

If I ever stop pinching myself, then maybe it's time to hang up my spurs. For now, I'm still living the dream. And hoping I never lose that loving feeling. Aerostar: "Most fun you can have with your pants on."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2023, 15:20 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/25/16
Posts: 108
Post Likes: +8
Long time lurker here… Considering an Aerostar. My wife and I would both fly it, I’m an airline pilot, she’s an Air Force Test Pilot. We both have extensive recent GA experience including piston twins and turbocharged big engines etc. Our intended mission is SoCal to Washington State. The 2 airports we’d like to be able to go between are 819 miles apart. Is this realistic for an Aerostar without a fuel stop (strong winds aside). How about IFR if you need extra fuel for an alternate? If it is, what models would be best for range and efficiency? Probably prefer pressurization to get above weather on that trip. Boots are a must as we would likely want to use it during the holiday season. Have looked at a lot of airplanes but the Aerostar from some basic research appears to potentially meet this mission better than most. Trips would be either solo or maybe both of us. With any more people I’d probably plan a restroom stop anyways. Thanks for any input you all can provide, I see a lot of highly qualified Aerostar folks with a lot of knowledge posting on here!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2023, 16:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/05/09
Posts: 286
Post Likes: +130
Location: Portland, Oregon
Aircraft: MU-2F
Daniel,
you might want to look at this:

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft

no personal knowledge of this plane, but it has good engine times and decent radios. Will be more reliable than any pressurized piston twin, and the cost per mile won't be much different. I'd strongly consider it if I didn't already have one!

Jeff Axel
N228WP


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2023, 16:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/06/09
Posts: 444
Post Likes: +146
Aircraft: A185F
An Aerostar with the extended range aux tank will do 819nm. I had the 602/700P which would do that trip. I suggest you call Jim Christy at Aerostar Aircraft he is very helpful as they support the aircraft.

Andy

Username Protected wrote:
Long time lurker here… Considering an Aerostar. My wife and I would both fly it, I’m an airline pilot, she’s an Air Force Test Pilot. We both have extensive recent GA experience including piston twins and turbocharged big engines etc. Our intended mission is SoCal to Washington State. The 2 airports we’d like to be able to go between are 819 miles apart. Is this realistic for an Aerostar without a fuel stop (strong winds aside). How about IFR if you need extra fuel for an alternate? If it is, what models would be best for range and efficiency? Probably prefer pressurization to get above weather on that trip. Boots are a must as we would likely want to use it during the holiday season. Have looked at a lot of airplanes but the Aerostar from some basic research appears to potentially meet this mission better than most. Trips would be either solo or maybe both of us. With any more people I’d probably plan a restroom stop anyways. Thanks for any input you all can provide, I see a lot of highly qualified Aerostar folks with a lot of knowledge posting on here!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2023, 17:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1726
Post Likes: +2048
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:
Long time lurker here… Considering an Aerostar. My wife and I would both fly it, I’m an airline pilot, she’s an Air Force Test Pilot. We both have extensive recent GA experience including piston twins and turbocharged big engines etc. Our intended mission is SoCal to Washington State. The 2 airports we’d like to be able to go between are 819 miles apart. Is this realistic for an Aerostar without a fuel stop (strong winds aside). How about IFR if you need extra fuel for an alternate? If it is, what models would be best for range and efficiency? Probably prefer pressurization to get above weather on that trip. Boots are a must as we would likely want to use it during the holiday season. Have looked at a lot of airplanes but the Aerostar from some basic research appears to potentially meet this mission better than most. Trips would be either solo or maybe both of us. With any more people I’d probably plan a restroom stop anyways. Thanks for any input you all can provide, I see a lot of highly qualified Aerostar folks with a lot of knowledge posting on here!


Nice trip for a 601P. Wonderful plane. First thing you need to do is join the AOA and talk to Jim Christy at AAC. A prime airplane is going to cost $300-500k but not comparable to a low end turbine.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2023, 17:40 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5522
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Daniel,
the 601P with the high compression engines is what you want if you want to be able to do it on the standard tanks. With aux tanks, it's easy in any of them, but the Superstar burns more. It also has 120hp more, so get other benefits from that.

I flew my 601P at 25gal/hr LOP doing 195-200kts. With 160gal tanks you can do your 800nm with a decent reserve LOP.

Another great benefit of the Aerostar (if they're calibrated right), is they have the most accurate fuel gauges ever. I could see her flying crooked on the fuel gauges before I could see it on the ball, almost. Took mine down to about 15gal total left with confidence quite a few times.

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2023, 18:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
I will differ from some of the others on here.
The 601P can do the trip if you pull back the power and run LOP around 200KTAS.
The 602P/700 can also do it with the lower compression engines with standard tanks, if again you pull back the power and run 200KTAS.
Now the 700 can only do it in go fast mode, as in 235+KTAS is you have the aux tank.

The difference in compression 7.5 vs 8.3 (I think, going on memory) is not enough to make a difference in the practical range if you fly at the same speeds with power pulled back. Where the 601P with the higher compression engines has an advantage is you can pick up the pace some and stay LOP. With the higher power of the 700, it gets much harder to do so, without needing to switch to ROP.

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2023, 21:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1726
Post Likes: +2048
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:
I will differ from some of the others on here.
The 601P can do the trip if you pull back the power and run LOP around 200KTAS.
The 602P/700 can also do it with the lower compression engines with standard tanks, if again you pull back the power and run 200KTAS.
Now the 700 can only do it in go fast mode, as in 235+KTAS is you have the aux tank.

The difference in compression 7.5 vs 8.3 (I think, going on memory) is not enough to make a difference in the practical range if you fly at the same speeds with power pulled back. Where the 601P with the higher compression engines has an advantage is you can pick up the pace some and stay LOP. With the higher power of the 700, it gets much harder to do so, without needing to switch to ROP.

Tim


Tim - over the last 300 hours in a 601P w/Intercoolers I’ve found a max fuel burn of 133 gallons total chock to chock for 4.5 hours of flying at around 215 knots TAS best economy (lean under 30 gph by the book) but it also seems to do 235 on 34 gph at FL200-230. After 4.5 hours I have a minimum of 32 gallons reserve based on 165 total and it should hold 175 if you’re careful filling. I have winglets and have only been impressed with book or better performance at all times. Of course, I picked up the plane at Aerostar Aircraft and had Joel Stout also inspect. Now with the aux tank, I expect 1250 miles realistic range. Just my experience. Lots of 800+ nm trips in stock form.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2023, 12:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1914
Post Likes: +1167
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
Without the Aux Gas, that's probably a bit far.
With the Aux Gas that's a good range....

Given that the maintaince on an Aerostar has been eye opening.
I think the advice to consider something like an MU2 is good advice. Not as fun to fly, but likely cheaper and more reliable long term.

I purchased my Aerostar for 125K. Added 110K of avionics, replaced one failed engine (120K) and have now replaced the other (90K) ....Total costs with recurrent training...
insurance etc all costs are north of $1000/hr. Typical no squack annuals have been 7 to 10K. I've been flying between 85 and 120 hrs a year. I purchased it in the fall of 2016 started using it (after avionics) in June 2017.

I'm based near San Diego I've flown it to the east coast twice, to Alaska twice, to Mexico and all over the west...

My most often trip is to the bay area where my Son, and granddaughter live.

Pay attention to runway lengths... with 500hrs+ in the plane, and a bush pilot background I'm uncomfortable with anything less than 4000ft when loaded.
Landing shorter is easy, take off is the worry...

Its a very honest airplane, fun to fly... just not inexpensive...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2023, 12:51 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5522
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
These comparisons to MU-2's and Turbo Commanders on operating costs etc makes sense on paper - they align pretty closely. I can, at least on paper get the old TC to be very close, at around $500-650/hr.

But.

It fails to take one huge factor in - if you grenade an engine, you're looking at $300K+ vs. $60-90K. That's the huge difference. Just an HSI can easily be $100K+ if the holes align. So if you can access that cash at a drop of a hat, then a turbine is great. But if you can't, then you're probably better off with a fast piston.

In the case of the Aerostar, the speed penalty is also minimal. My TC is maybe 30-50kts faster on an average trip, but if pushed, a 700 would keep up with the Commander.

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2023, 14:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/14
Posts: 209
Post Likes: +93
Why is everybody trying to sell this guy a P model? 155 useable, 30 gal/hr, 200 knots so that's 1,033 NM no wind no reserve in a 600.

So figure you've got a one hour reserve, no wind, on your hypothetical 819NM leg.

Not sure about your prevailing winds on the west coast. I'm on the other coast and wintertime westbound I'd plan a fuel stop. Or monitor the progress really closely. Eastbound it's a no brainer. I've done NYC to Vero Beach FL nonstop without going too far out over the Atlantic but I wouldn't attempt it with headwinds.

If you really want to bust your bladder, put the aux tank on a 600.

PS Lotsa Aerostars have boots but FIKI is rare as it wasn't certified until Piper and the 700. If you have a fully deiced AEST (wings, props, and windshield) it's not too onerous to add the required inboard boots and ice shields in the engine nacelles.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2023, 16:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 330
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
I would pretty much agree with what everyone has written. I had a 601-P for a few years and then a Superstar 700 with Aux tank for about 10 yrs. 7 years ago I bought a short body MU-2 with -10 engines.
I’d go with the 700 and aux tank for your trip. Having the extra horsepower in the event of an engine failure is nice. They are a bit higher on DOC due to fuel burn.
While it’s true that a turbine engine is expensive if it fails catastrophically, it is also true that they almost never do that. The big difference is the continuous stream of squawks that the Aerostars produce while the turbines generally run between inspections with no issue. The DOC for my MU-2 was lower than my 700 for the first few years and then jet fuel got more expensive so it’s closer now.
Maintenance cost has probably been a bit higher on the Mits but not by much.
I use mine for work and to get to our second home in Florida (1300nm) trip. I always make it there non-stop and sometimes back but usually stop if I have a strong headwind on the way home. Average speed is 310kts at 70-75gph.
My non-intercooled 601-P did 215kts at 30gph.
The 700 burned about 45gph at 65% and yielded 222kts TAS down low, 245kts up high.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2023, 16:12 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/25/16
Posts: 108
Post Likes: +8
Username Protected wrote:
Why is everybody trying to sell this guy a P model? 155 useable, 30 gal/hr, 200 knots so that's 1,033 NM no wind no reserve in a 600.

So figure you've got a one hour reserve, no wind, on your hypothetical 819NM leg.

Not sure about your prevailing winds on the west coast. I'm on the other coast and wintertime westbound I'd plan a fuel stop. Or monitor the progress really closely. Eastbound it's a no brainer. I've done NYC to Vero Beach FL nonstop without going too far out over the Atlantic but I wouldn't attempt it with headwinds.

If you really want to bust your bladder, put the aux tank on a 600.

PS Lotsa Aerostars have boots but FIKI is rare as it wasn't certified until Piper and the 700. If you have a fully deiced AEST (wings, props, and windshield) it's not too onerous to add the required inboard boots and ice shields in the engine nacelles.


Really great info so far from everyone, I really appreciate it! Enjoying hearing the different viewpoints from owners. A few questions pertaining to this reply Geo:

-What’s the downside to a P vs non P? I’m sure they’re heavier but how much does it hurt the range. I’d sure like to be able to get above the weather on this trip and the weather tends to build over the coastal mountain ranges.

-If you have a fully deiced airplane and add the inboard boots and ice shields, can you make if FIKI or is that only the Piper airplanes?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2023, 17:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1726
Post Likes: +2048
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:
Why is everybody trying to sell this guy a P model? 155 useable, 30 gal/hr, 200 knots so that's 1,033 NM no wind no reserve in a 600.

So figure you've got a one hour reserve, no wind, on your hypothetical 819NM leg.

Not sure about your prevailing winds on the west coast. I'm on the other coast and wintertime westbound I'd plan a fuel stop. Or monitor the progress really closely. Eastbound it's a no brainer. I've done NYC to Vero Beach FL nonstop without going too far out over the Atlantic but I wouldn't attempt it with headwinds.

If you really want to bust your bladder, put the aux tank on a 600.

PS Lotsa Aerostars have boots but FIKI is rare as it wasn't certified until Piper and the 700. If you have a fully deiced AEST (wings, props, and windshield) it's not too onerous to add the required inboard boots and ice shields in the engine nacelles.


Well, a few things actually, it’s 165 useable with more if you fill it right and 180-185 with the filler neck thing. If you’re going to go 800 miles, pressurization is better. The speeds are better and so is the weather. An inter cooled 601P is efficient, and with deice, you have what you need for any kind of flying a piston twin should be doing, FIKI or not imho. Hardcore ice requires a turbine, but that wasn’t the question posed. An aux tank on a 601P is even better. That’s 7 hours of fuel easy.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 2880 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 ... 192  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.camguard.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.