19 Apr 2024, 15:51 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 29 Apr 2021, 20:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/19/16 Posts: 3342 Post Likes: +5688 Location: 13FA Earle Airpark FL/0A7 Hville NC
Aircraft: E33/152A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If we are going to add the Aero Commanders to the list then a good T-Bone needs to be there as well it will haul the load out of 3000’ Good and T-Bone is an oxymoron. Tim
I am surprised that you were not hit with some -1s. Just goes to show you how cool T Bone drivers are. Seriously though, Twin Bos are one of the most capable, coolest and most enjoyable aircraft to fly or ride in that Beech ever built. So what if they are not real fast. No reason to shorten such a pleasurable experience.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 29 Apr 2021, 21:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/08 Posts: 4697 Post Likes: +2703
Aircraft: B55 P2
|
|
Sometimes people forget that there are good reasons there are lots of airplane models. Lots of aerostar pilots love them, lots of Tbone pilots love them - they are just different optimizations.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 02:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/11/17 Posts: 15 Post Likes: +3
Aircraft: PA30 Twin Comanche
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The obvious point for a short strip on an Aerostar is which engine. I Andy For the sake of my inqiry, we are speaking specifically about the NA 600A. Nothing inflated or turbo'd --mick
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 04:01 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/05/11 Posts: 314 Post Likes: +226
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600,
|
|
Considering all other parameters I will operate out of a 3,000’ runway everyday all day. It’s just not that hard and that includes a personal safety margin. I’m sure you can operate a 600 out of less than 3,000,’ however, I’m am not comfortable with that.
Published accelerate stop for my 600, full gross, 20 degrees of flaps, 1,000 msl, (my home airport 5,000’+ runway) ISA is about 3,200.’ Never tried it and really don’t want to experiment with that.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 06:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/23/18 Posts: 627 Post Likes: +905
Aircraft: Aerostar
|
|
Here is Mickey’s question:
“So the big question. Can the 600/600A safely be operated into and out of 3000 feet on a hot/humid MO summer day? It’s a hard 3000 feet with an NTSB report on either end if it exceeded. We don’t have fuel on the field so I would need to haul enough to get at least 30 mins with reserves for the 20% mission above, or carry enough for the full RT with the 80% mission (600 lbs going 650 nm).”
Can the 600/600A safely be operated into and out of 3000 feet on a hot/humid MO summer day?
Here’s my thinking:
1. Accelerate/Stop numbers were calculated using a new airplane (with new brakes) that weighed exactly what it was supposed to, flown by a guy with great proficiency and no distractions. That isn’t me and I assume it isn’t going to be Mickey. Which means our performance is going to be worse than book numbers.
2. Lose power in one motor below 300’AGL, (and <120Kts or while gear and flaps are extended) and an Aerostar pilot is unlikely to be successful in avoiding whatever obstacles are at the end of Mickey’s runway. We don’t have accelerate and go numbers.
Could a light 600 on a cool day get stopped on the runway if the engine failed at 85 Kts?
Most likely yes.
But based on Mickey’s mission description: hot / higher GW ... an aborted (at 85 Kts) takeoff is going to put him off the end of the runway.
AND
The point where the flight can continue (the time (and location) until the plane is over 300’ and >120Kts with gear and flaps up) is going to be well past the end of his runway.
IMO it isn’t safe to create a situation where every take off from one’s home field exposes the plane and it’s occupants to a period of time where an off airport landing will be unavoidable.
All that said, a 600 Aerostar can be expected take off on less than 3,000’ of RW.
I’ve included charts from a 600 AFM.
Forrest
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 09:19 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/05/11 Posts: 314 Post Likes: +226
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600,
|
|
I have the big brakes Forrest and I'm under 3,900 lbs. empty. The big brakes make a huge difference especially on a 600. 600s are considerably lighter than the P models especially the 700s. 700s run anywhere from 500 lbs. to 800 lbs. heavier than a 600 empty. That's a lot of momentum to stop.
I have no problem operating out of a 3,000' runway on a hot day full gross. Wing extension and winglets are huge help. That's something that is not reflected in the POH. Short wing 600s are flying rocks with wings. I remember very well what is was like before my conversion.
Add the 300 hp. short prop upgrade and your 600 is not even close to what a stock short wing 600 is.
Last edited on 30 Apr 2021, 09:34, edited 3 times in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 09:24 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11898 Post Likes: +2854 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Good and T-Bone is an oxymoron. Tim I am surprised that you were not hit with some -1s. Just goes to show you how cool T Bone drivers are. Seriously though, Twin Bos are one of the most capable, coolest and most enjoyable aircraft to fly or ride in that Beech ever built. So what if they are not real fast. No reason to shorten such a pleasurable experience.
Norman,
Because most of the T-Bone owners on here know I have been around a long time on BT and I occasionally make cheeky comments. I normally put "flame suite on" or other such things to show I am poking fun at whomever.
Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 10:26 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/23/18 Posts: 627 Post Likes: +905
Aircraft: Aerostar
|
|
I went on Google maps for Braden Airpark. Really flat, and I bet back in the day there was much less development in the area especially to the south. Still, those guys had a lot more courage (or a lot less imagination) than me. Forrest
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 10:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/23/18 Posts: 627 Post Likes: +905
Aircraft: Aerostar
|
|
Yesterday I did a trip to Gainesville, Fl. Landed 25. https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2104/00973AD.PDFIt was in the 80s and winds were reported to be 170 @ 10. Easily made the turn off at “C” Departing late afternoon high 80s, 120 gallons of gas, just me. Tower asked if I wanted 25, (much shorter taxi), I was tempted (I’ve departed 25 lots of time before), This time I decided to take the extra time and go with 29. No regrets. I was well past 3000’ before I rotated. Could I have saved a few minutes and made it off 25? Sure. But I had a choice. Forrest
Last edited on 01 May 2021, 09:10, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 20:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/12/18 Posts: 7 Post Likes: +7
Aircraft: Rv9, Aerostar 600A
|
|
3500 ft GRASS. Is there an accelerated stop table for grass? I thought those tables were made with new planes in good conditions on asphalt or similar.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 01 May 2021, 18:16 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/26/13 Posts: 439 Post Likes: +336
Aircraft: Aerostar, SR22,RV8,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 3500 ft GRASS. Is there an accelerated stop table for grass? I thought those tables were made with new planes in good conditions on asphalt or similar. The problem with grass is that it's all different. Even the same runway won't be exactly the same every time. I've certainly seen POH "adjustments" such as "add 15% to the ground roll for dry grass" but I think they are at best an approximation, and at worst dangerous if you believe them for planning purposes. I've landed on a -lot- of grass runways. I've never operated anything off of a grass runway that wouldn't have been comfortable on half as much pavement. This was easy to do since most of the airplanes I've operated off grass really barely need runways. My policy would probably change if anyone were to give me a Pilatus PC24 however. Then I'd pay much more attention.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 02 May 2021, 15:15 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/18/13 Posts: 393 Post Likes: +65 Location: F70
Aircraft: AEST601B S-211 B-777
|
|
That sounds super sketchy. My 601B is light, 4076 empty, and is turbocharged with the addition of the Machen inter cooler mod. Being a B model it has the longer wing too. I have gone in and out of 4000’ feet comfortably, but would not try 3000’. That would be outside the boundaries of any risk analysis for me despite what the POH numbers say.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 02 May 2021, 23:22 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/11/17 Posts: 15 Post Likes: +3
Aircraft: PA30 Twin Comanche
|
|
Just thought I would Chime back in here... Thank you all for your input and opinions. Separately I reached out to a Ryan Cox who provided some excellent feed back as well as a couple members here. The Performance charts provided here as well as by Jim Christy told the story, I found myself playing with numbers to try to "Make it work". Even with my typical light load that I do with the Twin Comanche with ease, the Accelerate-Stop distances where a couple hundred feet beyond what I was available. I started justifying, well if I have an engine loss and not enough braking distance that I can do a 20 to 30 degree turn at the end of the runway and take less of a drop off... STOP. As many have cited... its just a bad idea. Unfortunately, it looks as though an Aerostar is not in the cards for me. Looks like I am actively in the market for at Seneca III. It makes me a little sad, but knowing that I can load the thing up and Acc/Stop in 2500 feet makes me happy. The flight it the Seneca looks like it is going to be close in burn, but take a 15 minutes longer. I like to fly so... The hunt begins. If anyone knows of a back of the hangar queen, Seneca III that is in full 80's motif, I may be a buyer. Ideally I am looking for a lowish time airplane that needs everything... hopefully that will keep the ticket cost down and New engines, full Dynon panel, paint and interior could be the order of the day (year). No that I have decided to step away from the Aerostar acquisition, I am happy to share what the airplane I was primarily considering. It could be (already is) a nice aircraft for someone with a 1000+ feet more than I have to work with. 4 blade MT props, low time engines and a Garmin 750... if only. https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... n-aircraftThank you all again for setting me straight. You can all cancel your life insurance quotes you may have received for me. --mick PA30 -N5MA T67 & MO56
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|