The Continental engines, in my experience, seem to have slightly better specific fuel consumption.

I believe the Aerostar cabin size, for most applications, solidly beats the Baron.

The pressurization is a big, big win for the Aerostar.

The Lycoming engines tend to be better. Four turbos is a down-side to the Aerostar.

The handling goes to the Aerostar, hands down. Visibility, strength and ride all go to the Aerostar.

Short field is a toss up to slight advantage possibly to the Baron 58P.

Anyone in the market for a 58P should try an Aerostar on a trip.

I am 6'5" and really don't fit at all well in the Baron.

The Aerostar has a much different feel - if you are used to a Beech you may have to get a bit of time in it to feel at all natural.

I feel that the best of the Barons are the normally aspirated B55 C55 D55 E55 and straight 58 models. The 600 Aerostar is also a fantastic, but hard to find, plane.

The 600s with extensions, winglets and short props will actually outperform the 601P, 602P, 700P including the Machen conversion 700s in both climb and single engine performance where it counts most if your primary takeoff airport is at or close to sea level. Keep in mind all of the Aerostar factory P models (empty weight) are approximately 400 lbs. +- heavier than than a 600 before you even get off the ground (on the same airframe) with the 700P and Machen 700 conversions weighing 500 lbs. +- heavier. Hence, 600s can handle considerably shorter runways.

At 13,000’ msl I’m pulling 195 kts. tas (wing extensions, winglets and short props) at 12.5 a side. Real world numbers. The wing extensions give you 200lbs. more useful load while the short props are quieter and give you 300 hp. at 2,700 rpm. The 300 horses are really nice at takeoff. “What’s your mission“ is everything.

Generally speaking, the “P” models are long distance cruisers. You cannot discount the value of pressurization over the long haul especially as we get older. However, the NA 600 will dance around the “P” models close to the ground. It is a very nimble airplane, finger tip control, snappy response, just a plain joy to fly. They all have their outstanding attributes.

Pressurization is like a microwave. Once you have it you can never live without it. Altitude is your friend and it is very nice to see weather and climb over it. 700P all the way!

Eric ...except the microwave is more reliable

Bring a pulse oximeter and see when you really need pressurization...
Especially at night, night vision is really sensitive to O2 saturation.

It happens a lot lower than you think. If you get aviation consumer, there is an interesting oxygen article in the November 2020 Issue .

Also other than some cleaning of the outflow valve I've spent ZERO $ and very little time on the pressurization system.

It varies a lot by pilot. I always use O2 at or above 10K. I'm in good heath, do a lot of high altitude hiking but I just get stupid at altitude.

We've owned our intercooled, short-propped Aerostar 601p for a little over seven years. It's our first airplane.

KSKX-KHAO is our longest non-stop flight to date. 1061 NM, 4:36, FL 210 - vectored for ILS 29 at destination, and landed with roughly 35 gallons aboard. Pressurization, and the altitudes\winds you can access eastbound can help you cover a lot of ground quickly. Westbound you'll sometimes find yourself crying while looking at 180-200 knot ground speeds.

My highest level flight ground speed to date is 331 knots, from KSEZ to a private airport in S. Texas. Our Aerostar is booted, with a few patches adding some drag. I've seen 228 knots true at FL 230, burning 34 gallons per hour, with CHT's in the 380º range. I generally fly between FL180-FL210, and flight plan 220 knots true. Our useful load is 1646#, and fuel capacity, with the unobtanium range extender modification is 183 gallons.

I have 400 hours in Barons...both the 55 and 58. They're great airplanes. I have about 50 hours in a rental A-36 "where am I supposed to put our luggage?" Bonanza. The Bonanza is nice, but throw a 30 knot headwind at it westbound on a 500+ NM trip...

The Aerostar cabin cross section is the same from front to back, unlike the A-36/B55/B58 cabin, which tapers. Because the passenger cabin is ahead of the wing spar, the Aerostar has a flat floor from front to back, which facilitates loading, unloading, and passengers changing seats in flight if they wish.

The bench seat in the back will seat three, if one of them is a small child. Many Aerostars have seat in the middle row that will swivel 180º, as ours does. Because there isn't a seat in the middle row behind the pilot's seat, the bench seat passenger on the left side has 4'-5' of legroom to stretch out.

Passenger loading in the Aerostar is more confidence-inspiring for passengers unaccustomed to GA. While Baron 55 passengers are climbing onto a wing, then contorting past the front row of seats to get in the back, or with a 58, stepping on the step in the back that causes the entire airplane to rock back as if it's about to fall on its tail, the passengers boarding an Aerostar have a rock-solid platform to board, because the entry door is within the triangle of the landing gear, rather than behind it. The Aerostar just sits there, unruffled by passengers climbing in/out.

There is a 30 cubic foot baggage compartment in the Aerostar, so it's rare to need to have any cabin baggage. That's quite a bit bigger than the nose baggage compartment in the Barons.

After the first couple of years working through squawks that appeared, and after having two factory remanufactured engines installed, our Aerostar has been as close to bulletproof as one can reasonably expect a 40-year-old airplane to be. The only pressurization system maintenance we've done after having the turbos rebuilt is replacing a door seal, and replacing the cabin pressurization gauge. Last Summer we did spring a substantial hydraulic system leak over Lake Michigan, which resulted in a rental car drive home, and the airplane grounded for about a month for repairs, but in seven years, that's the only planned flight we haven't been able to dispatch.

The biggest negative I've experienced with owning an Aerostar is finding hangar space for it is challenging, since it won't fit in a standard T-hangar. There are a few oversized T-hangars out there at some airports that one may be able to squeeze an Aerostar into, but they are tough to find, and may be located at airports that are less convenient for you. Otherwise you're stuck with a shared hangar, and the hassles that entails, or parking outside.

Jackson Hole last year, just prior to departure:


I had to put my son to work deicing the airplane before I took the photo above :

Is that "228 knots true at FL 230, burning 34 gallons per hour" ROP or lean?

I continue to be intrigued by the combination of cabin cross-section, pressurization and speed of the Aerostars but the fuel flow and lack of nose baggage or rear baggage door are minuses to me.

For reference, I have a B55.. In terms of speed, I can get ~185 KTAS at 9000 ft burning 23 GPH if heavy and ~192 KTAS at the same fuel burn if light.

The B55 has a 12cuft nose baggage compartment and it takes some overflow baggage but I would never think of it was a primary baggage compartment. We usually fly with the rear baggage area filled and the 3rd row seats removed + half the cubic footage of that area filled with baggage and in-flight kid supplies (iPads, snacks, wipes, blankets, etc etc etc). Plus the nose baggage area is filled (obviously). I know for sure with an Aerostar I'd be putting baggage in the main cabin, but the only question is...where? And if it's in the far back that means walking every load past the pilots seat, which seems like a recipe for more work for the baggage handler (me).

That fuel burn is ROP. There is an aft baggage compartment on the Aerostar. It's on the left side of the fuselage, above and behind the wing:


I don't think you'd miss the nose baggage compartment. The Baron 55 is better than the 58 for baggage area, as I recall, but that's part of the tradeoff between having a 4-place airplane (realistically) or a six-place airplane. The aft baggage compartment of the Aerostar is 30 cubic feet, with a loading door opening at least as big as the Baron 55. We rarely have any baggage inside the cabin, besides a couple of small backpacks for snacks, drinks, and iPads.

The most I've hauled was myself, one other adult, two teenagers averaging around 180#, and my son who was about 60 lbs. at the time. We loaded a 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee to the ceiling with bags for a one-week beach vacation two hours away, and had a couple of bags on passengers' laps during the drive to the airport, and didn't have any issue loading it all in the Aerostar. There is a "hat shelf" behind the bench seat where a few lightweight but bulky duffles can be stowed. A small duffel or two will fit under the bench seat as well.

If one really had a lot of stuff to move, and only needed four seats, they could pull out the rear bench and have an area back there larger than the area of the Baron 55, in addition to the 30 cubic foot baggage compartment, but I'm struggling to think of a scenario where that would be required for family transportation. One of these days I'll remember to take a photo of the rear baggage compartment area in the Aerostar.

Baggage is huge!.
Remind passengers to take things that might leak out of their bags and put them inside a small hand bag in the cabin. The baggage is unpressurized and I've experienced the shampoo and deodorant all over the clothes....problem with unpressurized baggage...
Way more baggage room than we have ever needed....

Most people seem to leave two front seats and the bench seat in the plane. The bench will slide up to the mid-row and leave a ton of space behind it for baggage.

I would think golf clubs would fit well back there - but have not tried.

You can leave the two mid-row individuals in as well, and move them individually.

The bench slides forward?!?!? I had no idea. This fact is just academic for me, though, since our dogs take up most of the space where the middle two seats attach. It looks like a limo back there.

You'd be surprised just how much stuff fits in the baggage compartment. It doesn't look that big, but it swallows a lot. If you don't have an aux fuel tank (601P's don't need it really, but 700's do) then the baggage compartment is really big.

Mine has a "T" handle that released it and it will slide forward to the front seats. The only concern is it somewhat blocks the emergency exit on the right side, but if I get to the point that I need that exit, I'm crawling over crap anyways...

If I have heavy stuff in the cabin (rare), I strap it down with a generic strap hooked to tww tiedown loops that fit in the seat tracks.

Even with the aux tank, I've rarely ever had a reason to put anything in the cabin that didn't need to stay pressurized... The baggage compartment may look small in that cabin, but if packed half way correctly, you can pack a ton of crap in there...