banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 16:55 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 2880 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 192  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2015, 08:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 9168
Post Likes: +17159
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
Comparing a B55 to any Aerostar is a stretch. They ARE both twin engine airplanes.

The B55 is a great, and I mean GREAT, airplane, and did I not have the A*, it is the easiest high performance twin to buy and own, IMO.

But:

When you are trying to figure cost, remember that it is simple: you count systems; each system has a maintenance cost.

The basic airframe comparison would not favor either airplane, IMO.

The Baron has magnesium control surfaces :thumbdown: spar crack issues :thumbdown: and fuel bladders :thumbdown: The A* has a bladder as the fuselage tank but much easier to repair/replace, IMO. The A*'s wet wings are a smaller maintenance matter, IMO.

The A* has hydraulic gear and flaps which require more maintenance than the Baorn's electric IMO. The A* has hydraulic nose steering, not big deal but it does require a modicum of maintenance. The A* has a spar corrosion inspection that cost about $50 to perform and corrosion is a true rarity unless the airplane has been poorly maintained.

The A* is turbo charged and there are 4 turbos, Adam alluded to the estimate of 1000 hour mean time between failure and I would agree. He says $1500 to rebuild, I don't know but figure that he does.

The A* is pressurized. There is occasional maintenance to the system and to the pressure vessel, i.e. fuselage. I have had to fix one vessel leak: $50.

You should also remember that with any avionics alterations that are cabled outside the pressure vessel will require additional attention and time.

I would consider the maintenance/operating cost of the 290 HP engined A* to be about the same as a turbo 310 and less than a Cessna 414 and also less than a 58P.

I flew a Mooney Bravo for 8 years and I keep detailed records of maintenance. I can still bring up every penny, or my book keeper can, that I spent on that airplane. To date, I would say that the A* operates for about 75-80% more.

Jgreen

_________________
Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2015, 08:50 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 5549
Post Likes: +2503
Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
I've owned a B55 and now a 601P, Superstar 700. To be completely fair, the Aerostar also has spar issues. I was told there are those have have, and those that will. I have the 55% repair on mine on the left wing.

You are correct though, comparing the Baron and an Aerostar is like comparing apples to oranges. They are both round, but completely different airplanes. I'd rather work in the cabin on the Aerostar than the B55, especially avionics. Let's not even talk about fuel pump location or the nose wheel steering! But what a genius idea to use the same part number for both horizontal stabilizers and the vertical stabilizer, and again between the elevators and rudder in the Aerostar!

The Baron is much easier to hangar. It'll fit anywhere. The Aerostar is a tall airplane with a very aft mounted wing making it difficult to find places to put it.

Which would I rather fly... either.. They are both great airplanes, just different. I think the Aerostar flies like a jet. I like to see 200 knots ground speed with a headwind in the Aerostar. I like the ability to fly a Baron off a short grass runway if needed. In my case I didn't go looking for either airplane, the B55 was an impulse buy, and the Aerostar just about fell in my lap.

Just my short $0.02 worth..

Jason


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2015, 10:50 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Which would I rather fly... either.. They are both great airplanes, just different. I think the Aerostar flies like a jet. I like to see 200 knots ground speed with a headwind in the Aerostar. I like the ability to fly a Baron off a short grass runway if needed.

If you want to do all of the above, plus turbine and 300 knots, for about the same $/mile, ...

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2015, 10:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/18/13
Posts: 1152
Post Likes: +767
Aircraft: 737
I own both. The Mitsubishi is actually less expensive to operate on trips greater than 300NM. It is faster, it's more reliable, it carries more, range is better, but...

Nothing flies like an Aerostar.

Best to keep both, lol. Also, to be fair, I'm only getting like 295 out of the MU2 in the summer.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2015, 13:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 9168
Post Likes: +17159
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
Username Protected wrote:
I own both. The Mitsubishi is actually less expensive to operate on trips greater than 300NM. It is faster, it's more reliable, it carries more, range is better, but...

Nothing flies like an Aerostar.

Best to keep both, lol. Also, to be fair, I'm only getting like 295 out of the MU2 in the summer.



Only 295? :bugeye: I would not have one, what a slug! :liar:
You know, of course, that I am "green" with envy. :drool:

Last week, I was at Carpenter Avionics getting some work done on the A* and an estimate for some more upgrades. Next door, there is an operation that specializes in MU-2 training.

Seven thousand for the ground school and 15 hours of instruction in the airplane, plus fifteen hours of flight time at $750/hr. dry. :sad:

Jgreen

_________________
Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2015, 13:45 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 9168
Post Likes: +17159
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
I was looking for a picture of some Decathlon wheel pants that I want to sell and came across this. Just thought it might be relevant considering the comparison to a B-55. This was taken on a low altitude, 6500', flight back from Nashville. It is ROP, about 52% power, 180 knots true and 24 gph.

Pretty much B-55 economy.

Jgreen


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2015, 17:53 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Seven thousand for the ground school and 15 hours of instruction in the airplane, plus fifteen hours of flight time at $750/hr. dry. :sad:

Perhaps the greatest impact of the SFAR is the self selection of pilots who don't want to train to that high a level of proficiency. I personally enjoy it, but there are those who see it as a burden.

To be as proficient in a piston twin will require a similar time investment, but at less cost. Most piston twin pilots don't achieve that.

The recurrent training is much less than the initial, of course.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2015, 23:31 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/18/13
Posts: 1152
Post Likes: +767
Aircraft: 737
I agree with Mike. That's Reese's shop over there next to Carpenter, he (and Jerry) are worth every penny. I've trained with them twice in the last year, so I've spent even more, but if I pop a motor I'm going to be more irritated than terrified.

You can't take it with you, but you sure can get dead faster by saving money on training. That's not at all directed at you John, just a general comment.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 27 Sep 2015, 00:57 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 9168
Post Likes: +17159
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
You may rest assured that if I were going the MU-2 route, I would not skimp on training. The FAA mandated training took the MU-2 from the worst accident record among turbo props to the best in short order.

My :sad: is simply that spending $20,000 "for funsies" without buying an airplane to fly isn't going to happen.

Jgreen

_________________
Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 08:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 9168
Post Likes: +17159
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
Craig's post on what he uses for approach speeds, though different than my own procedure, brought something to mind.

I HAVE NEVER ESTABLISHED THE GAIT FOR A SINGLE ENGINE, GEAR DOWN, 20 DEGREE FLAP APPROACH.

Though I have done them multiple times, I never committed to memory, the power required on the good engine to maintain my desired approach speed in that configuration. :oops:

I have put the airplane in that configuration to determine power to maintain altitude at blue line, which I'm pretty sure was 23" MAP and 2500 RPM.

Both these numbers need to be verified by me which I will do at the first opportunity. I wanted to fly this weekend but had the grandson in for a visit.

Will do and report the power configurations here.

Jgreen

_________________
Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 08:43 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Username Protected wrote:
Craig's post on what he uses for approach speeds, though different than my own procedure, brought something to mind.

I HAVE NEVER ESTABLISHED THE GAIT FOR A SINGLE ENGINE, GEAR DOWN, 20 DEGREE FLAP APPROACH.

Though I have done them multiple times, I never committed to memory, the power required on the good engine to maintain my desired approach speed in that configuration. :oops:

I have put the airplane in that configuration to determine power to maintain altitude at blue line, which I'm pretty sure was 23" MAP and 2500 RPM.

Both these numbers need to be verified by me which I will do at the first opportunity. I wanted to fly this weekend but had the grandson in for a visit.

Will do and report the power configurations here.

Jgreen


In my experience, that setting will vary significantly based on weight and OAT. Take a video...we need more vids of OEI ops.

Best,


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 20:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 9168
Post Likes: +17159
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
Jesse,

You are absolutely correct about the changes with weight. Problem is, getting the airplane near gross would entail passengers. :bugeye: I don't think any of my "friends" would appreciate me shutting down an engine with them aboard. You got to admit though, the thought of it is :lol:

I'm going to do it with just me and Sweetie, my dog, and close to full fuel. I'll get Stan Musick to do some "gaiting" with me too, but he has lost some weight as you might notice from the pic I posted of him in Babble this morning. :thumbup:

Anyway, it's something that I do regularly, practice that is, and I'll post all my results.

I do know one thing. With gear down and full flaps, the A* ain't going nowhere on one engine, but I'll post that too.

Jgreen

_________________
Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 21:40 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/14/12
Posts: 2070
Post Likes: +1492
Location: Hampton, VA
Aircraft: AEST
John,
Please note cruise speed, and fuel flow on one engine, and if you end up running at different altitudes, whether that makes a difference.
Knock on wood, I have not had to shut one down far from a place to land, I'd like to do some point of no return calculations (just in case), but I don't have real s/e cruise performance data for a 601P.
Thanks in advance.

_________________
Forrest

'---x-O-x---'


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 23:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 9168
Post Likes: +17159
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
Forrest,

I'll document all the info I can. I wrote down some info on single engine performance before and don't know where I put it.

I need a co-pilot. Hard to hand fly with one caged and write at the same time.

I may have to get with Stan. Last time I flew with him, he shut one off on approach while i was under the hood and made me land like that, but not before killing my gear down lights and chewing my butt out because I didn't say something. I saw it, just didn't seem important at the time. :bugeye: :bugeye: :scratch:

Jgreen

_________________
Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 29 Sep 2015, 11:58 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/13/09
Posts: 5043
Post Likes: +6500
Location: Nirvana
Aircraft: OPAs
dang...I wouldn't fly with an SOB that did that....

_________________
"Most of my money I spent on airplanes. The rest I just wasted....."
---the EFI, POF-----


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 2880 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 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

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