19 Apr 2024, 22:59 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 17 Apr 2022, 11:11 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/18/15 Posts: 567 Post Likes: +216 Location: Idaho
Aircraft: Helio Courier, MU2
|
|
I had an Aerostar and did a lot of catch-up maitenance on it, so I feel qualified to chime in here. The pressurized Aerostars are very complex. It started as a normally aspirated twin optimized for speed (low frontal area, tight cowling etc) and then de-ice, turbocharging, and pressurization were added. I'll say it again, its really complex! Jim Christi of AAC told me that a new Aerostar would be about $1.7MM worth of parts. When you buy that AEST for $2-300K you are signing up to maintain $1.7MM worth of well worn parts. In my experience, a 700AEST is the same or more expensive to maintain and own than a MU-2 of which I have owned three (one currently).
The AEST had a lot of problems and AAC has engineered solutions. Doublers aroung the gear openings, doublers on the gear doors, rivets replaced with HiLoks. The fixes work and are well engineered by AAC engineer Steve Spear but there are a lot of them and the cost adds up. Most AESTs I have seen have well over $100k in deferred maintenance.
The good news for those who have good mechanical skills is that a lot of deferred maitenance is likely to require cheap parts and a lot of labor. Hydraulic systems require only Orings. Hoses are likly to be 40yrs old, Removing all the old, non functional wire and legacy do-dads will remove a lot or weight and make future maitenance easier.
There are all kinds of problems. Fuel leaking past rivets under the boots...just stick a strip of aluminum over the rivet line with ProSeal...but first...remove the de-ice boot. The center tank bladder is likely 40yrs old and difficult to access. I arrived at my hangar the day after returning from my first annual to find a big pool of fluid under the plane. Smelled like gas but looked like hydraulic fluid. One of the four electrically operated fuel valves had decided to fail on the flight home and the leaking fuel disolved the large amount of congealed hydraulic fluid in the belly of the plane of its way out. When I purchased my AEST and on many others, nothing leaks but everything seeps fluid.
Its a great flying airplane but can't accelerate AND climb well initially after take off. You level off while the plane accellerates to blue line then climb. I didnt like this when departing in IMC. Once you get going, its great.
I have a full set of manuals I'd like to sell...
Make
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 17 Apr 2022, 11:22 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/05/11 Posts: 314 Post Likes: +226
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600,
|
|
Great report Mike. You’re dead on just about every point. Not sure about the acceleration at takeoff point, however, unless you were flying a 601P, or 602P. NA 600s are already on average 300 to 500 lbs, lighter than any P model. On takeoff at close to sea level they have about the same power to weight ratio as a Machen, or, Piper 700. they have plenty of get up and go. The 700s speak for themselves.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 17 Apr 2022, 18:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/18/15 Posts: 567 Post Likes: +216 Location: Idaho
Aircraft: Helio Courier, MU2
|
|
I’ve read that the winglets help but have no experience with them
I think Mitsubishi has a better solution. Higher fuel flow but cheaper fuel and 75kts faster means roughly equal fuel cost per mile. More expensive but more reliable systems equal roughly equal maintenance cost. Purchase price is higher and insurance is higher because of the higher value but higher, faster, farther with much larger cabin for about the same operating cost
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 17 Apr 2022, 19:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/23/18 Posts: 17 Post Likes: +6
Aircraft: Saratoga SP
|
|
Username Protected wrote: (Ya knew I’d be back - eventually) If you want to rotate and just go AAC has a solution: Winglets. https://aerostaraircraft.com/winglets/Forrest Unfortunately supplier stopped making them. May be a while till offered again.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 17 Apr 2022, 20:20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/30/09 Posts: 1517 Post Likes: +859
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 100fpm climb while still dirty with windmilling prop 600-700fpm once cleaned up and feathered/caged engine. I’m going to guess well below MTOW?
_________________ Former Taco Chef Now - Battery Salesman No Engineering Skills I don’t know what I don’t know
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 17 Apr 2022, 20:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/05/11 Posts: 314 Post Likes: +226
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’ve read that the winglets help but have no experience with them
I think Mitsubishi has a better solution. Higher fuel flow but cheaper fuel and 75kts faster means roughly equal fuel cost per mile. More expensive but more reliable systems equal roughly equal maintenance cost. Purchase price is higher and insurance is higher because of the higher value but higher, faster, farther with much larger cabin for about the same operating cost Yes… but, what does it fly like compared to the Aerostar? Be honest. Are you flying a sports car, or, are you flying a truck?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 17 Apr 2022, 22:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/18/11 Posts: 1031 Post Likes: +587
Aircraft: Seabee Aerostar 700
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 100fpm climb while still dirty with windmilling prop 600-700fpm once cleaned up and feathered/caged engine. I’m going to guess well below MTOW?
I know from personal experience a 700 does it at gross. it has lots of power It is aircraft that it does not take a test pilot to get good performance out of it.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 18 Apr 2022, 08:13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11898 Post Likes: +2854 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 100fpm climb while still dirty with windmilling prop 600-700fpm once cleaned up and feathered/caged engine. I’m going to guess well below MTOW?
In my transition training, we were near the end of a flight so gas lowish, nothing but me and the instructor in the plane. So we were rather light.
Kyle "failed" an engine, we were simulating an approach, so gear out, flaps down power low, KIAS around 130... I immediately went into nose up to whole clean up routine he had just drilled into me (I guess I was spring loaded since he had done it at least a half dozen times on that flight). He said stop, let's do it again. Take your time, so with the gear out, flaps set for approach. Kyle failed the engine again, and limited me to 65% power on the "good" engine. So when light, even with the plane dirty, the dam thing climbs, slow, but it does.
Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 18 Apr 2022, 09:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/25/16 Posts: 1822 Post Likes: +1382 Location: 2IS
Aircraft: C501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Its a great flying airplane but can't accelerate AND climb well initially after take off. You level off while the plane accelerates to blue line then climb. I didn't like this when departing in IMC. Once you get going, its great. Disagree. My 700 rotates and accelerates without pause at MGTOW under standard conditions. If I'm light or it's cold I can rotate to an alarming deck angle and still accelerate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 18 Apr 2022, 10:05 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/25/16 Posts: 1822 Post Likes: +1382 Location: 2IS
Aircraft: C501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’ve read that the winglets help but have no experience with them
I think Mitsubishi has a better solution. Higher fuel flow but cheaper fuel and 75kts faster means roughly equal fuel cost per mile. More expensive but more reliable systems equal roughly equal maintenance cost. Purchase price is higher and insurance is higher because of the higher value but higher, faster, farther with much larger cabin for about the same operating cost Mike this has been discussed ad nauseum but the capex, recurrent training, insurance costs and handling characteristics of the MU2 are not for everyone. An Aerostar is FUN to fly and not everyone needs a turbocharged and/or pressurized model.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 18 Apr 2022, 10:45 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/18/15 Posts: 567 Post Likes: +216 Location: Idaho
Aircraft: Helio Courier, MU2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Its a great flying airplane but can't accelerate AND climb well initially after take off. You level off while the plane accelerates to blue line then climb. I didn't like this when departing in IMC. Once you get going, its great. Disagree. My 700 rotates and accelerates without pause at MGTOW under standard conditions. If I'm light or it's cold I can rotate to an alarming deck angle and still accelerate.
I agree that a 700 AEST is not more complex than other turbocharged, pressurized,de-iced piston twins. Potential buyers need to recognize that it is very complex and that systems are densely packed. Regarding initial climb and acceleration, it depends on your expectations. I found it’s ability to climb and accelerate after takeoff to be anemic. It seemed to take forever to reach 500fpm above Vyse clean following a 6300lb departure.
My Maitenance points were to illustrate what a buyer can be in for. The examples are not uncommon and not cheap or quick to fix at shop rates. IMHO the AEST is a good choice for an owner who can leverage his mechanical abilities and do a lot of work under supervision. The only really well maintained AESTs I have seen were ones maintained at AAC in Idaho.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 18 Apr 2022, 11:54 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/05/11 Posts: 314 Post Likes: +226
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600,
|
|
My Maitenance points were to illustrate what a buyer can be in for. The examples are not uncommon and not cheap or quick to fix at shop rates. IMHO the AEST is a good choice for an owner who can leverage his mechanical abilities and do a lot of work under supervision. The only really well maintained AESTs I have seen were ones maintained at AAC in Idaho.
Mike, while AAC is clearly one of the best Aerostar shops around, your observation that they are the only one is incorrect as can be attested to by myself and many other Aerostar owners.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 18 Apr 2022, 12:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/25/16 Posts: 1822 Post Likes: +1382 Location: 2IS
Aircraft: C501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Regarding initial climb and acceleration, it depends on your expectations. I found it’s ability to climb and accelerate after takeoff to be anemic. It seemed to take forever to reach 500fpm above Vyse clean following a 6300lb departure.
Not sure what you were flying before the Aerostar Mike, but you're the first person I've heard complain that a 700hp Aerostar is anemic. I've attached a pic of what's a more common issue for me...departing under Toronto's Class B Shelf and ATC has held me at 2500' MSL/1500"AGL. I've pulled back from takeoff to climb power but I'm still accelerating and still (slightly) climbing. I'm often sitting there wondering if I should pull the power back even more or just wait for the climb clearance.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|