Tom, have you detailed your work on this ship anywhere on the web? I'd love to see your work and the entire process of going thru an Aerostar. The rebuild threads are my favorite.

Sounds fun

Tom...just curious....what year is your 600 and how many hours on the airframe?

1969 600 w/approx. 4,500 hrs. airframe and 500hrs. K1J5s.
1978 600A w/ approx. 2,300 hrs. airframe and Lycoming rebuilts K1J5s zero time.

Tom...I assume you are rebuilding the 1978 one...seems it has fairly low TT

Walter, actually, I'm refurbishing both. The 78 is being refurbished first in it's entirety, start to finish, nose to tail. That's pretty much why I had to get the other 600 (69) to fly while the (78) 600A was being refurbished. The 69 Aerostar I will refurbish incrementally in lieu of all at once. Right now the 69 is just about finished receiving a new paint scheme.
That being said, you really couldn't tell the difference between either airframe as far as the amount of hours on them is concerned. Quite frankly, I've seen Aerostar's flying with 20,000 hrs. on them and they're still flying. As, I am sure you are aware, the Aerostar airframe is quite stout.

Tom...some are flying with 56,000 hours on the airframe!

Really???
Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Once you start taking them apart and see how well they are built, they are pretty amazing. Aerostars really aren't that hard to maintain. Just replace the smokers with Hy-lok's and all is well.

I wonder what the highest time "P" model is, and how many hours it's flown.

This one is the highest I have seen:

http://www.controller.com/listings/airc ... ostar-601p

Interesting story, that one was owned by a fellow Swede (I think his name was Bertil) who had business interests in Mexico and as well as a holiday home there. He regularly flew it between Stockholm, Bromma (ESSB) and Mexico, multiple times per year. Did this for decades, which is why she has higher times (although by no means high). I think he must be retired now and probably doesn't have the need for it anymore.

IMO the best 700 engine is the U2A (but a MM conversion is a lot less expensive than a set of new U2As.)

The J2BD is a 350HP Chieftain engine and has the reputation for maintenance issues on Aerostars.
My understanding is that these guys are good with the J2BD engines:
http://www.krueger.aero/krueger.areo/Welcome.html

The S1A5 is the high compression turbo-normalized (LOP capable) 290/300HP engine

The AA1A5 is the low-compression turbo-charged engine installed the 602, it is more powerful than the S1A5 engine.

Aerostar Aircraft has approved modifications that will allow you to convert a 290HP S1A5 or a AA engine into a 700HP engine (the MM modification).

http://www.aerostaraircraft.com/ASInsta ... 208-15.pdf

An important difference between a MM engine and a U2A engine is that a factory overhaul/rebuild on a MM will get you an engine put back to original factory specs, a U2A engine gets exchanged.

To me, the big decision is whether to go with a 601P with the high-compression engines or a 700 with low compression engines.

Which engine is best, depends on what you plan on doing with your Aerostar. If you are planning on operating at heavier loads a lot of the time, a 700 (either Machen or U2A) will give better performance (especially S/E performance), at a cost of higher fuel burns and potentially more maintenance.

The AA1A5 and the intermediate MM options (and I believe the J2BD engine) don't give you the extra 315lbs of take off weight, which, to me, seems less than ideal.

Bizarre. Never heard of such a configuration. Are you sure it has one of each?

That does not sound correct. Double check the engine logs and then call AAC to get a definitive answer.

Tim

That does not sound correct. Double check the engine logs and then call AAC to get a definitive answer.

Tim

The two folks with planes with miss-matched engines ought to get together and work out a swap...

Here's Jim C. 'S point:

A 601P is certified with a S1A5 motor
A 602 is certified with an AA1A5 motor

Different aircraft models, different engines (MM doesn't change that).

A S1A5MM and a AA1A5MM motor are basically the same motor (depending on case vintage, case design IS going to be different) both will put out the same 700HP.

However from Lycoming's point of view one is a S1A5 and one is an AA1A5 motor, From the FAA's point of view they are different motors and installing an engine (or engines) on an aircraft that isn't certified for that engine (without field approval or a STC) renders the aircraft not airworthy.

Here's the scenario that the FAA wants to prevent:

Guy buys aircraft with two different MM modified engines, and sends them off to Lycoming to be re-manufactured, Lycoming sends back two Factory re-manufactured engines (no longer Machen Modified) which are installed back on the aircraft, what performance and power setting charts should the pilot use?



At minimum, anyone considering buying a 700 with one or more incorrect engines ought to factor in the cost of replacing the incorrect (for the aircraft) engine(s) with used correct engine(s) to get legal.

IMO, you should just plan on selling both motors and putting on a set of U2As and being done with the whole engine issue.

Is this grounds for running away?

IMO, no.

But it is an indication of an aircraft that has been owned by someone who was willing to cut corners on maintenance, and maintained by someone who did not have much Aerostar knowledge.

Odds are good that other airworthiness issues will be uncovered in the pre-buy inspection for which the cost of resolving will be more than the value of the aircraft.

In the unlikely event that the owner (or maybe the owner's estate) is willing to make the plane right, buy it!

If not, run.

It has a 337-STC and Jim Christy said it should not be a concern in this airplane.

Thanks for the feedback.