601P w/GAMIs

I normally run LOP.

For flight planning:

First hour 150 miles -40 gallons
Subsequent hours 200 miles -30 gallons

I plan on landing with 30+ gallons reserve

+= whatever fuel will be needed to get to required alternate.

These are conservative numbers, in cruise my actual burn is 26-28gph and airspeed is better than 210.

But the math is easy.

Second, but very important to keep in mind.

On a pressurized Aerostar that is being kept up (not run down), fuel cost isn’t going to be the largest cost of ownership.

The difference in fuel cost between a 601P and a 700 isn’t that big a deal, I run LOP for range (sometimes) and for weight reasons (less weight means better S/E performance).

MU2 gonna burn 70-75gph right, and you’re comparing to a 700 burning 40-45gph?

What everyone forgets is all the real world stuff, “clearance on request” after startup, getting held after a departure at 5000agl, getting vectored all over in busy airspace for the sequence etc. the penalties are exponentially not in favor of the turbine. I had a -6 garrett powered thrush I leased last year, guy that owned it was trying to lease it out to recover some of the cost after it sucked a bird into the impeller….

People say the turbines are so cheap to operate but don’t talk about any of the liabilities or penalties.

TBO on the 600 is 2000 hours. And the 600 carries none of that extra junk that does require added attention. Historians on the thread please correct me but IIRC they took an early working bird up to 4000 hours and tore the engines down for inspection just to verify 2000 hours was conservative on a 600.

It takes less than an hour to rip the executive interior and reclining swivel seats out of a 600 and turn it into an uber-hauler. A lot of MU-2s also ended up overnight hauling in the days before Cessna introduced the Caravan. That's the disadvantage of being efficient and relatively simple to maintain. Bean counters who run the numbers snap up the entire inventory. (Only thing the Caravan has over my 600 beyond three thousand pounds of extra useful load is you can put it on floats!)

So here we have an airplane - the 600 - that is the darling of bean counters AND fighter pilots. Like I said, Ted Smith was a genius.

You can maintain a fully equipped 600 for half to two-thirds the number Forrest mentioned. What was Richard Collins' rule of thumb? Triple the burn? So I'm doing $200 in fuel; that would be $600 / hr total direct and indirect operating costs. That seems like a reasonable number given my experience.

Of course, that's just maintaining the airplane. First thing you're going to want to do when you own one is put in a new panel or new paint or add winglets and paint...

Referencing Mike's points:

Super accurate comparison IMHO, but one variable that has moved around a lot is the market value of a decent Aerostar vs market value of entry level turbine options. MU-2's and Cheyennes got re-discovered a bit. For a while you could pick up a good Cheyenne I / II for numbers that were well below what the nicest Aerostars are going for now. I had a chance to buy a really nice MU-2 for $450k (shoulda...just wasn't in a position to do it then). I ended up in a really nice Cheyenne II for about the same money I would have had in my Aerostar after doing all the stuff it needed. That wouldn't be the case now.

When the combination of Jet A price advantage, low market values for entry level turboprops, and the increased cost of keeping highly strung piston engines healthy all aligned, it make the turboprop an easy decision. Now if you are at the $300k ish level of comfortable spend for an airplane, the turboprops are not in the picture anymore.

A few years back, you could pick up a really good Aerostar for $200k, and a decent Cheyenne for $350k. Now I think both those numbers have moved to a spot that makes it a very different equation.

Steve,
your post points out why I posted this:

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... p-aircraft

which seems like a plane worthy of consideration for the mission posted by the OP. As to Geo's post, the Aerostar 600 isn't pressurized which puts it into a different class. Pressurized planes are more comfortable and don't have the hassle of having to mess with and refill oxygen if used where oxygen would be needed for the 600. All that easy access to altitude results in operating efficiency, more comfortable ride, more likely to top weather and icing conditions and less fatigue. All very worthwhile trade offs for the maintenance of the pressurization system. Fly what you can afford, but if you can afford a pressurized piston twin, you can afford an F model MU-2 and have a better more capable airplane, just sayin....

Steve,
your post points out why I posted this:

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... p-aircraft

which seems like a plane worthy of consideration for the mission posted by the OP. As to Geo's post, the Aerostar 600 isn't pressurized which puts it into a different class. Pressurized planes are more comfortable and don't have the hassle of having to mess with and refill oxygen if used where oxygen would be needed for the 600. All that easy access to altitude results in operating efficiency, more comfortable ride, more likely to top weather and icing conditions and less fatigue. All very worthwhile trade offs for the maintenance of the pressurization system. Fly what you can afford, but if you can afford a pressurized piston twin, you can afford an F model MU-2 and have a better more capable airplane, just sayin....

Just a side note:

The air pumps on an Aerostar (all Aerostars) are pneumatic pumps not vacuum pumps, the only vacuum on an Aerostar is to keep the boots tight to the wing, I believe that’s from a venturi.

Uses for pneumatic pressure:

Door seal (unless you have an electric door seal pump -and you should)

Boots

Gyros

Yes correct. The pump is the same.

C’mon Jason, none of that fits the narrative whereby every thread is taken over and turned into how fantastic some other 40-50 year old plane in a different class is to own.

You must be doing it wrong. Or if you had a certain model, it would have cost you a fraction. Or that specialty shop must be ripping you off.

But seriously, thanks for saying it. There’s no free lunch.

When I purchased my Aerostar I seriously looked at an MU2.
I asked myself what the maximum probably uninsured event would be....

I thought it would be a $60K engine failure or a 35K front windshield fails inspection....
vs 250K to buy a used garrett on the MU-2.

About a year later I had an engine failure in the aerostar that in the end cost me more than $120K.

Engine failed in such a way that the core was scrap, ran metal through both turbos, the prop,prop governor, turbo controller, etc.....

I've since heard that a used garett with a 1000hrs left on it might be as little as 100K...
All the right questions to ask, alas the answer its not really clear...

MU2 would be faster, aerostar is a much nicer flying plane....

I think one of the reasons you see a lot of Aerostar/MU-2 comparisons on this Aerostar thread is because a huge percentage of MU-2 owners previously owned 1 or more Aerostars (myself included). It is a very common transition. Naturally, those who have transitioned have opinions about what that was like, and those who are considering transitioning want to know more.

Oh believe me, I dream up something different all of the time. I’m always picking the brain off my neighbor, a long time acquaintance of yours (Cody W) and what I should buy next…. He just tells me a 690 or BE-18.

My problem is, I only own a cabin class aircraft (414 at the moment) for charity flights. My Travel Air does just fine otherwise. I can steal a 441 at no cost for larger charity flights.

When I sold the Aerostar, I was aimed toward a 58 Baron. The week I made my decision I was sitting at FL200 in the sunshine looking down at the rain and ice below thinking my wife would never fly a long trip in the Baron. I think I was right, one short trip in the Travel Air and she complained the whole time about the small cabin. I think I spoiled her in the
414/421C/441. She doesn’t complain about owning the fleet so I’ll keep them.

Definitely not the case.

The base book empty weight on the 601P is 500 lbs heavier than the base book weight on the 600.

The glass is heavier, there are 4 turbos, 4 wastegates, 2 controllers, more complex exhaust system, sonic venturis, cabin intercoolers, bleed air valves, cabin rate controller, 2 outflow valves, much heavier skins on the pressure vessel, cabin sealant, ...

On top of all that you really need air-conditioning in a pressurized Aerostar or pressurized anything else. Most of the pressurized Aerostars are also full or known ice, adding even more weight. A fully loaded 601P will have about 1400 lbs of useful or less.

A fully loaded 700 with the 6315 lb gross weight (315 lb increase) has a 1650 lb useful (if you weight it).

With the 6850 lb gross weight mod a light fully loaded 700 will have close to a 2200 lb useful.

You see what you just did ?

You compared TWO NEW piston engines to ONE HIGHLY USED turbine. That's called "betterment", so not at all a "apples-to-apples" comparison.

A used Lycoming (no access.) with 1,000 hours left , might cost you as little as $15K, ask me how I know .

Don't kid yourself: A turbine is a big step up in cost.