banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 03:54 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 2880 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 ... 192  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 12:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
My experience was more in keeping with what Bob, Steve and Adam have reported. My 601-P/700 (with GW increase and winglets) would typically cruise (62-65% power) at 222kts TAS around 17,000-18,000 and around 240-245 TAS at FL 240-250 burning around 22.5-23 gph per side. As Steve indicated, I too am a big fan of the Aerostars...they fly nicer than any plane I’ve ever operated. But in my experience, 265kts TAS wasn’t in the cards. It was still faster than most any piston twins around. I’ve been in the MU-2 for a couple years now and I’m liking the additional speed, weather capability, and reliability, but I still think the Aerostar flies quite a bit nicer. Controls perfectly harmonized with immediate response to the yoke with a light touch without being “twitchy.” Interestingly, what Adam and others indicated about the fuel costs concerning big engine twins vs light turboprops seems accurate in my experience. For my longer flights to the west coast, the fuel costs for the MU-2 have certainly been less than for the Aerostar.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 12:16 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/14/15
Posts: 218
Post Likes: +175
Aircraft: Piper Cheyenne II
It bears mentioning that without any exaggeration, the Aerostar is simply faster by a good margin than anything else in its category. One of my favorite things about it is that no fudging is required - it lives up to book numbers and those numbers are very impressive all by themselves.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 13:38 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/18/08
Posts: 1008
Post Likes: +204
Aircraft: Aerostar 601p/700
I agree that at 32 inches and 2200RPM, which is 63% power I think, and 45 gal/h in cruise in the high teens I see about 225Kts in my 700. I will pick up speed in the 20s but the CHTS head up to 380-400f and that is too high for my liking so I rarely go above 20000-21000 ft.

The book says 75% power at 25000 will give 261Kts and that is probably true but not many people fly that way as the CHTs would be too hot.

I would say realistically the aerostar if flown as most people do it is a 225-235 Kts airplane.

I think an MU2 may be in my future but I have never flown in one.

Eric


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 18:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/30/15
Posts: 1697
Post Likes: +1712
Location: Charlotte
Aircraft: Avanti-Citabria
Username Protected wrote:
I agree that at 32 inches and 2200RPM, which is 63% power I think, and 45 gal/h in cruise in the high teens I see about 225Kts in my 700. I will pick up speed in the 20s but the CHTS head up to 380-400f and that is too high for my liking so I rarely go above 20000-21000 ft.

The book says 75% power at 25000 will give 261Kts and that is probably true but not many people fly that way as the CHTs would be too hot.

I would say realistically the aerostar if flown as most people do it is a 225-235 Kts airplane.

I think an MU2 may be in my future but I have never flown in one.

Eric


With a weee bit more fuel I can keep my CHT's under 380 at FL230 running 65% and 75% power. TIT's at 1550.

_________________
I wanna go phastR.....and slowR


Last edited on 25 Jul 2018, 19:39, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 19:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/14/15
Posts: 218
Post Likes: +175
Aircraft: Piper Cheyenne II
Typically I spent about 30 gallons and about 22 miniutes to FL220 (not that the airplane might not do it faster, but ATC constrictions, etc). If you leave a reserve of say 30 gallons (I can make that into an hour of fuel easy, so I am cool with 30 gallons for reserve). that leaves you with about 2.5 hours of cruising range at 75% power, which really isn't so bad if you don't mind the fuel bill and can keep the CHT's in line.

I used to experiment with 75% power climbs (instead of 85%) - if it wasn't too hot or you weren't too heavy it worked ok - you lost a little climb rate & airspeed, but you'd save about 5 gallons. So I don't doubt you can run 75% power for cruise if your willing to put the fuel through it.

I don't have the Machen chart handy but the Piper 700 POH shows 261 knots true airspeed at FL250 using 75% power.... given how closely the Aerostar matches book numbers I have no doubt it will do exactly that - so I presume that those seeing 260 knots true are using 75% and not 65%. BTW - the same chart shows about 243 knots true at 17,000 ft using 75% power - this would suggest Jason's photo was using 75% as well.

As a comparison I have to burn about 80 gph in my Cheyenne to get 260 knots true, so the Aerostar can certainly compete with the turboprops in my opinion. I flew a -135 equipped King Air 90 for a while, it was only about 265 knot true using about 90 gph (IF I am remembering correctly). I won't mention what the -21 powered C-90 I fly does for burn / speed....that would just be mean to the King Air! :D


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 21:05 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 5547
Post Likes: +2503
Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
Username Protected wrote:

Jason - post a pic of the rest of the panel - 190 knots indicated is not a number I have ever seen in a 700 at 17,000. What power were you running? Were you level and stabilized?


I don't have the whole panel picture of that flight as it was a few years ago. It was likely at 75% power. I'll take a picture next time I fly it. I can say at ISA, it consistently meets the speeds on the Machen chart I uploaded about 50 pages ago.

With a little fuel shopping and tankering, you can operate a C-441 at about the same fuel cost on a trip as my 601P/SS700. I did this last winter on a three leg 800NM trip and the fuel cost were about $30 more in the 441. I did have to stop with the 441 and buy low cost fuel, so the total trip length in "clock hours" was the same...

Jason


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 23:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
We operate 3 -21 King Airs, one -135, and my short body -10 K model MU-2. Jet fuel has become substantially more expensive recently so the difference in fuel costs between JetA and 100LL are no longer so great (but it appears to be coming back down).
I went through flight logs and picked an average sample set of flights in cruise at FL200, -17C, for the four planes and pulled data from my Aerostar 700 for a similar flight. These are all actual flight recordings as each flight’s data is documented in our business. Assuming today’s fuel prices and 800nm of cruising flight (excluding climb and descent) these are the times and costs:
-21 C90A: 3.29hr @ 243kts burning 73gph 240.2g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $924
-135 C90A: 2.95hr @ 271kts burning 88gph 259.8g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $1000
-10MU-2: 2.56hr @ 312kts burning 86gph 220.5g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $848
Aerostar: 3.43hr @ 233kts burning 46gph 157.7g 100LL at 5.20/gal = $820

Higher up the Aerostar gets faster, the -21 King Airs slow down but the turbines burn quite a bit less per hour also.
So...they are pretty comparable and all of them are expensive (but fun)! :peace:

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 23:25 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5517
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:
-21 C90A: 3.29hr @ 243kts burning 73gph 240.2g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $924
-135 C90A: 2.95hr @ 271kts burning 88gph 259.8g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $1000
-10MU-2: 2.56hr @ 312kts burning 86gph 220.5g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $848
Aerostar: 3.43hr @ 233kts burning 46gph 157.7g 100LL at 5.20/gal = $820
:


Thanks for real world figures, Thomas.

What I don't understand is why does the MU-2 burn that much with -10's? 86gph? Is this an average or actual burn at altitude? A Commander with -10's will burn about 65-70gal/hr doing 300kts. I'd think with the smaller wing the MU-2's would have less drag, no? But perhaps because of that, they have to fly at higher AOA up there and it becomes more draggy?

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 00:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/05/15
Posts: 382
Post Likes: +104
Location: KSLC
Aircraft: Divorced: AC690A-10
Username Protected wrote:
-21 C90A: 3.29hr @ 243kts burning 73gph 240.2g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $924
-135 C90A: 2.95hr @ 271kts burning 88gph 259.8g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $1000
-10MU-2: 2.56hr @ 312kts burning 86gph 220.5g Jet A at 3.85/gal = $848
Aerostar: 3.43hr @ 233kts burning 46gph 157.7g 100LL at 5.20/gal = $820
:


Thanks for real world figures, Thomas.

What I don't understand is why does the MU-2 burn that much with -10's? 86gph? Is this an average or actual burn at altitude? A Commander with -10's will burn about 65-70gal/hr doing 300kts. I'd think with the smaller wing the MU-2's would have less drag, no? But perhaps because of that, they have to fly at higher AOA up there and it becomes more draggy?


He's at FL200. That's a fuel killer on the -10T. Go to FL270 or FL280 and a -10 powered 690 will settle in at 66 to 68gph and 300 kts.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 00:52 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
That is correct. The data I had for the KA’s was FL200/-17 so I looked for flights that were comparable for the other two planes. My MU-2 generally “likes” being higher than the KA’s for best performance, but (like most turbines) it seems pretty sensitive to OAT. For example, at a similar temperature (-18C) but FL260, it’s 299kts and 71gph. And if its really cold at -42C at FL270 it’s 311kts and 73gph. My main point was that it seemed somewhat surprising to me that they were all pretty similar to the Aerostar in cost for the sample trip. I’ve never operated a Commander so I don’t know about them.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 06:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11884
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
To get 265 KTAS, I must have been 75% because I remember planning 55GOH for cruise when I wanted to get there fast.

My memory said I had three "planning" speeds for flights over 300NM.
55GPH, FL270, 265 KTAS
40GPH, FL23, 230 KTAS
25GPH, FL21, 190 KTAS

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 07:52 
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:
It bears mentioning that without any exaggeration, the Aerostar is simply faster by a good margin than anything else in its category. One of my favorite things about it is that no fudging is required - it lives up to book numbers and those numbers are very impressive all by themselves.


As I have been reading the posts on A* speeds, both for the 290 HP and the 350 HP versions, Steve's comment has crossed my mind repeatedly. The A* speed is real not just a number. It's not the perfect airplane as all airplanes are compromises, but it will simply smoke any other piston twin for speed. Even the 290 HP 601 will leave a 421/Duke/58P in its dust.

The only point I have to add, is that from my experience with the 601 and observation and information about the "big engines", they are almost two different airplanes from the standpoint of cost. I've read some very high overhaul cost associated with the large engines that is simply not the case, in my world, with the engines of the 601. Not arguing, just commenting.

Jg

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 13:06 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/18/11
Posts: 320
Post Likes: +288
Company: American Aviation, Inc.
Location: Hayden Lake, ID
Aircraft: C90,340,PA31T,PC-12
Comparing factory overhauled engines the AirPower site calls for overhauled 290 HP engines at a cost of $46,063.00. The 350 HP engines are listed at $53,583.00 for airplanes converted from 290 HP to 350 HP. Why the extra cost? Machen specified that these 350 HP engines with the build or engine parts list number of 08894 come with fine wire spark plugs not massive electrode plugs. They specified pressurized Bendix mags not Slick mags, and Lycoming requires blow off valves with this engine installation and they supply those with the engine. So bottom line the Lycoming overhauled 350 HP engines cost more, in some respects because you are getting more.

The biggest advantage of the 700 HP Aerostar is that it accelerates to flying speed much faster, is more forgiving and has better performance on a single engine. At the same weight the 700 single engine climb rates are about double the stock 601P and about double the single engine ceiling. That was the main selling point Machen Inc. emphasized when selling conversions. Will it go faster if you want to burn more fuel? Of course! Can you cruise at 210 KTAS at FL250 on 28 gph total? Yes, and that's 7.5 MPG.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 11:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/08/14
Posts: 102
Post Likes: +118
Company: Innovation Two
Aircraft: Piper PA 60
Great points, Jim - just don't look at the fuel flows on takeoff.

Can you do 210-220 kts at 16 gal per side?

Bob


Top

 Post subject: Re: Aerostars
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 13:14 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/05/15
Posts: 382
Post Likes: +104
Location: KSLC
Aircraft: Divorced: AC690A-10
Username Protected wrote:
Great points, Jim - just don't look at the fuel flows on takeoff.

Can you do 210-220 kts at 16 gal per side?

Bob


Answer is in the last sentence of his post. 210 kts @ 28gph total.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 2880 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 ... 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

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