[youtube]https://youtu.be/4_IV50DcxIc[/youtube]

Right? I’m shopping for a 601P now and having a heck of a time finding anything. Got a few leads on off-market stuff thankfully but its few and far between.

I did that nose gear kit, really beefs it up. Should be a lifetime fix !

Bruce, any interest in keeping half / selling half and basing it at PIA? I'd love to be in an Aerostar but I haven't found the math yet where I could do it without a partner. If you're based out of Florida then it probably doesn't make sense for you. I wouldn't know where to house one in Peoria anyway unless Byerly has hangar room to rent for one. I'm at 3MY now and there wouldn't be a spot to put one.

Bruce, any interest in keeping half / selling half and basing it at PIA? I'd love to be in an Aerostar but I haven't found the math yet where I could do it without a partner. If you're based out of Florida then it probably doesn't make sense for you. I wouldn't know where to house one in Peoria anyway unless Byerly has hangar room to rent for one. I'm at 3MY now and there wouldn't be a spot to put one.

Sorry for the thread revival but got to respond to this. I WAS one of those guys who believed this…and sold my 601 to buy a MU2 in 2009. Flew the MU2 for 6 years and 1000 hours…before trading up to a Mustang.

While the MU2 was indeed a very reliable and robust airframe is was most assuredly NOT as inexpensive to fly that the Aerostar. Yes I had several 18k “annuals” and yes it was very fast (mine was a K model) but I also had a couple of 50k bumps in there too.

My biggest gripe about the MU2 was its flying qualities. It’s an absolute pig to fly, easily the worst hand flying airplane I have ever experienced in my 48 years of aviating. Landings were always an adventure too in terms of smoothness. My wife hated the thing.

After going all the way up the up the food chain (ending with a Piaggio …another great airplane) in aviation at 64 I have decided to go back to a nice intercooled and well maintained glass panel 601p to go with my TTx….because I actually care about how a plane feels and flies. My 2 cents..

After going all the way up the up the food chain (ending with a Piaggio …another great airplane) in aviation at 64 I have decided to go back to a nice intercooled and well maintained glass panel 601p to go with my TTx….because I actually care about how a plane feels and flies. My 2 cents..[/quote]

OMG Mark - yes - there are a few of us that have that disease. I cannot have a sustained happy relationship with an airplane that is not satisfying to fly, and the Aerostar is very hard to match let alone beat. I still would jump at the chance to regularly fly one.

I'm in the camp of choosing turbine, but it's not black and white. The notion of spending about the same to fly a turbine vs a pressurized piston twin is valid IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES but not all. Turbines can hide their costs because some of the big really expensive stuff is infrequent - but will happen. If Cheyennes didn't exist I'd still be in an Aerostar.

OMG Mark - yes - there are a few of us that have that disease. I cannot have a sustained happy relationship with an airplane that is not satisfying to fly, and the Aerostar is very hard to match let alone beat. I still would jump at the chance to regularly fly one.

I'm in the camp of choosing turbine, but it's not black and white. The notion of spending about the same to fly a turbine vs a pressurized piston twin is valid IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES but not all. Turbines can hide their costs because some of the big really expensive stuff is infrequent - but will happen. If Cheyennes didn't exist I'd still be in an Aerostar.[/quote]

No question. And turbines (especially jets) have an all weather ability matched by none (well,,, except the Piaggio).

I was merely stating the experience I had with Aerostar vs MU2… on average add 50% in cost if you are really counting. Most wouldn’t believe the BS tack on charges one gets when one is flying a turbine versus a piston no matter what their size. For instance, when I go to Colorado and leave my plane at Eagle, they charge $350 per night to keep it on the ramp if it’s a Mustang but $125 a night if it’s a 421, even though the golden eagle is the same or larger in stature and size. (Don’t even ask about hangar rates,,,It’s the old if you can afford a jet you can afford to pay these fees bullshit. It’s infuriating.

Yeah, that pisses me off too. If I walk into any store and want to buy something there is a price tag that says how much it costs. But for some reason in aviation a parking spot or other non-fuel FBO service (which, frankly, is rarely more than a place to park and a bathroom) costs an amount based on their perception of my ability to pay. Hate that.

Sorry for the thread revival but got to respond to this. I WAS one of those guys who believed this…and sold my 601 to buy a MU2 in 2009. Flew the MU2 for 6 years and 1000 hours…before trading up to a Mustang.

While the MU2 was indeed a very reliable and robust airframe is was most assuredly NOT as inexpensive to fly that the Aerostar. Yes I had several 18k “annuals” and yes it was very fast (mine was a K model) but I also had a couple of 50k bumps in there too.

My biggest gripe about the MU2 was its flying qualities. It’s an absolute pig to fly, easily the worst hand flying airplane I have ever experienced in my 48 years of aviating. Landings were always an adventure too in terms of smoothness. My wife hated the thing.

After going all the way up the up the food chain (ending with a Piaggio …another great airplane) in aviation at 64 I have decided to go back to a nice intercooled and well maintained glass panel 601p to go with my TTx….because I actually care about how a plane feels and flies. My 2 cents..

N”It is a weird flying contraption but I would not call it a pig. You said the complete opposite when you did the video for PROP. I agree that it is more expensive to run than a 601 but there is a lot less tinkering when you don't have all of those turbos, cylinders, intercoolers etc. It seems like the extra cost is worth it for business in most circumstances because of antique piston downtime. I totally agree that the shakedown fees are absurd when you roll up in an antique turboprop or jet vs an antique piston. I can't wait until airspace user fees and landing fees become mainstream.[/quote]”



It was for PROP …cmon….what was I going to say.

I loved its usefulness,,and its sturdiness.

I hated the way it flew ESPECIALLY in the pattern, just my opinion.

well, since Mark resurrected my old post..the story with my MU2 remains quite good. I have had exactly one unscheduled maintenance event since I bought the plane in September 2020, an intermittent gear issue resolved in a day and a half at Intercontinental jet in Tulsa for $3K. Other than that, just scheduled maintenance. The 600hr inspection was $15,200, which is a big inspection involving flap removal and inspection. Took 2 1/2 weeks. The following 100/200hr was $8500 and took four days. My fuel usage on trips is usually 57-60gph, more on shorter legs, but never over 72gph on shorter legs at lower altitudes in my F model. Fuel is a much bigger expense than maintenance, but contract fuel like CAA helps a lot, plus avoiding expensive places. For the fuel burn I see 250-260KTAS in the low to mid 20's depending on temperature and weight. I have flown west coast to east coast in 8.5hours with one fuel stop multiple times now. The plane just works. As to how it flies, well, trim is your friend. Keep it in trim and it flies just fine. Landings are still interesting, but with good technique you can land without slamming the nose down, you just have to flare right at the last moment so the nose gear isn't too high off the pavement and it works out well. I am still very glad I bought this plane, as is my wife. Not having to get nickeled and dimed to death on service issues is a wonderful thing. It is by far the least hassle aircraft I have owned. Prior planes included a TU206G, three different P210s and a P Skymaster. The MU2 has been less hassle than any of those aircraft and much more capable as well. The F model MU2 remains likely the least expensive twin turboprop you can operate. I remain a very happy MU2 owner.

I am a chronic lurker but this post about joy of operating an aeroplane just resonated.

There is nothing to not love about the TBM with respect to how it can get a travel job done quickly safely comfortably and reasonably (at least looking at DOC). But while it is "a pleasure" to travel in, it is not "pleasant" to fly. It has the balance, pitch force, roll response, etc more like the mini airliner that it is; stable, not fickle, but not nimble; rather than a fun, in the pattern aircraft. Which is why I am continuing on a ridiculous obsessive foolish wonderful journey with my aerostar, as it may someday be my retirement aircraft. The goal has been to restore/refurbish/update/address shortcomings wherever possible, starting with resealing of every seam throughout the pressure vessel, then replace windows and seals. Powerpac spoilers, Hiloc replacement of spar/smoking rivet regions. Replace the imprecise hard to adjust mechanical wastegates with a hydraulically activated design such as used on modern turbocharged aircraft. NACA inlets over the turbos for cooling. Wireless engine monitoring - amazing how many pounds of wiring that removed. Updating the panel to glass, which means AHRS wiring to the wingtips, so might as well upgrade to LEDs as long as I'm stringing wire out there. And waaay too much "while I'm in there" to describe or justify. All because - it is a delight to fly, one of the best, and that is important.

yes, 1st world dilemma

quote="Mark Wyant"]


Sorry for the thread revival but got to respond to this. I WAS one of those guys who believed this…and sold my 601 to buy a MU2 in 2009. Flew the MU2 for 6 years and 1000 hours…before trading up to a Mustang.

While the MU2 was indeed a very reliable and robust airframe is was most assuredly NOT as inexpensive to fly that the Aerostar. Yes I had several 18k “annuals” and yes it was very fast (mine was a K model) but I also had a couple of 50k bumps in there too.

My biggest gripe about the MU2 was its flying qualities. It’s an absolute pig to fly, easily the worst hand flying airplane I have ever experienced in my 48 years of aviating. Landings were always an adventure too in terms of smoothness. My wife hated the thing.

After going all the way up the up the food chain (ending with a Piaggio …another great airplane) in aviation at 64 I have decided to go back to a nice intercooled and well maintained glass panel 601p to go with my TTx….because I actually care about how a plane feels and flies. My 2 cents..[/quote]

I’ve had three MU2s (N, Marquise and now a Solitaire) and a 602P/700. The MU2 has much better performance and capability than the Aerostar. The cost per MILE can be about the same if you have access to cheap Jet A. There seems to be a bigger price spread in Jet A than 100LL.

I owned two Aerostars (601-P, then Superstar 700) prior to my current MU-2 (-10K). Yes the Aerostar is a nicer flying airplane. I wouldn’t say the MU-2 is a “pig,” it has flying qualities similar to a transport category aircraft.
It may be, on average slightly more expensive on maintenance than the Aerostar, but probably about the same as the Superstar.
But, whether ice, snow, cold temps and scheduled fights for work, the thing just shows up for work and gets the job done.
There was a squawk list after every trip in the Aerostar (mostly due to its highly over taxed dual blown 540 which wasn’t cut out to provide 350hp). When the cylinder separated from the block, the plane was down 4 months. I had multiple engine failures or cautionary shutdowns (often snow and ice related). The Aerostar a a beautifully flying boutique machine that requires a lot of TLC and maintenance knowledge on the part of the operator.
I fly the MU-2 two or three legs approximately 8x/month in all weather. Yesterday I had a short trip at only FL180. 5 people and a dog on board, 3000fpm climb, 315kt TAS cruise and landed with 50mph gusts…the Mits doesn’t care, it just performs and virtually never has more than scheduled maintenance. It is less than half the cost of our C90A’s in maintenance. If you have a job for your plane, get a turbine.