All twins sit on market for a long time, but certainly Aerostars do. Took me almost a year to sell mine. I honestly don't know why that is - they offer most bang for the buck of any twin in it's class. And are well built an impeccably supported, too boot. It must the old hotrod stigma that lingers on. Deathstar, Scareostar etc. That they're hard to fly etc (which is just not true).

Maybe it's the looks. Or perhaps the smallish cabin is another factor, but it's certainly no smaller than a Baron inside and those don't seem to sit on the market as long. But Beechcraft has a broader following, I get that. A Baron is a natural step up for a Bonanza owner, I get that too. Aerostars are a bit more cultish and appeal to a smaller demographic.

Great post and I concurr w/ an earlier post of 10-15 AMU annual maintenance(w/o upgrades) after 4-5 years of ownership of a 81 601P/700 w/ U2A's averaging 125hr/yr. Finding and starting w/ a well maintained A* to begin with is theee most important influence on maintenance costs going forward.. work 'em well, treat 'em right and expect a few teething problems from time to time like synchronizing turbo linkages and other misc. items. Pressurized comfort @ FL 230 @ 235-245 kts w/o pushing too hard is a very good feeling, right up there w/ the turbine crowd. not to mention a mid-weight 2,000 ft + initial climb getting there.

Only surprise I had the whole time was replacement of both aileron long-tube linkages in the wings that were corroded and compromised. Roughly 4.5 total AMU fix.

Find a good example and don't hesitate to learn and enjoy the next step up in a wonderfully handling mini-airliner w/ great all around capabilities. I was a freshly minted twin, commercial, instrument pilot plus 50 hrs when I got mine. Quality, recurrent training is a very good idea, as the A* is so easy to fly, you can start taking it for granted. If my current mission didn't include getting into grass 2,500 ft runways, I'd still have it.
I seriously doubt you will ever regret having owned one!

I seem to recall Tim's being on the market for a VERY long time as well. That would be frustrating when the time comes to move on to have wait for 12 mos or more to sell.

I think part of the problem is financing as many companies don't offer financing on older piston twins. The other issue is likely the niche aspect of the A* market.

Mine took a year to sell too. Plane was a winner all around. Twins were on the decline at the time- still right there. Buyer paid cash. At current pricing levels they re an incredible value.

Smaller market for the A*

Makes you wonder what the market will be like and how long it will take to sell 5 years from now...

Don

Tim's was a top of the maket plane with top of the market price. It took awhile to find the right buyer.

True but Adam's was nearly at the opposite end of the market...

So with that said, (..and I wonder that same thing too) its seems to me to be a "personal" decision just how much capital that very well could vanish in time does one want to put at risk for the pleasure of pushing throttles forward....

I remember back when planes were an appreciating asset!

So with that said, (..and I wonder that same thing too) its seems to me to be a "personal" decision just how much capital that very well could vanish in time does one want to put at risk for the pleasure of pushing throttles forward....

I remember back when planes were an appreciating asset!

If one is buying a twin engine airplane, like the A*, for 10% of what it would cost to build today, the market for it "5 years from now", should be completely irrelevant. IF it isn't, then frankly, you shouldn't be buying it; you can't afford the upkeep. Go buy a new loaded up diesel pickup, keep it 5 years, and you will lose a much higher percentage of its value than a used airplane.

Airplanes were an appreciating asset for one small period of their existence which came after new production stopped and before burgeoning maintenance costs set in.

Selling a high performance twin today will be a maddening process. 95% of the calls will be from "potential" buyers who can't pay for it, afford to maintain it, or have the skills to fly it, but if you will just "give" it to them, it will be a "fair" price.

If I sound jaded, well, that's because, I am. Sorry.

Jgreen

I'm in the movie business. And here the trend mimics the used airplane market:

The mid-budget film does not exist anymore. Today, you make money on sub $2M horror movies like Paranormal Activity or Saw 6 where the genre is the star (no need for name actors), or you do the tentpole Transformers 5 or Marvel superhero franchise film for $200 million. Everything in between has more or less disappeared. The $25-50 mill drama we grew up with in the 70's, 80's and 90's, is totally gone.

Same with airplanes. The totally mint, as new, highest end plane all glass, all new everything, will find its buyer eventually. Or the lowest priced project will as well. It's the in-betweens that suffer.

I tend to agree John. I would likely look at it and have to be OK with the depreciation being close to 100% over the course of ownership before pulling the trigger.

To elaborate on Adam's post:

Aerostar engines come in 3 types.

1. Normally aspirated -IO-540 found on the 600 and 600A

2. TurboNormalized High Compression IO-540 engines 601 & 601P

3. TurboCharged Low Compression engines 602, 700 & 650/680

All the engines with turbos are limited to 1650TIT.

The low compression engines run hotter %#$@ than the high compression engines and running LOP they hit the 1650TIT limit at low power settings (50%).

High compression engines can go 65%, and stay under 1650.

The low compression guys aren't willing to give up the speed so they run ROP and get 220-230KTs (or faster if they are willing to burn the gas).

In response to Don's concern about losing value:

In eight years of flying about 200 hours a year, maintaining the plane to a 100% standard, up-grading to make single pilot IFR ops as easy as possible, and looking forward to two Lycoming reman engines next year, purchase price has turned out to be a very small portion of my total cost of ownership.

I suspect that my experience matches any other complex piston on the market.

Realistically, with the engines done if I was to sell, I'd be lucky to get what I paid for the plane, the buyer would get the upgrades for free.

Good deal for them.

However, I have no intention of selling, I continue to do non-economically justified upgrades and as long as I can keep passing my physical and insurance check ride, I'll keep flying, when I can't, I'll try to donate it to a local aviation museum. It will give school kids something to wonder about.


A little adult conversation:

An Aerostar isn't an investment, it's a high maintenance mistress made of metal.

She's honest, pay the price and she will be there for you.

Go cheap, and one day, she won't.

The idea that you can buy an Aerostar (or any complex twin) cheap and just run it out is based on the false assumtion that you could buy a mistress, that just isn't how things work, and a neglected complex airplane is more (or as) dangerous as a neglected mistress.

Finally,

Pushing those throttles forward, as well as everything that happens after that, is one of the greatest thrills in life. There may come a day when it is the greatest thrill in my life.
On that day, what it cost, won't matter at all.

OK, with your patience, one more thought.

Looking back at the question as to why Aerostars seem to be less attractive in today's market than say, the Baron.

After owning one now for about two and a half years, and being pretty comfortable with my decision, I think I have a theory and I think Forrest will agree with me.

The "original" Aerostar was a very well designed and very poorly implemented airplane. For most of it's production, it had some glaring deficiencies. If you want to see and study a list of them, go to the Aerostar Aircraft site, owned by Mr. Jim Christy and look at the long list of STC conversions and modifications available for this airplane. Most of them were developed by Machen and addressed outright maintenance and operational deficiencies like fuel expansion in wing tanks, weak landing gear supports, intercoolers for hot running 601P's, iconel exhausts to name just a few.

These deficiencies were not minor. They made the difference between a very good airplane and a troublesome airplane.

As a result of so many airplanes coming out of the factory with real deficiencies, the Aerostar developed a well deserved IMO, bad reputation.

The flip side is that those mods were developed and again, IMO, transformed the Aerostar to an equal, if not better, airplane than the Baron. It is certainly faster.

It is hard to get past a bad reputation, especially if it was a deserved one.

To add misery is that "learning" the Aerostar, its models, configurations, and modifications can be a little daunting to the uninitiated.

I don't know much about "other" Aerostars, just the 601P. What I know about it is that I am, now, completely satisfied with my decision to buy one and with the performance and reliability that it delivers. I'm not expert, but after owning over 30 airplanes over the years, I have paid for some experience.

Jgreen