I seem to recall the nose limits as +/- 35 deg. As with all aircraft do not exceed the limit. I have seen a few towed with a golf cart. As far as using a tow bar another issue is the rate of change in direction. That is, do not turn the nose too quickly when towing. On mine I would disconnect the scissors bolt and avoided all those problems.

I guess I have a question for the Aerostar owners.. Hope this doesn't repeat a question back up the thread somewhere that I've missed..

I've been trying to find a twin that will do what my A36 can do.. With pressurization and FIKI.

Can an Aerostar, 601P or 700 versions, handle 830 lbs payload consisting of 3 grand kids and 3 adults and baggage on a 800 nm trip, IFR reserves, no wind?

I have done this trip in the A36, but not with the kids. The kids probably won't stand for 5 hours in the air, hence the search for something faster than the A36 at long range cruise.

I know some have GW extensions, but it's hard to tell, with data I've seen, if it enables filling the seats or not for 800nm.

Also why is it that no one seems to keep or use the left middle seat? Everyone seems to say leave it out, but no one actually says why. Just too hard to get to the rear seats? Can the rear seats be configured in a club arrangement? Good for dealing with small kids..

Thanks,
Roger

This has 421 written all over it. Cabin comfort is high for 6 people cruising cross country.

Not sure if a 340 or 414 has the payload/range profile you require.

Mike C.

Hi Roger,

A 601P can do that mission. Someone with a 700 will need to speak to its abilities, but I believe it can do it also and faster as well.

People leave out a middle seat for various reasons. To name a few - make it easier to ingress/egress, more legroom for the back seat passengers, place for the dog bed, etc. They are pretty easy to put in and out.

I have all six seats and sometimes use them all, especially back when my four boys were little. Now it is usually just the wife and the dog, so both the middle seats are usually left at home.

When I use 5 seats, I usually leave the middle right one out because it is a swivel seat for the stow away table (which some have removed). Passengers report that it is not as comfortable as the other one. Some people pull out the rear bench and have two captain chairs all the way back.

My rear bench seat actually has seat belts for 3 so technically you can seat 7, but they would need to be small!

Club seating does not really work in an Aerostar. There just is not enough room, in my opinion.

Three Adults and three kids plus bags, 800 miles plus IFR reserves.

200 x 3 + 120 x 3 = 960 lbs
800nm/5mpg = (160 x 6) =960
Plus an hour (40 x 6) = 240
TOTAL 2160#

The only Aerostar that can legally do that mission is a 700 with the GW upgrade and the Aux Tank, or a 702 (which is a 700 with the GW upgrade and some other cool stuff). Maybe a really light 601P, running LOP, maybe....

Here is your plane:
http://www.aerostaraircraft.com/N700GP.html


The right center seat (on my plane) has a rotate feature which would allow a semi-club seating capability in flight, I have my left center seat pulled because having it out makes it easier to get to the rear seat ( and the person sitting in the left side of the rear bench gets great leg room), due to limited pay load (heavy 601P), I've never had more than 4 passengers (plus me) aboard. The rear bench has a seat belt for a center passenger but the folks back there would have to be fairly light to use it. (I never have)

He actually said 830 lbs of load, not 960 lbs. I just know my airplane and it would make it within legal limits. Numbers attached. My Aerostar would not meet his mission though because it is not FIKI.

I feel compelled to add that the trap, regardless of aircraft, is to make the same trip with older/larger kids as they grow. When you are on the edge of the limits, you need to do a weight and balance for each trip with accurate weights. If necessary, leave fuel and therefore range behind. A fuel stop isn't the end of the world.

Well..... there are lots of engine versions out there. Would you say the order of preference would be:
1. U2A
2. J2BD
3. S1A5 and/or S1A5MM
4. AA1A5 heavy case
Assume overall condition and care are the same.

??

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.

The S1A5 will have the best economy. But the U2A is generally considered bullet proof.

I just ran the numbers on my 601P/Superstar 700 Aerostar on fltplan.com

KSTL-KFMY is 846NM
Tomorrow AM the winds are a 3 knot tailwind.
I used FL190 for an average altitude,
55% power, 3:50 enroute, 150 Gallons, LOP.
75% power, 3:30 enroute, 168 Gallons, ROP.

I use 40 gallons as minimum fuel for landing, so I would need a total of 190 Gallons at 55%, 208 at 75%.

With the aux tank, I can hold 209.5 Gallons

At 55% power, I have a total payload of 537#
At 75% power, I have a total payload of 429#

The 6850# Gross Weight Increase would add 535# of payload if I read it correct.

Climb up to FL250, no wind, and 3:21 enroute at 163 Gallons.

I run lean of peak at ~60% and usually, and could probably cut the 55% numbers by a few gallons.

Jason

As a comparison... Cessna 421C that I fly..

Same requisites as above:
55%, 4:03, 199 ROP, ~150 LOP
75%, 3:55, 214 ROP, ~200 LOP

234 Gallons of fuel total, so 75% ROP would be tight. Using 40 gallons of reserve fuel,
55% ROP (234 total), 796# payload (LOP 1060#)

The 421 would be much more comfortable, but slower...

Jason

Thanks all. Sounds like U2A is way to go. I like bulletproof.
I fly both long(400-900mi) and short trips(breakfast, lunch, and just for fun). Other than fuel usage, does anyone see problems with short, low power flights?

I'm also looking to see one up close and fly to see how I like it. Anyone relatively close the NE Indiana that wants to fly.... Let me know. Thanks.

Jim

My 601P with S1A5 engines burns just over 30 gph ROP at 23/23. That's about 62% and gives me 205-210 in the mid teens. CHT's will average 330. Understand that I do have intercoolers and they make a big difference.

Start up, taxi and climb, you can pretty much figure a gallon per thousand feet; i.e., when I level at 15,000', I will have burned 15 gallons +/- one gallon.

The engines are mid time and as close to "trouble free" as I have ever experienced.

The only big advantage to the more powerful engines is SE performance IMO.

I do have GAMI's and can get some pretty big fuel savings LOP, but my engines are very difficult to manage as to the mixtures: they drift something awful. Fiddling with them is simply BELOW my pay grade. I could care less if I could save 5 or 5 gph and temps are so low now, there is no reason to try to reduce them further.

The setting in the pic is 23/23 @ 8500'.

Jgreen

Nice plane! I could live with one like that. Think, think, think..........!

Thanks for sharing!