Certainly on the tighter side, but mitigated by the fact that the door is right there so it's easy to get in and out for the pilot. And in the summer months you'll see a lot of Aerostars taxied with the upper clamshell open.

If I may humbly suggest “Nigel” after the esteemed Nigel Tufnel (who was something of a “star” himself, even as his appeal became more selective).

After all, the best thing about the Aerostar is that you can turn it up to eleven...


Apologies if the reference is too obscure

I am 5' 10", but I weighted about 245 when I had the Aerostar. With a 50in short jacket I have rather broad shoulders. I never had a problem with my shoulders getting squeezed in the plane.

Tim

Brilliant! I love it!

Trip leaving Charlotte headed to Monroe La (MLU) in the am.
HEAVY HEADWIND

FRom my experience forcast headwinds are generally a little light so I may be seeing 65-70 knots tomorrow.

EQY-NELLO-MLU AT 12k, temps should be above 0

Or EQY-ATL-MLU AT FL220, should be able to stay above clouds, might have to go FL240 for a bit.

Thinking a toss up

TAF @MLU calling for overcast 300 so I may be landing in Alabama for fuel as I will not land with under 50 gallons and really want more if close airports are same weather.

What would my BT Aerostar bunch do?

Brad, I just looked at it for my plane and lower is better.

Mine is a straight 601P though, and your superstar is faster but a little less efficient.

Fltplan.com (which is usually very accurate) says I can do it at 8 or 10 thousand feet, and land with over 50 gallons on board. I have standard tanks (no aux) with an overfill adapter so I can carry 180 gallons.

With the aux tank, I’d guess you could do it easily at a lowish power setting. The low-compression/high boost engines are slightly less efficient, but you can carry an extra 45 gallons in the aux tank.

I’d think low power cruise nonstop is better (and quicker) than two fast legs.

I just ran flight plans for that route for tomorrow, using AEX for an alternate. My best result was FL180, medium power (29" 2100rpm), yielding enroute time of 3:38 burning 153.7 gallons. 57 gallons FREM.

If weather / alternate wasn't an issue I'd use high power (32" 2200 rpm) and have ETE 3:20 FUBO 168 gallons for FREM 42 gallons.

Thanks James & Steve,

I can put in 236 gallons
Wing 67 each (ouch, my back)
Main 42
Aux 15 pumped into main then 45 more in aux

All but the main I have tested myself

NO way will I flight plan for landing AFTER burning 180+ into a 300 foot overcast with alternate being 75nm away.

Sooo, I will slow her down a bit and if weather improves I can always push up the power in route.

Will do a quick Weather/wind check am....FL180- 200 looks like the least time in route currently

Yes! I didn't include the overfill trick fuel because I didn't know if you were comfy with that yet, so my numbers were based on only having 210 gallons on board.

Isn't it awesome to have such a capable machine?

EDIT: You ARE giving every ounce of credit to the tanks in fuel capacity - I considered 62.5 per wing to be absolute full, and used 15 gallons as the overfill limit on the fuselage tank (I know it could hold up to 20 over, but more than 17 over and you will run the risk of hitting the vent which will pee 3 gallons out on the ramp before it stops).

I am pretty sure there is a little more fuel hiding in the tanks than is considered usable, but I think it's a mistake to count on anything more than placarded limits. It's crazy easy to underfuel by a lot more than you think...just takes a minor lateral tilt even if you do the "slam". I used 209 and all 4 tanks full, and 15 extra using the fuselage overfill - so my absolute full figure was 224. You can go a looooong, loooooong way in an Aerostar on that much fuel.

RisingUp Aviation shows the performance of the 700p to have a top speed of 264 KTAS and a cruise speed of 230 KTAS.

Are these valid numbers?

What is the fuel flow when cruising at 230 KTAS?

Definitely valid numbers.

my 601P will do 230+ knots on 35gph total in the flight levels, the 700hp airplanes are faster.

i don't have the time to search for it right now, but somebody posted the superstar performance chart earlier in this thread. Those are accurate numbers.

The 700P and the converted 601P and 602P Aerostars with 350 HP engines go the same speed on the same fuel. Attached is the power setting and performance data for the converted Super 700 Aerostar. The 700P will require a little more manifold pressure to get the same percentage of HP since its intercooler is a little less efficient. Both aircraft will generally hit the TIT limit before being able to lean to the minimum fuel flow shown but all will be able to lean to recommended fuel flow. Not shown on the chart is approximately 45% HP for long range cruise where you can get 210 KTAS on 28 GPH total at FL250. Adjust speed down 2 knots per thousand feet for lower altitudes.

Thank Jim, impressive numbers for the bird.

And so fun to fly that fast.
Jim also understates the long range option a bit, if really aggressive, you can pull back to roughly 40% power, run LOP on big 350 engines and burn about 24 GPH; speed will be around 190 KTAS in the mid 20s.

I miss mine....

Tim

As the owner of a 700P I can tell you that Jim's numbers are pretty damn close. My bird cruises at 235 knots at FL 250 burning 23.5 on the right motor and 23.0 on the left. All the CHT's are less than 380 and the TIT's never exceed 1550 (100 below redline). As the owner of a lot of different planes I can say that the Aerostar has definitely got the best performance of the bunch.