Adam, I'm with Brad here, I've flown a fair amount at night, haven't noticed reflections off the windshield and I'm fairly ticky about that kind of thing.

One thing I've always enjoyed at night is looking at the reflection of the cabin in the polished spinner with the cockpit light glowing softly. I've never gotten a good picture of it, but mean to some night in cruise.

I have an Aerostar 601P and Baron 58P POH
For max cruise at 20K
Baron: 232KTAS at 19.2GPH/side
Aerostar: 230Ktas at 19.9 Gph/side

OR economy cruise at 20K
Baron 210KTAS at 14.6 gph/side
Aerostar 211KTAS at 14.7 gph/side

At least by POH, the performance looks too close to call.
Aerostar does have a higher pressurization which is very important.

Was your aerostar missing the top cover of the glare shield?
I've flown mine a ton at night, and IMHO it has the nicest night lighting and night ergonomics of anything I've ever flown.

The G500 MFD/PFD light sensor was waaaaay too sensitive to the red panel light channel and ended up way to bright. My fix was to 3d print a tiny black hood and glue it over the sensor head with a spot of silicon, so now the sensor only sees reflected light from in front, not from above. You can see it on the top right of the G500 in the picture below.

On paper the barons faster and burns less fuel! I never would have guessed that...

Funnily enough, in the very picture you post I see reflections of numerous things I was talking about!

The maintenance bit is true....for EVERY pressurized twin. The legacy GA fleet is OLD and mx hungry. Turbos, fuel systems, hydraulics, electrics, a/c, pressurization, engines, avionics, heaters, deice equipment, autopilots, etc.

No complaints, I've spent a ton refurbing mine and I have zero regrets about Aerostar ownership.

Is it true?

I have a NA baron and get about book performance, never flown a TC or P. Does the Aerostar outperform the POH?

I thought seriously about an Aerostar but my nearby runways are just too short. (too short for a P-baron as well - at least for me)



On paper the barons faster and burns less fuel! I never would have guessed that...

On paper the barons faster and burns less fuel! I never would have guessed that...

Big difference between a stock 601P and a 700.

Even my 601P while it has the same engines, it has added intercoolers
and that gives a performance boost...

One of the big differences between pressurized aircraft that is often overlooked is the differential pressure. In the Barron I believe max differential is 3.9. Standard for the Aerostar is 4.25 with an upgrade to 5.5 psi for the 700. I’m not sure if 5.5 is available for the 601P or 602P.

5.5 is Awesome.
FL230 with a 6800 foot cabin. I like me O2 molecules closer together

5.5 is available in 601P

5.5 IS available for 601Ps

I thought the high compression engines in the 601P (with intercoolers) were more fuel efficient than the 700's? Wouldn't the 700 go faster, but with a higher fuel burn?

I don’t know that I believe a P baron would have more MPG than a good 601P with intercoolers. They need an episode of top gear airplane edition to solve that debate once and for all... LOL

Regardless, if anyone is on the fence they need to fly an aerostar. Pipers fly clunky, cessnas are squishy, beech are solid, Aerostars are really freaking solid but not heavy, and all around smooth handling.

The high compression 601P engine is definitely more efficient. It will run lean of peak beautifully as well, which the low compression 602P and Superstars don't do well.

I think, apples to apples, the 601P will burn 1.5 gal per hour per engine less at any given cruise speed that each will do. That is a hard number to peg because there is so much variation plane to plane.

The split will be significantly higher if the 601P is running LOP. I think the 601P will do 210-215 ktas at 27 gph total pretty readily, in the high teens. The higher you go the less fuel and less power you can pull within common temp limitations.