If I was going to reproduce the aerostar there would be two models:

1. Sport version, high compression 325hp with a big single turbo and added fuel in the fuselage so standard capacity is 185 gallons, 4 seats and 5.5psi.

2. Utility version: 6 seat 350hp, 220g standard fuel and a 8” fuselage stretch would be perfect. With modern avionics pretty sure you could make the nose compartment baggage too.

Bruce - Did you know that the son of the person you're talking about is actually a Bonafide Aerostar Guru ?

You can have an Aerostar that is cheap to operate and maintain, or, you can have one that fly's the way Ted Smith intended it to fly, but, you cant have both.

Bruce - Did you know that the son of the person you're talking about is actually a Bonafide Aerostar Guru ?

Bruce - Did you know that the son of the person you're talking about is actually a Bonafide Aerostar Guru ?

the 800 prototype was stretched 24 Inches or so and AAC has prototyped a stretched version potentially with a larger door and how to stretch a standard Aerostar. all they need is $$$$ you can see it if you go to the Aerostar Factory in Idaho

the other mod that will make a dramatic difference is to put the 420 hp diesels being developed out there on it where you would get 270 knots or better cruise at 16 Gallons per hour per side. The eps engine demonstrated to the Airforce that it would do 300 hp at 16 GPH (420 hp rated maximum). and has its tested numbers verified by the Airforce. We would be flying with them now if not for the Stupidity of the CEO refusing to work with the big investors.

the EPS engine where the CEO was greedy and made some bad investment decisions and made it go Bankrupt, is being developed by General Atomics and I know of at least one more simpler different design (mechanical injection) in that 400 to 600 hp category that is under development that just needs $$. if you have a spare 100,000,000 laying around it would be in production in a few years and that capability would dramatically change what the Aerostar and other heavy piston twins would be capable of.

If you are serious about investing PM me and I will put you in touch.

Michael, who specifically are you talking about and what are you implying?

Bill,
Any chance that the EPS engine will ever be available for non drone use from General atomics ?

The Red A-03 is fully ESA certified, but its a bit too big/ too heavy.
(357Kg) .

A pair of these on an older King Air might be an interesting beast....

With the EPS's, the Aerostar would be amazing. I'm thinking around 2500nm range, rough back-of-the-napkin math.

the rumor is that GA eventually wants to offer a version for general aviation but as they are a totally military focused company as far as I understand, I would think that at best it would be a while before we would see one from GA. The 100 hour endurance 7000 lb drone is what is driving their interest

the market for that engine still exists in General aviation and the market is about 5000 engines per year at a retail price of $150,000 ( less for OEM) a pretty nice business once it is running.

the EPS diesel and its successors done right would compete with small turboprops costing at least 300 K and the turboprops have something like 1.8 times the fuel usage of the diesel.

for a flight of 2 to 3 hours with reserves the total weight of each technology engine with the required fuel is about the same. and for any longer flight the diesel has a much higher payload.

There are other advantages for the diesel such as drastically lower fuel usage at low powers and at low altitudes.

All it would take is a huge bunch of money to develop it and get it into production.

I'd be very interested in an STC path to re-engine the Aerostar with two of the smaller TPE-331 or PT-6A family of engines. My preference would be the Honeywell engines, for their fuel efficiency, but the PT-6A seems to have most of the market share. Maybe P&W does a much better job marketing to OEMs?

Either would generate a big performance upgrade, except for range, and would allow use of jet-A.

That would give you a King Air with a small cabin.

That would give you a King Air with a small cabin.

Well, with twice the horsepower it used to have, it may have some range, albeit not a great deal of endurance. I’m guessing it would move out quite smartly, but probably limited by Vne on the hull.
Almost all the problems I had with my 2 Aerostars were the fault of the Lycoming 540’s. If there were a way to have more powerful turbine engines (without screwing up everything else like Vmc etc) it would be a heck of a deal. But the fact is, it WOULD screw up a whole bunch of things so you’d need lower power, which would yield minimal performance advantage and nowhere to stuff more jet fuel to make up for the thirsty nature of the jet engines.
Ted knew this too…that’s where the Commander came in. If turbine engines would make the Aerostar “better” it would have been done and the market would have responded favorably.

There was at least one Aerostar converted to the Allison C20/RR250 in an attempt to make an STC. The engine is ideal in many ways - light and with the right amount of power - except it's terribly weezy at altitude. It drops off a cliff above 16000ft.