Geo is mistaken on known ice requirements.

It isn’t ice shields it’s separate alternate air source from inside the engine cowl.

The knobs are on the center console and if you pull them you are supposed to dump the cabin so you (the occupants of the plane) won’t be at risk of CO poisoning.

I am pretty sure any known ice (Piper) Aerostar would/could have them.

If you wanted them you can get the parts from AAC.

You need inner boots too, and some way (heat or alcohol) to clear the windshield and hot props.

That said:

1. Ice protection on a light twin is to get out of icing conditions not remain in them.

2. The ice screens do a decent job of reducing engine surging in icing conditions.

3. The most important item for dealing with ice is the power to climb out of it (if necessary), that means hot props and 700HP is really nice.
Then boots, which work if the temperature is not too cold and beat up your pneumatic pumps. Finally it is nice to be able to see to land.

4. Based on the trips you propose I think you should want a Aerostar with Ice protection but not necessarily known ice.

Ps vs non pressurized Aerostars:

Pressurized is better.

Down low a 600 might be a little faster, but above 10K a pressurized Aerostar is going to be faster.
And give a smoother ride.

In a nutshell.

A standard (165.5 useful) 601P can do an 800NM trip with an hour reserve.

No wind

But with a head wind a bathroom stop is going to make for a more pleasant trip.

A 602, 700MM or Piper 700 can do the trip with a aux tank.

IMO

A 600 is a cheaper to run Aerostar with less capability.

A pressurized Aerostar is more expensive, but can compete with turbine aircraft in performance.

Finally

$1000/ hr is not a crazy number.

If that number gives you pause.

Pass

Get a Malibu or a MU-2.

My ‘76 Superstar 700 (601-P with Machen Conversion) was certified for FIKI. So it certainly can be done with the older non-Piper planes. Like with so many other things in aviation, all it takes is application of “the green enzyme” (cash) and the process goes forward!
I saw plenty of ice, never pulled the alt air doors. Hot props are likely the most important element. But as others have said, a piston twin is not suited to combating bad icing. I had a couple ice-related failures in the FIKI Aerostar. My MU-2 has more than twice the horsepower that my 700 had. It’s just a better tool for business flight when you are needing to fly 2 to 3 times a week on a schedule in all weather.
But it doesn’t sound at all like that’s your situation. And an Aerostar is more fun to fly than almost any other plane. So it would be a great plane for you especially if you have a mechanic on your field that knows the type. I think of the Aerostar like a high end boutique sports car: lots of fun to operate, a “better mousetrap” than more utilitarian piston twins, hot, demanding, expensive, and requiring a lot of “care and feeding” to fix the things that keep failing (rarely really serious things, but always something).

If you’re going 800 miles I would get pressurization and just make sure you got full deice and it all works properly.

I have been absolutely baking myself in the 601P lately. Lots of short hops in Texas and Oklahoma and no airconditioning.

it is borderline not safe, I understand why some people are so interested in airconditioning now…. I just keep a cooler with water in it and I’m surviving I guess.

Keep that in mind too for the shorter hops… but at 20,000’ isa +22 in the middle of summer you’re gonna be running the heater after 1hr.

I've said it so many times, so forgive me if I repeat myself: but nothing, and I mean nothing flies like an Aerostar. Those push-pull rods make it a goddamn fighter jet you wear. And the wings don't break no matter what - I think they have zero catastrophical failures ever in thunderstorm.

What's that worth?

Daniel,

As others have alluded too. Do NOT let your wife test fly the Aerostar; unless you want to buy one. Once she does, you will have no choice but to get one. There are a lot of former fighter pilots among Aerostar owners. Anecdotally, I believe Aerostar appeals to them more than any other airframe due to how it flies.

Tim

Forrest, this is a great summary. I really appreciate the info. I’m glad I asked this question here, there are a lot of numbers available but real world data from owners is what I was looking for. Thank you!

Daniel,

As others have alluded too. Do NOT let your wife test fly the Aerostar; unless you want to buy one. Once she does, you will have no choice but to get one. There are a lot of former fighter pilots among Aerostar owners. Anecdotally, I believe Aerostar appeals to them more than any other airframe due to how it flies.

Tim

The 600 will have more dispatch reliability.

Here in south FLA I just run the fan and shut the bleeds off for the short trips in the heat. Since I can’t stand being cold, I usually have the heater fired up as soon as I level off!

Always be sure door is latched prior to take off....big dummy.

Ifin another aeroplane starts engine right beside you and you close door early your small brain might pass over securing door when you do your before take off checks.

My FrienD said door opened around 4,000 agl and he returned to airport with only a bruised ego.

I almost miss my Aerostar

Ifin I were to buy another one she would be like Forrest bird.
601 or 602P with aux tank and 5.5PSID

My 702 cost slightly more $/mile in fuel than me Avanti

Edit: Above is incomplete statement.
Only in cruise is my Avanti about the same or slightly less $/mile.
Down low turbines suck fuel way more.

My bad. Stock airplanes have 165.5 useable. I've been spending too much time at self-serve pumps requesting the number of gallons that works out to less than the $1,000 limit. I've got 155 on the brain...

So my zero wind no reserve range in a 600 is 1,103 NM. Probably even better since GAMIs and LOP. But 30 / hr is a nice round number.

You don't need alt air on a FIKI 600.

And no, the P models are not heavier than the 600. It's the same airframe. Except for the wingtip extensions added to later (turbo) 601s and all the Ps. The turbo and P models have been certified with higher MTOW - from plus 500 for the 601 to as much as 1,000 lbs for a 702P. But it's the same spar and fuselage structure. Bullet-proof.

Believe me I wish I could convince the accountant in the family that an MU2 would cost the same to operate as a 600. But it's triple the fuel burn. If you're one of the few people lucky enough to fly a 600 you have two choices: you want fifty knots faster? Then your upgrade path is a tricked out P Aerostar. You want a hundred knots faster? Konnichiwa, rice rocket. They're all three a superlative value for the performance you get.

I’m surprised at some of the fuel burn and speed claims here. My 602P/700 went 235KTAS around FL200 on 44-45 gph which is exactly what AAC claims. My longest trip was SZT-CNO a little over 1000nm. I had comfortable reserves maybe an hour. That was with the aux tank so 210 gal

In addition to the 602P/700 I’ve had three MU2s, an N, a Marquise and currently, a Solitaire. Depending on the relationship between the cost of avgas and jet A at the airports you frequent one or the other can be cheaper per mile. If you can get cheap C.A.A. fuel at your home airport the MU2 will likely be cheaper/mile

MU2 gonna burn 70-75gph right, and you’re comparing to a 700 burning 40-45gph?

What everyone forgets is all the real world stuff, “clearance on request” after startup, getting held after a departure at 5000agl, getting vectored all over in busy airspace for the sequence etc. the penalties are exponentially not in favor of the turbine. I had a -6 garrett powered thrush I leased last year, guy that owned it was trying to lease it out to recover some of the cost after it sucked a bird into the impeller….

People say the turbines are so cheap to operate but don’t talk about any of the liabilities or penalties.

Trey,
my F model MU2 has NEVER burned more than 66gph on any trip over two hours, and on maximum range trips (4:45) it will burn ~60gph. This at FL240 or 250 at 96% with EGT at 510C and truing at 260KTAS plus or minus depending on weight and temperature. You aren't pushing the engines at all this way. People talk about engine failures on turbines, and yes, they can be expensive, but how often do they actually happen? The TBO on a TPE 331 is 5400 hours, for a reason. The hot section on the TPE 331 is 1800 hours for a reason. The TBO for the Lycoming in an Aerostar is 1800 hours, for a reason. And a lot of the stuff hung off that Lycoming won't make TBO, like turbochargers, vacuum pumps, wastegates etc. Most of the stuff on a turbine will make TBO, with little to no maintenance required. If you actually push a P Aerostar to 250+KTAS routinely I doubt you will make TBO, this is just not the case with a turbine. The last hot section inspection on my right engine was $35K. Jet A is $5.25 at my home field, 100LL is $8.00. I looked at pressurized piston twins long and hard. I went with the MU2 because I felt it is just a much more capable plane for similar money and my ownership experience and that of the vast majority of MU2 owners I talk to has shown this to be accurate. There are downsides to pressurized piston twins too and they will spend much more time in the shop than an F model MU2 will. My plane has only been in the shop one time between scheduled maintenance events in almost three years of ownership, and that was just a day and a half and cost $3K. I have never been able to say that about ANY of the 5 piston planes I have owned. Everyone make your own choices, but if going with an F model MU2 I seriously doubt you will regret it. Best thing, this is the first plane I have owned that my wife actually likes to fly in, priceless!

Maybe.

For sure a 600 will need less maintenance.

Ownership cost per mile on a 600, especially one with minimal ice protection, could be 1/2 the ownership cost of a well maintained pressurized Aerostar.

There is nothing wrong with a 600, their economics made them popular as check haulers and for night freight operators.

But, night freight operators didn’t (don’t?) factor in passenger and pilot comfort in their decision on what plane to use.

Your wife, and you, ARE going to care about less noise, less ear popping, less bumps, and cooler temperatures at altitude.