I think for a pressurized piston twin you should expect to pay $500/hr in op costs. This doesn’t include hangar or cost of capital. My experience with a C340A was between 250/hr and 580/hr over about 500 hrs.
For example, over 100 hrs per year:
Insurance $9k,
Annual 10k (range 7k-25k),
Fuel $22k, (40gph at $5.5/gal)
Parts $5k, (mags, vac pumps, hoses, bulbs, baffles, valves, fuel pumps, etc)
Oil changes $1k (every 25 hrs),
Charts and databases $1200

That’s 480/hr for pretty basic stuff, no engine reserves. An engine event is a substantial hit on the per hour cost (mine was about $65k).

Not turbine money, but not as reliable either.

No offense - but that question is like asking how long is a piece of string. Who knows, they are all different.

Airplanes are so tough to come up with one number, I have a friend with a pilatus… they had the heat/ac enviromental valve go out. Sounds like a simple valve, but it cost $80,000. That moves the needle on operating cost for the year…

The cost of operating an Aerostar will always be more than you think, by a long shot. It’s an Aerostar truism.

Tom is correct.

But, keep in mind, Aerostars have AAC ( https://aerostaraircraft.com/) providing support.

Other cabin class piston twins don’t have the same level of parts and engineering support.

Aerostars CAN continue to serve as reliable dependable modes of transportation because when they break (as machinery does) a part can be in your mechanic’s hands in days instead of weeks, months or unavailable.


Adding to Tom’s statement:

Old complex airplanes like the Aerostar, especially ones with deferred maintenance sell for seemingly low prices.
Buyers (unwisely) imagine that the maintenance cost will match that low cost of entry.

I LOVE Aerostars.

I really considered buying one, but realize the above. I paid more for my Mooney that some Aerostars are advertised for. But did not want the potential maintenance bills.

This is the understatement of the year! John Jurkovich in parts and Jim Christy were awesome for support when I owned mine. I remember several times trying to find a part, or other info and John would go pull the original plans out of the vault and give me the answer all while on the phone with him.

Is there a sim school for the Aerostar these days? I heard that SimCom now does it in a Twin Cessna sim, same as the Baron.

Or do new owners just get trained in their airplane?

I LOVE Aerostars.

I really considered buying one, but realize the above. I paid more for my Mooney that some Aerostars are advertised for. But did not want the potential maintenance bills.

I also loved having and flying the Aerostar. It was the fuel that got me, not the MX or insurance. I had the option of flying a very short flight (15 min wheels up/down), or driving a car (~1.5 hours). And the next thought was the fuel I would burn in comparison. After roughly 300hrs and two years, I knew I would never get used to the fuel flow and would eventually make a bad choice because of it. I had it listed for sale a few weeks later.

Tim

Gary, I think there's a couple pitfalls you've missed between misc parts and a full reserve for engine o/h.

The unscheduled mx costs on piston twins have gotten a bit murderous...starter adapters, turbos, wastegates, etc. I'm also not seeing an allowance for A/C, hydraulics, electrical, pressurization repairs, etc. which seems to be more common as the p-twins age.

I just paid about $4500 each for new waste gates for my 602 p. from my experience in building low volume high tech parts the price is about right If they could build something like 200 a year they could probably get the cost and price about 1/2 of that. we are in a situation where the volume is low and probably getting lower and legacy manufacturers are either disappearing or finding the reduced volumes require higher prices to have some profit

this is the case in almost all aircraft especially new ones so if we want the performance we have it will continue to cost us and even get higher.

there is a reason that the RV series is selling well because they perform well and because they do not need super quality parts and can be built for far less. the manufacturer assumes very little risk in the experimental world.

If we were willing to take the risk we used to take 60 years ago we could have much lower cost aircraft. but we expect everything to be very high quality and have a company behind them that will pay for it if goes bad.

That’s not a very useful number, for several reasons.

First, numbers within a model will vary as much, if not more, than between models. Keeping within the category of pressurized piston twins, Aerostars, P-Barons, C-340s will not differ as much as good Aerostars to crap Aerostars, good P-Barons to crap P-Barons, etc.

Second, the costs won’t be constant. When you buy a complex twin that has had decades of deferred maintenance, the first couple of years will be very expensive. Then it’s “just an airplane.”

Third, not all owners have the same standards. Some tolerate zero squawks, zero paint chips, zero inconvenience. They will fix whatever breaks, right away. Their costs will be higher than those of an owner that just expects the engines to start and the gear to extend.

Fourth, the operating cost of any airplane should be divided into four buckets:

1) Direct operating costs: fuel, oil, and (if you choose) engine overhaul reserve.
2) Fixed costs: hangar, annual, insurance, database updates, etc.
3) Random costs: %#$@ breaks, an AD pops up, your annual discovers something that won’t pass.
4) Capital costs: that $400K you spend on your Aerostar, and what you spend in the other three buckets, would make you money if you invested it.

So answering your question actually means answering many questions. Anybody who just gives you a “Oh, I spend x per hour” is not informing your decision much at all.

This has been nothing short of incredible to me owning an Aerostar. I also manage a Baron 58TC and used to manage a 414 and parts were getting much more difficult/costly.

That said, does anyone have any idea what the successorship plan is there? GREAT guys but everyone’s getting older. Just curious where we’ll be at in 20 years with Aerostar parts.

>That said, does anyone have any idea what the successorship plan is there? GREAT guys >but everyone’s getting older. Just curious where we’ll be at in 20 years with Aerostar parts.

We loose one or two a year.
At what point is the AAC game not longer viable?
The prices that AAC charges have been going up.

As a side
one wonders if things like 3D metal printing in inconel will help fix things like expensive waste gates.

I wish there was a pressurized experimental that had a better safety record than the lancair IV

Interesting idea. Can the type certificate holder substitute parts like that (Welded vs printed wastegates in your example)