We had a surprise lightning strike on the 441 that I managed. At the teardown, the shop found a SB needed to be done and one should be done. That was $25k per engine that wasn't covered by the insurance. We also had a $6000 ignition box, a $5000 monopole sensor, and a $25k air cycle machine, all that were surprises.

You can tell us how much cheaper an entry level turbine airplane is than a high end piston airplane all you want, but the real fact is, the risk is much higher with the turbine airplane. Believe me, I'd love to be looking at similar purchase price MU-2's vs a 421C, but the financial risk is so much higher that I can't put my family in that situation. That's before you even look at higher insurance costs, higher training costs, higher landing fees, higher registration costs, higher hangar costs, etc. etc. etc....

Jason

You are not wrong.

For sure larger risk with higher end aircraft. You really need to compare what they were new.

Just because you can buy a $20mm jet for $3mm does not mean you are only maintaining a $3mm aircraft. You are paying to service a $20mm aircraft at today’s part prices with inflation

Not many $30k parts on a 421 but many of those on a jet.

That being said something like the 501sp with a large parts supply is an outlier. Still more risky than a 421.


The question is is that risk worth it to fly a safer faster aircraft and for me it was.

Mike

My Aerostar had increased pressurization mod, increased gross weight mod, winglets and aux fuel tank. 236 gallons from memory.
A joy to fly.

MY Aerostar climbed 100 fpm on one engine at 8,000 feet with gear down, take off flaps and prop windmilling. 200 gallons fuel and me……nervously grinning in left seat.
Clean her up and 700 fpm climb on one engine.

Not as much room as a C421 but much more room than a Baron.

Twas a fantastic Avanti training aircraft. As much as I liked my Aerostar I would have to also push you to a MU2.

I understand the push towards a turbine and I would love to have one and agree they are more dependable but I’m with Jason on this one and am not willing to take that risk. I use a plane for travel and one big expensive unforeseen turbine issue could end my flying days and possibly my marriage lol. The cost to maintain an aircraft is ridiculous now days and I personally know 5 people close to me that have given up flying or have changed their minds and stopped pursuing the dream of flying after adding up the cost. I am very mechanically inclined and can work on my own stuff as I have a good A&P that oversees anything I do and he knows I’m a perfectionist. I’m very familiar with piston engines and know little about turbines. My shop is very experienced in the PT6 but not the Garrett. At least with a piston I have somewhat control over the outcome and can definitely limit the expense of unforeseen issues vs a turbine

Jason had an excellent comparison between the Aerostar and the 421. I fly both regularly, No complaints about either one. The 421 is like riding in a Cadillac vs the Aerostar which is more like a sports car. Even though the actual time enroute isn't that much longer in the 421 I do sometimes wish it was as fast as the Aerostar. I like the room in the 421, especially if you are hauling passengers.

Some additions to Jason’s thorough post for the SS 700:

1. The superstar will do 265ktas on 45GPH. 272KTAS on 50GPH, but getting this speed will depend on the health of your turbos and your willingness to dance with the TIT redline. Our SS700 will turn in these speeds at or above FL180, with the 5.5PSI, bleed air aux heat, and boots deployed. The 350hp engines with the clipped and twisted props really have one economical speed: balls directly planted on the wall. Ours don’t tolerate LOP and the airframe doesn’t turn in better mileage backing off the throttles below 65% with the big engines.
2. The SS700 engines are more reliable. Period. Full stop. If you have U2A’s and not a modded S1A5 or AA1A5 cases you have near as an indestructible engine as Lycoming ever built in that power class. In exchange you have a niche maintenance base that offsets the boons the Aerostar has over a 421.
3. Waste gate setup - it’s a pain on the SS700 but there’s a trick to it. It took us a year to figure it out but once you do it’s an hour to get the waste gates set properly.
4. If you have wing fuel leaks, take it back to the factory. Jim Christy has the fixes.
5. Get an Aerostar with the upgraded nose gear tunnel and nose gear fittings. This is the functional upgrade with gross weight with the gross weight increase. The nose gear fittings have to be replaced inevitably as the original fittings called the high hat will crack with repeated, shall we say, vigorous carrier landings…
6. Make friends with Jim Christy at AAC. He knows the story of most of the planes in the fleet. The factory is still actively supporting the aircraft. Some on here have some angst taking the plane back to the Factory because AAC is very thorough.
7. Look up Eric Reese’s excellent videos on YouTube. It’ll give you an idea of the space in the plane. Compared to Baron, the cabin is wider and slightly taller. Also the pilot gets the lion’s share of footwell space upfront by two or three inches. However, dimensions aside the Aerostar is going to feel tighter until you get used to the difference.
8. There are a bunch of Superstar 700’s for sale right now, don’t be afraid to hold out for the right one. I think right now there is one that is absolutely slept on, ready to go example listed.
9. If FIKI is not a must, don’t write off the Superstar 2’s. They’re slightly faster, have Navajo engines (arguably easier parts availability, single turbos per engine, updraft cooling, and the much hated dual magnetos), and burn slightly less fuel for a given speed than the SS700’s.
10. These two planes are not the same. Cessna took the same weight of metal to build a Kmart King Air where Ted Smith took that same weight of metal to build a Lear 23 killer hoping for a turbojet that never came.

Just some fuel data points for the Aerostar SSII and the 601P:

On the trip from CA to AL, I was burning 28-29gal/hr total at around 200KTAS. That's with cowl flaps open, so might have been around 205KTAS with them closed. Temps were about 100F below limit, or around 1550. Not sure it was LOP, but I leaned until rough, and then slightly bumped them until they stopped being rough. Not very scientific without an engine monitor, but at that low power not much harm can be done.

On the 601P I could do about the same speed for 25gal/hr total, LOP (the high compression engines are a bit more efficient). BTW, I did the same non-scientific leaning on that one (just used the factory EGT's), and it ran 200+hrs over TBO without any problems.

So that's the cool opposing effect with the Aerostar's great top speed - it's a total miser when you pull back thanks to its small frontal area and slick aerodynamics. I don't think there are many other twins that can match it in efficiency. On my last trip, I calculated it to be around 7mpg in the SSII - that's better than my old 1995 F350 Dually with the 460cid in it!

Sh*t, the more I talk about it, the more I want to keep it!

I am an Aerostar fan, but realistic about its strong and weak points.

The 421C is a wonderful tool. Cessna really seems to hit their market effectively, especially on the late model / refined models.

But the previous post from David Dewhirst is really a Cessna 421C marketing piece more than anything.



The Aerostar fuel system is among the simplest, if not the simplest to operate in general aviation piston twins. The Aerostar simply requires boost pumps on for TO and landing, and start the aux transfer pump upon level off. That is it. Not a problematic system in any way.

If you can't seem to keep the ball centered you may have to balance the wing fuel with crossfeed, but only if it gets way out of whack.

Aft CG on the Aerostar has to be watched when using the optional aux fuel. Otherwise, without aux fuel or a light load of aux fuel, it is hard to get the Aerostar out of the envelope.

Aerostar gear is not electric but hydraulic, contrary to the assertion. Way simpler system than the 421C and much cheaper to run than the 421 system. Simple and bulletproof free fall system for emergency extension.

You were comparing to the 1984 Piper 700P ostensibly, but then "complaining" about the electric AC. None of the 1983 602P's or 1984 Piper 700P's had electric AC. They were all factory equipped with engine driven compressor based AC systems. Most of the Superstars that are priced where the 421C's are priced have engine driven AC.

I have yet to see a piston twin with a trouble free AC system over the long term. There are not electrical system considerations with that system at all. The electric AC system is a little quirky, but not too bad. It is certainly not the most desirable of the systems available.

-------------------------

All this being said, if you are going to haul lots of people and lots of stuff the 421C is made for that mission. One down side is that the basic engines are historically much more expensive to run than the simple angle valve IO-540 on the Aerostar.

The Aerostar turbo system takes more effort to keep dialed in, and if the plane has been maintained by a shop that does not know how to set them up right you will suffer over the long term. The 4 turbos over 2 will cost more - end of story.

Statistically, the engine on the Aerostar lasts much longer. And the Continental cylinders just don't hold up as well.

The last Superstar I sold from inventory had 2175 hours on both engines. You don't see the big turbo Continentals go to those types of numbers. The best I have seen is an Aerostar 601P go to nearly 2800 hours on both engines without a single cylinder off either engine for the whole run.

The 421 is not a cheap airframe to keep going these days. There have been lots more expensive repairs coming up on the twin Cessna airframes in recent history.

The biggest thing in the favor of the Aerostar - it is a blast to fly. It is a plane that you will take out to drill holes in the sky. No-one does that with a 421. Many former Aerostar owners go to turbines and jets. They all say the plane that was the most fun was the Aerostar. The Aerostar is hell for strong, fast, smooth and stable. It has an unmatched ride in turbulence in this class of plane. It is the coolest looking thing flying in the sky.

I have never seen a 421 aerobatic routine.

The 421C is a tool. It is a good tool.

For long family trips a potty of some type is a must. The 421C has one and it’s a real selling point for family haulers.

When I was at Cessna,we had a marketing guy give us a presentation on what really helps sell airplanes. He said it was the potty.

So buy a 421C if that is your mission. I am sure someone will take your pottyless Baron in trade. But the Baron is still more fun to fly!

And if someone says your Baron B55 is 160 knot plane at 35 gph I will call BS on that too!

When I was at Cessna,we had a marketing guy give us a presentation on what really helps sell airplanes. He said it was the potty.

So buy a 421C if that is your mission. I am sure someone will take your pottyless Baron in trade. But the Baron is still more fun to fly!

And if someone says your Baron B55 is 160 knot plane at 35 gph I will call BS on that too!

Kent's notes are very good. Here's a few more items I thought about while reading them.



I worked for a 135 operator with TBO extensions. We consistently ran 15+ aircraft with GTSIO's to 1800 hours, generally without cylinder changes. The engines were only removed from the airframe due to 135 requirements.

Jason, we just don’t see many issues with the Aerostar gear. Banana bellcranks break because of poor training, bad maintenance practices and abuse.

The Aerostar has a pump on the right engine. And an aux hydraulic pump. I have never seen a pressurized Aerostar without two pumps. The only ones I hear about without 2 pumps are the early 600’s, and most have been updated. Was your Aerostar that one I heard about where the monkeys removed the engine driven hydraulic with no legal or moral basis to do so?

I will look at the 421 engine times advertised for correlation on the times. A good 135 operator with real sharp pilots will be the high water mark. 135 Chieftan engines are doing 2400 TBO consistently - typical of the Lycoming direct drives. Making it with healthy engines. I have sure seen a lot of 421 engines overhauled before 1000 hours in my 33 years in the business.

It sounds like you had great results in your operation with the GTSIO’s. I don't think that translates to the fleet from my observations. I do think they can do well - with the right engines and the right pilots. Operators are very careful who they have fly their 421’s.

And Mr Alves, I downgraded the Baron performance to make a point. That’s what that post was doing with the Aerostar numbers. I have owned and flown the P2 and gotten similar numbers. Will not bash the Baron unfairly to promote the Aerostar.

Didn’t I read a post from you, Mr Alves, about having a young GTSIO go bad?