Do you have to pull the engine to change a back cylinder on an Aerostar?

I've changed a back cylinder without pulling the engine.
Its barely possible.
It might have been easier to pull the engine.

You have to do things like drill out zeus receptacles and flex some sheet metal.
(the rear zeus are now screwed down rather than riveted.)
I did this in a borrowed hanger in Alaska. (long sad story 100% my fault)

I was half way though runup in Bellingham when tower called and said your IFR clearance is available for immediate takeoff, or you can wait 45 minutes, I took off without getting the mixture full rich and cooked a cylinder on the way to PAKW.

Paul

It take about 1.5 hrs. to pull the Aerostar engine and a couple of hrs. to put it back on, so there is no need to work around it. You just pull the 5 bolts holding the engine mount to the firewall, disconnect hoses, wiring and cables and slide it forward. That being said six probe or other special wiring can double the time depending on how they are routed or attached. The good news is that Lycoming cylinders are pretty bullet proof and seldom need changing.

Best regards,
Jim

Doesn't seem to slow down the Piaggio!

I am 6-5 and 225 lb and fit in the Aerostar just fine.

Many Barons and Bonanzas I don’t fit in without pain after 25 minutes. I barely fit in the Duke, but not comfortably. Twin Cessnas are good. Seneca OK. Aztec good. Cheyenne is tight with knees in the way, typical Piper. Can’t fly it well with my shoes on.

My head fits up into the skylite on the Aerostar, and I am right up to the glass up there. When I first flew them I thought it might be an issue in turbulence. The Aerostar does not feel turbulence like everything else due to the airfoil and wing loading. It has never been an issue.

The 58P club with highback seats was about the most claustrophobic experience I have had in a traveling machine. Couldn’t see behind much and couldn’t move much either.

Certainly I would not try to ride in the 5th or 6th seats in the 310 or Baron. The back bench or individual seats in the back of the Aerostar are not a problem because the cabin has the same cross section back there.

The base labor figure will be in the same ballpark as the the 421.

Just saw a guy do an annual on a 601P in 3 days, but they were 2 guys. So it feels like 80hrs+ is probably realistic number to budget for.

Seems about right… we have a low time 1979 600A with 1560 hours on the original engines; looking through the logbooks I see the right engine had one cylinder removed/repaired back in ‘92… and that’s it! No other cylinder work. And it was the #1 cylinder at that. I hope I did just jinx us by mentioning it!

So after multiple conversations with different people and shops it seems finding a case for the 421 engines is a big problem right now and finding cylinders for the Aerostar may be challenging. Anyone know where to find these? I would think getting a cylinder for a lycoming would be a non issue by now but I would hate to get a 421 then need to address a cracked case.

It might be cheaper in the long run for either type to buy a flying airplane and another derelict airplane for component cores and spare parts. If you have somewhere to store the pieces.
I recently gave an owner this exact advice and he has one 421B for parts and the other to fly.

The parts airplane does not have to be destroyed but components can rotate out and between them to minimize down time. The key is having S/N that are compatible

We have already "Borrowed". Mags, spinners, propellers, Dual tachometer, Dual Manifold Pressure gauge, gear parts, pumps, intercooler, heat shields, instrument light dimmer parts. Engine cores next.

Goal is to slowly rebuild the parts airplane, paint, boots etc. so eventually it may replace the flying airplane. But many of the rotatable components like landing gear etc may be from the current flying airplane by that point.

I understand your reasoning but if it gets to that point I will probably get out of aviation. I don’t have the time or patience to deal with keeping a parts plane on hand. I’m counting on having a support group that does that at one location for either aircraft to keep us all flying. I think that is covered with the twin Cessna group and Aerostar but not sure. Hope so

Hi Paul - do you mind confirming - do these hours include other required maintenance throughout the year? Just looking for your total maintenance hours for the years you quoted. Also, would you mind giving us rough parts costs as well? No problem if that is too much to ask.

I'm contemplating an Aerostar and just looking to get a feel for what people are spending on these things. I know it seems to vary wildly depending on who you ask.

Garth

One of my SICs is a pilot on a Duke. While not a 421C or Aerostar, it is a cabin class pressurized piston twin.

I am convinced they have spent more per mile flying that Duke than my Citation. Cracked engine case, cylinders, magneto, gear problems, etc. Their cost for fuel per mile is less than mine, but not by much because jet fuel is so much cheaper. They might be 25% less per mile for a vastly less desirable experience.

I understand the fear of turbines, but this mostly comes from piston pilots applying piston breakdown frequency with turbine repair costs. It just doesn't work that way, turbines just don't break down hardly ever.

Also, turbine airplanes have high salvage value. If you had to part out a turbine, you get a lot more value than a piston twin. So the worst case scenario isn't as bad as people think it is.

I'd strongly try to get a turbine if you can swing it. It will be safer, faster, better in all respects than a piston airplane.

That being said, I think the 421 is the best traveling airplane burning avgas.

The straight leg 421C models would be my choice. Let others pay the trailing link premium and save the weight and cost of that gear.

Mike C.

Hi Mike. All your points are solid and I've read your thoughts in prior posts relating to this subject, and Jeff A's as well and I can't really argue any of your points. I currently fly a P210 Silver Eagle with a RR turbine in it and so I can appreciate the lack of maintenance required for turbines. I'm not 100% decided to move on from that plane as I really like it but there are some other things that interest me with other twins. The Aerostar can get to higher altitudes with better performance to get there as well as once there vs. the RR naturally aspirated engine. Punching through a layer of ice in the flight levels with a high ISA day is a challenge with mine. It would also be nice to go faster.

I've considered the MU2, and although theoretically I haven't completely ruled it out, there are still concerns. Few, if any for sale have glass cockpits like I currently have and want and so the capital costs will be higher. I don't have a big family to haul around and so the smaller Aerostar cabin likely suits my needs. I don't have my multi either, so experience is a concern of mine. I do have 2500 hours ish, and 6-700 in the P210 (both piston and turbine) so I do have some experience that would help me in a pressurized twin that flies up high.

I'm a research type of guy and not in a hurry to rule anything out so at this point, I'm just in my investigation stage which could last a while. The 421 seems like a descent aircraft, I just don't know if I need all that room.

Garth

Turbine conversions of piton airplanes are marginal.

A properly designed turbine airplane will work better.


A fair number have G600 + GTN. Something you can install.


I went from a T210 to the MU2. It was actually beneficial not to have a lot of piston twin time so I didn't have piston habits to unlearn. Your turbine time in the P210 is more useful than piston twin time for an MU2.

Your profile fits for an MU2 transition. The main problem is that good ones are hard to find since owners covet them. Not a lot of other good choices in low cost turbines out there, people have recognized the value so prices are up.


It is a ascent aircraft, too. :-)


If you want range, you get room.

You will find that as your airplane gets better, the trips you take go further and with more people.

I fly around in a Citation with 9 seats. Talk about too much room. But my average occupant load is around 3.5, about 1.5 more than the MU2.

Your budget determines what you can fly. I think a 421C is a good choice if the turbine is too expensive to get.

Mike C.