12 Jan 2026, 10:22 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 16:34 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/08/17 Posts: 494 Post Likes: +350
Aircraft: Aerostars, Debonair
|
|
|
Arne, you are F’in nuts …
or maybe just an elitist in ignorance!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 17:18 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/08/17 Posts: 494 Post Likes: +350
Aircraft: Aerostars, Debonair
|
|
|
(As if I didn’t know)
How much Aerostar time do you have, Arne?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 17:45 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21023 Post Likes: +26490 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: One of my favorite Aerostar features is the stall warning system. :thumbup: :peace: Sounds like it works the same as the Citation I and II system, that is, entirely aerodynamically using no sensors at all, pilot feels the buffet in the controls naturally. My Citation V is based off the AOA vane and flap position sensor with a stick shaker. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 18:46 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 09/11/09 Posts: 6326 Post Likes: +5704 Company: Middle of the country company Location: Tulsa, Ok
Aircraft: Rebooting.......
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Ah, the position of knowledge without experience. Gentleman with no ME rating, no ME time, no Aerostar experience, expounding.
Here, Arnie, I'll save you some time from having to PM me again.
(I've only owned two Aerostars....and carried pax many many times...but, compared to a non-flyer...what do I know?) That's a great love note you got there, Stan!
_________________ Three things tell the truth: Little kids Drunks Yoga pants
Actually, four things..... Cycling kit..
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 19:39 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/10/17 Posts: 2463 Post Likes: +1831 Company: Skyhaven Airport Inc
Aircraft: various mid century
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How does useful load compare between the 421 and various Aerostar models?
Also cabin useful load for say a 700 mile trip and normal fuel reserves. A fully loaded Superstar 700 has about a 1650 lb useful - real world. That goes to 2185 lb with the 6850 lb gross weight kit. I would estimate that kit is probably on 30-40 airframes at this point. It requires many other mods - the big brakes, service bulletin kits, … . 210 gal useable fuel roughly with aux fuel kit installed.
Would rough real numbers 44 GPH X 225 knots or faster? 140 gallons burned for 700 mile trip plus reserve about 180 gallons needed. 3.2 hrs for the trip. I'm just guessing here so feel free to correct. 1080 lbs fuel and 570 left in the cabin including pilot. Gross weight increase would really help.
421C with trailing link may be less than 2100 useful well equipped with leather interior. Straight leg C is lighter but older. Both should land just fine. .
I see about 198 to 205 knots at 63% power and 43-44 GPH depending on altitude and load with the 1974 421B. Gross / useful load depended on if it had VGs or not but most do now. 3.6 hrs for the trip. On the 421B I fly the useful load is 2354 with VGs, AC, dual 530s and heavy all mechanical gyro panel round engine gauges and dual locker tanks. On this trip I would have 220 gallons. 1300 lbs. and could put 1054 in the cabin.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 19:47 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 10/24/19 Posts: 196 Post Likes: +81 Location: Central NY, (N03)
Aircraft: 421C
|
|
|
Bryan,
While looking for a piston twin I was convinced that I wanted/needed an Aerostar. Still do! Why? Because they’re cool! They’re fast, built well and they just look awesome. After a couple of years of saving, building flight time and researching I realized that what I really needed was a family truckster. I still wanted an Aerostar but, it was time to be practical. I simply needed more useful load. So, I started looking at what was going to allow me to haul my family at over 200kts in pressurized comfort, with all of the other “stuff” that I felt that I needed. I decided that Cessna’s 421C model would check off all of my boxes. The 421C was at the very top of Cessna’s piston-line. They really did it right (imo). The cowls are vented so that cowl flaps weren’t even necessary. Uncowl’d they’re easy for the mechanics to work on. With full mains (206 gal) I can carry 1100# payload. If I’m planning on a long trip I can fill up (262 gal) and still haul 765 lbs. I plan on 44 gals/hr so, that’s easily 5 hrs with an IFR reserve. FIKI, radar, pressurization, (8900’ cabin @ FL250), A/C, two relief tubes (game changer) and even a potty in the back for the gals. Don’t fear the geared engines either. Just operate them correctly and they’re fine. I have a 78 (straight-leg) so, my useful load is higher than the trailing link models. There is an exhaust AD so, be cognizant of that while searching. Every 12 years you’ll need new pipes.
I just started our 6th year and thankfully haven’t had anything ($$$) catastrophic occur. Fly it on average 125 hrs/yr. Change the oil every 30 Hobbs hrs, (Can go up to 50 but, I don’t). Typically charged for 60 hrs of labor for the annual inspection, plus any squawks. She flies great and the passengers love it - so do I.
Still would like to have an Aerostar as a second plane though!
Good luck with whatever you choose! John
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 20:12 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 08/07/17 Posts: 657 Post Likes: +1265 Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: 737,RV8,AEST,B25,C47
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Has nothing to do with it. Actually, it has a lot to do with it; how can you so stupidly expound on an airplane that you’ve never flown or owned??
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 22:15 |
|
 |

|


|
 |
Joined: 02/09/09 Posts: 6594 Post Likes: +3305 Company: RNP Aviation Services Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Bryan,
While looking for a piston twin I was convinced that I wanted/needed an Aerostar. Still do! Why? Because they’re cool! They’re fast, built well and they just look awesome. After a couple of years of saving, building flight time and researching I realized that what I really needed was a family truckster. That's kind of what I found out also, but used more for charity flying. I had a 601P/SS700 that I loved, but needed a bigger cabin. I sold it and bought a straight, Ram VI 414 that I had been around for 30 years. Now it's sold and I should have a 421C in a few weeks... All are good airplanes, but do you want a Porsche Cayenne or a Chevy Suburban?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: 10 Jan 2026, 22:57 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/08/17 Posts: 494 Post Likes: +350
Aircraft: Aerostars, Debonair
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Would rough real numbers 44 GPH X 225 knots or faster? 140 gallons burned for 700 mile trip plus reserve about 180 gallons needed. 3.2 hrs for the trip. I'm just guessing here so feel free to correct. 1080 lbs fuel and 570 left in the cabin including pilot. Gross weight increase would really help.
The latest gross weight mod makes the plane hard to overload. I have heard some Superstar owners say it makes it legal to do what everyone is doing already! I have found most deiced Superstars will do 225 KTAS at FL250 at 55%, at 19.0 gph or so. I had one fast one that did 232 at that setting and alt. No boots - I had one at 238ktas. In my experience, the way I run them, 44 gph total gets you 240 or better. There is some variation on fuel burn plane to plane. I usually run 55%, but at 65% at FL250 it should burn 23.5 to 24.0 gph per engine. And you should get about 245 - 248 KTAS, real world.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostar vs C-421C Posted: Yesterday, 03:25 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/05/11 Posts: 327 Post Likes: +249
Aircraft: 1978 Aerostar 700CR
|
|
|
I have owned a 600 for ten years and currently own a 700CR. I hate them both. Zero useful load. I can’t even run full fuel tanks and when I do the plane flys backwards. I would stay away from Aerostars at all cost. They’re maintenance nightmares also. Last time I went flying the right wing fell off. That was a really bad day and one hell of a money pit experience. On top of it they’re really ugly too. I hope this helps in your decision going forward.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2026
|
|
|
|