Bob, you may be correct on the landing performance. The numbers I put out there were for the 700 Aerostar GW 6200lbs. The jet is supposed to have a higher GW, the engines are PW615F, about 1500 lbs thrust. I did notice in the video they landed with what appears to be 20 deg of flaps as opposed to the usual 45 deg. Spoilers are an option for the Aerostar. Probably no antiskid brakes though. And I am pretty sure no thrust reverse is used. The engine is the same as the Cessna Mustang....which is supposed to stop in 2400 ft without reversers.

The Mustang has 210 sq ft of big and fat wing. The Piston Aerostar has 178. Big difference. And the 178 ft it has is very skinny...

The Cessna Mustang is a %#$@# cat. The piston Aerostar is a cat as well, but it has teeth...

I love the Aerostar, but the piston version is not pilot-proof, and I doubt the jet will be either...

The single largest cause of accidents in the CJ series of jets is runway over-runs. That is an airplane that is very comfortable slow. The Piston Aerostar is a GREAT flying airplane, but it is not happy slow...

The Cessna Mustang does have "thrust attenuators" to help reduce the thrust from idle.

All of this is probably moot anyway. If they build more than a couple of these I'd be impressed.

If I was gonna drop the money on a highly modified, old airframe, I'd go with a turbine P58 or Duke over this thing.

It does remind me a of an ME-262, though.

My dad owned an Aerostar 602P for many years and it is a wonderful airplane. I remenber seeing original Ted Smith drawings of the the Jet Aerostar which I think was the plan from the begining, but the engine was just not there. Well now the tech has finaly caught up with the plan...

Hey! I resemble that remark....

Was even more appropriate in the days when I was chasing something other than planes...

Saw it at OSH. Range?

Very high cool factor though.

Yeah, I am wondering the same thing about how the piston version hangs in there on one. Did anyone see how small that rudder is, compared to a baron rudder, which was certified with 260, 285, and 300 HP, Considering that the Aerostar piston engine is putting out 350hp

One of the things between you and the smoking hole in s/e ops is rudder authority. Maybe they manage this by having a higher Vmc and/or Vyse?

Could be the reason they are sometimes referred to as Death-stars ?

Mike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nVTzlDsmME&feature=player_embeddedjet

A link to some more recent video of the jet powered deathstar.

That looks pretty sweet.

Sweet it is. 80 gal in cruise. Range isn't going to be very good unless they found more room for fuel. The TSIO-540 Aerostar carries 210 gallons. So that is about 2.5 hours of travel. Hmmm.

--paul

I think it was cool looking. A little research confirmed that the Aerostart FJ100 had been designed on paper decades ago, prior to the right-size engines being available. I believe the engines were originally meant to be mounted on the aft sides of the fuselage. The airframe was designed to handle turbofans.

I would see this plane competing with Eclipse and the other VLJs for customers.

Interesting BT sidenote. If you poke around the original drawings for the Aerostar, you'll find the name of a noted Beechtalker there.

Young George Braly worked on that project for Ted Smith, if I remember it correctly.

With the existing fuel load, range is limited. They are looking at adding fuel in the wings where the piston engines and intercoolers were. Maybe another 100 gallons.