To upgrade or not to upgrade?

[AdamFrisch]

I'm in a conundrum. A luxury problem, I suppose. Perhaps a pleasant one in many's views, but nevertheless one that could have big financial consequences. Warning - long thread!

My old steed, the 520, is now in for her second annual during my tenure. Last 6 months she's been nothing but the most reliable and trustworthy airplane one could wish to have. We've been to New Orleans, gone camping in Idaho, done grass and gravel strips, gruelling IR training on one engine, etc, without almost a single squawk. It took about a year, year-and-a-half to work out all the gremlins, so I'm hoping this annual should be pretty straightforward. But the fact is that she is almost 60 years old and no matter how much you spend on her, many things will never improve. She leaks oil, her engines are of a rare and expensive kind, she's rather slow, some AD's are popping up, TBO looming closer by the day, parts will get scarce in the future, no upgrades etc, etc.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n20ve/ken.jpg
Hydraulic line burst as I taxied off rwy. Brakes faded fast, so happy it wasn't on the rwy. Messy, but easy fix by my mechanic.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n20ve/tirechange.jpg
New brake pads, flip tires as she wears inboard more than outboard. It's constant with old aircraft.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n20ve/glasruta-liten.jpg
What a difference! Now only two more windows to go...

The matter has come to it's head most recently as I'm nearing my Instrument Rating (which I'm doing in my own aircraft). I'm all about long range touring and wish to use my aircraft as a true travelling machine. I dream of one day taking my own aircraft over to Europe and do some touring there and visit places and friends I used to fly to when I lived there. And it is this in conjunction with my new impending rating that sets the stage:

I've been flying and looking at a couple of Aerostars. I've always loved these aircraft, as they bring the design philosophy of Ted Smith's work on the Commanders over to a sleeker airframe. And the mid-wing design doesn't betray my childish high-wing-only policy by too much...:E. We all know how fast they are and the legacy they bring, but also how this translates into economy if you throttle back. With the market as depressed as it is, they've never been cheaper. Partly because the twin market is as good as dead, but also because they've been seen as a bit of a dangerous hot rod, scaring away many buyers.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/aerostar.jpg
Lovely paint job. This is an immaculate 700 Superstar that I could never afford...

These are the facts that speak for an Aerostar:

1. Fast if you want it to be. 250-260kts in the FL's.
2. Economical if you want it to be. The Aerostar burns 25gph LOP and goes about 190-200kts. At the same fuel burn, my 520 does about 140kts!
3. All weather capability, w de-icing etc.
4. Long range, especially with the aux fuel tank.
5. Sturdy design, pushrods, not a single in-flight breakup ever. A pilots airplane, agile and responsive.
6. Pressurised.
7. Fully supported.

These are the facts that speak against an Aerostar:

1. Complex airplane. When **** breaks, it can get expensive.
2. Long takeoffs and not well suited to grass/gravel operation (one of the things I love about the 520 is this capability).
3. Reliability? My mechanics service two of them and say that they are pretty good, but with increased complexity also comes a higher chance of getting stuck somewhere.

No sooner had I even though the idea to myself by joining the Aerostar Owners Association to ask some questions, before a gentleman was on the other end of the line asking me to come get a ride in a 601P at Van Nuys that was for sale. This is the factory pressurised model built by Ted Smith Aerostar (and later Piper when they bought the model). The elderly gentleman who owned it welcomed me to the hangar and I could immediately tell that 981MC was in impeccable condition. You could eat of the struts and tires and the wheel wells looked like they'd never had a retracted wheel in them. 2700hrs since 1977. Books faultlessly kept. Only two owners since new. Everything complied with. Avionics not new, but had had major updates in late 90's. It had the higher power 305hp engines, intercoolers (expensive upgrade), air con and Inconel exhausts (also pricey). Most other "extras" were also fitted. Interior was impeccable, but obviously 70's in tones.

We hopped in and went for a spin and I can say I was immediately smitten. The controls are so light and so direct. None of that lumbering chains-and-cable-feel you get in the Commander. Instant response. And very small movements with the yoke produces substantial output - like an aerobat (I imagine - never been in one;)). Anyway, I won't bore you with all the details, but after we landed it felt like this was the plane that would best fulfil my future needs (except being able to land at short airstrips). However, the gentleman wanted a little bit too much for the aircraft considering the market ($90-100K would be realistic). It also had pretty high time engines and lacked de-ice boots. Not a complete deal breaker, but would be nice to have if one is already splashing out for all the rest of it. Later that week I got to fly in another Aerostar that gets serviced at the same place as mine, and the feelings intensified. What a great plane.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/981MC1.jpg
The 601P was kept in an impeccable state by the current owner. Flew very nicely.


http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/981MC2.jpg
You could eat off of that prop!


I left the elderly gentleman with the words that I had to think about it for numerous reasons. And I'm slowly getting to my point here:ok:. One is I'd have to sell my aircraft first and then most likely have to finance some of the Aerostar as I don't have much saved after a pretty taxing year financially. But as depressed as the market is for old twins, I'd be lucky to get around $25-30K for my old girl.

The things that have kept me up at night is that now she's in annual and that will cost me about $5-8K depending on what they find. Add to this that if I decide to keep the 520, she will need a complete panel upgrade. Today I'm barely scraping by with a single VOR/LOC/GS (can you imagine the workload on my instrument approaches having to switch to a cross radial and flipping freq's back and forth - it's soo painful), no DME, a GPS from WWII, no autopilot etc. Doing this would cost another cool $10K. Paint is peeling off the aircraft and a paint job is another $15-20K. Engines are getting closer to TBO and I've found a pair of O/H engines for $30K. Not too expensive, sure, but still a lot of money. Upgrading the oxygen system so as to be able to fly in the FL's is probably not that expensive, but still a hassle to be dealt with. Etc, etc. So in order to bring her to true IFR capability, I'm looking to spend $60K+ in the coming years.

So, basically - if I keep the 520 and bring her up to spec, am I throwing bad money after good? What speaks for it, is then I can do it as I go along and earn money, and not have to finance it. The Aerostar would have to be partially financed with the stress that entails (I hate owing money). Plus, I might still face upgrade costs etc. Also, my insurance would go up and most certainly my maintenance costs compared to the 520. But in the long run, and for what I want to use it for, maybe it will turn out to be a cheaper option? The fuel burn per kts of speed travelled is certainly less on the Aerostar. In fact, I have not been able to find a twin that has better MPG than this one. The engines are cheaper to O/H. The 520 will only get harder and harder to find parts for, etc, etc.

Thoughts on this?

[n5296s]

I can't offer any help but I have to admit a certain admiration for someone who can express concern for maintenance costs of an elderly aircraft then seriously consider buying a 30-year old Aerostar!

I've always thought it's an incredibly sexy plane but actually OWNING one... that would be something else entirely.

Good luck with your decision anyway!

[AdamFrisch]

Aircraft ownership is madness financially, no matter how one tries to justify it. Makes no sense whatsoever. But in for a penny, in for a pound. And it gives me such joy... Logic would seem to suggest that a 30 year old airframe would break down half as a much as a 60 year old airframe, no?

:}:E:ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have about 550 hrs on a 600 Aerostar and few hours on a 601P. I loved flying the aircraft but there is no way I would own one, especially the pressurized ones. They are absolute maintenance pigs. Everything is almost impossible to access and you will see huge maintenance bills. Like how about $ 4500 to change a rear cylinder ($2000 for parts, $ 2500 for labour) because you have to remove the whole engine to access it :rolleyes:. The twin turbo system is a bitch to rig and seems to require constant fussing to keep the engine happy. etc etc

To me the best ratio of dollars vs capability is a Turbo 310 R. The later ones are FIKI, the 285 hp TSIO520 has a good reliability record, it is a a very nice instrument platform and with deice and radar and good performance in the low to mid 20 K altitudes is a practical go places airplane. You will see 40 kts more cruise speed on the same fuel flow as you Aero Commander and there are tons available at very reasonable prices. If you really want pressurization then you can step up to the Cessna 340. I have 350 hrs hours on a beautiful corporate snag free C 340 and like the machine, but the extra systems significantly increase the maintenance costs. The owner of the one I fly wants everything perfect and budgets 50K a year for maintenance. Personally while pressurization is nice I am not sure it is worth the cost for a private owner.

The Turbo Aztec is also worth considering. A very honest flying airplane with a big fat wing and great short field performance but pretty slow and not as maintainer friendly as the Cessna twins.

What ever you decide buy the absolutely nicest one you can find it will be the cheapest way to to go. I ferried a C 421 to its new owner once. I had a 58 item snag list when I landed and the initial bill to fix it was 40K. For the next 6 months it was in the shop after every single flight. In addition to being very frustrating he dropped another 80 K in repairs before we got to the point of having a reliable airplane.

BTW I am skeptical about 190 kts on 25 GPH. The best I ever saw was 190 kt TAS at 34 GPH. The Aerostar is a niche orphan airframe. Parts are OK now but who knows in 5 years ?

However I own a Nanchang CJ6A, a completely impractical airplane that is just heaps of fun, so If you heart just goes pitter patter at the thought of being at the controls of your own Aerostar, then don't bother trying to justify it just go out and buy the sucker ! But make sure you get a deiced one as the airplane will from personal experience carry almost no ice :uhoh:

[AdamFrisch]

Thanks, BPF. I've heard this from some people, but others claim they're not any more maintenance heavy than other pressurised twins. This specimen is immaculate, but obviously there are no guarantees in aviation. A 310R feels a little to close to what I already have - I would like pressurisation as it makes a lot of sense for the flying I do.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I would ask to see the last 5 years worth of maintenance bills on the one you are interested in and if possible the other 2 your mechanic looks after. This will give you a feeling for what you will need to spend to keep the aircraft.

The other thing I would recommend is that you talk to your insurance broker first. A low time pilot with no instrument rating on an airplane considered a hotrod will be expensive. An Initial course at SIMCOM (5-7 K) and the requirement for considerable dual before you can fly on your own will likely be required (50 hrs dual is not uncommon) and I would not be surprised if your premium quadruples over what you are paying for your Aero Commander.

[Tinstaafl]

I used to fly a couple of Aerostars in Australia. I really liked them. Both were Aerostar 600s - one with the wing extension mod so increase the MTOW, and the other original. The longer wing reduced TAS by ~5 kts ie 185kts instead of 190-ish. Non-turbo & unpressurised so probably the cheapest of the marque to operate.

Definitely not a short runway aircraft. Higher speeds for most things, compared to other 6 seat twins.

Not a lot of room in them either, although I seem to recall it was better than, say, a 58 Baron. At least the rear pax still sat upright, unlike a C310 or Baron with the low bum, raked seats.

If all-weather IFR in cooler, wet climates is your intent then FIKI is a no-brainer. Ditto weather radar. Whilst it's damn near always cheaper to buy something with the avionics already upgraded, don't forget that Garmin 4/530s have dropped a fair bit in price now that Garmin are into their touchscreen things. Even a 430 can display XM weather with the XM datalink module. I think XM is the biggest advance in weather safety since on-board weather radar was invented. Not for penetrating around cells, but for the bigger picture. On-board radar for tactical decisions, XM for strategic planning.

Three good rules for them:

* Always fill the fuselage tank 1st. Only the fuselage tank is guaranteed to supply fuel under all flight conditions. The type even has a double x-feed procedure to preserve fuel in the fuselage tank.
* Don't get slow. Has a high speed wing, high Vyse and the like
* Don't be in a sideslip when the gear is put down. When open the gear doors hang lower than the wheels so they need to be closed for landing or there'll be damage. Take care not to damage the doors with side air loads.

[goldeneaglepilot]

I would agree with with BPF's view on the C310 being worthy of consideration. Its short / rough field capability is akin to your current aircraft. Its not so fast as an Aerostar but is a hell of a lot cheaper to run and maintain.

Don't even consider a C421 - they are a bottomless money pit.. I sold mine for that reason.

The C310 is a fantastic twin to fly and even with two cylinders missing and extensive damage to the cowling as they departed the crankcase, relatively easy to fly and get down safely. Either a Q or R will tick all the boxes of your wish list.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Looking on from a distance, and having read and pondered the other comments, I think the Aerostar is no good for you - how long will it be, until it places you before exactly the same dilemma? I should think you either keep the current plane, with all its charms and known vices, or you switch to something recent, so as to be on the safe side for a couple of years, at least. Perhaps consider the new Tecnam twin? A good step backwards sizewise, of course, but it fits all your requirements and would be much cheaper to operate.

[AdamFrisch]

The Tecnam is a very interesting little aircraft and I'm rooting for it to do well. I did a spreadsheet comparison between my 520 and the Tecnam, and it kind of makes financial sense around 150hrs/year. But it's also closer to $500K to buy, almost all of which has to be financed. I'm a freelancer with irregular incomes and not a banker, so I'm normally not very popular with finance institutes. I could barely get a mortgage for the house, so I doubt they'd give me a plane. But counting operating costs, and especially if you have access to Mogas, the Tecnam is hard to beat. Single engine costs on a twin.

However - one major drawback for me is its limited range. 600nm just isn't long enough. Here's what I've learned after a few long tours: great range will save you more time than high speed. Because descending, stopping for fuel, climbing back up again, well, you lose 1hr each time, no matter what. I've never managed to refuel quicker than that with all the taxi, clearance, toilet breaks and runups. Going direct slower for longer, beats high speed with a fuel stop anytime. Anything less than 1000nm is a compromise, I think. The 520 has about 700-800nm range in realistic conditions. On my trip to Chicago last year, I think we stopped 4 times. That's 4hrs lost not counting anything else. Granted, the purpose of that flight wasn't to get there in the shortest possible time, not at all, but still. But the day will come when one just needs to get there.

Yeah, the Aerostar is about $30-50K to keep running per year, depending on how you count, which model you chose etc, according to many of the members at the Aerostar forum. I asked the question. That's a lot of money, but in these figures they account for engine funds etc. My 520 cost me $35K first year to get up to speed. That was without putting anything aside for engine O/H's! Now, she hasn't cost me a fraction of that this year, so the operating costs have come down. But will they stay there? Probably not as she ages and needs upgrades. Well, this is basically the crux and what I need to figure out...

Somebody forgot to tell the Aussies that Aerostars should only be operated from baby smooth long tarmac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpUWxkCfvVQ&feature=relmfu

[Big Pistons Forever]

Landing is the easy part it is the short field takeoff that get's interesting. That short wing makes for long takeoff runs...........

[AC-DC]

Your last post causes me to ask a question. Aren’t you trying to bite more than you can swallow? To take a bank loan in order to buy an aircraft? Isn’t it why we are all in the sheXX?
It is nice to have an Aerostar, I know some people who did the move and bought one, I also know two who are trying to sell it but can’t. I don’t know what you do for living, but do you need all those empty/rarely occupied seats when you go places? Are you looking to trade one illness with another? Buy one when you can afford it, or if you want to sell your while it is still ok why not to consider something else? Maybe a PA30/39? It is smaller, it is faster and burn much less fuel than the 520.

[AdamFrisch]

AC-DC - that would be the ideal solution to buy it when I have the money, I completely agree. If I financed, it wouldn't be a big finance anyway, I'd put down more than half in cash, maybe more. But if I wait, then that means I'll have to spend the money I could save to buy new on the 520 instead. Engine O/H coming up, new panel etc. I don't know what's best, to be honest. Any upgrades on the 520 will not be returned come selling day.

After my annual I'll be in a better position to make a decision.

[peterh337]

I don't know anything about these planes but you need to carefully define your mission profile.

No use flying around in a big thirsty twin unless you need the extras which is gives you

- a 2nd motor (an emotional factor)
- more payload
- anything else?

All the other stuff you can get in a single, potentially.

If you want long distance and a high despatch rate, a PA46 is hard to beat and a Jetprop will beat the opposition into dust.

A big piston twin will just eat your money so you need to be sure. You mention Europe... had a look recently at landing fees and avgas pricing over here? :) Not to mention Eurocontrol route charges.

[achimha]

If you want to have a great traveler, your 60 year old plane is probably not the right choice, considering that it needs substantial investment for reasonable IFR capability.

However, I would never even consider financing such a plane if it's a pure hobby. I would only buy what I can afford and still have some left for all those nasty surprises.

Many people have come to the conclusion that the Aerostar is the ultimate personal piston aircraft. Nothing comes close to it.

[maxred]

Not the same situation, but I also have recently very carefully debated, do I upgrade, or spend money on the airframe I have, Bonanza.

I have looked at 310R, because I really like them, Baron 58, newer Bonanza, and I have decided for the moment to stick with what I have got. And spend more money on her. Reason, better the devil you know at the moment.

God knows where fuel costs will go, god knows where airframe prices will bottom out. There is a reason so many airframes for sale at the moment, people cannot sell them, and a lot need to sell them, financially.

Yes, it may be a good time to buy, but purchase for all the right reasons, not for a whim. Mission profile when upgrading is so important.

There is s beautiful Baron 58 coming across my radar shortly. I know the owner, know the history, but the question I have to ask, is why????:confused:

[Big Pistons Forever]

The other option is to sell your 520 and buy a late model Shrike. You will get an airframe that is 25 + years newer and fully mature. It will also likely have a good autopilot and updated radios. Since you allready have time on type the move will be easy and insurance will not be a problem.

[maxred]

Survey Shows Costs Limit Flying (http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/Costs_Limit_Flying_207270-1.html)

A read at the above link, just posted on Avweb, may focus your mind and train of thought.

[AdamFrisch]

I'm afraid it's going to have to be a twin, Peter. Flying at night over such sprawled out cityscapes as LA - I don't know how the single guys do it without having nervous breakdowns... And every easterly trip from here involves flying over mountains 14K high, like the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies, where an engine failure at altitude in a twin is a non-event compared to in a single. If I'd lived in the flat midwest it would probably be a different story.

Shrikes are very nice. They also retain their value very well and will cost more to get into than an Aerostar. Lovely planes, though. I was also looking into earlier 680FP's (pressurised 680's), as it would be an easy transition, but the GTSIO engines will eat you alive.

[Sir George Cayley]

A pressurized twin like a 310? Ever considered the C340 or a Riley conversion?

Having flown an early 340 I found it a good stable platform for IF and yet easy to hand fly at lower speeds. There's loads about so spares shouldn't be a problem, maybe?

In Europe I think you can get them certified just below the en route charges weight.

SGC

[Big Pistons Forever]

Shrikes are very nice. They also retain their value very well and will cost more to get into than an Aerostar. Lovely planes, though. I was also looking into earlier 680FP's (pressurised 680's), as it would be an easy transition, but the GTSIO engines will eat you alive.

I assume you mean the AC 685 with the Continental GTSIO 520 F engines. These airplanes are lovely long range cruisers with up to 322 gals of fuel making one stop trans continental flights possible and a comfortable cabin that is even quieter and just as smooth as a Turbo Commander..... and they are going for a song. But the engines demand some serious TLC on the part of the pilot although I think the problems with this engine is over rated. I personally operated a C 421 with the same engine (albiet rated at 375 hp, not the 435 hp of the F varient) for 1400 hours with no cylinder changes and no significant engine work at all except for the routine running maintenance. The other problem is the airframe has some expensive recurring AD's.

The 680 FP or 680 FLP (ie the long cabin version) that you mentioned has Lycoming IGSO 480 engines and those are becoming virtually unsupportable. However there are a few Mr RPM conversions with the very reliable direct drive 8 cylinder Lycoming TIO 720 (2000 hr TBO). When most of these were converted the owners also modernized the panel and updated the radios. Finding one that has been "done up" will give you a lot of airplane for not a lot of money. The killer here will be the high fuel flows and at best a mid 1960's vintage airframe with potential for some of the aging airframe issues you are facing now.

[AdamFrisch]

Yes, you're right - the 680FP has the IGSO engines. I spoke to one owner in the Commander club who owns one and he says they burn quite a lot. Almost 55gals full pelt. That's a lot for a twin. I'm sure one can get it down quite a bit with LOP operation and 55%, but still. The 685 is probably closer to 60gph, but then again you can stick 10 people in there. I do not need that size of aircraft as I mainly fly alone/lightly loaded.

Yeah, the Cessna twins I'm just a little weary with what they will "invent" next in the form of SID's etc. I don't trust Cessna management.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Adam

If you are mainly flying alone why is pressurization so important. Pressurization is usually bought for passenger comfort. If it is just you then a a large portable O2 bottle and a nasal cannula is a waaaaay less expensive way to fly high.

[AdamFrisch]

It's a hassle, it decreases range having to fly low and it limits my options. I'm not an FBO flyer going from one Signature to the next Atlantic Aviation. I mainly land at small airports where there's no one around, sleep in the plane sometimes in my sleeping bag when there's no hotels around, that kind of thing. Oxygen refilling here is impossible without going to these Signature type outfits where they'll gladly charge you $100 to park for 10 minutes or waive it if you fill your plane up with their $8/gal fuel.... And to get real long range, you have to go high. The higher the better.

There's this new oxygen concentrator for aviation that will give enough up to FL180, but it's like $10K to buy... That's a lot of oxygen tube refills.

OXYFLY - OXYFLY - Continuous oxygen supply for non-pressurised cabins (http://www.oxyfly.com)

[caber0]

Adam,

Keep the commander. You know you love the aircraft and have lavished loads of attention and cash already. It would seem to be a good fit with the short field ability and sleep in plane comfort. You will end up spending money you won't recover if you sell it so best is just to keep, it fettle it until it fits your mission profile and continue loving it!

Caber:)

[FlyingStone]

I'm afraid it's going to have to be a twin, Peter. Flying at night over such sprawled out cityscapes as LA - I don't know how the single guys do it without having nervous breakdowns... And every easterly trip from here involves flying over mountains 14K high, like the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies, where an engine failure at altitude in a twin is a non-event compared to in a single. If I'd lived in the flat midwest it would probably be a different story.

One could argue that you're only delaying your nervous breakdown until the fuel stop and the associated bill :)

Light twin that would maintain 14K + obstacle clearance on one engine? Certainly must be a rocket of an aircraft if it does.

[TomNH]

I too have got a lot of vicarious pleasure (and knowledge) from the write ups of your experiences with the Commander. All the advice here, to date, has focussed on hard numbers about performance and economy. It seems to me that, for you, there are other factors to consider. For the want of a better phrase you seem to value the romance of it and since your flying has no balancing financial income it's all down to what you can afford to pay for the pleasure you get. And how to configure that expenditure to get the greatest pleasure.

You seem to get a lot of pleasure from getting to grips with the complexity of big old, elegant, planes. You seem to relish the challenges and airmanship demanded to make them do the kind of flying you want. I think you need to have a think about where your tolerance of complexity vs expense lies. Pressurisation seems to be a good example: it doesn't make much sense for you on your own, but if there is an attraction to you of owning and managing it then it becomes just another thing to put in the balance.

My only other point is about short field characteristics: unless you've got it out of your system a lot of your photos show your plane on an unmade strip in the middle of nowhere - do you want to give that up in favour of range and speed? The Aerostar looks lovely and, like the commander, ticks all the right aesthetic boxes for me (not that I'll ever afford either). Should you own one will your flying change to reflect the plane - ie do you do the dirt strips 'cos you can or is it where you want to be? Which is the tail, and which the dog?

[AdamFrisch]

Is funny you should say that Tom, as the second question I asked all the Aerostar owners (after I'd asked how much they cost to run) was "how are they on grass and short strips?". The answers were always, oh you can't do that, it needs a minimum of 4000ft, don't ever try that, it's not made for it, etc etc. I'm obviously trying to shoehorn the Aerostar into something it wasn't meant to do. Combined with a deficiency in my brain which means I want to prove it can be done even more when people say "it can't be done". Then I find this collection of crazy Aussies on YouTube who fly Aerostars into small unpaved fields without killing themselves repeatedly. So some of the advice has to chalked up to the fact that unlike UK pilots, Americans rarely see and land on grass or unpaved, so they tend to be overly cautious and fear this. And as the thread progressed, a few Aerostar pilots said they repeatedly operated from pretty short, unpaved strips down to 2000ft. So, yes, your analysis is very correct. I do love that the 520 can get into any field, and that would be something I'd miss. But I'm pretty sure that you could squeeze an Aerostar into many of them with some training... But for now the Commander is staying. I've agreed that anything involving financing is prob bad choice in these times, so the Aerostar will have to wait a little bit longer until I can afford it outright.

Silvaire - I just ordered a radio as well. An old Collins Microline VOR and will have that mounted during the annual to ease my IR flying. It's been rough just having one. And that would make her a basic IFR ship, even though she technically already was.

The XJS is starting to play up after years of faithful service, so not even the 6 is immune... Here's a cool take off of an Aerostar from a short grass strip:

YRD takeoff Tuki - YouTube

[172driver]

Adam, love your enthusiasm !! :ok:

Just one quick note about these Aussie videos - don't forget that while it does get hot Down Under, it doesn't get high. IOW you'll get away with things in Oz that you won't in the SW USA.

Happy flying - and dreaming!

[Tinstaafl]

I've flown Aerostars into grass & gravel runways. But the strips were in good condition. And they weren't *short* strips. A short strip for an Aerostar is a long strip for an Aerocommander, Baron, Aztec etc.

[Hodja]

Adam, I enjoy your Commander posts immensely.

I was going to write a long, balanced post on why you should think very carefully about your mission profile & the futility of chasing around for old avgas guzzling twins w/bad avionics.

(well, at least with the Aerostar you'll be moving from a Harry S. Truman-era aircraft to a Lyndon B. Johnson-era aircraft)

But I think the previous posters covered this already. And you're a grown man & can make your own decisions. If you want an Aerostar & can afford it, I think you should just go ahead. What the hell, we only live once.

Only 2 things I'll say is this...

1. Never *ever* (!!!) borrow money to finance a private recreational aircraft. You could be in a world of financial hurt and impact your life outside flying. Adjust your spending to cover your budget.

2. Don't buy the Aerostar *before* you've sold the Commander. Managing 2 old aircraft at the same time will break your back, guaranteed.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Is funny you should say that Tom, as the second question I asked all the Aerostar owners (after I'd asked how much they cost to run) was "how are they on grass and short strips?". The answers were always, oh you can't do that, it needs a minimum of 4000ft, don't ever try that, it's not made for it, etc etc. I'm obviously trying to shoehorn the Aerostar into something it wasn't meant to do. Combined with a deficiency in my brain which means I want to prove it can be done even more when people say "it can't be done". Then I find this collection of crazy Aussies on YouTube who fly Aerostars into small unpaved fields without killing themselves repeatedly. So some of the advice has to chalked up to the fact that unlike UK pilots, Americans rarely see and land on grass or unpaved, so they tend to be overly cautious and fear this. And as the thread progressed, a few Aerostar pilots said they repeatedly operated from pretty short, unpaved strips down to 2000ft. So, yes, your analysis is very correct. I do love that the 520 can get into any field, and that would be something I'd miss. But I'm pretty sure that you could squeeze an Aerostar into many of them with some training... But for now the Commander is staying. I've agreed that anything involving financing is prob bad choice in these times, so the Aerostar will have to wait a little bit longer until I can afford it outright.




YRD takeoff Tuki - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQG3YE0oH5c&feature=channel&list=UL)

Adam

I find the attitude you are expressing in your post above rather disturbing.
How about a reality check from my POV

Apple: Aero Commander 520: produced in the early 1950's when operating out of short unpaved strips was common. So it has a big wing for lots of low speed lift, large tyres to deal with runway soft spots and geared engines with big props for lots of low speed thrust

Orange: Aerostar: produced in the 1970's when paved runways were ubiquitous and barons and C310s were already pretty speedy. So a short thin wing for min drag. Short props optimized for high speed cruise and small tyres to allow in fuselage retraction to make it faster than anything in its class.

Your 520 will never be a speedster because it is optimized for good short rough field performance and a roomy cabin. The aerostar will never be good short field airplane because it is optimize for high speed cruise.

No amount of "people say it can't be done but I want to prove it can" changes these facts. Operating a 601P out of a 2000 foot strip means operating with zero margin. An unexpected soft spot in the middle, a change of wind from head to tail, an unnoticed slight uphill grade and you are in very big trouble.

I suggest you have another look at the video and think about a few points.

1) Time how long the takeoff roll takes and then compare it to your airplane

2) Note the aggressive rotation at the end of the runway that is required to get the aircraft to lift off

3) Not that right after lift off the aircraft has to fly for a significant period of time essentially level while the gear and flap is retracted and the aircraft accelerates. Ask your self what would happen if there was significant obstacles at the end of the runway.

4) Note the high rate of climb after the aircraft is cleaned up and it has accelerated to its 115 kt sweet spot where real climb performance starts. This is an aircraft that needs speed to perform.

This is IMO is a very typical profile for an aerostar takeoff, it is not a short/rough field profile........

[Tinstaafl]

What he said..

[AdamFrisch]

BPF - the 2000ft was a response in a thread at AOA, it was not something I was planning on operating out of. Contrary to belief, I'm a rather cautious flier that values my own life. However - it was the notion that you could under no circumstance use it on grass or unpaved that I found a little too cautious. When I was at Johnson Creek, ID fly-in this year, there were Cirruses with wheel fairings landing on the grass strip there, as well as Mooneys and Bonanzas. And if a they can do it with their tiny wheels, then an Aerostar could do it.

[peterh337]

You should have called this thread "which twin to buy" :) That way some more twin owners might come in. It's quite a specialised group these days, due to the high costs in Europe.

[Fuji Abound]

Adam - people do lots of things with aircraft but it doesnt mean they are ideal. You mention Cirrus landing on unpaved runways; a lot do, but there is reasonable evidence that the nose gear is not ideally suited to doing so and you risk damage to the spats and the leg.

[maxred]

And if a they can do it with their tiny wheels, then an Aerostar could do it.

Adam, not wishing to be a spoilsport, the main wheel tyres on the Aero Commander are only marginally larger than those of the Bonanza.

I was slightly concerned by your last post. The Australian guys effectively hauled that Aerostar into the air at the end of the runway. The rotation, followed by the intial climb, looked like ground effect. It eventually climbed away. With respect, that is not the way to fly, for fun nor regularly. Also I suspect that the airstrip in Australia was not at a particularly high level. Lots of areas in the States are very different. Hot and high, different story.

I have been missing my grass strip flying. The guys are all still having fun. 600 mts, lush farmland, trees either end. Flew the Piper Cub there last Wednesday, and I loved it. Bring the Beech they all jeered, half tanks just you in it. It will be a dawdle. Nope, and my answer will always be nope. Despite it would make my strip flying so much easier, cuts out a 2 hour drive, for me. I cannot do it, the plane wont do it. Some times in life, it is just the way it is.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Adam, not wishing to be a spoilsport, the main wheel tyres on the Aero Commander are only marginally larger than those of the Bonanza.
.

Actually the main wheels on the old bathtub cowl Aero Commanders are huge. Take a look at the picture on the first post of this thread. The mechanic kneeling next to the main gear gives the scale. The Aerostar however has 6.00 X 6 main wheels, or the same size as on a C 172 or Pa 28, airplanes only 1/3 the weight.

[Zulu Alpha]

Why not put your aero commander on the market and see whether it sells. As someone said, it wouldn't be a great idea to have two big old twins. That will probably be the deciding factor on whether you move on.

Also, why not see if you could lease something else for a few hours. If owners have them sitting idle in hangars they might be pleased for some income.

I have enjoyed reading you reports on flying the commander in the US, I'm jealous of everything other than your maintenance and fuel bills.

Keep us updated

[maxred]

Well corrected. I had meant to type Aerostar. The premise, however, was the same.

[AdamFrisch]

Well, I'm finishing my IR in my own plane, so no selling before that anyway. And then I don't want to be without an aircraft for too long because that's when the rut starts to set in. I get antsy when she's away on her annual even, for no particular reason. It's not that I'd planned to go anywhere, I just don't like the feeling that I can't:O. I could always rent if I sold it - that might be an option, but hopefully a short term one. But for now I think best is to keep her and stay away from fancy and costly upgrades as much as possible and save some money for an eventual upgrade later on. This means no paint job and no O/H of engines.

[maxred]

Well I think that is a wise decision. What is that saying about the grass always being greener.:ok::ok:

Mine is also away getting more maintenance, after its annual. The guy did more damage, than fix it........

So, it has been away since 26th July, will not get her back until first week October, and I also require new paint, because the idiot who did the annual, messed up on a paint job I required. The joys, and more money.

I however, have decided to go back to Cub flying, aeros in a Stolp Starduster, and back to some of the flying I really love, paying by the hour for it.

Cant wait to get the Bonanza back, however, until then:)

Look forward to your future updates, take care

[AdamFrisch]

I got a ride in a B36 from 1990 the other day with full glass panel. Was a lovely ride! I hope you get your Bonanza back soon.

[AdamFrisch]

After almost 3 months at KHHR getting probed and touched un-gentlemanlike in all her cavities, the old girl took to the skies for a brief test flight today. She was happy to be up basking in the California sun and purred like a kitten with her newly overhauled prop hubs and cylinders. New metalwork on her tail feathers as well, so she shook those for everyone to see. No squawks. It was touch and go for old faithful there for a while, but it's not as easy to kill an old 520 as one thinks!

Personally, I was going crazy not flying for so long, so it was very nice to be back in the saddle again, so to speak. Now, I'll just have to rob a bank to be able to afford theat bl**dy annual....:ugh::{

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n20ve/annual.jpg
Getting her tail cone attached just before test flight. There were some damages in the tail previously undiscovered from a tail strike by the
former owner that needed some metal work.

BTW, there was a brand new Skycatcher in at the "garage" as there's a new AD for a reinforcement on the spar/strut attachment point that needs complying with... It's a 30hr job to fix. So it's not only old aircraft that cost money - even brand new ones get it. Aircrafts are not like cars - you are on your own when you buy them - even when they're brand new.

[AdamFrisch]

It has been a bit painful. The wait more than anything else.

AD's that needed complying with, dye penetrant on the main spar etc. Then the prop hubs. Hartzell have made them into a Service Bulletin that the prop shops are not allowed to comply with if they want to stay certified by Hartzell... All just an evil scam to drum up sales for new props and hubs. Thankfully, we found one who was willing to comply with just the inspection and overhaul. Then when the props were finally back after a month and a half away, they find dodgy repair work in the tail from an old tail strike. I was not too happy about this late discovery, because that would mean god knows how much longer before I got her back. I grumbled quite vocally, and thankfully they did a quick repair job. Metal work is always the worst, because it takes ages to do.

But all seems to be good now, and she flew very nicely with her newly overhauled high spark magnetos.

[bingoboy]

Good to hear you're back in the air. Enjoy :ok:

[peterh337]

So it's not only old aircraft that cost money - even brand new ones get it. Aircrafts are not like cars - you are on your own when you buy them - even when they're brand new.

Cessna must be meeting the full cost of any AD, or an MSB, under warranty, surely?

[Richard Westnot]

Goldeneaglepilot - Post # 8

What, this one here

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cessna%20421%20model%20aircraft&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhobby4less.com%2Fcessna-421c-airplane-p-684.html&ei=1q2rUMbAFuiq0QXCsICwCQ&usg=AFQjCNGX-tpYMG38Ld6uQdGTwhv1v9bnRw

Did the new owner actually receive it ? :ugh:

[maxred]

Richard, that was very naughty........

You are going to get this thread pulled:{

[AdamFrisch]

The Aerostar fever has hit a new high.

I spent two days early this week in Dothan, AL at Aerostar World, Inc just being near Aerostars. Sitting in them, smelling them, touching them, asking the mechanics about them, asking anyone about them. I fell asleep at the motel each night with the POH in my hand, like a complete schoolboy after his first kiss. Thankfully, the owner Don Smith is a veteran Aerostar instructor and A&P and was very patient with all my silly questions and no amount of them fazed him.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/aerostar2.jpg
What could possibly be better than a gaggle of Aerostars on the ramp?

The particular object of my affection is N79SR. She's got a ratty interior, engines over TBO, props that need overhauling, avionics from hell etc. But she has a price I can almost, just almost, afford. I came to see her and I only had eyes for her.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/aerostar3.jpg
Avionics from the Victorian era.

The others dolled themselves up, pranced around and lifted their wings trying to get my attention, but I knew they were gold diggers and troublemakers. They were beauties, for sure, like models, but you just knew they'd take you to the cleaners and escape with the yoga teacher. I could see through their fleeting youthful good looks like a bat with a Raytheon radar in his back pocket.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/aerostar1.jpg
This is one of the prancing 700's. Immaculate, but an expensive date.

79SR was true. She was real. A divorcee and a little bit neglected, but you could tell she'd been a beauty in her younger days with a good heart. Plus she had a lot of the good core stuff you needed - de-ice boots, hot props, pressurized, electric windshield, inconel exhausts, some Machen conversions and a brand new annual. Hell, even an old Bendix weather radar. She didn't have the intercoolers unfortunately, but they can always be added later. 3500hrs, which is not much for an old executive transport lady.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/aerostar4.jpg
Would she be my new companion? N79SR is a cute 1979 Aerostar 601P in accountant/dentist white. With the ubiquitous midriff accountant/dentist trim line in two-colour.

I was smitten. Yes, I can hear you all - it does make more sense to buy one that's already done up, where the engines are not past TBO and all that. But only if you can afford that outright - for me it makes more sense to get in cheaper and upgrade as you go. Another thing is that California levies a so called 'user tax' on aircraft. It's a bit like stamp duty in the UK on a house - a one time sales tax due on purchase. It's a substantial amount - 8% of value (bloody bastards). So it makes more sense to buy cheap and then upgrade within California, rather than buy a dolled up one for more and get stung immediately.

Mind you, I haven't bought her yet. Just seriously considering it. I fall asleep dreaming of Aerostars each night, so I'm afraid I have the fever quite bad at the moment. Hopefully it will pass. Maybe if I lie down and drink a big scotch it will go away... But do I want it to pass?

I convinced Don to let me fly N79SR back to Wichita Falls, TX with him to pick my repaired Commander up. It would cost me more than to airline it there, but it would be much more convenient and most importantly - I would get to fly her. He could teach me one or two tricks on the way. Said and done. Fuelled up and fired up. Passing trough the clouds going out, the airspeed, VSI and altimeter were motionless in solid IMC. Don switched to the alternate air intake without much difference. Cool as a cucumber he said "We got some water in the static lines. No big deal, will drain that when I get back". I would probably have fallen out of the sky inverted if that had happened to me! Thankfully we broke out on top soon after. This meant I didn't get any reliable climb or takeoff speeds for N79SR, which would have been good. We had a headwind all the way, but got a pretty solid 170-180kts depending on winds. Oil consumption was just 1qt for the whole 4.3hr trip to Wichita Falls and pressurization worked fine, so the engines seem to be in pretty good shape. There are no visible oil leaks at the bottom of cowlings either.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/aerostar5.jpg
Humming along at 180kts on 32gal/hr over Texas.

N79SR doesn't have the GAMI injectors, so one can't really run her Lean Of Peak. Fuel consumption was 32gals/hr, but with GAMI's the fuel can be dropped down to 25gph for a TAS of about 200kts. Like I always harp on about - that's real fuel economy for a twin. That's what my Commander burns going 140kts and that's almost what some Corvallises/Cirrii and souped up Bonanzas burn...

I got two landings in, and they just feel rock solid these airplanes. You drive them down and they just land with a firm thump - like a little jetliner. Don't want them to get slow, so it's blue line all the way. Around 110-120kts for approach and pattern and then reduce a bit on final and finally walk the throttles off in the flare. I was surprised at how effective the Fowler flaps were. They don't look big, but up close they're almost 2/3 of the wing. Add to this the pushrod controls, and you have a direct feel like I've never experienced. They feel very direct and tight.

I topped off Don and he took off on his own back to Alabama in the night. I checked him later on Flightaware and he'd flown the 690nm back in 2hrs 59mins - average of 228kts at 15000ft. He got to Alabama just a little later than I got to my destination 228nm away in the Commander...

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/aerostar6.jpg
Don was one of the early employees at Ted Smith Aerostar in the mid 70's before Piper bought them. He's got 17500hrs in Aerostars alone and has been around them all his life - he only does Aerostars. Great guy.

A prebuy was made by one of the members at the Aerostar Owners Association for another buyer that didn't end up buying her in the end. He said it's a solid little plane with known quantities - you know you need to do the engines at some point, the props need to be done pretty much immediately and the turbos should at least be looked at. Just like it said on the tin. No mysteries. So, will it be me and her? Too early to tell. I want to have her, Don wants me to have her, but I'm still a couple of pennies short and I don't want to borrow. But let's hope she's still waiting for me with water in her static lines when I find that penny!

:):):ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Oh Boy ! You are in trouble. It seems you have totally fallen for that sexy thing that just screams "look at me I am so HOT ".

At the risk of being a crust curmudgeon killjoy a few points to think about.

1) 200 kts at 25 GPH.....Ain't going to happen. Your block fuel flow ( ie wheels up to wheels down) will average 38 - 40 GPH

2) Engines over TBO owe you nothing so you have to be prepared to pay for an overhaul after every flight. For a TIO 540 you are looking at $ 65 to 70 K per side

3) Deice is a mandatory for this class of aircraft. If the boots are in poor shape you are looking at 15 to 20 K to replace them

4) Radar is a mandatory item. Looks like you have the original unit. If it works it won't for long and will cost lots to repair. A new one is $ 20 K

5) A good autopilot is a mandatory item. Looks like you have the original Century 4 system. The Aerostar I used to fly had one. Worked great for years until it did not. After spending $ 11 K over 18 months trying to get it to work the company gave up and put an STEC in it for $21 K

6) You as a relatively low time pilot would crazy not to do a full initial type training course at SIMCOM. 7 K and then 3 K per year for annual recurrent training

7) Insurance will likely be extremely expensive for the first few years. I would not be surprised if the premium is 4 times higher than you AC 520.

Bottom line is it is totally a buyers market for piston twins. Prices are still dropping and supply greatly exceeds demand. What you want is an Aerostar that was owned by a guy like you. That is a guy who has flown their airplane alot and fixed everything as they went along. I bet you have dropped 70 + K on your AC 520 but it will still sell for probably close to what you paid for it. The buyer however will get a pretty good deal. That is the kind of Aerostar you want, one that has had everything fixed.

With respect to N79SR I can bet what its flying history is. Probably pretty regular use until maybe 5 to 8 years ago and then less and less per year with less and less maintenance until the owner finally decides to sell. Airplanes that get regular use generally don't have water in the static system....

Pay now or pay later but you will pay. I think it is always cheaper to shop at the upper end of the market rather than go for a fixer upper.

Sorry for the buzz kill :O

[mad_jock]

My first though looking at the last picture was oh I didn't know Micheal Palin was a pilot.

[AdamFrisch]

Where's your sense of fun, BPF?

:D:ok:

Don has an initial and it's approved by all insurers. 4 day ground and then flying. It's $2600, so not bad. At SimCom and FlightSafety you pay for the real estate, the crisp white shirts and the donuts that accompany your Nespresso coffee.

You're right - she hasn't been flown a lot the last 10 years. About 100hrs/year, with the last 2 years almost nothing. She'd been sitting on the ramp for a few months before we took her up, so has been rained and weathered on. Aircraft that don't fly much are never the best behaved ones, but I don't have the option of buying the completely mint 700 Superstar II with factory overhauls. I could never afford that.

My engine o/h prices are quite considerably different from yours, but I'm not arguing over the other items. Probably about right. Autopilots, radars and boots are all nice, but they're not essential for basic flight, so can be deferred to later if in a pinch.

One thing is for sure - the engines will cost less to o/h than then orphaned GO-435's I run now...;)

[maxred]

One thing is for sure - the engines will cost less to o/h than then orphaned GO-435's I run now...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

That sounds like a man who has already signed the dotted line.

Stand by for a new Aerostar thread. Adam, I am sure it will be as entertaining as your superb AC thread.

In a couple of years time BPF will post, the old.....I told you so:eek:

[Big Pistons Forever]

In a couple of years time BPF will post, the old.....I told you so:eek:

I would never do that.

My intent was not to say "Don't buy an Aerostar" just a few cautions about buying this class of aircraft from the bottom of the pile. Over 30 + years of GA flying I have seen first hand the perils of this strategy.

As for practicality.......well I own a Nanchang CJ6, a totally impractical but supremely fun airplane and I tell everyone I spend most of my money on My Woman, Good Red Wine and Airplanes, what's left I spend foolishly.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Don has an initial and it's approved by all insurers. 4 day ground and then flying. It's $2600, so not bad. At SimCom and FlightSafety you pay for the real estate, the crisp white shirts and the donuts that accompany your Nespresso coffee.



Yes the SIMCOM course is expensive but the SIM allows training that simply can't be done in the airplane. The first SIMCOM course I did was a C 340 recurrent. Since I had 2000 hrs Multi PIC and 300 hrs on the airplane I thought my boss was wasting money. After 3 days I was a believer. I did a bunch of stuff I had never practiced including engine failures right after rotation, high altitude upset, double engine failures, prop over speed and numerous extremely realistically presented systems emergencies. None of this can be safely done in the airplane.

My advice is take the initial with your guy and then do the recurrent in the SIM.

[AdamFrisch]

Well, I've signed the dotted line now, so there's obviously a sucker born every minute. A brand new world of pain has now opened its fanged jaws as the keeper of a complex thoroughbred. I can see the bills already. Forcing me towards insanity's door is the fact that I won't get her until end of May, so I have plenty of time to stew in my lack of judgement. But hey, let's go out with a bang and what good does savings do you anyway? Who needs a house when you can sleep in the plane?

Plan is to get her home soon after and then get enough training to satisfy the insurers and finalise my IR on the over TBO engines, and then towards fall overhaul both of them on the cheap. Engines alone can be done for about $18K/piece - I've gotten quotes in. Then on top of that comes turbo's (two on each engine) for about $1500/turbo and then magnetos/hoses etc. A big chunk, but actually a lot cheaper than doing the GO-435's on the Commander.

I'm sure you will hear more about my ordeals as they progress.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/aerostar7.jpg
A new money pit has reared its pretty face, a 1978 601P. Welcome to the family.

[thing]

Looks damn fine to me Adam, there are no pockets in shrouds mate.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Good luck. Aerostars fly as great as they look.
As for the costs, well all the good things in life cost money and I never regretted any of the money I have spent on my airplanes :ok:

[maxred]

Did you ask the wife?

I would have to stump up for numerous new kitchens etc etc.

Good luck, she looKs fabulous, and will no doubt bring this whole forum endless hours of financial angst!!!!!!!

Best of of luck and very happy and successful flying :cool:

[GGR]

A great read from beginning to end.

Such a refreshing change to see others sharing knowledge and experience instead of sniping and willy waving at each other found in many other forums.

I reckon maybe a book in your exploits somewhere?

Thanks again Adam

GGR

[AdamFrisch]

Don't have a wife or family, so that makes things a little easier. And I do always start my relationships with saying "You can never ask me to sell my plane". Maybe that's why they never stick around?....;)

Thanks for well wishes.

[AdamFrisch]

So, I'm finally here in clammy and insanely hot Alabama to learn how to become a safe driver of an Aerostar as well as a responsible owner. I'm both very excited and at the same time have that slight lump in my stomach you get when you've bought something a bit too frivolous...:eek::oh:

Four days of ground school started three days ago, but we've only covered about two days of stuff as Don also has to attend to his business when things come up. I don't mind - it gives me lots of time to go through maintenance logs, logbooks, performance charts, drink coffee etc. Not to mention just hanging around the hangar asking the mechanics annoying questions and nerding out. Today we covered Electric Systems, Engine Systems and yesterday we covered Control Systems and Fuel Systems. Tomorrow is Pressurisation - a biggie.

Don's knowledge of all systems is actually a bit intimidating - not only does he know all the systems inside out, but he worked for Ted Smith in Santa Maria, CA when they built them so there's even anecdotes and reasonings from the design and test phase. It's all very informative, although I did almost nod off when the electric flow charts/diagrams came on the board....

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/groundschool1.jpg
Ground school lump and theoretical test. Ask me anything.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/gaggle.jpg
A gaggle of Aerostars waiting for new owners on the ramp. In fact, the blue obscured fin in the back belonging to 78PA has a new owner who is a gentleman named Oscar Taylor and might sell me his much newer props as he plans on.....

A gentleman by the name of Oscar Taylor dropped by yesterday to have a look at N78PA, another 601P, this one from 1978. She's in pretty poor cosmetic shape having sat outside without an annual for over 7 years. But that didn't stop Oscar - he plans on gutting it and using it as a base for yet another one of his turbine single conversions, so he got it cheap. The previous conversion he did is absolutely gorgeous and a minimalistic masterpiece. I'm floored by what he achieved to make just one guy with some help. He bolted a Garrett 850hp turbine on the front and did some major re-design. It burns 36gph up high and goes almost 300kts. He called it the Speedstar 850. The new one will be shorter, a true 4-place, and have a more powerful PT6 up front. He wants to go fast and is aiming for 350kts. Speed is his thing. Best of luck to Oscar, who's 77 years old. I hope I can start projects like that when I'm his age.

Oscar wanted to sell me his more or less brand new props on the Aerostar he plans to gut. I told him I might be interested, but that any check I write is most likely to bounce as I've now spent all my money purchasing mine. He said he was a millionaire, so it didn't matter.;)

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/speedstar.jpg
...stripping the airframe out completely and building yet another single turbine Aerostar/Speedstar (as he calls it) with a PT6 engine instead of the Garrett.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/groundschool2.jpg
Slide (old school) of the Aerostar's wet wing fuel system. 65gal in each wing and 44gals in the main fuselage tank. The Commander and the Aerostar have some similarities when it comes to fuel systems having both been designed by Ted Smith.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/logbooks.jpg
In the evenings I have plenty of time to go through the log books as well as floss my teeth. So far so good with the logs. Teeth I'm not sure about.

Tomorrow we'll probably break up the ground school and go flying a little even though the grunt of the training in the aircraft will come after the ground school. There are quite a few things we need to cover during that portion. Obviously the usual stuff such as stalls, single engine work and all that, but also systems management in the air and such trivial things as learning how to land the damn thing without my teeth fillings coming out! That would ideally be covered early on in the flying part I would assume.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/cockpit.jpg
Soon we will meet again, dear cockpit.

After all that is done it's time to face the long journey home. It's a good 1650nm trip, so needs to have the WX gods on my side. Just north of Alabama there have been tornadoes and thunderstorms all week - so bad it even made the news. But they will be gone by the time I set off and I'm not worried in the summer months going west. Going east through the northern states would have been a different thing. If everything goes like a dream it should take about 8-8,5hrs flying with no headwind, plus at least two stops for fuel/food adding 2hrs. Going with the light, this is doable in one day, but a stretch. Depends on how tired I feel and if the weather cooperates. This trip would have been impossible to do in one day in the Commander.

If it's clear skies/few clouds I plan on cruising at 16500ft going west now that I have pressurisation. It's nice and calm up there and almost no traffic. Might get nailed with some headwinds up high, but even so it normally pays off to go high with the higher TAS and the lower fuel consumption. We'll see.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/n79sr.jpg
Will the new hatchling make it back to California in one piece with its inexperienced new owner? Time will tell.

Even though Don's course is a pre-requisite/approved for the insurance companies, I will be flying her back to California uninsured (legal in the US, just don't crash on someone's property...:eek:). I don't have the time to shop around and fill in tons of forms and arrange insurance beforehand, so it will have to wait until I'm settled in back home. Plus, I have a suspicion they might want me to get a few more hours with an instructor experienced in type locally as well.

I'll let you know how it goes..:}:ok::)

[India Four Two]

Great stuff, Adam.

The rest of us can read your posts and get (some of) the thrill of flying the Aerostar by proxy, with none of the expense. ;)

[maxred]

Adam, she looks fantastic, and another thrilling adventure begins:ok:

I loved the bit about insurance, in fact and idea, why not fit a BRS whilst you are down in Alabama, must do something for your premium, and would start another Pprune BRS thread:p

[Mariner9]

What a gorgeous aircraft:D. Im not jealous at all, you lucky g1t :ok:

[stickandrudderman]

great writing Adam,
and that Speedstar is just gorgeous!

[piperboy84]

Adam, you are living the dream my friend, keep the updates and stories coming they are a great read.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Adam

Congratulations and good luck with your new ride. Just remember always fly on double crossfeed, wait until you are in an uncoordinated turn before putting the gear down, never return the flap handle to neutral, and leave the top cabin door open with your arm hanging out when you taxi :p

What are you going to do with the Aero Commander ?

[AdamFrisch]

Thanks gentlemen. Glad you enjoy reading about it. Wasn't sure it was of any interest.

Ha, BPF! The dreaded double cross feed! I'll make sure to always fly that way.:ok::E

Just a small update.

Yesterday I had asked an avionics guy to install a 24V power outlet I can power the iPad with. Don was delivering a Superstar 700 to the next state, so I spent pretty much the entire day annoying this avionics guy as he was installing. After he left, I powered up the avionics master - and nothing happened. Obviously he'd left for the day. I finally got a hold of him again and asked if he'd tied in correctly, but he said he'd wired it to the aux avionic backup switch and that the master had never worked. Long story short, turns out the 30amp fuse had not only blown but welded itself into the fuse holder. Now this fuse holder is tucked up behind the panel in the worst possible place and now we'll have to remove the entire right side of the panel to get to it. Everything's so cramped in these planes behind the panel. Sooo, plane isn't even in my posession yet but has already managed to cost me a cool $500...I hope this isn't a trend.:confused::}:\

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/6du.jpg
Don was delivering this sweet Superstar 700 to the next state to a gentleman who just bought it, so I had the place to myself for most of the day.

On to air work. Today me and Don hit it early. Started with some basic handling, but we soon migrated up to 15500ft to check the pressurisation and how the turbo's and engines felt. The turbos need overhauling as it's been a good while since last time (they recommend to do it about every 1000hrs), so she kind of lost steam around 15-16K. Climb rate was down to about 300-400fpm there and the MAP's were coming down almost 1" per 1000ft. Without the turbos done she'll never get to her certified ceiling of 25K as it is now. I think she'd run out of steam at 20K, max. Pressurisation was working fine, though. This is of course nothing that comes as a surprise to me as it's exactly what the pre-buy said - that's why she was cheaper to buy.

I got stuck a bit with the Century IV autopilot and the Garmin 430 - both are new to me and it's a lot to learn and how they interact. I must be the only person on earth who's never used a 430. Or an autopilot. I'll have to read up and immerse myself in those as I get more comfortable, but for the trip home I'll just use the 430 as a radio, the press HDG on the Century and stick with my iPad.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/don.jpg
Wheeling out my new bird for our first bits of air work. Don is a gentleman, even inviting me home for dinner with his family one evening. Won't let any sloppy flying slide in the cockpit, but that's how it should be.

After that it was time to do some pattern work and get the landings nailed. Was a bit overwhelming at first as it has a few things going on that I'm not used to. I've been spoiled by the simplicity of the Commander. No enriching mixtures, no props forward, none of that on the Commander. But I soon got into it and after about 3 landings I was doing it more or less unassisted. You drive her down, aiming just shy of the threshold, and then just walk the throttles off as you level out. If you flare too high, that racy wing will just stop flying and reward you with an almighty bone shaker. Ask me how I know. It's almost like you just level her off and she'll land on the mains by herself. Let the nose down gently, fly it on, as the mains roll. In fact, she rewarded me with at least three greasers, something I can not replicate on the Commander with any consistency even after over 300hrs on it. That airplane is hard to grease.

Speeds in the pattern: 120kts on the downwind with 20 degree flaps, 110kts on base and no slower than 100kts on final. Very light ruddered airplane and just like a Cessna 172 the aileron is bungee connected to the rudder, so almost no inputs are needed. I overcomtrolled the rudder until Don told me to ease up on the pedals. As you drop to 40 degree flaps, she really slows up and pitches down, so you need to add power to keep from planting her short. So the last stages of flaps can come out really late, otherwise you'll be dragging her in at almost full power. I did that mistake a few times until Don gave me a b**locking. That thin fast wing really doesn't like to fly slow, so the 10 degree and the 20 degree flap settings are more like high lift devices. Wing loves it in that config and there's no speed limit on 10 degree (and a high 176kts limit on the 20 degree) flaps, so it can be dropped early to slow you down. Almost like having a combined flap/air brake.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/c17.jpg
C-17 taking off with - yeah you guessed it - Aerostar vertical in the foreground...;)

One the last approach of the day we did a no flap landing and let me tell you - that was sobering. Coming in at shallow 120kts on final I felt like I was flying a damn Tomcat approaching a hangar deck in the ocean! It was scary how fast it felt. I walked the throttles off and just let her coast down as she finally stopped flying. Man - did we use some rwy. Asked the tower and it turned out to be 6500ft to our turnoff! Granted, I floated forever and we didn't do max breaking, so it could be shortened considerably by someone experienced, but I wouldn't want to go in to anything below 5000ft with no flaps that's for sure. Wow.

Single engine work turned out to be very straightforward. Don't think we're done yet - Don is probably gonna throw me a few hairier ones tomorrow, but today it was all very controlled. Yes, she'll climb fine on one. It's about 300fpm if everything is stowed and done correctly. Blue line is 109kts. However, takeoffs have novel feeling for me as a Commander flyer with a high lift wing. The Commander just pops right off and you can climb at a very high deck angle at Vx. The Aerostar not so much. Rotate at around 80-85kts and she'll be on the mains for a little while. Gear up, and flaps halfway up and it takes a little while before she accelerates up to Vxse (109kts). Key is to lose the flap as soon as you can do so safely, contrary to many other airplanes. It comes right after the gear. This is the proverbial "death zone" between Vmca and blue line where one needs to be on the ball to get it to climb. You spend a little longer there than feels comfortable and if you want to get past it quick, you really need to push the nose over and almost not climb at all. After 110kts she picks up speed quickly and you can pull an easy 2000fpm climb after that. However, Don points out, rightly so, that losing an engine on takeoff is really a no brainer as all your levers are already in the right config. Your throttle's at max, your props are full forward and your mixture is full rich. All you need to do is pitch over, step on the rudder and get rid of flaps and gear. He might have a point, but I still hope I don't have to try it for real. Don's had a few and he's still here to tell about it, so I guess it can be dealt with with good training.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/door.jpg
Venting after heavy perspiration from new owner stunk the place up. As you can see the pilots seat is slid forward to allow access into cabin/co-pilots seat. That's how Ted Smith designed it, for some reason.

Will see what curve balls tomorrow brings. All I can say is that, so far, I absolutely love the airplane! It flies like a little fighter. Feels young and firm (not in that way, you perverts) - no squeaky noises and funny things going on. The torque tube direct controls makes it feel different to anything I've flown before. It's so direct, has that solid feel. Even the landing gear has that big airplane thump and firmness as it arrives. It's fast, it's economical (at least on fuel), it's got great visibility etc, etc. Which leads me to BPF's question: What to do with the Commander? Well, I've been thinking about that all week and I'm none the wiser. After this, I realistically won't be quite as excited about flying the Commander as I've been. It's just a completely different thing. On the other hand, I will not get very much for her with her over TBO engines and peeling paint. And she does things the Aerostar can't do. She can take me camping (like I did last year in the Idaho mountains) - an Aerostar can't do that. But I also don't want her to sit on the ramp and not get flown. Airplanes need to be flown and loved, or they start falling apart. I'd hate to see that happen to the old girl. She's given me so much joy and all things considering it's been a great and reliable plane for her age. So, maybe I'll try to sell her and hope she can come to a new home. And if she doesn't sell, well, then I'll just have to keep her like an antique car and make sure she flies at least once every two weeks and keep the blood pumping in her veins. I don't know what will happen yet, I'm afraid.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/n20ve.jpg
But....how can you not love a face like that? Be a sad they day at the household when she has to go.

Standby.:ok:

[Arclite01]

I must be nuts but I think the Commander is prettier in a functional, ulity sort of a way.................

Arc

[AdamFrisch]

Commanders look good to me, too. The later 500B's and S's are great planes and pretty much close to perfect. If they'd just made them pressurised, I would have gone down that route.

[AdamFrisch]

Well, a few years have passed and now I'm selling the Aerostar, unfortunately. We flew all over, I did my IR in her and she was a great plane. I would never have sold ever if it hadn't been for this sucker:

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n171at/680v.jpg
New moneypit object of desire!

Yes, I'm moving back to Commanders! By pure chance, I should add. The ultimate goal was always a Turbo Commander and this old first generation 680V ad caught my eye. I could just about afford it on paper. So I'll be slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to!

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n79sr/meplusaerostar.jpg
Unfortunately, can't keep both. Time to say goodbye to this great plane. Spent a lot of money on her doing the engines, so someone will get a great deal. Not a good time to sell piston twins. Will it ever be?

Here are some more pics of the new steed:

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n171at/680v6.jpg
Panel from hell.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n171at/680v7.jpg
Pink leather interior from hell.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n171at/fuel.jpg
Fuel bill from hell.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n171at/repair3.jpg
Repairs from hell.

She's getting de-squawked as we speak. Only flown her about 1hr beginning of year. Probably another 2 months before I get to fly her properly and train in it. Had some pressurization problems previous owner had bizarrely neglected (like a 10000ft cabin at 13000ft ALT max diff?????) and some other smaller problems here and there. Except for pressurization, door not sealing properly and all window seals leaking, no major things...:}

Burns about 60-65gal/hr. But since she's faster and Jet A1 is cheaper, the price per nm is about the same as the Aerostar. Does about 240-250kts. Got good range at 1200nm. Needs none of the recurring inspections (wing spar, gear overhaul, pressure bulkhead) of the later 690 models.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/n171at/america.jpg
Basking in the sun at Jackie Cochran airport in front of an ubiquitous American flag. They love their flag here.

So as far as turbines go, should be on the cheaper side to run, ehm…... Exciting times ahead.;)

[condor17]

Adam , thanks for a wonderful story . Just like The Archers.... an everyday story of aviation folk . Keep 'em coming and enjoy 't T'props . ..................


Hesitate to suggest , but Hat ,Coat , Door at the ready...... didn't Aero Commander do jets ? ......long heritage through Israeli ownership up to today ... Gulfstream 150 ..... dreams might be made of this .

VBrgds and blue side up always ,

condor

[condor17]

Adam , you're a consummate story teller ; but what a tree , branches everywhere ..... just found the one with a conversion to PW mini fans ..... from the front has a passing resemblance to a Me 262 !
So I see the jet idea seed has already been sown . Just needs watering .

Great stories , great story telling ; please keep 'em coming .

rgds condor .

[AdamFrisch]

Yes they did do jets. The 1121 Jet Commander. Later bought by IAI, re-engined and lovingly referred to as the "Jew Canoe". Westwinds are perhaps the best bang for the buck for anyone buying an older jet. Cheap to get in to ($300K gets you one), built really tough, no major AD's and have great range. The Westwind II will do 3000nm, no problem.

Most people think they look weird, but I think they're sexy as hell with that low slung fuselage and mid wing. The twin front wheel is the icing on the cake. Looks like a hot rod to me.

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/westwind_erickstamm.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/3/2/1246233.jpg

[condor17]

Adam , don't forget that the Westwind is probably much easier to fly with an engine out that the conversion of the T/prop .
Engines very near the centre line , and not much pitch up or down with power changes . Tridents were much easier to handle with a side engine out than any of th subsequent 73s, 75s, 76s, 74s, L1011, ATPs.

Blue side up ,

rgds condor .