Aerostar 600 v's 600A
Aerostar 600 v's 600A
Can anyone tell what the difference between a 600 and 600A is. have a friend who is looking for something in that range. Doesnt seem to be many in Oz. Found a few on controller.com but they want upwards of 170K USD
any advice?
any advice?
Grandpa Aerotart
Some interesting statistics
The Aerostar’s fatal accident rate was 4.4 per 100,000 flight hours. By comparison, the Beech Baron 58’s was only 1.4—more than three times better. Similarly, in total accidents, the Aerostar had a rate of 12.9, compared to 4.9 for the Baron.
The Aerostar’s fatal accident rate was 4.4 per 100,000 flight hours. By comparison, the Beech Baron 58’s was only 1.4—more than three times better. Similarly, in total accidents, the Aerostar had a rate of 12.9, compared to 4.9 for the Baron.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scareostar. They are now orphaned aircraft, but IMHO a great aircraft. The only 'Star to buy is a Ted Smith, and then only a good example of the model. The original 600's had a wing only 1" longer than a Tomahawk. With a skinny little aerofoil like that the ref speeds must be kept up. The stall spin characteristics can be horrendous and can be a big handful if it gets all crossed up. Assymetric stalls and VMCA demos MUST be done up high. There are wing extensions that change the Stars from a 4 seater to a 5 seater and many other mods from the Machin Super 600 to a fully blown Superstar 700 (talk about fast and furious) Tell you friend to look up the Aerostar pilots Organistion in the USA and listen very carefully to their advice. If you buy wrong......as many (most) have done in Oz it will chew your wallet into a million pieces. They have the good engines (Lycs) and the props are "ground down Navajo. I talk through experience, over 2500 hrs in most models.Good luck
Grandpa Aerotart
I used to fly em too...and train in them...great fun to fly when everything is working but maintenance will send you broke unless you're earning CEO money.
Tell your mate to buy a C310...or if he REALLY wants pressurisation and money is not a determining factor get a good B58P, C340 or 414.
Tell your mate to buy a C310...or if he REALLY wants pressurisation and money is not a determining factor get a good B58P, C340 or 414.
So what are the maintenance issues with the Aerostar. How come they happen, design, poor maintenance, operation?? If you get a good airframe, and keep on top of things, can they be circumvented with good preventive maintenence.
The Aerostar type certificate is now owned by a company call aerostar Aircraft, they claim to have solved all the maintenance issues with various mods. Any word on whether that is actually the case?
Mate in question is an ex jet jockey so experiance is not a problem, but has never owned an aircraft before. He loves the look of the Aerostar and performance over $$ equation of the non turbo, non pressurised version. Cant justify a Kingair yet, Barons or 310's dont do it for him, though maybe a CJ3 could be in the picture down the track.
The Aerostar type certificate is now owned by a company call aerostar Aircraft, they claim to have solved all the maintenance issues with various mods. Any word on whether that is actually the case?
Mate in question is an ex jet jockey so experiance is not a problem, but has never owned an aircraft before. He loves the look of the Aerostar and performance over $$ equation of the non turbo, non pressurised version. Cant justify a Kingair yet, Barons or 310's dont do it for him, though maybe a CJ3 could be in the picture down the track.
Grandpa Aerotart
Overly complex systems crammed into not much space...engineers hate them because they are a nightmare to work on. A fuel system that is overly complex and prone to cause grief revolves around wet wings and a fuselage tank. Keeping the wet wings from leaking was a battle years ago...with the youngest 600As approaching 40 years old I think the task of finding a 'good' one borders on impossible.
The electrical system is barely up to the task...as an example you can't run the aircon in IMC because the loads get too high...and the Deathstar desperately needs an airconditioner or you sit there sweating like you cannot believe.
Assymetric handling is so much more critical than any jet, or other piston twin for that matter, that unless your friend is VERY current in piston twins and is prepared to do regular recurrent, probably 6 mthly but no less than annually, he would be taking a real risk...and then you have to find someone to do the recurrent training with who knows the aeroplane intimately and is prepared to actually get in a pull engines.
Yes they are a sexy machine and look like they're doing 300 kts just parked but a 600A only does about 205kts....not a lot faster than a good 310, same speed as a E55 Baron and both those types carry more, further than a 600A ever will legally.
Having flown a 680P for a year I would hazard a guess that even a 600A would run $750/hr minimum operating costs...assuming no scary unscheduled maintenance...and if there is ONE thing the Aerostar is FAMOUS for it is unscheduled maintenance.....I once started calculating what the Deathstar I used to fly was costing the owner and gave up at $2500/hr...the owner got the ****s with me for pointing it out to him...he was very rich, desperately emotionally captured by the aerostar and believed the aircraft could walk on water...even he got rid of them (he had two) in the end.
A Baron/C310 will do everything an Aerostar will do and more for 1/2 the operating costs...a Baron/C310 will even get there first, on longer trips, because it won't need to tech stop...they'll even beat a 680p...Aerostars are not known for their long legs..CNS-BNE wasn't doable comfortably....they carry **** all, not very far, very quickly...well actually only the Turbo'd, pressurised ones go really quick...I once got 261 Ktas at FL 250...being up that high was actually a little scary in the Deathstar...no room for fire extinguishers in the cowls so an engine fire was a death sentence...the wing would burn through in minutes....I once landed after a maintence test flight (did more of those in the Deathstar than every other aeroplane I have flown combined) where fuel flow was fluctuating wildly with a leak so bad that raw fuel was still in the cowl minutes after I taxied in a shut down...raw fuel sloshing around twin turbochargers
The thought still sends a chill down my spine all these years later...I think the only reason I didn't catch fire was the mixture in the cowl was too rich to burn
Even if I won Gold lotto, I would not touch an Aerostar with a 50' pole.
To contemplate one as a first ever aeroplane to own is just silly.
A King air would be cheaper to run than a 700p...seriously.
The electrical system is barely up to the task...as an example you can't run the aircon in IMC because the loads get too high...and the Deathstar desperately needs an airconditioner or you sit there sweating like you cannot believe.
Assymetric handling is so much more critical than any jet, or other piston twin for that matter, that unless your friend is VERY current in piston twins and is prepared to do regular recurrent, probably 6 mthly but no less than annually, he would be taking a real risk...and then you have to find someone to do the recurrent training with who knows the aeroplane intimately and is prepared to actually get in a pull engines.
Yes they are a sexy machine and look like they're doing 300 kts just parked but a 600A only does about 205kts....not a lot faster than a good 310, same speed as a E55 Baron and both those types carry more, further than a 600A ever will legally.
Having flown a 680P for a year I would hazard a guess that even a 600A would run $750/hr minimum operating costs...assuming no scary unscheduled maintenance...and if there is ONE thing the Aerostar is FAMOUS for it is unscheduled maintenance.....I once started calculating what the Deathstar I used to fly was costing the owner and gave up at $2500/hr...the owner got the ****s with me for pointing it out to him...he was very rich, desperately emotionally captured by the aerostar and believed the aircraft could walk on water...even he got rid of them (he had two) in the end.
A Baron/C310 will do everything an Aerostar will do and more for 1/2 the operating costs...a Baron/C310 will even get there first, on longer trips, because it won't need to tech stop...they'll even beat a 680p...Aerostars are not known for their long legs..CNS-BNE wasn't doable comfortably....they carry **** all, not very far, very quickly...well actually only the Turbo'd, pressurised ones go really quick...I once got 261 Ktas at FL 250...being up that high was actually a little scary in the Deathstar...no room for fire extinguishers in the cowls so an engine fire was a death sentence...the wing would burn through in minutes....I once landed after a maintence test flight (did more of those in the Deathstar than every other aeroplane I have flown combined) where fuel flow was fluctuating wildly with a leak so bad that raw fuel was still in the cowl minutes after I taxied in a shut down...raw fuel sloshing around twin turbochargers
The thought still sends a chill down my spine all these years later...I think the only reason I didn't catch fire was the mixture in the cowl was too rich to burn
Even if I won Gold lotto, I would not touch an Aerostar with a 50' pole.
To contemplate one as a first ever aeroplane to own is just silly.
A King air would be cheaper to run than a 700p...seriously.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 2nd Mar 2007 at 17:57.
Chuck,
If what you say is true, and I am not disputing it for a minute, why do they run checks/parcels in them in Nth Qld?
I recall watching a check/parcel running Deathstar take of from Cloncurry a couple of years ago. It used 90% of the runway (quite deliberately) before rotating in what seemed like the last few 100 metres from the end . I thought it was going to go straight through the fence and drive overland at high speed to its destination.
I made a comment to the parcel guy on the ground who said, "Yeh, he does that all the time"!
FTDK
If what you say is true, and I am not disputing it for a minute, why do they run checks/parcels in them in Nth Qld?
I recall watching a check/parcel running Deathstar take of from Cloncurry a couple of years ago. It used 90% of the runway (quite deliberately) before rotating in what seemed like the last few 100 metres from the end . I thought it was going to go straight through the fence and drive overland at high speed to its destination.
I made a comment to the parcel guy on the ground who said, "Yeh, he does that all the time"!
FTDK
Why is it that I find quirky, high preformance aircraft (Deathstar, MU2) attractive?
..... why is it that I find quirky, high performance women attractive .... ??
FTDK
..... why is it that I find quirky, high performance women attractive .... ??
FTDK
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 84
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deathstar, Scarostar? How ridiculous. Either most of you haven't flown the airplane or don't know how to fly the airplane (or any other plane if you can't fly an Aerostar). As for accident rate it's not the plane....it's the incompetent pilots. Example: Ted Smith designed the simplest fuel system in existence.. turn it on, period. And, if need be to balance, crossfeed. Of course some were so stupid as to double crossfeed which would accomplish nothing whatsoever except cause accidents. I've owned fleets of Aerostars part 135, instructed in them and in Barons, Senecas, 310's, 414's, Navajos, Turbo-Commanders, etc. and I'll take an Aerostar any day. Bad stall??? I guess that's why the FAA certified the airplane without requiring a stall warning system of any kind. hmmmmm. It's the most responsive, honest light twin out there. But it's fast, very fast, and that's the problem with the accident rate. Slow thinking pilots flying a fast airplane. I personally own a 601p right now. Other than fuel & normal routine maintenance it just goes and goes without excessive maintenance. It does help to have someone that knows how to work on them because most mechanics can only think C-B-P. duhh. The only complaint I've ever heard from Baron, 414, and even some King Air pilots is when I pass them in the air or ATC asks me to slow because I'm over taking them! Get it straight before you post about an airplane you don't understand. Flame away.
Last edited by 601pster; 3rd Mar 2007 at 03:44.
Grandpa Aerotart
Mate I had 5000 hrs on other twins when I started flying the aerostar...yes when everything works they are good fun...but both those I flew, nominally 601Ps, but with all the Machen mods incorporated, where maintenance hogs.
With the aircon on, or sweat profusely due to the inadequate cooling of the pressurisation air from the half arsed wing 'intercooler', the current draw was 70 amps...lost a generator one time and the load shed function didn't kill the aircon which led to a total black out...no instruments (all electric), no radios, nothing except the MP, skid ball and bubble compass...the aeroplane depressurised too because the door seal was electric driven vac pump.
When the Machen conversion was done they took out the little intercooler used for pressurisation air and replaced it with the big underwing one which was supposed to both cool cabin air and induction air...but didn't do either very well. The only way to get any range out of the thing was to run around at peak EGT...which left you with virtually no detonation margins...something TSIO540s are quite well known for too...detonation.
With a wing loading around 35 pounds/sq' and a wing aerofoil section identical to early Lear jets, a few inches more wing span than a Tomahawk they are certainly a very quick, smooth ride...but they are demanding to. At the same time as I was flying the Aerostar I was flying Twin Otters and Banderiante's...the redline and blue line speeds in the Aerostar were within a few knots the same as those in a Bandit and it is a 20 seat turboprop...in fact if you flew the Aerostar just like a Bandit technique wise it worked very well.
The aerostar is one of 6 or 7 piston twins I have held training approvals on...flown well it is certainly a performer on one engine...when everything is working they are lots of fun...but therein lies the rub. Many pilots these days don't maintain the recurrent training schedules we did in those days...every 6 mths..and the cost of keeping a Aerostar in tip top mechanical condition is VERY high.
If they were as good as you indicate they would not be the rarity they are...the world is awash with their aeronautical peers for a reason.
With the aircon on, or sweat profusely due to the inadequate cooling of the pressurisation air from the half arsed wing 'intercooler', the current draw was 70 amps...lost a generator one time and the load shed function didn't kill the aircon which led to a total black out...no instruments (all electric), no radios, nothing except the MP, skid ball and bubble compass...the aeroplane depressurised too because the door seal was electric driven vac pump.
When the Machen conversion was done they took out the little intercooler used for pressurisation air and replaced it with the big underwing one which was supposed to both cool cabin air and induction air...but didn't do either very well. The only way to get any range out of the thing was to run around at peak EGT...which left you with virtually no detonation margins...something TSIO540s are quite well known for too...detonation.
With a wing loading around 35 pounds/sq' and a wing aerofoil section identical to early Lear jets, a few inches more wing span than a Tomahawk they are certainly a very quick, smooth ride...but they are demanding to. At the same time as I was flying the Aerostar I was flying Twin Otters and Banderiante's...the redline and blue line speeds in the Aerostar were within a few knots the same as those in a Bandit and it is a 20 seat turboprop...in fact if you flew the Aerostar just like a Bandit technique wise it worked very well.
The aerostar is one of 6 or 7 piston twins I have held training approvals on...flown well it is certainly a performer on one engine...when everything is working they are lots of fun...but therein lies the rub. Many pilots these days don't maintain the recurrent training schedules we did in those days...every 6 mths..and the cost of keeping a Aerostar in tip top mechanical condition is VERY high.
If they were as good as you indicate they would not be the rarity they are...the world is awash with their aeronautical peers for a reason.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 84
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the post referred to 600 vs 600A, I took it we were talking about 600 and 601p, not the 700's etc. I wouldn't have a 700 or anything except a 600 or 601p with select Machen mods. Preferably built by Ted Smith before Piper screwed them up, went out of business, and stopped production. Say what you will, but when I'm at FL210 @ 230+ kts burning 35 gph, nothing else compares in piston twins. And my air conditioner works fine! And as for the electric door seal (optional equipment) it should still stay pumped up from bleed air unless some dummy disabled it. And, I don't know of any intercoolers under the "wing" unless you're referring to the intercoolers built into the engine nacelles with the Machine intercooler mod. The 601p uses the IO540-s1a5 normalized engine. One of the most reliable and easy 1800 tbo (and makes it with reasonable maintenance) and certainly not prone to detonation. And any pilot that chooses to not stay current and then flys high performance twin engine airplanes deserves what he gets. That's no reflection on the airplane. Is the Cirrus a bad plane or deathtrap too?
Last edited by 601pster; 3rd Mar 2007 at 04:44.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
601 Pster
Read the first sentence of my post. "They are an orphed aircraft but i think they are a great aircraft". I did not mention straight stalling characteristics, i mentioned assymetric stalls and VMCA demos with the short winged 600. because they are orphaned aircraft they do have maintenance problems. I didn't go on with my post as i did not wish to start a debate but give me an Aerostar any day over a 58 or 310. No experience !.... I am a retired CFI and CP with over 2732 hrs in all types of Aerostars, from 600 to Super 700's, Have owned 4 of my own, and across the pond 7 times in different models.
As you say, ANY aircraft can be dangerous in inexperienced hands.
You have an ali not an enemy here.
Read the first sentence of my post. "They are an orphed aircraft but i think they are a great aircraft". I did not mention straight stalling characteristics, i mentioned assymetric stalls and VMCA demos with the short winged 600. because they are orphaned aircraft they do have maintenance problems. I didn't go on with my post as i did not wish to start a debate but give me an Aerostar any day over a 58 or 310. No experience !.... I am a retired CFI and CP with over 2732 hrs in all types of Aerostars, from 600 to Super 700's, Have owned 4 of my own, and across the pond 7 times in different models.
As you say, ANY aircraft can be dangerous in inexperienced hands.
You have an ali not an enemy here.