To upgrade or not to upgrade?
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.
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.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 2nd Sep 2012 at 21:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 2nd Sep 2012 at 21:26.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 70
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
Light twin that would maintain 14K + obstacle clearance on one engine? Certainly must be a rocket of an aircraft if it does.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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:
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 17th Apr 2013 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam, love your enthusiasm !! 
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!
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!
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.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 4th Sep 2012 at 06:48.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if a they can do it with their tiny wheels, then an Aerostar could do it.
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.
Last edited by maxred; 4th Sep 2012 at 15:45.
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.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 4th Sep 2012 at 17:08.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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