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.
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.
New brake pads, flip tires as she wears inboard more than outboard. It's constant with old aircraft.
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...
. 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.
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.
The 601P was kept in an impeccable state by the current owner. Flew very nicely.
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
. 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?