Originally Posted by
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.
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........