Aerostar 600 v's 600A

[nomorecatering]

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?

[gaunty]

Advice? How about a cup of tea, a Bex and a nice lie down until the feeling goes away. :)

[lethalweapon]

600 made by Ted Smith, 600A made by Piper - I think

[tinpis]

One is fast noisy somewhat difficult light twin the other is a ..um...fast noisy somewhat difficult ....:rolleyes:

[Atlas Shrugged]

Mine was a 600A but when I washed it it turned into a 600 :bored:

[Chimbu chuckles]

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.

[PA39]

:hmm: 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

[Chimbu chuckles]

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.

[nomorecatering]

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.

[Chimbu chuckles]

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:uhoh:

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:eek:

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.:ugh:

A King air would be cheaper to run than a 700p...seriously.

[flywatcher]

Chuck, you tell it like it is. Very true

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

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:cool:

[fl610]

Yeah spot on Chuck, I had very similar experiences to you :uhoh: :bored: :mad:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

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:cool:

[fl610]

Don't start me on the MU2:eek:

[bushy]

FTDK
You are right. We have no defence against either of those, and are totally helpless.

[601pster]

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.

[Chimbu chuckles]

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.

[601pster]

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?

[PA39]

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.

[601pster]

PA39

Sorry, I wasn't directing my post at you directly. I just get tired of hearing about how bad Aerostars are, mostly from people that have no experience with them and others that don't know how to fly them.

Although not an A&P, I've worked on them under my A&P's and understand the airplane. It is different to work on (as many other non-Cessna/Beech/Piper airplane are) and having an experience mechanic helps. I fix things right when they break and many times before...in other words I take care of my airplanes and with that, I've found the Aerostar maintenance comparable to any other twin in it's class. The 600's can be real work horses.

[ZK-DAN]

Damn sexy aeroplane! There's a 600A and a 601 based at AR. Apparently there's a Ted Smith Aerostar in CH now too. The population is growing.

:ok:

[illusion]

Chuckles,
My small experience of the aerostar fuel system concurs fully with you. Did a bankrun many years ago with an "experienced" instructor with 2500 hours on type. He reckoned when we landed at Denniliquin we still had fuel for Essendon as the alternate........until we refuelled it and calculated we only had 59 litres left. Something to do with not refuelling at Bankstown with level wings I think.
He is that experienced I think he is stll flying them. Me and the STAR (both of them) parted ways never to meet again. :}

[Torres]

I seem to recall the 601P Chuckie used to fly had been modified with dual turbos? I was in Port Morbid on one occasion and RT invited me to have a look-see at his pride and joy - which had suffered a turbo failure.

I think the engineers had to pull the engine to change a turbo? :ugh:

Flew with RT a few times. In my younger days I often lived dangerously! :}

He went through a hail storm at Mackay (?), took out the windscreen and both pilots ended up in hospital with facial lacerations! :}

[The Messiah]

illusion

so this guy had 2500hrs on them and didn't bother to bump under each wing during refuelling? That is basic Aerostar 101.

[What time is ECT?]

<<someone I see most days>> flies one. Regularly. For extended periods. And can't say anything nice about its comfort features, or ease of flying ability, or lack of nose-wheel steering.

I wonder if there is a mod to put in nose-wheel steering that is connected to the rudder pedals? I wonder if there is a mod to put aileron trim in? If the fuel load is more than 10L out of balance, then you will hear the pilot sweating, and expect to have the re-fueler's butt kicked!

But I would still like to fly the hanger queen sometime when I have 10,000 twin hours.
ECT?

[kingtoad]

Stuff it - may as well buy a Twin Commander 685 (or Grand Commander or whatever you want to call it). Similar speeds as the Aerostar and not built for midgets to squeeze into. Your jet jock mate should love it coz its like flying something big.

[Chimbu chuckles]

There is a mod that puts a nosewheel stearing rocker switch on the lefthand cockpit coaming to supplement the one on the center consol...makes stearing a lot easier as it falls under your left thumb while resting your left arm on the lower clam shell door.

Cabin comfort is not a high scoring area of Aerostars...many have one of the middle row seats removed to improve that situation...like most '6' seaters they are really only 4 seaters when you put lots of fuel and baggage in them...and 'lots' is a somewhat nebulus term in the Aerostar.

Certainly a well maintained one, flown by an individual of above average skill levels, is a capable aeroplane...if all you want to do is go quickly between longish, hard runways not too far apart...but as I said in a previous post there are good reasons why so few Aerostars were built over such a short production run compared to many other piston twins. Those reasons all center around the fact that the Aerostar isn't flexible enough to justify the high price it extracts both in a financial and piloting sense. It is in every sense a 'piston MU2' and that design withered for the same reasons....B200s and C441s did more for less and almost 'any idiot' could make a reasonably fist of flying them.

The normally aspirated, non pressurised 600As might not extract the financial penalty the later models do but they still are a demanding aeroplane to fly without being very much faster than much easier to fly aircraft that are more flexible in terms of the runways they can use and the loads they can carry comfortably. I would suggest 600As soldier on in bank run scenarios because they are VERY cheap to buy compared to a C310 or Baron and tend to bulk out rather than be weight limited.

To suggest their stall was so benign the aircraft did not require artificial stall warning is a little disengenuous. They were initially certified in a less 'demanding' time and subsequently ADs came out to correct the stalling charachteristics which are still 'interesting' even with the 'water rudder' and/or vortex generators that were developed as fixes. Memory fades but I think the vortex generators were a 'no go' item. Ads also addressed the 601Ps proclivity for detonation with extra cooling measures

Torres, Ray's aeroplanes were initially 601Ps...as you know he bought ASI new from Ted Smith in about 74 and the other one was a Piper built example. The originals were turbonormalised and had an intercooler in the wingroot to cool the bleed air used for pressurisation. The Machen mods, in my view, asked more of the airframe than was reasonable...dual turbos and innadequate intercooling ruined the aircraft's range and pax comfort.

Machen addressed the intercooling problems by reinstalling the cabin intercooler in the wingroot and moved the engine intercooler from under the wing, where it was allegedly doing both jobs, to under the engine where it just intercooled induction air.

I would actually be quite curious to fly a well maintained standard 602p...it might be quite pleasant...but the complex 'big aeroplane' systems (hydraulics/Pressurisation etc) crammed into that small airframe will always make it a very expensive ride. The fuel system looks simple at first glance but has traps. The 600 and 600A, which are essentially identical, might not extract the money from your bank balance at the same rate as the later models but neither do they do anything an E55 Baron won't do.

Nomorecatering what does your mate want to do with the aircraft? Picking an aeroplane based on sex appeal alone is the fastest way to sour the ownership experience. paying more for a popular type that will do what he wants adequately but with a realistic resale scenario will always be better than buying an unpopular aircraft 'cheap' and then finding it is breaking the bank balance and he can't sell it on.

[404 Titan]

Chimbu chuckles

I do recall Ray telling me that when he had ASI modded with the Machen mod he didn’t install the Incan ell (spelling ?) exhausts because of the price. By not installing them it was impossible to lean the mixtures as per the POH for fear of overheating the standard exhaust and causing a fire.

[nomorecatering]

Chimbu, my mate in question is an US guy who has moved here, has several thousand hrs in Lears. wants the Aerostar to cummute between Mel, Bne, Syd, Cns and majour regional centres where he has business interests. Tired of the airlines/driving etc.

A few years ago I had the chance to fly the Aerostar 600. Just once. With only a fresh CPL and ME IFR rating and some 250 hrs i was rather nervous,..............especially after friends said ...youé going to fly WHAT, nice knowig you!! So I bult up this image of a firebreathing beast that would chew you up and spit you out without warning.
I was pleasently surprised, it handled like a normal plane as much i could tell, push forward nose falls, pull back and nose rises, ailerons did what they were supposed to do. Sure it was slippery as hell and went like flash but at the end of the day, it was just another aeroplane. I was lucky that I was taught from an early stage to fly each plane as its manufacturer intended, if the speed called for was 87 kts, well then i did just that etc etc. The Aerostar needs to be flown by the book. Horse around in a cessna 172 or warrior, but fly the aerostar as its maker intended. By the numbers. Wasnt such a big deal. They key is to be ahead of the plane, well any plane for that matter, think in minutes, not nm.

I dont doubt that someone who wasnt current and good IFR scan, who flew every other month would easily get caught out by the Aerostar. Thats why weekend warrior stau in cessnas and warriors.

Are any of the Machen mods worthwhile, there is a nifty 210 USG tank mod that should give it decent range.1 up plus overnight bags shouldnt see a weight issue there.

Chimbu, do u have any data on real performance figures, TAS @ 10,000'for egs, fuel flow, endurance/range.

[AdamFrisch]

Sorry to necropost, but for posterity this might be useful.

I came to the Aerostar with only 500hrs (although most of it twin time) and its reputation as a dangerous plane is - as is often the case with aircraft - vastly exaggerated. It's a solid single engine performer. The engines sit closer together than on pretty much any twin, so the single engine ops are much better than that small tail would suggest. No real bad habits. It has a stall buffet that warns you at least 10kts ahead of time, which is why the FAA certified it without a stall warner. The fuel system is simplicity itself - set it and forget it. It's very economical due to its low drag. The structure is very beefy, with three spars in main wing and the outer skins are more than twice as thick as on most aircraft. No in-flight breakups recorded.

Sure, you need to be on point with your speeds - that wing doesn't like to fly slow and it can bite if you get too slow and start loading it up in a turn etc. It also needs a bit of rwy and is not a great climber below 100kts (above that they'll climb 1500ft/min). As long as you fly it by the book, they'll reward you with the crispest handling this side of an aerobatic. All push-pull rods, no cables. Great aircraft - don't let anyone tell you anything different.

[Old Akro]

Certainly a well maintained one, flown by an individual of above average skill levels, is a capable aeroplane.

The Aerostar needs a different mindset than most other light twins. It is a significantly more sophisticated aeroplane and needs to be flown in a more disciplined, check list driven manner. A Baron or Seneca you can still "kick the tyres and light the fires". Only the foolhardy will do this with an Aerostar.

I believe it was designed with the intent of developing into a jet. Many of its systems are different than other light twins and they require understanding. The fuel system is a good case in point. Its very simple, but its different and you need to understand how - which funnily enough can be achieved by reading the POH.

I think you could fly a Baron / 310 / Seneca with a basic twin rating and get away with it. I'm not sure that is the same case for an Aerostar. The Aerostar is just an aeroplane and it was designed for mere mortals to fly. You just need to pay attention and not assume its a scaled up Bonanza or Cherokee.

In part its more expensive because its bigger with more complex systems and some stuff is tightly packaged and hard to get to. In part its expensive because most owners follow the manufacturer service schedule and not CASA part 5 and in part its expensive because Australia just seems to do that. There are many things that are inexplicably more expensive here than the US.

A pressurised Aerostar cruising in the flight levels is an awesome thing.

[RatsoreA]

Wonderful machines to fly, pure GA porn! Strong as an ox.

As pointed out by numerous here, it is just a lot more unforgiving of ignorance or mis-handling.

There is even an aerostar jet (splooge) that will show up with a basic google. And they can be operated out of unsealed runways, providing that all due care and attention is paid. You tube search the phrase "close call emu" to see such a thing in action! :E

[UnderneathTheRadar]

As a reasonably recent 601P AEST owner who went into ownership laden down with all the old wives and other scare stories.

Since then I've found in about 80 hours of operation:

1. It has to be maintained. Mine sat outside for a year or two without flying and it's showing up. Door seals, turbo waste gates, magnetos, interior, paint have all suffered. I'm still getting a high level of other issues showing through - vac pumps, hydraulic accumulator seals etc - but I have confidence this will end. I knew this going in and my budget for such stuff is about exhausted.

2. It has to be flown. For pretty much the same reasons as above.

3. You need to have a proper engine management system - otherwise things will go bang that could have been seen earlier. My left no 4 cylinder is high temp (>400) - need to get the baffling looked at.

4. It is a pain to maintain as there are lots of systems crammed into 'odd' spots. The secret is obviously to use one of the 4-5 Australian LAMEs who know the systems and what to look for. They do exist!

5. Stories about unforgiving stall, spinning into the ground are old wives tales. There are two approved systems improving the low speed handling techniques. I can't make my 601P stall without really forcing the issue. Power off, full back pressure and it just wont. I have taken the time to install an angle of attack indicator just in case - "Getting slow" over the headset gets your attention every time.

6. Stories about complicated fuel systems are nonsense. They are different but if you fuel to the POH (fuselage full 1st) and don't do silly stuff like crossfeed unecessarily then I fail to see how you go wrong. Stories of running out of fuel - well:

7. Join the Aerostar Owners Association - best $100/year going. They have a paid part time director who you can ring, fax, email 24/7 for information and advice. They have a loan spares program. They run multiple technical meetings a year and they have a (closed) forum with many people willing to share knowledge on any issue (including Adam who regenerated this thread). In Australia we have a closeknit group of about 8 owners all of whom will share knowledge and assistance any time and also know their aircraft inside and out. We also go on regular flyaways around Australia. The AOA have done statistics on accident rates on AOA members vs non-members. For members the numbers come right down to negligible. I believe there is an element of 'ramp appeal' that gets the wrong type of people buying them (similar to Cirrus' issues).

8. Aerostar Aircraft Corporation. For those classing the AEST as an orphan - that's one way of putting it - however we have a company in the US that owns the type certificate, most of the decent STC upgrades (the Machen mods Chimbu is on about) and is run by two of Ted Smith's original engineers and test pilots. They stock parts, they make parts, they issue SBs & ADs, they provide free advice and best of all they continue to innovate. In my time as an owner they've STC'd winglets and a new heating system which eliminates the need for a Janitrol (at our temps anyway). Try getting new parts for old Piper and Cessna twins now? I can get anything new if I wish/need.

These are the guys who have built and are looking to commercialise the Aerostar Jet. (Its really worth googling Aerostar Jet - it's awesome). The original airframe was built strong enough to support piston, turboprop and jet versions.

8a. Chimbu/404 - the Inconell exhausts are a must IMO. Yes there have been lots of changes/mods but most AEST around now have had them all done (although I'd love the steering on the left hand side option! - for others, taxing with your feet on the rudders of an AEST doesn't work).

8b. One of the new 300HP diesels looking very promising for aviation will be proven in an Aerostar first....

9. Efficiency. Single engine pilots stop reading! Climbing is pretty painful (190l/hr for 1500 fpm) but in the FL200 range at 60% power, Lean of Peak, 200kts TAS on 85l/hr I can live with. Ask Akro how many L/hr a Seneca burns to do 40 kts (20%) slower. As others have said - they still run checks with them and ask Wrights Air at William Creek if there is anything better suited to their charter ops around central Oz.

10. The AEST is an awesome plane to fly. Respect it, understand the sytems, don't try and shortcut the checklists, look after it and it in return you will get speed, precision, ramp appeal (funniest example yet - Launy ground car chirps in on the radio "Is that a TED SMITH AEROSTAR?" followed by special parking spots, lifts to and from terminal etc...), lots of 'direct to' from ATC and the ability to go fast (Lo Presti was right!). As a mate told me - you know you've made it in aviation when you get to sit in front of the engines....

So for the knockers - unfortunately you don't know what you're missing out on. Next time you see one - go and talk to the pilot and find out more....

UTR

[Old Akro]

Ask Akro how many L/hr a Seneca burns to do 40 kts (20%) slower.

Hey! Play fair

[Jack Ranga]

He is, how many litres p/h?? :E

[RatsoreA]

I dunno about Akro's PA34, but mine burns about 85L/hr total @165kts @ 10,000ft. Seems to get about 170kts for the same money at FL120.

The real question is ask <insert Baron owner here> how much fuel they burn to go 180kts... :E

[Old Akro]

Our Seneca II is about the same. I would have said more like 170 or a whisker under at 10,000 ft and 88 - 90 litres per hour.

But UTR's P -Aerostar does 205 kts at about F200 and 90 litres / hr.

[Jack Ranga]

Gees, you blokes must be rich :E

[gassed budgie]

But UTR's P -Aerostar does 205 kts at about F200 and 90 litres / hr.

Well I can't get anywhere near that. Not sure what size engines UTR has in his, but I sit in front of 350hp per side. The best I can do is just on 110l/h at 55% running at around 80°LOP. At that power setting the aeroplane will do 204ktas in the low teens. The Aerostar (well this particular machine anyway) seems to have a real sweet spot running LOP at 55 - 65% power at any altitude up to around FL150.

Above this level the wastegates start to do their thing and by the time you arrive at FL200 they're fully closed. The engines can certainly be operated LOP at this level and above, but they just don't run anywhere near as smooth as they do back down at FL125 for example. They burp, fart and pop which gives me the ****s, so once the wastegates start to seal up it's ROP.

Fuel flows ROP at 55%, 65% and 75% are 140l/h, 160l/h and 180l/h respectively (as a matter of interest the fuel flow with T/O power set is 350l/h and after setting climb power, it comes back to 310l/h). With an average load at FL250, the aeroplane will wind out to 228ktas, 245ktas and 260ktas with the aforementioned power settings. Having said that, I very rarely go that high. It would only be to get over some weather or perhaps to catch a nice tailwind. On the longer legs, the aeroplane spends most of it's time somewhere between FL180 and FL220 with 65% power set. It feels pretty comfortable here and the aeroplane really hits it's stride.

Bring the power back a bit and you can come downhill at 1000fpm at 200kias without much problem and then into the circut. The first 20° of flap can come out 174kias, followed by the gear at 156kias (I try for 140kts), making sure you've got the ball centred when you reach for the handle. Base at 130kts, down final at 110kts if it's heavy and over the fence at 100.
It's an easy aeroplane the land and while your waiting for the turbo's to cool/spool down, don't forget to press the 'deflate doorseal' button otherwise you won't be able to open the door to get out. I've lost count!

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2162/fcm5.jpg

A pressurised Aerostar cruising in the flight levels is an awesome thing

......indeed.

[Old Akro]

The best I can do is just on 110l/h at 55% running at around 80°LOP.

UTR has Gami injectors and runs lean of peak. His attempts at LOP were not all that successful until he installed Gami's. Also, the wastegates have had a fair bit of work. They were badly set up when he got it.

I'm sure he'll make a more intelligent post.

[tspear]

I agree with Adam and UnderneathTheRadar.
The Aerostar is awesome. Nothing comes close to it in terms of performance, handling...
In terms of the electric A/C. There is an optional mechanical A/C which I have installed. So when I have everything running, including all lights, hot props, windshield plate and the A/C... I consume 40 amps. (I was trying to load up the alternator to break in a new one). Normally, I use between 10-15amps with the A/C running.

For those who recommend the Baron, Seneca... The Aerostar handles single engine emergencies significantly better. The engines are closer to the airframe reducing asymmetric thrust, less rudder required. I can out climb most Bonanza, Cirrus, Cessna singles when I have an engine shutdown. Even with the extra gross weight increase I have giving me a useful load of 2450lbs and a MTOW of 6850 I will climb at 350ft a minute on one engine. If flying at half loads, I have had climb rates on a single engine practice over 1000ft per minute.

Here is where the Aerostar will bite you, it uses the same airfoil family as a Lear jet. This gives it incredible high speed cruise, handling, low drag... what it also gives you an incredible area of reverse command as the plane slows and the angle of attack increase, this is not something most light twin pilots are exposed to.

Here is the message, fly it like a turboprop or a jet and the plane will take care of you. Fly it like a piston twin and it can bite you. Therefore, if you want to fly an Aerostar, join AOA and get some training by an Aerostar specialist.

Tim

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I can out climb most Bonanza, Cirrus, Cessna singles when I have an engine shutdown.

Yeah - right! Then ya missus kicked you in the back and told you to stop snoring! :ok:

Dr :8

[Jack Ranga]

I can out climb any bonanza, cirrus, cessna, piper singles and twins, on one engine, no worries :ok:

[Jabawocky]

............and not even at Vy hey jack :E:ok:

Probably at Vz in fact :}

[Jack Ranga]

Jab, Vv (Vvans) :ok:

[dark horse 23]

Gentlemen before you chew me up and toss me out a bit of background , a short story and a question. Having pulled wrenches for the last 30 years for two very specialized companies that ran 600 and 601s,also nearly losing my life in one and having lost great pilot friends in them. I have always searched these types of forums to convince those who have fallen for the appeal of the aerostar. I raise no subject that hasn't already been covered here or elsewhere but your viewpoints are all valid. We called the thing a Deathstar and more often much worse. Few of our top pilots with thousands of time on type cant state they never had a near death moment in one.
Yes some think its a Purdy airplane looks real fast but putting it side by side a 310 the 310th won hands down on all sides. The extra 15 minutes you gain to your desination is no comparison to the suitcases of money youll be bringing along to cover your maintain bills. And thats if you can find a skilled aerostar tech. My employeer says if we get one more aerostar to take care of we can start turning away work.
Having just rebuilt a customers aerostar that he had a significant incident with only a year after his purchase. He paid almost as much as his purchase for the repair.The aerostar club could not supply the required structural parts as advertised but rest assured there is an abundance of aerostar parts in the salvage market. Of course its never going to be New again. So why do young novice buyers searching for theyre first piston twin can't seem to get past the squirly aerostar and complain about its quirks and bills after they mishandled it. When ideally a much more relaxing controlable and afordable vintage twin just wasn't good enough.

[cockney steve]

Adam Frisch has posted a very comprehensive tale in the "private Flying " forum also his experiences with a Commander. a very interesting and informative Owner-Pilot's account and worthy of an hour of your time.

[Old Akro]

I can out climb any bonanza, cirrus, cessna, piper singles and twins,

Just needs a cape and some red underpants to wear over tights. :E