Aerostar 600 v's 600A
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 84
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
I think the engineers had to pull the engine to change a turbo?
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!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, the sexy Deathstar
<<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 hangar queen sometime when I have 10,000 twin hours.
ECT?
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 hangar queen sometime when I have 10,000 twin hours.
ECT?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the Hangar
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Grandpa Aerotart
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.
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.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 5th Mar 2007 at 04:44.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 22nd Jan 2014 at 03:15.
Certainly a well maintained one, flown by an individual of above average skill levels, is a capable aeroplane.
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
When you live....
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
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
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
The real question is ask <insert Baron owner here> how much fuel they burn to go 180kts...
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.
But UTR's P -Aerostar does 205 kts at about F200 and 90 litres / hr.
But UTR's P -Aerostar does 205 kts at about F200 and 90 litres / hr.
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!
A pressurised Aerostar cruising in the flight levels is an awesome thing