I want an Aerostar SO BAD. Grrrrrr

stratobee said:
Get one Random!

They're great planes. And actually very economical in fuel as far as twins go. I do 25gal/hr at 195-200kts up high. If you really want to push endurance you can get it down to 21gal/hr doing 187kts. So, in very basic terms, you will beat just about any twin in fuel economy. Compared to a Twin Bonanza, you'll be going about 50kts faster on less fuel burn - or - pulled back to match the speed of the Twinbo, you will burn considerably less. There's no substitute for a small cross section and a thin wing when it comes to fuel economy. Hence why Mooneys seem to do so well in this regard.

And the good thing is you can get into a basic 601P pretty cheap and upgrade as you go along. Aerostar Aircraft still make all the mods and upgrades. Mine didn't have the intercoolers for instance, but that's something I can add later. In fact, I will be adding the bigger brakes and an aux fuel tank this fall as these are the things I need the most right now. And if you don't need pressurisation, the 600's and the 601B's are very cheap to get into.
Click to expand...

This is not heeeeeeeellllppppinnnnggggggg! :D:D

I've been trying to find the economy cruise numbers cuz that's generally how I operate a plane. I like to run ~50-55% with Gami LOP. If I can do 187Kts on 20-ish GPH that's even more tasty.

As for the P airframes, it's one of those 'why not?' deals. If you are gonna be a dog, be a big dog and get pressure. I know I'd like to be able to use the altitude for economy. But - as with everything, it adds four turbos, lots of exhaust mx, and all the associated management that comes with it. I might opt out and just stay below 18k'.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Why not a mooney?
I thought those screamed at low fuel burn.
Click to expand...

In the Ovation, I plan on 170 KTAS at 12 gph. (It'll go 10 knots faster, and it'll cost ya another 5gph to do so! :eek:)

But for what it'll actually do - At 8 or 9,000 it'll go 175 on that fuel burn, and a couple of months ago I flew from KSAF to KOVS at 13,000 truing 172 KTAS on 10 gph. :D Coupled with a healthy tailwind, it took 4:37 and 50 gallons for this 877nm flight, takeoff to touchdown. Average of 190 knots and 17.54 nmpg. :D
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Well, the deal is, I just want it. I'd like a twin for the security, and I looked at lesser twins like the Twinkie, which is a fine plane but -- it's not an Aerostar! lol, don't need to be rational, like getting a Glasair, which is my fave EXP, and would be much more suitable to my mission.
Click to expand...

Twinkie is efficient - And the Aerostar is too, for its speed.

Maybe a turbo twinkie for a good compromise?
 
Pressurisation is one of the nicest things about it. Once you taste pressurisation it's hard to go back. Quieter, safer and you don't get as fatigued on long trips.

The actual pressurisation system in the cabin is more or less maintenance free, but it obviously does require turbos. You got two turbos on each engine, so I won't lie, it can add up. They're about $1600/piece to overhaul and they normally last about 1000hrs. Sometimes they'll go to the TBO of the engine, but be prepared to overhaul them halfway through. "If they go more than 1000hrs, you're riding for free" as my Aerostar guru once said. So basically, if you can swing a cost of $6400 every 1000hrs, you should be riding the pressurised models. For me, it's a no brainer. Well worth that.:D;)

As a little comparison - when I bought my Aerostar it had run out engines that were 400hrs over TBO. The turbos were run down and needed overhaul, some leaking oil even. Still made full cabin pressure up high. There's plenty of upper deck pressure to sustain a cabin, even on worn turbos.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
You got two turbos on each engine, so I won't lie, it can add up. They're about $1600/piece to overhaul and they normally last about 1000hrs. Sometimes they'll go to the TBO of the engine, but be prepared to overhaul them halfway through. "If they go more than 1000hrs, you're riding for free" as my Aerostar guru once said. So basically, if you can swing a cost of $6400 every 1000hrs, you should be riding the pressurised models. For me, it's a no brainer. Well worth that.:D;)
Click to expand...

$6.40/hr for pressurization? Well worth it. But the turbo overhauls aren't the only cost of operating a pressurized airplane...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
$6.40/hr for pressurization? Well worth it. But the turbo overhauls aren't the only cost of operating a pressurized airplane...
Click to expand...

No, there are some other bits of course.

Door seal integrity (not very expensive), some added man hours at annual, pressure hosing and pressure vessel sealing, pressure control systems. But these are for most non moving parts and they don't break that much. Not even the pressure regulation system is very prone to malfunction, nor is it that expensive to overhaul it. Might need a new seal or membrane, but that's about it. I would add another $500/year for those items.
 
Kent has described my problem exactly. At 12,000' in my Mooney I'm under 8gph at 148TAS. So with the Aerostar I'm burning 400% more fuel for 33% more airspeed. And that's just the gas. What rational person could take such a step?
Life isn't fair.
I still want one.
 
Lance F said:
Kent has described my problem exactly. At 12,000' in my Mooney I'm under 8gph at 148TAS. So with the Aerostar I'm burning 400% more fuel for 33% more airspeed. And that's just the gas. What rational person could take such a step?
Life isn't fair.
I still want one.
Click to expand...

This, from a guy who gets to fly jets. ;)

(I still want a jet, too.)
 
If you must, get the superstar as it's a much better performer than the straight P . converting one is tedious and expensive. I have never been in the left seat but have flown right seat many times in the superstar. It's just a wonderful airplane. The pilot, a buddy, says the straight P model is a dog in comparison. I've also flown a lot with him in an MU2 which is a barn burner also. Wonderous aircraft.
 
One point - if you're looking at wanting a twin over the big rocks, look very carefully at single engine performance. In my opinion, if you want the twin to have a safety advantage, the single engine service ceiling must be high enough to top the rocks or airways you're on. Otherwise, you're just doubling your chances of an engine failure.

Pressurization is nice and is either maintenance free or very expensive. Turbos are necessary for altitude performance (and pressurization), but add complexity, failure modes, and cost, while also increasing stress on the engine. If going over big rocks, very useful. But I'm actually becoming more and more of the opinion that I don't want turbos since my mission doesn't require them.
 
What the hell is a Twinkie and why the hell do you all keep calling it that?

Must have been "Bring Your Daughter To Work" day when they named it.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
What the hell is a Twinkie and why the hell do you all keep calling it that?

Must have been "Bring Your Daughter To Work" day when they named it.
Click to expand...

Twin Comanche, been called a Twinkie for many years.
 
Lance F said:
Kent has described my problem exactly. At 12,000' in my Mooney I'm under 8gph at 148TAS. So with the Aerostar I'm burning 400% more fuel for 33% more airspeed. And that's just the gas. What rational person could take such a step?
Life isn't fair.
I still want one.
Click to expand...

Come on, Lance. You know you can't use the r-word when talking about buying airplanes. :D
 
docmirror said:
Oh, I can go 160+ but I don't need the speed and fuel burn. Just me sitting there 140-ish is fine. that's another thing, I don't have any need for 5-6 seats. About 80% of my flying is solo, but that doesn't mean I still don't want it!

It's fun to sound like a whiny 11YO girl sometimes.
Click to expand...

So what you really want is a GA III or a Lancair Legacy.
 
I also lusted after the look and speed of Aerostars for many years but just couldn't justify the operating expense. Bought a Glasair 3 in 2006 instead and haven't looked back. It's hard to not have permagrin of pure satisfaction clipping along at 225 kts burning about 12 gph.
 
N321SR said:
I also lusted after the look and speed of Aerostars for many years but just couldn't justify the operating expense. Bought a Glasair 3 in 2006 instead and haven't looked back. It's hard to not have permagrin of pure satisfaction clipping along at 225 kts burning about 12 gph.
Click to expand...


I've often thought a Glasair 3 would be ideal for solo business travel.

Have you heard anyone having good luck with the Thermawing (or other) de-ice on them? I know it's done, but not sure if it's effective given what I would imagine is a highly "sensitive" wing.

What's the ceiling on that thing?
 
Maybe not so ideal for business since it's not well suited to hard IFR nor icing as you point out. If you don't mind waiting a bit for weather or going around, you got the speed to make up some of that lost time. It's a moderately high work load flying machine and so keeps your piloting skills frosty. Lots of things happening fast, but most satisfying, the ground that's passing under you.

Not sure of the ceiling on mine since I have more hp then the standard model. I've been right up next to class A many times going over the rough spots and I'm not even close to tapped out on the climb power. This ship likes to be up in the higher teens and so do I. You pretty much have that slice of sky to yourself.
 
What engine do you have in your plane? 225 KTAS on 12 GPH, very nice. About the same mileage as my 3000GT VR4.
 
That figure is LOP at altitude but then that's where I spend my time. The engine is a Barrett mod IO540k1a5 with 10-1, electric ign and gami's. The plane was no slouch even before the engine upgrades. Most Glasair 3's are quite capable of amazing performance.
 
Nice, very nice.

If they are high workload/not suited for hard IFR, I'm thinking a good autopilot could mitigate that problem quite well, no?
 
Last edited:
I admire the Aerostar when I see one, and you wouldn't have to twist my arm very hard to make me buy one simply for reasons beyond my control.... :loco:

I can see us traveling in cabin class, pressurized, air conditioned comfort at blazing speeds. Heck, they're practically giving them away..

Then reality sets in and I foresee it would be just me half or more of the time in the plane alone. That just blows the efficiency/cost/go green and save the world philosophy right out the window.
 
dans2992 said:
Nice, very nice.

If they are high workload/not suited for hard IFR, I'm thinking a good autopilot could mitigate that problem quite well, no?
Click to expand...

No, a good autopilot cannot mitigate anything, either you can fly the thing IFR to minimums by hand or you can't. Autopilots are too unreliable to mitigate anything that can be a problem.
 
Henning said:
No, a good autopilot cannot mitigate anything, either you can fly the thing IFR to minimums by hand or you can't. Autopilots are too unreliable to mitigate anything that can be a problem.
Click to expand...


The ability to fly an approach to mins by hand is something that would need proficiency prior to flight in IMC, yes.

Now, if it's more difficult/tiring than other aircraft to fly straight and level for hours at a time, that's something the autopilot could help with.

I was not advocating using the AP for anything that was beyond the capability of the PIC to do by hand. I probably did not phrase that right.
 
dans2992 said:
The ability to fly an approach to mins by hand is something that would need proficiency prior to flight in IMC, yes.

Now, if it's more difficult/tiring than other aircraft to fly straight and level for hours at a time, that's something the autopilot could help with.

I was not advocating using the AP for anything that was beyond the capability of the PIC to do by hand. I probably did not phrase that right.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get it, if you can't hand fly the whole trip from take off to landing by hand in IMC, you shouldn't be flying that flight. Autopilots can and do **** themselves at any phase of flight including upon entering the clag at 300'.
 
Ok, there's a difference between being not able to and it being a PITA to do it..

"Mitigate" was the wrong word. I should have said "make hard IFR more pleasant/safer".

There's a reason the FAA requires an AP for single pilot 135 ops.
 
Last edited:
N321SR said:
I also lusted after the look and speed of Aerostars for many years but just couldn't justify the operating expense. Bought a Glasair 3 in 2006 instead and haven't looked back. It's hard to not have permagrin of pure satisfaction clipping along at 225 kts burning about 12 gph.
Click to expand...

Yo dun good. This is what I should be riding around in, but the Aerostar just screams attitude, or ramp presence. Manly men - now go fetch me a beer, and some ribs! Gaaaaahaaahahaaaaa!

Meh, the engineer in me appreciates the Glasair. I may wind up with one and just keep the silk afterburner on in lieu of the second engine.:yesnod:
 
Man, for those times when the wife and kids or friends and relatives ride along, the aerostar would sure be nice.

It's like your own personal little airliner rocket ship flying sexy bullet in the sky.

I'm tellin ya man, those aerostar's are the way to go ... :stirpot::D
 
dans2992 said:
Ok, there's a difference between being not able to and it being a PITA to do it..

"Mitigate" was the wrong word. I should have said "make hard IFR more pleasant/safer".

There's a reason the FAA requires an AP for single pilot 135 ops.
Click to expand...

Pleasant I can agree with, not safer though, the safety is an illusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top